AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

541
from year to year due to differences in the world supply and demand
and the United States supply and demand.

The idea that you can separate out of the total crop 200,000,000
bushels of wheat or some other number of million bushels of wheat
and deal with that wheat separately as.a surplus without dealing at
the same time with all the rest of the wheat which goes into domestic
consumption, in my view, is an entirely erroneous conception.

Mr. Apkins. I agree with you there. But where under this bill
would this board have anything to do with the wheat, for instance,
that enters into domestic consumption?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it would have to have to do with it. Ido
not think it would get at first base without having something to do
with it. You can not have one price level for domestic wheat and
another for export or surplus wheat.

Mr. Apkins. It would not have any authority or power under the
bill to handle any part of the domestic supply of wheat, and it is
only authorized under the bill to deal in what they consider surpluses.

Mr. AnpERsON. I do not think that is true so far as the terms of
the bill is concerned, and if it is the bill would be absolutely impossible
of commercial operation.

Mr. Apkins. I would just say this, Mr. Anderson, that I do think
myself, with the existing agencies, that it is admitted on every hand
that we are getting our farm commodities from the farmers to the
processor or exporter, as the case might be, by the existing agencies
cheaper than any other country in the world, and we could not hope
in the physical handling of any of these commodities to save any
money to the farmer by messing in that part of it.

Mr. ANDERSON. I could agree with you that far.

Mr. Apkins. That is the thought I had in mind when I looked over
this bill. Now, if this bill proposes to go out into the terminal com-
petitive field—the farmers are in that, and the Department of Agri-
culture and every other agency of the Government has encouraged
them in that line as much as they can, and with the hazards of busi-
ness that necessarily falls where there is such close competition and
small profits, the mortality among not only farmers but private busi-
ness enterprises is very great, as you know. Now, the thought that
came to me in looking over this bill is, if we are going back and enter
into that field, as hazardous as it is, it would be a foolish thing for
this board to deal with; and I can not find in it where there is any
authority given the board to enter into the general field of domestic
marketing, but only to use it as an attempt to do the very thing you
and I suggest, if the board is made up as you and I would like to see
it, that they would proceed in a very careful and conservative manner,
and after the scheme is tried in this experimental manner, they might
rome here to Congress and the farmers report a different result.

Mr. AxpERsoN. Undoubtedly.

Mr. Apkins. That is the conception I have of this bill, and I take
it those would be the very things you contemplate.

Now as to this much-controverted equalizdtion fee—I may be
wrong and I am going to state to you my notion about 1t: You are
representing men who are on the other side of this question. I think
you know about the marketing, and I know a little about it, as I have
been interested for 25 years. I think we know as practical men, so
far as humanly possible to know, that there is only one commodity