582 
'AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
| 
10. Invites reprisals from other governments.—Several of ourgiforeign markets 
have agriculture of their own to protect and they have laws in force which may 
be applied to dumping, and we may expect reprisals from them against dumping 
agricultural products which will even more diminish our foreign markets. 
11. Will build up bureaucracy.—A multitude of contracts involving scores of 
different grades and qualities and varieties of products with thousands of indi- 
viduals, both for raw and manufactured materials, must be entered into—prac- 
tically cost-plus contracts. * * * Therefore the bill means an enormous 
building up of Government bureaucracy to let and inspect these billions of dollars 
of contracts with all their infinite variety of terms covering different goods and 
their different grades and qualities. In turn, all of the contracts of resales by 
these institutions must be examined and checked to determine the losses 
made. * * * Parallel with it another bureaucracy must be built up to collect 
and distribute the equalization fee. It calls for an aggregation of bureaucracy 
dominating the fortunes-of American farmers, intruding into their affairs and 
offering infinite opportunities to fraud and incapacity. It does not replace any 
middle men or manufacturers, it means that thousands of officials are set to watch 
them and the farmers to see that they do not evade the requirements. One of 
our difficulties to-day is the great spread between the farmer and the consumer. 
All these increased processors’ profits and this cost of bureaucracy must simply 
add to this spread without bringing to the farmer any return on such items. In 
fact, as he is a large consumer he also pays this. 
12. Puts Government in business.— While the Government is not directly buy- 
ing or selling these commodities, it must under this bill let contracts for others to 
do so and name therein the terms upon which they shall buy and sell. No matter 
how disguised, this in plain terms is Government buying and selling of eommodi- 
ties through agents. 
13. No time limit on coniracts.—No time limit is placed upon the contracts 
which the board may make. 
14. Burden of equalization fee does mot fall on entire production.—The vast 
expense of financing the operations of these agencies in the corn market would 
be charged not against the entire commodity but against that part of the com- 
modity which is used for milling or processing or that is transported by a common 
carrier. This, according to statistics, amounts only to some 15 to 20 ver cent 
of the corn produced. 
15. Difficulty of estimating equalization fee—Another difficulty will be in making 
proper estimates of the amount of products and the amount of the equalization 
fee. It is improbable that this board could do any better in this respect than has 
been done by the Department of Agriculture. In spring wheat the estimates 
of the department have been 78,000,000 bushels too small and 90,000,000 bushels 
too large; in winter wheat, 126,000,000 buhels too small and 140,000,000 bushels 
too large; in corn, 430,000,000 bushels too small and 657,000,000 bushels too 
large. In cotton the range has been 2,983,000 bales too small for 1926 and 
3,286,000 bales too large for 1918. These are all recent estimates and show con- 
clusively the impossibility of arriving at accurate conclusions. No rebates are 
allowed except on cotton. Any year therefore that a large corn or wheat crop 
is estimated which turns out to be too high too much money would be collected, 
and as it is not returnable it would result in so much loss to the farmer. If the 
crop were underestimated, the fee might not furnish a large enough sum to 
sustain the market on that particular commodity. 
16. Establishes species of monopoly.—It runs counter to the well-considered 
principle that a healthy economic condition is best maintained through a free 
play of competition by undertaking to permit a legalized restraint of trade in 
these commodities and establish a species of monopoly under Government pro- 
tection, supported by the unlimited power of the farm board to levy fees and 
enter into contracts. For many generations such practices have been denounced 
by law as repugnant to the public welfare. It can not be that thev would now 
be found to be beneficial to agriculture. 
17. Farmers not-for the bill—It has been represented that this bill has been 
unanimously approved by our farmers. Several of our largest farm organiza- 
tions have refused to support it, and important minorities in the members and 
leadership among the most important organization who are recorded as giving 
it indorsement have protested to me against it. 
18. Will not help cooperative marketing.— This is not a measure to help coopera- 
tive marketing. Its effect, on the contrary, is to eliminate the very conditions of 
advantage that now induce farmers to join together to regulate and improve 
their own business.