566

( AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
Mr. JonEs. In other words, you do not attempt to solve that phase
of the problem; you do not attempt to make the tariff effective in so
far as the farmer's products are concerned, directly?

Mr. ANDERSON. No; any more than I would attempt to make it
effective on some piece of machinery or some other product on which
it was not effective.

Mr. Kercuam. I have to go to another committee meeting, and
there are two questions I want to ask. Taking up the line of inquiry
where Mr. Jones left it off, if it were possible to devise a plan whereby
the farmer could be put into the tariff picture on those crops of
which he does produce an exportable surplus, can you see any objec-
tion to adding it as a corollary to the general intention of the bill?

Mr. ANDERSON. Of course, the fundamental objection to that sort
of plan is that it does not provide, and I do not think it can provide
any preventive against increasing your surplus to the point where the
surplus becomes excessively burdensome.

Mr. Kercaam. That is to say, now, viewed from the standpoint of
the Government, then your attitude is one of absolute and total
despair; and you would not believe that the Government itself ought
to put itself in a position to say, ‘“ Here is the instrumentality by which
you might put the farmer into the tariff picture. You have not
been able to heretofore, but here is the instrumentality by which you
may do it.” The Government might discharge its responsibility to
that degree. You think then that we can not go that far?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think that you can go that far, and I do
not see any reason why you should go that far. At least, you should
not go any farther to make the tariff effective upon agricultural
commodities than upon any other commodities.

Mz. Kercuam. If a plan could be devised that would do that thing,
you would not want to stand before this committee and say you
opposed it—if it can be devised?

Mr. AxpERsON. If a plan can be devised—well, all I can say, it
seems to me, is that the whole angle of approach to the problem 1s
one of equalizing in some way the tariff advantages and disadvan-
tages to the different groups of producers is an entirelv wrong one.
[ do not see any basis of carrying it out.

Mr. KercaaM. But, go back to the original question. Then what
you can see or may not see, if somebody else could see it, do you say
it would be fair to try it or unfair?

Mr. ANDERSON. I can not answer that question.

Mr. Kercaam. All right; that is all.

Mr. ANpErsoN. That is a pure question of judgment.

Mr. Apkins. Mr. Anderson, just one question: Did I understand
from an answer you made awhile ago that we could not by law compel
loyalty to an organization that had for its purpose what this bill
has? Did I get that correct? I got that impression.

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think you can compel loyalty by law to
anything. You have not been able to do it by the prohibition law,
and I do not think you can do it with this one.

Mr. Apxins. The Supreme Court just in the last few days has
made a ruling right along that line, where contracts were entered
into for the purpose of compelling loyalty to their marketing organi-
zations, and many of the contracts have been secured by high-pow-
ered salesmen, they have held richt along the line this bill proposes