620 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
1 have no criticism of those gentlemen who support it, for I know 
they are sincere in their advocacy of it. But I am so constituted 
that I can not support a bill which IT believe unconstitutional. I 
know people differ as to that, but I believe the equalization tax is 
unconstitutional, and I go further—I think any farm legislation is 
of necessity experimental. You are embarking in a new field; you 
do not know how it is going to turn out, and in view of what the 
Government has done for industry, for the railroads, for labor 
organizations, I think the Government should bear the expense of 
this experiment and I do not think the Government should put the 
burden upon the farmers in the shape of an equalization fee or tax to 
carry out the experiment. 
[ ‘went all over my district this summer and fall discussing this 
matter. My district understands thoroughly my attitude. 1 told 
them I could not and would not vote for the Haugen-McNary bill 
with an equalization fee in it, and I am satisfied the overwhelming 
majority of the farmers in my district approve of my attitude. 
Now, as a practical proposition, Mr. Chairman, I want legislation. 
I do not want politics in this great issue. I have never played politics 
in it and will not play politics in it now. But, as a practical man, I 
do not see any possibility whatever of the McNary-Haugen bill 
becoming a law during this administration. And why do I say that? 
The President, for whom I have a personal regard and admiration, 
is a man of courage, he is a man that 1 think was sincere in his con- 
sideration of this legislation. The President vetoed the Haugen- 
McNary bill, and one of the grounds of his veto was that the equaliza- 
tion fee was unconstitutional. In his veto message he included an 
opinion of the Attorney General of the United States in which the 
Attorney General held it was unconstitutional. The President has 
the same Attorney General and if this same bill goes to him the 
President, in my judgment, will be compelled to take the same course 
and veto it, for the President is sworn to observe the Constitution 
and the President could not sign a bill that he and his legal adviser 
has said is unconstitutional. Therefore, I think if that bill is sub- 
mitted to him it will be vetoed, and I am absolutely certain in my 
own mind that Congress will sustain his veto, because you can not 
get a two-thirds vote to override it. 
That is all I have to say. I am prepared to support Doctor 
Aswell’s bill; I am prepared to support the McNary-Haugen bill if 
the equalization fee is left out; I am prepared to support any bill 
that in my judgment is constitutional that this committee reports 
to the House for the relief of agriculture. 
I thank you. } 
Mr. Apgins. Your present bill is the same as the one you intro- 
duced last year? 
Mr. Crisp. Exactly. I stated to the committee before I knew it 
was not perfect. I simply took it as a basis of compromise, and it 1s 
identical. I followed the same course as the advocates of the 
MecNary-Haugen bill by introducing the same bill, except, of course, 
you have to change it as to the nominating of the farm board, and 
making it applicable to all farm products. 
Mr. AsweLL. Mr. Crisp, you are very considerate of this com- 
mittee in not repeating all you said last time. 
Mr. Crisp. Well, I think a lot of this committee.