AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
417 
delay, would do the very thing that you have indicated—Ilift agricul- 
ture on a plane with labor, with transportation, with finance, and 
with industry; and we think, further, that it does it in harmony w.th 
precedents and in accordance with the established policy of the Gov- 
arnment better than any other legislation proposed. 
Mr. KercaaMm. One further question, Mr. Taber, and I think I 
am through: Supposing that this bill were passed by the Congress 
and approved by the President and were put into effect, and that 
following that agriculture did take its place; and then add the 
supposition that our population changes will keep on with their 
draft towards the cities and naturally, possibly, the need for this 
special kind of legislation would gradually disappear—what is the 
effect of this particular bill on that kind of a situation? 
Mr. Taser. This bill 1s self-eliminating. 
Mr. Kercuaay. “Self-eliminating ¥ describes the situation, and 
still does not give agriculture a supreme advantage over others; but 
simply puts it into the picture, so that we can march down the road 
side by side, which is all any farmer asks. 
Mr. Taper. That is correct; it does exactly that thing. As we 
approach the import basis on any commodity, the export debenture 
automatically, without any expense, without any difficulty, elimi- 
nates itcelf, and the system that is then prevailing for the protection 
of other groups will protect agriculture. 
Mr. Kercuan. I said that was the last question I had, but here 
is one other: You have stated that you preferred the form of organi- 
zation set up in the bill—without a board and without what is 
referred to as the revolving fund or the stabilizing features of the 
other bill. In the spirit you manifested, which I want to compli- 
ment, you have said that if it be the judgment of this committee that 
these added features, such as board and loan features, ought to be 
incorporated, you would be glad to go along and would give that 
sort of an arrangement your support, although vou preferred the 
provisions of this bill; is that correct? 
Mr. TaBer. That is a correct statement. Our attitude would be 
simply this: We favor the simple non-salaried, naked proposition 
because of the reasons we have indicated. But we realize, as we 
have said in the very beginning, the superior judginent of this com- 
mittee—your long experience, your seven-years’ study of a problem— 
and 1f in your judgment you felt that a salaried board was neces- 
sary, 1f In your superior judgment you felt a revolving fund was 
necessary, or if veu in your superior judgment felt an export cor- 
poration was necessary, we naturally would acquiesce in your supe- 
rior judgment, believing that your study and your experience brought 
you to this conclusion with the good of agriculture in your mind— 
naturally we would go most enthusiastically along with the pro- 
gram in spite of the fact it was not just what we asked for or just 
what we wanted, 
Mr. KercHay. You think that is a fair statement; you think that 
lescribes your sincere desire to compromise? 
Mr. Tarer. We think so. 
Mr. Kercuay. If I got your idea of compromise, it is that you 
are willing to go along the road, but you do not want to go so far 
as to compromise in the way of the two carpets, where the husband