AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. WELLER. I would like to have seen it adopted. 
Mr. Jones. At least, the McMaster resolution would have opened 
up the question and given an opportunity for readjustment. I think 
that any Member*of the House who was really interested in the 
subject should have supported that measure, to have gone into that 
tariff and to have had the adjustments and tried to get them on the 
same level. 
Mr. WELLER. My personal opinion is it should by all means be on 
the same level. 
Mr. Kercaam. I want to tell you some of the farm leaders in the 
House did not do it. 
Mr. WELLER. To my disappointment. 
Mr. Jones. To say the least, there are some products, such as 
aluminum, steel, and a number of others that might be mentioned 
here on which the tariff is exceedingly high. There is a tariff of 
approximately 70 per cent on aluminum, and a 30 per cent tariff 
would easily cover all the differences that are argued about in the 
cost of production; and there are a number of other articles the tariff 
1s exceedingly high on. At least on those commodities the tariff 
could well be lowered without injuring in any way the productive: 
industry of this country, and at the same time on any commodities 
from which customs duties might be derived, of the nature of farm 
products, if occasion justified it, might have been raised. 
Mr. WELLER. Providing we could raise them. That, of course, is 
what we attempted to do, to have some means of having the tariff 
effective. I made some figures at one time and I had to dig it out 
myself. The result may have been inaccurate, but it seemed to 
indicate that the northwest European farmer put up one bushel of 
his product in exchange for a manufactured commodity that cost us 
four bushels or measures of our product. 
Mr. Jones. For the last five or six years the representatives of 
the West, both in and out of Congress, have been crying and urging 
that there is an inequality between industry and agriculture because 
of the tariff. That has been stated over, over, and over again, both 
in the House, in this committee room, and throughout the country 
and throughout the West. They have been saying and have been 
threatening that if we did not give them what they want they would 
strike at this tariff. That is the threat that has been held up by 
the members of the so-called farm bloc in the House time after time. 
That includes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Dickinson, who claims 
to be the head of the farm bloc. I have heard him time after time 
state in the House that the protective tariff gave industry an advan- 
tage over agriculture, and that if they didn’t give agriculture what 
they wanted they would turn immediately, and he stated in very 
dramatic fashion, “We will turn and change the tariff schedules.” 
And yet the only time during all these years of agitation that there 
has been an opportunity in the House to go into that question and 
really secure readjustments and see what is the matter and make any 
changes that are necessary, most of those western fellows who have 
been talking so much, including the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 
Dickinson, voted against going into it. 
Mr. WELLER. I think he made a mistake. 
Mr. Joxes. They could make such adjustments as they saw fit, 
and the Congress through its chosen Representatives could deter- 
239