AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

573
Mr. AnpersoN. Yes; I think so. It is conceivable, I suppose,
that under certain circumstances the fee might become an addition
to the cost of distribution which could be imposed upon the con-
sumer. But that certainly would not be the case in the wheat,
because whether you are dealing in wheat or flour your maximum
domestic price is represented by the level of the foreign price plus
42 cents, and you have to get the equalization fee out of that because
you can not get more without inviting imports of wheat or flour.

Mr. Puvr~neLL. If this bill operates as its proponents think it will
operate, and then by reason of the stimulated price the farmer this
year gets $1.50 for wheat, and then next year gets $1.25 by reason
of the overproduction, will he not have the disparity in prices called
to his attention just about as effectively as if he went in and bought
some scrip as we contemplated under the old bill?

Mr. ANpERsoN. No; 1 do not think so, because there are other
factors of world production as well as domestic production which
would be involved in the general level of prices which he would get.

Mr. PurxeLL. The thing which would make the most effective
argument to the farmer would be the natural price he receives.

Mr. AxpersoN. If his price is the foreign price plus the tariff,
then of course other factors enter into the equation of the price he
gets, besides the amount of the equalization fee and those factors
would probably be very much larger, at least could be very much
larger than the equalization fee itself. Mathematically, there is no
point—I do not say that actually there may not be one, but mathe-
matically there is no point at which, under the equalization fee,
if the tariff is fully made effective, the domestic price would not be
higher than the foreign price. I think we demonstrated that last
year.

Mr. PurNELL. I doubt if under any plan of stabilization or stimu-
lation the great rank and file of producers in this country will ever
stop and analyze the machinery »v which the price is stabilized or
stimulated.

Mr. ANpERsON. I agree with you, and that is one reason why I
think the equalization fee would have much more effect upon the
amount of acreage that the farmer would put in—and I put it on the
basis of acreage rather than production, because you can not hold the
farmer responsible for his yield, though you can hold him responsible
for his acreage that he puts in, applied on the first sale the farmer
actually makes, than it can possibly be if collected in any other way.

Mr. PurNELL. Of course, that calls into being immediately a great
army of collectors and a lot of cumbersome machinery that we have
been trying to avoid in the evolution of this so-called equalization fee
idea. You remember we started out with the scrip idea which would
have had producers running into the post offices to buy stamps. etc.
We have gotten away from that.

The CratrRMAN! If the price of wheat advances 50 cents per bushel
and the farmer receives that minus the equalization fee. would the
producer be paying an additional tax?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think he would.

The CrairMAN. If he received 40 cents more than he would
otherwise?

Mr. AsweLL. He would still be paying the fee.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes: I think so.