AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
193 
vushel on 600,000,000 bushels or $252.000.000—]listen, please—and that 
portion of the taxpayers who reaped the most benefits from ihe 
tariff would pay $84,000,000 making a total received by the farm- 
ers of $336,000,000 as compared with $252,000,000 under the im- 
possible conditions of a self-enforcing equalization fee without 
evasions, or a net gain to the farmer of $84,000.000 by the debenture 
lan. 
P Or if it argued that the farmer should get only the 3114 cents per 
bushel, the maximum possible theoretical benefits under the equaliza- 
tion fee, let us assume that the board set the export debenture rate 
at this figure, 3114 cents. 
Under the equalization fee, in order to assure the farmer 3114 cents, 
the public would pay 42 cents more than the world price for the wheat, 
or $252,000,000 on the 600,000,000 bushels consumed domestically. 
nce more let me remind you that the evasions and cost of collection 
would net the farmer much less than 3114 cents. 
Under the debenture plan the public would pay 3114 cents more on 
the 600,000,000 bushels, or $189,000,000, and those who received the 
most benefits under the tariff would pay 3114 cents on the 200,000,000 
bushels exported or $63,000,000, making the total received by the 
farmers $252,000,000. 
The amount of the advanced selling prices must be made up some- 
where under either system. Under the equalization fee every bushel 
which evaded payment whether because of being used for seed or for 
feed or through unlawful practices, would mean that the rest of the 
wheat had to pay that much more fee, plus the cost of collection. 
Under the debenture system there could be no evasions and there is 
no cost of collection, for there is no fee to collect. Every penny paid 
by reason of the price advance would go direct to the farmer. 
Then, I want you to pause: This answers a question from my dis- 
tinguished young friend of a moment ago as to why our organiza- 
tion did not accept a different plan. It is all summed up practically 
‘n this last statement. 
While I am comparing the two systems I would like to make one 
more comparison which may bring the true situation to you. Picture 
a map of the United States with thousands upon thousands of stars 
scattered all over it, running possibly into the millions. Every star 
represents some transaction made necessary by the collection of the 
equalization fee, or the avoidance of double payment. That is the 
picture of an internal-revenue system levying on production. 
Now, picture a map of the United States with less than 200 stars 
scattered around the border. Each star represents a port of entry, 
ul equipped to handle the export debenture on each export. 
I'he difference in cost of operation of the two systems comes out of 
the pockets of the farmers, and we prefer the simpler system, and the 
one that gives the American farmer $84,000.000 more on wheat alone. 
than the equalization fee plan. 
Thank you for asking that question to-day. 
The Criamrarax. Irecall that a member of this committee stated that 
by advancing the price on a hog weighing 200 pounds, from $7.05 a 
hundred to $11.34 as total advance in price, $8.58 the equalization fee, 
would be about $22 on a $14.10 hog. I think we are agreed that with 
SO160—28—SERE. PT 5———Q