2) 
1 
of 
vf 
18 
2 
rr 
AS 
18 
o 
= 
8 
y 
g 
ar 
(i= 
n 
>t 
301 
IT 
J - 
o 
—— 
Ya 
AT 
a 
c} 
y 
wy 
Ay 
r 
i 
wr 
i) 
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING REVOLVING FUND 23 
Mr. Lecce. We have the records of the livestock cooperatives, and 
their record is very good, as a class. They are growing rapidly in 
number and in the percentage of their business. 
Mr. Byrws. I understand the exchange members, of course, han- 
dle the bulk of the livestock. I wondered whether the board could 
deal with them, even if they wanted to, under the law? 
Mr. Lecae. I can not see any provision in the law which enables 
us to furnish aid to private operators. 
Mr. Byrws. For the same legal reason that Mr. Stone gave with 
reference to handling tobacco ? 
Mr. Lier. Yes. Congress, in passing the law, established the 
principle of cooperative effort among the farmers themselves as a 
basic principle, and we think you were right. Our experience so 
far confirms our judgment as to what we think is the right approach, 
that is, collective action on part of original producers. 
Mr. Byrns. Would your board have any right to aid livestock 
growers or raisers, whether they are operating on a large or a small 
scale, who are not members of this cooperative association? 
Mr. Lecee. I think we would have the right if they had some 
set-up that complied with the Capper-Volstead law requirement as 
to a cooperative organization. There is. a serious question, however, 
when there is such an organization in existence that we believe to 
be functioning efficiently, as to whether or not we should encourage 
the duplication in the same market on the part of another group of 
producers. : 
Mr. Byrns. I do not know whether you care to give your reasons 
for the record or not, but I understand the board has refused aid 
to livestock growers because they insist on the right to permit com- 
mission companies of long service and reputable standing to sell their 
livestock. Is that true; and if so, why? 
Mr. Leer. No, that is not technically correct, Congressman. We 
can not extend financial aid to the commission companies. 
Take, for instance, the wool cooperative. They have made a con- 
tract with an old-time wool firm, one of the largest in existence, and 
it does all their selling for them. This commission firm gave up 
all their other business to devote their efforts to the sale of the 
cooperative’s products, which they are selling for them on a contract 
basis. So we did not stick to the principle of not dictating how they 
shall sell. 
But when it comes to extending financial aid to the commission 
Snshnnty, we do not feel that the law contemplates our doing 
that. 
Mr. Ayres. Even though the commission firm is doing business 
exclusively with the cooperative? 
- Mr. Lecce. Oh, no; if the cooperative wants to contract with the 
commission firm to represent them as an exclusive sales representa- 
tive, that is another matter. That is what has been done in the 
case of wool and what is being done in connection with some of 
the fruit and vegetable groups. Instead of the farmers setting up 
their own marketing machinery they have contracted with somebody 
else, on a basis satisfactory to them, to do their marketing for 
them. 
Mr. Stone. We would not be permitted to advance money to the 
commission company, as a company.