Cost of living in German towns

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 866449027

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-93831

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Cost of living in German towns

Place of publication:: London

Publisher:: Stat. Off.

Year of publication:: 1908

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (LXI, 548 Seiten)

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 631 Mr. LANkFoRrD. I voted for the Haugen bil i about that a little later. gon bill befors, snd L wil tal The real question before this Congress is to work out some plan to help the farmer get a better price for his products. Let me say just here that I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill every time; I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill, Mr. Kincheloe, when I was the only member of the delegation from Georgia to vote for it. I voted for it later when some other Members from Georgia joined me. Mr. AsweLL. Are you for it now with the equalization fee in it? Mr. LankForp. I would probably vote for it with the equalization fee in there, although I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the equalization-fee idea. I wish to say, I think it would be better for this committee to report the McNary-Haugen bill out without the equalization fee if it is re- ported at all. I would much prefer for the committee to do that. I have never been a strong advocate for the equalization fee. It was suggested a little while ago that the equalization fee is not a tax. That is true. It may not be a tax in the accepted term. But, regard- less of whether a tax or not, the farmer, when he pays it, will think it is a tax. He will feel it is a tax, and not only will he feel it is a tax, but he will resent it being left in the bill. Mr. AswerL. Do you think you ought to vote your conviction whether you get a law or not? Mr. LaNnkForD. I am in favor of so amending the bill as to secure the passage of a good law at this time, if possible. I would not be in favor, let me say, of so amending this bill as to make it objection- able simply because we want to secure a law. There is danger always in legislation, as I see it, that goes just far enough to amount to an excuse of a bill, and yet not do what it ought to do for the farmer; and then the American farmer would feel like we had passed some- thing for him, later on become dissatisfied with it and disheartened and not be willing even to have a stronger and better bill passed; and those who oppose real farm relief would later on say, “You have done this. You have passed a bill for the farmer. It is a failure. Why take up more time with farm relief?” I'do favor the passage of a bill which will be real farm relief. 1 would not favor a bill which I thought would not help the farmer, but which might wreck his hopes for a measure in the future. Mr. KincHELOE. Mr. Lankford, is the McNary-Haugen bill as it is drawn and pending before the committee, with the equalization fee eliminated, your choice of the bills so far pending before the committee? Mr. Laxkrorp. No; I would prefer the bill I introduced, Mr. Kincheloe. But of the bills other than mine to which the committee has given consideration and upon which you had hearings before you came to my bill, I would prefer the McNary-Haugen bill with the equalization fee eliminated—T would prefer that to the Crisp- Curtis bill. Mr. KincaELOE. Or the debenture plan? Mr. Lankrorp. I think the debenture plan could be passed along with the McNary-Haugen bill; as they are not inconsistent. You might pass the debenture plan and raise money for the farmer in that way through the sale of debentures, and still pass the MeN ary- Haugen bill. They are not inconsistent at all, as I see it; they could be worked in harmony: they could be worked both at the same

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 8)

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation