AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
627 
lates speculation. But we now find it ineffective, and we propose 
to go one step further. 
Mr. AsweLL. May I say something to interru ? 
Mr. McKrowy. Yes. ® pt you 
Mr. AsweLL. In response to the chairman’s statement that the 
argument should be made to the President, as I understood the 
gentleman addressing the committee, he is not arguing one way or 
the other about the constitutionality. He has merely said that we 
can not get legislation on account of the President. All the argu- 
ment the chairman has made should be made to the White House and 
not to the witness. You have just stated what all of us know to 
be a fact. 
Mr. McKeown. I just want to drop this suggestion to the com- 
mittee: If no legislation is obtained at this session of Congress, 
there is 2 movement on among the Southern States, so far as cotton 
is concerned, to regulate their production of cotton independently of 
any national legislation. Now, it is my judgment—I may be wrong 
about it—that if the Congress at this session does not give some 
legislation then this unanimity of interest between the South and 
the West will fall down, if the South is able to go ahead and finance 
and take care of its own production. 
Mr. KincaeLoE. Mr. Chairman, before these hearings close, 1 
want to put a statement in the record. Mr. Ketcham vesterday 
on the floor—I believe it was yesterday or Thursday—made a speech 
and put in the record how much the tariff had benefited the agricul- 
tural products of this country, and undertook to give indexed figures 
to show what a wonderful benefit it had been. I was talking to Mr. 
Ketcham—he gets on the floor on the political side of it, telling what a 
wonderful benefit it has been, but he is over here trying to get the 
debenture bill passed, for the reason that that is the only thing that 
is really going to make the legislation effective. I have always said 
the tariff on wheat did not benefit the American farmer at all. Ihave 
said further that the tariff on wheat was the millers’ tariff; I have 
said that the millers get the benefit out of it and the American 
farmer does not. I have said further that notwithstanding the 
tariff when it first started, 30 cents a bushel, and under the flexible 
provision of the Fordney-McCumber bill the President raised it to 
12 cents a bushel—that the last twelve months’ statistics will show 
that at that time it has been selling higher in Winnipeg, Canada, 
than in Minnesota. 
30 I have had the Tariff Commission to make a statement I wanted 
to show you just the great benefit the tariff of 42 cents 1s for the 
American growers of wheat since 1922—six years. I am going to put 
this in the record; I do not want to read it all. But last year, let us 
take 1927, there were imported into this country by the little fellow 
who did not process that wheat for export, the magnificent sum of 
21,299 bushels of wheat, and he paid the tariff —because he had to 
pay his 42 cents—$8,946. oo 3 
The big millers who have brought it in for blending purposes an . 
in order to export it and its by-products they brought 1n 11,152, 2 
bushels of wheat. They should have paid on that, In all justice, the 
rate of 42 cents a bushel, and they should have paid $4,637,293. 
But do vou know how much they really did pay under this F rdney 
McCumber tariff bill, when they get 99 cents back on the dollar o