AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
635 
1 provide, if possible, that you would let the individual farmer hold 
his own commodity. He might conceivably ship it off, but it would be 
a crime, and I believe the average farmer can be trusted to hold it: 
and the loans being made through the banks, and the banks, knowing 
that that commodity is put up as collateral, would keep in touch with 
the collateral. 
Mr. Jones. Just a question there: If you put that plan into oper- 
ation and had your 75 per cent to sign, what would there be to pre- 
vent the other 25 per cent from increasing their acreage or making 
their sales any time they wanted to and taking advantage and pPOs- 
sibly getting a higher price than those who had signed? 
Mr. LankForp. The bill would prevent that. 
Mr. Jones. What would there be to prevent new acreage by people 
who had not theretofore been in business? 
Mr. LaNkrForDp. The question of new acreage would be solved 
under provisions in the bill. I provide this, however, that these 
loans shall only be made when planters of 75 per cent of the acreage 
for the ensuing year have signed the contract, to control the produc- 
tion and marketing. The bill provides that 10 per cent more must 
sign within 12 months from the time operations begin, and therefore 
85 per cent must come in within 12 months after operation. Then I 
provide, further, that 10 per cent more must come in within the next 
year; and then that 7 per cent more shall come in within the next 
year, running it up to 97 per cent of the planters. 
If the bill does work, if the plan is a good one, and if the American 
farmer finds he can borrow at the average price of his commodity 
and that there has been an organization perfected which enables 
him to control his production, which enables him to control the price, 
and name his price within reason, they will sign up 10 per cent more 
each year until they have 97 per cent in. The other fellows will be 
forced in just like labor unions force them in when they cry “scab,” 
“not friends,” ‘“‘not in sympathy with the laboring man,” “not deal- 
ing fair,” etc. In other words, I believe they will sign up these 
contracts. If they do sign up these contracts, then it would solve 
the overproduction problem and marketing problem, and would 
enable the farmer to do exactly what I said that my father could 
not do in the way of naming the price of his cotton. It would enable 
the farmers by this organization to get together and simply say, 
“We will not sell cotton or wheat except at a certain price. We 
produced this year an alleged overproduction, but that overproduc- 
tion does not hurt you; it. 1s not for sale.” Or “We have for sale 
as much wheat as you need at a reasonably fair price. We have only 
as much cotton for sale as you are willing to pay us a fair price for.” 
The farmer for once in the history of the world by this organiza- 
tion could look the rest of the world in the face and say, “Cotton 1s 
so much a pound; how much do you want?” Or ‘ Wheat 1s so 
much a bushel; how much do you want?” He could not do that 
to an unreasonable extent; he could not name a price of 35 a bushel 
for wheat; he could not name a price of a dollar a pound for cotton. 
But he could name a price for his commodity within reason, just 
like the producers of steel and the producers of shoes and the pro- 
ducers of hats and clothing name the price of the articles which they 
produce, within reason. 
RE160—28— SER E. PT 8—