34

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
necessary commercial agencies to bring about some degree of sta-
bilization of the price of a crop during a year and over a period of
years, and that it could aid in financing those organizations. I did
not say whether I thought that that aid ought to be limited to com-
merical loans on the commodity or to contributions to working
capital of the organizations or otherwise. I think that is a matter
which would have to be worked out in line with sound business judg-
ment. Of course, I think our difficulty here is that we are attempting
to visualize something which can not be visualized now except in the
abstract, and which can only be determined by experiment and in
actual practice.

Mr. Apkins. Before ‘we leave this section that the gentlemen have
been discussing there are two points I would like to make. I think
every man around this table recognizes that Mr. Anderson is authority
here on the subject that he is discussing.

But before I do that I would like to get into the record here that
when Mr. Andresen asked for unanimous consent that Mr. Anderson
be heard, I said I would not object, but I did not like a facetious
letter which he sent around to some of the members concerning me.
Since then I have learned from Mr. Anderson that he had a justifi-
able ground for sending that letter around; in other words, I do not
want him to understand when I start in that I am doing so with any
idea in mind except to get what information I want in the record.

Mr. AnpErsoN. I would not impute any hostile purpose to you
at all, Mr. Adkins.

Mr. Apkins. The point was, he was under the impression I had
attacked him personally over on the floor of the House, and I thought
that matter over, and in all my legislative experience I have never,
except on one occasion, attacked a man personally in a legislative
body. I do attack what he says and what he puts in the record, and
that, I think, Mr. Anderson. is a legitimate subject for us to bring
before the House.

Mr. ANDERSON. Quite so.

Mr. Apkins. But I looked it up to see where I had made any
personal reference to Mr. Anderson at which he might feel bad, and
I found it was when Mr. Tincher and I were having the only per-
sonal colloquy we ever had in a legislative body, and in my argument

with my friend Tincher I made this reference to Mr. Anderson.
After taking a dig at my colleague on other things, I said this
(reading):
But he appreciated the fact that Sydney Anderson was here opposing the bill
for the millers. Yes; Sydney Anderson put in the record of Committee on Agri-
culture a statement to the effect that he represented a milling organization that
controlled 65 per cent of the milling interests of the country. He put into the
same record the statement that the milling interests in the country bought 80
per cent of the wheat of the country, and it occurred to me, when I got from the
Commerce Department the other day the statement, which no doubt you all
got, why the millers were here opposing the enactment of this bill.

The CuairmaN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. .

Mr. Apkins. Has anybody a little time to yield me, so that I can finish this?

Mr. Haugen. I yield to the gentleman two minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for two minutes
more.

Mr. Apkins. The reason occurred to me why the millers were opposing this
pill and why the packers were not. The Department of Commerce shows that
there are more than 116,000,000 bushels of wheat now owned by the mills which
Svdnev Anderson in part represents: about 4.500.000 barrels of flour, equal to