AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 6537 operate under my plan. Then you could let them operate under the McNary-Haugen bill. They are not at all inconsistent. Now, Mr. Jones, I will say that I did not introduce the debenture plan along with the other bills, but I thought of doing that. I have not done it. I will tell you what you can do, I believe, and I will submit it to the committee after consideration to say whether or not I am right: The McNary-Haugen bill could be put in the bill as Title I, or put yours in as Title I, if you had rather have yours first; the debenture plan as Title IT, and put my plan as Title III. Wherein are the three inconsistent? The farmers would be getting their help ander the debenture plan. They might not need the provisions of the McNary-Haugen bill. It might not be necessary to declare the operating period if the debenture plan was in effect. It would not be inconsistent with the McNary-Haugen bill. You could use my plan and work it with either one. So, as I say, the three plans are not at all inconsistent. If one part does not work you have got the other part to fall back on and vice versa. I think that may be a pretty good idea. B Mr. Apkins. Your contract idea is all very good, Mr. Lankford, but haven't we got a law to do all that. The Supreme Court has recently ruled favorably on the validity of these contracts; and yet the farmers wherever they have tried that have fallen down under it antil they do not proceed to operate. Do you think they would operate any better by providing that authority for them? Mr. Lankrorp. This would be true in reference to the contract: The bill provides that 75 per cent of the farmers must have signed these contracts and be living up to them. Suppose one man did not sign up the contract. You get another man in his stead. Mr. Apkins. I understand that. We already have authority of law to do that. The contracts have been tried out by the courts and found to be constitutional. Do you think that passing another bill is going to be a greater inducement for the farmer to do that? Mr. LankrForDp. Mr. Adkins, that is a very proper question, and I am glad you asked it. This is true: The farmers say, perhaps, if they sign up contracts they have no knowledge the other fellow will sign. A man signs a contract and he will say, “I am no better off than I was before. I am reducing acreage and the other man is not reduc- ing acreage. I do not know whether my commodity is going to be any higher in price because of the fact I signed the contract.” He has no reason to sign a contract. i Under my plan he signs the contract. He says: “Now, this con- tract is not binding on me because it is so provided in the bond that unless 75 per cent of the producers for the particular year sign, this contract is not binding on me, and if enough sign it, my price will be stabilized at the average price.” And he says: “ Furthermore this contract is not binding on me unless enough people sign it to enable the farmers to be masters of their own fortune and control the market, naming their prices within reason and thereby naming their profits within reason.” } Mr. Apkins. You did not quite get my question. Mr. Lankrorp. All right. Mr. Apkins. The point is, they do not operate under your system now, when they have a right to do it. Do you think there 1s any-