626 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 10,000 pages. We sat here months and much of the time, worked night and day and of course we were told that was not constitutional. Mr. WiLLiams. I do not think it was unconstitutional. The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. It was said to be unconstitu- tional; it conferred more power on the Secretary of Agriculture than was ever conferred upon any one man. It was held to be unconstitutional by many. Of course, there is always an oppor- tunity for an honest difference of opinion. But ex-President Taft, who rendered the opinion, held it constitutional. Now, there is a difference of opinion in this respect, but we have worked about four years on this bill. If we think we are right, I doubt the propriety of sliding back down the hill. The bill has been thrashed out by the members here and the members of the farm organizations. We started at the beginning establishing the ratio with the equalization fee in it and every bill that has been suggested by the farm organizations, or the majority of them, has carried the equaliza- tion fee. They rebelled against being placed in the attitude of asking for a subsidy or charity. They have said, “We will pay our own bills, providing we may receive our share of the profits.” I can not conceive that any Members of Congress can fail to see the difference between a tax and the paying for a service to take care of the sur- plus. Mr. McKeown. I do not want the chairman to forget this, 1 have never taken the position that the equalization fee was uncon- stitutional, because if I had I never would have voted for the bill. I contend to-day, personally, in my opinion, that it is constitutional; and if you could give me any assurance that that bill would pass and be approved, I would be willing to let it go to the courts to be deter- mined. That is not my position here. I have taken the position it is constitutional; I still have that opinion. But if you had any assurance the President would approve this bill with the equalization fee, I dare say that every man who takes my position would be sup- porting the bill wholeheartedly. The CHAIRMAN. We have respect for the President and everybody else. I have never questioned the motive of anybody who disagrees with me. I want to give everybody credit for being sincere in their advocacy of the principles and policies they advocate. If we feel we are right and I think you will find a large majority of the consti- tutional lawyers hold it constitutional—we have a drafting service and we have its opinion. If there is any question about it we believe it should be passed up to the courts and let the courts determine 1t. It has never been made clear by the statements filed by the repre- sentatives of grain exchanges and representatives of the miller that the issue now 1s not only this equalization fee but they say ‘““you are going to disorganize the marketing facilities.” It will do away with violent speculation, if it is a menace, why not? That is one of the things we are interested in, and the representatives of the specula- tors admit that this equalization fee will eliminate the violent specu- lation described in the Interstate Commerce reports and also in press reports in respect to the deals in Chicago of Armour, Rosenbaum, and others. I believe the manipulation of prices and doctoring the grades is a menace and that is what we are trying to regulate. We did pass a bill two or three years ago which in a degree regu-