564

| AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

Mr. Purnell. 1 did not get what you said there.

Mr. AnpErsoN. I said I do not believe you can command the
loyalty of the producer in any plan of price stabilization or stimula-
tion, or whatever you want to call it, by the imposition of an equiliza-
tion fee or by any other method than of giving him in some way, or
compelling him to take, or giving him an opportunity to take afinancial
risk and a financial advantage in creating organizations necessary to
do that job. Now, what I am trying to do here—the weakness of
the agricultural situation is in its lack of organization. I think we
all agree to that?

Mr. Jones. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. ANDERSON. What we must do is to create for these commodi-
ties an organization in which the farmer will have a financial partici
pation and a financial risk.

Mr. Jones. I will concede that that plan might be worth something.
But that would not even undertake to make the tariff effective as to
farm products, would it?

Mr. ANDERSON. We do not undertake to make the tariff effective
as to any commodity.

Mr. Jones. As to any commodity?

Mr. ANDERsON. Either industrial or agricultural.

Mr. Jones. Then, in so far as there is any basis for the farmer’s
complaint that the tariff is more effective on manufactured articles
than it is on farm commodities, your proposal would be wholly
ineffective, would it not?

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Jones, Mr. Wallace said here the other day
that it was not effective on textiles. I will testify it is not effective
on flour, and we will go down the list, and we will find it is not effective
as a whole, or only partially effective. Are you going down the rest
of the line and make it effective on these other commodities?

Mr. Jones. That is the statement that was made in relation to
commodities in relation to which we have gotten where we produce
a surplus; that is the reason he said.

Mr. ANpERsoN. If that is true, are you going to fix that situation?

Mr. Jones. That is a question not involved here. We have been
fixing that situation for 60 years.

Mr. Pur~ELL. Is there any way of getting only one question at a
time. Two or three of you are speaking at one time.

Mr. Jones. Of course, you can pick out isolated instances in
manufactured products in which, under the peculiar situation
existing, the tariff might not be effective; in other words, you might
pick out isolated instances in farm commodities in which it is effective,
such as wool, for instance. It is effective as to wool; I think every
one will admit that. But I am talking about the general problem.
You would not undertake to solve the problem that has been talked
here over and over again, if it is a problem, that the tariff is not
comparatively effective on farm commodities. You would let that
problem go unsolved, so far as your plan is concerned. And if there
is any basis for the farmer’s complaint that he does not get his share
of the benefits of the tariff, you would leave him empty handed?

Mr. AnpErson. I think the tariff question is one which has to be
settled by itself. If the farmer is not advantage by it and is dis-
advantaged by it, perhaps the remedy is in modifying the tariff ;
I do not know. 1 think perhaps it is. 1 express as my opinion that