576

( AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
be paid for the crop in the domestic market, and, finally, a guess as to
Beppe at which the surplus will be sold in the domestic market and
abroad.

Mr. Pur~NeLL. Mr. Anderson, in view of the existing machinery
within the Department of Agriculture itself, would you designate
that as entirely a guess?

Mr. AnpErsoN. Well, let us call it an estimate, if you object to the
word ‘‘guess.”’

Mr. PurnerLr. In truth can it not be a reasonably accurate
estimate?

Mr. AnpeErsoN. Would you consider an underestimate or over-
estimate of a crop of 10 or 15 per cent a reasonable percentage of
error?

Mr. PueNeLL. I do not know that I would want to answer that.
Mr. ANDERSON. We have had some that have been as far off as
that.

Mr. PurneELL. But I think there is a vast difference between a
guess and a reasonably accurate estimate.

Mr. AnpersoN. I think the purchase price and the sales price fall
far more in the realm of guesses than they do in the realm of estimates.
The amount of the crop, perhaps, at least if the guess were made
along some time in May, might possibly fall within the proper realm
of the term ““estimate.”” But it would be subject, I think, to an error
of at least 10 or 15 per cent.

Mr. PurNELL. 1 have been under the impression that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture can, as a matter of fact, make a very reasonable
estimate both as to the quality and quantity of any given product.

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think that is correct.

Mr. FoLmer. You do not contend, Mr, Anderson, that there would
be any more guessing under this machinery than we have now under
the present system?

Mr. AnpersoN. Well, you are imposing what I think is a tax and
which Mr. Haugen thinks is a service charge. Now, you have got
to determine what that is in advance, and in determining it, I say
you have to make three guesses at least.

Mr. FuLMER. Suppose they make the best guess possible, and they
should put the equalization fee perhaps a little too large. They
would have an opportunity in the next operating period to put the
equalization fee less in that instance.

Mr. ANDERSON. Providing you have the power to tax one set of
farmers to pay for services, or whatever you may call them, which
may be rendered to another entirely different set of farmers or largely
different set of farmers the next year?

Mr. FuLMEeR. Under the bill if we have to put the equalization fee
on because of a surplus you would not want the fee with a small crop.
You would have plenty of profit to take care of the small crop.

In the case of cotton, if we had gone into the market during 1926
and taken over the 5,000,000 bales, instead of allowing the other
fellow to take them over, according to the advance in price this fall
to about $25 to $30 a bale, we would have had in the stabilization
fund about $250,000,000, profit and I do not believe that we would
have had to ask for an equalization fee perhaps in the next two or
three vears.