572

, AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

The CHAIRMAN. It controls the available supply of money
thereby affecting interest rates.

Mr. AsweLL. It reduces the rate of interest, yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. By controlling the supply and volume.

Mr. AswEeLL. Is it clear to you that that-is what this bill intends—
that the preamble is what it intends to do?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am willing to take the preamble at its face value.

Mr. Chairman, the President objected to the bill in the last Congress
on the ground that it is an unconstitutional delegation of the legis-
lative power of Congress. I donot want to go into the constitutional
phases of the proposition, but I would like to call attention to the
fact that the bill as ribw drawn authorized the board not enly to fix
the rate of the equalization fee, but also authorizes the board to
determine the persons liable for the payment of the equalization fee,
the method of collecting the equalization fee and the portion of the
crop which is subject to it.

The statement has been made several times here, I think, that this
equalization fee was intended to apply to all that portion of the crop
which enters commerce. I do not think it does so apply. If it is
applied on processing, it will obviously not reach that portion of the
crop which does not go through the mill. If it is applied on trans-
portation it will not apply to that portion of the crop which is bought
by the mills direct, which constitutes 25 or 30 per cent. Of course,
if it is applied on the sale, it will only reach all the commercial crop,
providing it is applied on the first sale of the crop, which is the only
place in which it can possibly reach the entire crop which enters into
commercial channels.

The President objected to the bill passed by the last Congress on
the ground of the difficulty or impossibility of collecting the fee.
Some one has answered that objection by stating it is no more diffi-
cult to collect this fee than it would be to collect the admissions
tax, for instance, on theater tickets. I rather think that is a fair
argument, and I think it would remove some of the objections to this
bill, both from a legal and from an economic point of view, if the
same methods of collecting the fee were applied as are applied in the
case of admissions tax.

As, for example, you require the farmer to actually buy coupons
representing the equalization fee which he would be required to pay,
and to present those coupons upon the first sale of the commodities,
you would then have a tax which would be uniform and which would
possibly have some effect upon the amount of his acreage. If, for
example, the level of prices this year is $1.70 and the farmer pays an
equalization fee of 15 cents, or it is taken out of the sale which he
makes, so that he gets the net price of $1.55; and the next year his
price level is $1.60 and his fee is 20 to 25 cents and he gets $1.35 or
$1.40 net, or whatever it may be, the farmer would know he was
paying this tax, and that might have possibly some effect upon acre-
age and production. But whether he would ever find out he is paying

this tax, if applied on transportation or processing, I think it is very
doubtful.
’ ar AswErLL, Who really does pay the equalization fee under this

ill?

Mr. ANpErsoN. I think the farmer pays it.

Mr. AsweLL. In everv case?