350 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
The CaAamMAN. I understand you to say that you would be in 
favor of any amendments to strengthen the bill 
Mr. Goss. Yes; we do not claim the bill is perfect. 
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question: Would you be in 
favor of minimizing the speculation waste in marketing commodi- 
ties, doing away with the speculation, the manipulation of prices, 
and doctoring of grades and all those things ¢ 
Mr. Goss. I would net be able to take snap judgment on the word- 
ing and say which is best. We are trying to carry to vour committee 
a definite principle. 
The Criarman. Are you opposed to it? Would you be in favor 
of legislation that might do away with the fraudulent practices re- 
ferred to in the Federal Trade Commission report and the press 
reports of the dealings on our exchanges through price and grade 
manipulation? I have noticed that has been left out of the bill and 
I was wondering why it was left out. Most of the farmers think 
they are being imposed upon. 
Mr. Goss. If, in the judgment of the committee, it will be possible 
to curb manipulation by incorporating a feature in that bill to do so, 
I see no objection to do it. 
in Cram. But the question is whether or not it shall be put 
in or left out; that 1s the 1dea. ou sa 1 1 
did you leave that out? y vou drafted the bill. Why 
Mr. Goss. Because our attitude has been to hit at one evil and not 
try to correct everything in this one bill. 
The Cuamman. Do you not consider that an evil, speculation? 
Mr. Goss. It certainly is; and there are evils of the tariff, evils of 
taxation, and evils of transportation which could be—— 
The Caamrman. If it is an evil, why did you leave it out? 
Mr Goss. Because we attempted to reach one evil only. 
: 22 (mniss. Only one evil? Would it not be well to take care 
of all the evils? [Laughter.] Why did you leave it out? 
Mr. Goss. We would like fo take care of them, but we do not feel 
competent to remedy all the evils at one stroke. 
e Crarman. It can be taken care of; all you would have to do 
te put it in the bill. Are vou for it. or against it, that is the 
Mr. Goss. If the committee can elimi i i 
there would be no objection hatover tin : in % ation, 
The Cuamman. Of course, unless we try, it can t be a : 
Mr. Goss. There would be ho objection you can do i one: 
The Cmamrrman. I will ask you another jon t Wo i 
A ; question: Would it pre- 
etl geous domestic markets for such commodities, do you 
elieve in advantageous markets for domestic products ? Y 
. Mr. Goss. Te x the bill accomplishes {hat and as far as the 
g goes, Mr. Haugen, I can no - 
paragraph here and a section there : and me 4 ay and oat 3 
We feel that is within the province of the conmitt . All in the bil. 
ing to do is to bring the main principle bef e vo A SNE 
have it Jrorded so as to accomplish that ore vou © think we 
e Cramrmav. I understa is hi 
and I notice a number of hime aim ton Yond 1 a A re 
whether that was intentional or trintentional 2 wanted to inquire