334 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
not need that protection to enable it to compete with the rest of the 
world. 
Gradually, as our population expanded and went on westward 
across the Rocky Mountains and came to the Pacific, our problems be- 
gan to increase. 
During that time agriculture had thought itself making profits, 
but actually had lived by robbing the soil of its fertility ; and we came 
to the end of our free land about the time of the World War. We 
came to the time when we had exhausted a very large part of the fer- 
tility of our soil, complicating the situation about the time of the 
World War. And with the war came a change in conditions. The 
Government had for many years followed a policy of agricultural 
expansion, encouraging production. With the war the encouragement 
was redoubled, until at the end of the war we found ourselves produc- 
in the greatest crops in the history of the world; and we also 
found this, that our standards of living had advanced—roughly, had 
doubled. Our cost of production roughly had doubled; and at the 
close of the war we found that our markets were gone, because we 
were forced to compete with nations where the cost of production 
had not been doubled; in fact, it had declined, and our profitable 
markets were taken away from us. We found ourselves, roughly 
with a surplus of from $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. of export farm 
products which had not been a surplus prior to those conditions. In 
other words, the condition was that our raising of the standards of 
living had increased our costs so high that we could not reach world 
markets; and that is the condition we find to-day. It is a condition 
of surplus due to higher costs. 
Those higher costs are due to our higher standards of living, 
which, in turn, are protected by protective legislation, such as our 
immigration laws and the tariff; and the remedy which we seek to 
apply is to enable agriculture to meet the difference in cost of pro- 
duction between home and abroad, thus enabling it to reach foreign 
Now, roughly, that is the picture of our problem—this problem of 
surplus. There are three methods of attack. The first method is 
thy of cooperation or orderly marketing. We are entirely in sym- 
pathy mith [that method, ] infact, the Grange marketing program 
TE presented and defended for a number of years at- 
empted to attack it in this way. We feel, however, that it is not 
entirely adequate, and we have thought that the two methods were 
that (Lad closely eough to put into one measure. We have felt 
eserve attention as two separat 1t1 
they attempted to attack the problem from oe Dt an y be case 
wae second method of approach is that of the an fee. 
Ye have no quarrel with the equalization fee. We have some mis- 
givings as to its operation, whether it can be laid equitably, and 
whether it can be laid without evasion or double collection. B t 
have no quarrel with the equalization fee at that. We but feel that, 
we are approaching it from a more scientific angl dl 
sounder method. Qur approach the third way i gw oe bl ave a 
meet the difference in cost of production b ho 
rest of th production between America and the 
§ e world. We feel that if our troubl 1 1 if 
this surplus is largely due—to the diff hiss are Trgely Jue kt 
that that is the pomp of e difference in cost of production, 
point of attack. We hove to enable the farmer to