Mr. KiLcorg. The farmers generally, not merely the members of ~~ 
cooperatives, read statements of that kind, and they have been 
numerous. They hear the talks that have been made. vo 
Mr. CLarkE. Let me interrupt you right there. Whether-it be 
a million or a thousand farmers, this represents really a sincere effort 
for cooperation, don’t you think so? 
Mr. KiLcore. Absolutely so. 
Mr. CrarkEe. This Haugen bill, if put into effect, is a compulsory 
poel bill, is it not? 
Mr. KiLcore. It is a compulsory surplus pooling bill. 
Mr. CrarkE. Now, do you believe if all of a particular commodity 
were compelled to be put into or placed in a pooling proposition where 
it made no difference as to whether a man were in or were not in 
cooperatives, that it would be an inducement or encouragement or 
any way help the movement of cooperation? Do you believe it 
would? If the Haugen bill were put in effect, what inducement 
would there be for any man to join a cooperative, to help us along in 
what you believe in, and I believe in, and the members of this com- 
mittee believe in—cooperation? 
Mr. Kircore. That is a very fine question. 
Mr. Crarke. I am hook, line, and sinker for cooperation, and am 
director in a little cooperative up in our State. 
Mr. AsweLL. It is not a very little one. 
Mr. Kirncore. I think it would do this: The MeNary-Haugen bill 
would be compulsory pooling of the surplus. That would get that 
out of the way. It would leave the cooperatives in a position to 
orderly market the crop of its members—the portion not surplus. 
Mr. AsweLL. Would he not pay the fee on all of it, not only the 
surplus? 
Mr. Kircore. He would pay the fee on his entire production. 
Mr. AsweLL. On all he produces? 
Mr. KiLcore. Absolutely; every man—they all pay. 
Mr. CLArRkE. In addition to the fee that all in the particular 
commodity would pay, would not he, in addition, be also supporting 
his own organization and be paying a tax for the cooperative move- 
ment itself? 
Mr. KiLcore. He would be paying the operating costs. Let me 
get 1t clear. I believe I understand you and I believe you are going 
to understand me. The surplus would be pooled through the use of 
the equalization fee paid by all the growers, proportionately, each on 
his production, as I stdte in here [referring to clipping from North 
Carolina Cotton Grower read above]. The equalization fee is equiv- 
alent to every man buying back and holding his own surplus. If he 
produced 100 bales of cotton, and 10 bales of that is surplus, the 
equalization fee would either buy that back or guarantee against any 
loss in buying it and carrying it until it is sold. All of the growers 
would pay alike the equalization fee to buy and pool the surplus; 
and we would call that compulsory because they had to pay the fee 
to handle the surplus. The member and the nonmember would be 
on the same footing; it would be just a question whether a coopera- 
tive could operate in such a way as to make it advantageous for a 
grower to be a member of the cooperative, or whether there would 
be greater advantage in staying out of the cooperative. As it has 
been in the last few years with cotton, the advantage has been against 
the cooperative member and in favor of the nonmember. 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
273 
Q