AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

547%

Mr. Apkins. Yes.
Mr. ANpERsON. All that any miller is interested in is in a situation
which permits him to buy on the same basis as his competitor.
Whether the general level of the wheat price is $1.35 or $1.50 does
not make any difference. But this is also true: Of course, where the
level of prices in the United States is higher than it is abroad, he can
not export flour on the basis of the foreign price and make that flour
out of wheat produced in this country which cests him a higher
price. Therefore, I said a moment ago I did not see how this bill
could operate without the provisions with reference to the contracts
with packers, millers and spinners, ete.
Mr. Apkins. If it operates as I understand it, where you are making
an attempt to put the price of wheat at the world’s price, plus tariff,
you would necessarily and no doubt would take the flour and give it
the same advantage.
Mr. ANnpERrsON. I think you would have to do so.
Mr. Apkins. The point I had in mind and I would like to have
you state as to whether your organization feels we are justified in
making that attempt to make the price, for instance, of wheat the
world’s price plus the tariff. That is the thing we would like to
know, whether you are opposed to making such an attempt or
whether you are opposed to that sort of arrangement?
Mr. ANDERSON. It depends altogether upon how you propose to
do it.
Mr. Apkins. Just suppose it is dene. It does not make much
difference to you how it is done.
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I think it makes a great deal of difference to
us. We think the farmer is entitled to the economic level of prices.
Mr. Apkins. There is no quarrel about that.
Mr. ANDERSON. And that his production justifies his getting that.
My personal opinion is that he does not always get that economic
level of prices, and that he could obtain it by a sound plan of stabilization.
 I do not believe that it is possible by any plan of artificial
stimulation to give him continuously a price which represents the
foreign price less freight, plus the tariff. irrespective of the amount
of production which he has.
Mr. Apkins. I get your idea. Most of our prices might be said
to be artificially stimulated. The restriction of immigration automatically
 stimulates the wage scale, and if the tariff on other things
did not stimulate the price artificially industry certainly would not
demand it. Here is the strange thing about farming: I was wondering
if you might to a certain extent clear it up. Apparently you and
vour organization have the same idea in mind that the farmers have,
that they feel they ought to be raised up on the same economic level.
They think this is the idea, that is, the majority of them do—not all,
of course—but the strange thing that appeals to them is this: That
those who do not believe in this scheme have so much concern about
the equalization fee, when the only man who could possibly be the
loser would be the farmer himself, if the thing fails. The opposition
to the fee seems to be all in the interest of the farmer, when his
representatives are insisting that it is the only scheme that would
keep him alive. The farmers can not quite understand why the
solicitude of the opponents of this type of legislation and why they
are so concerned about his having to pay this fee. That is the ques-