AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
583 
19. The bill is unconstitutional. —This measure is so long and involved that it 
is impossible to discuss it without going into many tiresome details. Many other 
reasons exist why it ought not to be approved, but it is impossible to state them 
all without writing a book. The most decisive one is that it is not constitutional. 
OBJECTIONS TO S. 4808 IN THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE OF FEBRUARY 25, 1927, 
WaicHE HavE BEEN MET IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN THE PENDING BILL 
I. The bill provides no limit on the total liability of the Governmeni.— While the 
bill authorizes an appropriation of $250,000,000, it fails to restrict the contracts 
of the board within that sum and nowhere denies the liability of the United 
States for additional sums of money. 
2. Prohibits unreasonable discrimination in coniracts with cooperatives and con- 
tains mo such provision with reference to contracts with other agencies.— Apart from 
the necessity of contracting with the packers, the bill confers upon the board 
anlimited power as to the nature, extent, and duration of contracts with other 
processors. It does not even enjoin an absence of “unreasonable’”’ discrimina- 
tion between them, although it does prohibit “unreasonable” discrimination 
between cooperatives. 
3. The method of invoking the power of the board is so cumbersome as to be unwork- 
able.—This provision is for a convention of the producers themselves, and before 
operation as to any commodity can be put into effect there must be such con- 
vention called and held in every State where the majority of the producers of 
the particular commodity are not members of cooperative associations or organ- 
izations. * * * If such relief as that contemplated by the general plan of 
this bill were desirable, it would be extremely unwise to hamper it with this most 
cumbersome and awkward provision, the compliance with which is made manda- 
tory as a condition precedent to the operation of the law. 
4. The method of appointing the board provides an unconstitutional limitation on 
the power of appointment of the President.—It is proposed that the administration 
of this plan shall be in the control of a board whose members are nominated to 
the President by agricultural organizations for his transmission to the Senate 
for confirmation. That appears to be an unconstitutional limitation on the 
authority of the President. 
5. The bill carries an unconstitutional and unworkable insurance proposal.—The 
insurance proposal amounts to a straight Government agreement to pay to the 
cooperative associations any loss which they may incur in withholding com- 
modities from the market—no matter how high the price may go in the mean- 
time. * * * Nothing more destructive of all orderly process of trade could 
be imagined and nothing more unfair to the nonmember of the cooverative. 
since his equalization fee would be used to pav the losses. 
Mr. A~xpErsoN. I would just like to conclude by expressing my 
appreciation of the committee’s courtesy and more particularly its 
patience, because I, having been a member of the committee myself, 
realize that it does require a good deal of patience to listen to a more 
or less discursive discussion of the provisions of a bill of this kind 
after the committee has set for five weeks and probably having heard 
a good deal more of testimony than the witness himself, perhaps 
knows a good deal more about the subject than the witness does; and 
[ am appreciative of the courtesy, as I always am, with which the 
committee has treated me, and the opportunity the committee has 
given me to present the somewhat rambling and discursive views 
which I have expressed. 
The CrairmMaN. Have you finished? 
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. 
The CrairMAN. I am sure the committee has been pleased to have 
vou with us, Mr. Anderson.