576 
( AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
be paid for the crop in the domestic market, and, finally, a guess as to 
Beppe at which the surplus will be sold in the domestic market and 
abroad. 
Mr. Pur~NeLL. Mr. Anderson, in view of the existing machinery 
within the Department of Agriculture itself, would you designate 
that as entirely a guess? 
Mr. AnpErsoN. Well, let us call it an estimate, if you object to the 
word ‘‘guess.”’ 
Mr. PurnerLr. In truth can it not be a reasonably accurate 
estimate? 
Mr. AnpeErsoN. Would you consider an underestimate or over- 
estimate of a crop of 10 or 15 per cent a reasonable percentage of 
error? 
Mr. PueNeLL. I do not know that I would want to answer that. 
Mr. ANDERSON. We have had some that have been as far off as 
that. 
Mr. PurneELL. But I think there is a vast difference between a 
guess and a reasonably accurate estimate. 
Mr. AnpersoN. I think the purchase price and the sales price fall 
far more in the realm of guesses than they do in the realm of estimates. 
The amount of the crop, perhaps, at least if the guess were made 
along some time in May, might possibly fall within the proper realm 
of the term ““estimate.”” But it would be subject, I think, to an error 
of at least 10 or 15 per cent. 
Mr. PurNELL. 1 have been under the impression that the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture can, as a matter of fact, make a very reasonable 
estimate both as to the quality and quantity of any given product. 
Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think that is correct. 
Mr. FoLmer. You do not contend, Mr, Anderson, that there would 
be any more guessing under this machinery than we have now under 
the present system? 
Mr. AnpersoN. Well, you are imposing what I think is a tax and 
which Mr. Haugen thinks is a service charge. Now, you have got 
to determine what that is in advance, and in determining it, I say 
you have to make three guesses at least. 
Mr. FuLMER. Suppose they make the best guess possible, and they 
should put the equalization fee perhaps a little too large. They 
would have an opportunity in the next operating period to put the 
equalization fee less in that instance. 
Mr. ANDERSON. Providing you have the power to tax one set of 
farmers to pay for services, or whatever you may call them, which 
may be rendered to another entirely different set of farmers or largely 
different set of farmers the next year? 
Mr. FuLMEeR. Under the bill if we have to put the equalization fee 
on because of a surplus you would not want the fee with a small crop. 
You would have plenty of profit to take care of the small crop. 
In the case of cotton, if we had gone into the market during 1926 
and taken over the 5,000,000 bales, instead of allowing the other 
fellow to take them over, according to the advance in price this fall 
to about $25 to $30 a bale, we would have had in the stabilization 
fund about $250,000,000, profit and I do not believe that we would 
have had to ask for an equalization fee perhaps in the next two or 
three vears.