AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
thing in your bill that would make it an inducement for them to
operate?

Mr. LankrorD. Absolutely.

Mr. Apxkins. They have a right to go into all that stuff-—and sign
contracts to limit production and marketing now.

Mr. LankrForp. They have a right to that now.

Mr. Apxkins. And they do not operate under it?

Mr. Lankrorp. That is right.

Mr. Apkins. They have tried it and fallen down. The point 1
have in mind is whether simply passing this bill of yours would
induce them to do it.

Mr. Liankrorp. Simply because with my bill there would be ma-
chinery set up to establish borrowing powers at the average price at
which a commodity had been sold for last 10 years. Therefore their
price would be stabilized at a very satisfactory amount to them,
and there would be all kinds of reasons for them to sign the contract.

Mr. Apkins. Do you think the additional borrowing power would
be an inducement? i

Mr. Lankrorp. Absolutely. The great trouble with the farmer
to-day is that he can not control his sales. He can not control the
time when he is going to sell his commodity. Why? Because his
taxes are due, his Interest is due, or because his bank note is due.
He must sell his cotton. But cotton is down in price. He can not
wait for it to go up. But if my bill goes into effect he can borrow
the average price at which the cotton has been selling for the past
10 years and put his cotton up as the sale security. My bill would
stabilize the price at the figure at which he could borrow. He would
sign the contract because he would know that unless enough signed
it to make it effective, the contract would not go into effect, and he
would know that whenever enough signed it to carry it into effect
then the price would be stabilized.

So I think that the plan is really worth while, and I submit it to
the committee for their careful consideration.

Let me say this—I presume the committee is anxious to adjourn,
and I will hasten to a conclusion.

Let me say just this much on the McNary-Haugen bill before 1
resume my seat. I feel that a man has a right to criticize his own
self, and I think a man who votes for the bill should be permitted to
criticize that bill, especially when he may vote for it again. 1
started to say a little while ago, and some one interjected a question
and changed my line of thought, that the equalization fee was danger-
ous for political reasons; and then I said we should not be controlled
by that to a great extent, and yet we are all more or less selfish, some
more so than others. But let us get away from the political side of it.

Here is another danger in the equalization fee: If the McNary-
Haugen bill passes it will either make the cooperatives of the country
or break them. They will have had their opportunity. People
will say: “The cooperatives got the law they wanted and it failed to
work.” It will either mean their destruction or their salvation.

All right. Now, will the equalization fee be popular with the
American farmer? Will the American farmer want to pay it!
Will it force the American farmers to go into the cooperatives, or will
he feel like he is being mistreated? Will he feel like he is having to
carry a burden he does not want to carry; will he feel like unjust

638