606 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. Yoakum. I am just calling your attention to one thing. "It 
is published and advertised and heralded through propaganda 
throughout the country—even our President once referred to it— 
that marketing cooperation was making great progress; that this 
last year they handled $2,500,000,000. 
Mr. Apkins. I understand all that. 
Mr. Yoakum. Hold on. It does not make any difference if they 
handled $12,000,000,000. It is not in handling. It is the money 
they make. ‘That two and a half billion dollars is to-day banked 
in all the country in spots. Why? Because they have not one 
great power, one controlling power to establish and maintain prices 
for this two and a half billion. If they had they would have been 
rich men to-day. 
Mr. Apkins. The point I am trying to get at—you do not under- 
stand my question. 
Mr. Yoakum. I think I do. 
Mr. Apkins. The point I am trying to get at is this: Under the 
law—we have all sorts of Federal and State laws, enabling laws for 
cooperation. But I can not conceive of any sort of either national 
or local organization, that is, if the wheat producers of the country 
wanted to organize and operate as you suggest, they did not have 
authority of law to do it. The point 1 want to get at is, what sort of 
legislation or what sort of authority you want to give the Federal 
Government that would assist those fellows, that they have authority 
of law to do now in working out their schemes? That is the point 
Mr. Yoakum. Give them a Federal charter, with authority to 
maintain the rates or pass upon all shipments, interstate or foreign, 
and you have got it solved. 
Mr. Apkins. The thought I had in mind, Mr. Yoakum—— 
Mr. Yoakum. We are talking of wheat. 
Mr. Apkins. That is just to illustrate. 
Mr. Yoakum. Wheat is only 10 per cent. 
Mr. Apkins. They can do that now. But the point I had in mind 
is, what enabling legislation we would have to have that would be of 
any assistance to them in doing that; for instance, the wheat pool 
of Indiana, the wheat pool of the Northwest could get together an 
almost nation-wide wheat pool. They attempted it once in this 
country and failed on it, I think. The point I had in mind was 
what you have studied out now that will enable them, whether 
compulsory or how, to enable them to do that. They have au- 
thority of law to do it now; for instance, if they should want to 
organize a nation-wide organization—and that seems to be a popular 
idea and virtually what you have in mind—controlling the wheat 
production of the country. They would not get enough farmers 
voluntarily to sign up. Here is an association in Indiana, a number 
of them in Illinois, one in the Northwest. Thus far their carrying 
charges have been high. The point I had in mind now is this: 
They can undoubtedly get together and do the things you are 
stating. What authority have you in mind in a law that would 
be of assistance to those fellows in carrying out the very thing you 
advocate and the very thing they are trying to do? 
The point I do not get clear from your talk is the character of 
legislation that will help them, where they have authority of law 
now to go ahead and do things to help them. I just can not see