Pace 2 



"fhe Illinois Agricultural Association RECORD 



March, 1927 



■caii»t the 



bill mad« duriny its paasase 

 throuKh Coi iffreaa. Like the speeches it 

 •o much re lembles, the mesaaKe protests 

 too much to be resarded finally as an un- 

 biased repoi t on an act of major import- 

 objections ffiven are so many 

 that the reaider is left wondering; if, after 

 an, the real rerson for the veto was ex- 

 pressed. I 



The veto ^easare is part of the proKram 

 that is indi^trializinE America at the ex- 

 pense of agriculture. Repeatedly it ple- 

 turea evil < ffects following better prices 

 for the Nat Ion's caah crops. It expreaes 

 the Tiewpoii t of laissez faire for agricul- 

 tare while lanctioninK protection for in- 

 dnstry. Af er reading the messase with 

 its almost infinite faultfindins over de- 

 tafls. the tt ouKht occurs that the funda- 

 mental, nne] pressed objection may be that 

 Toiced by A idrew Mellon a year ago when 

 he asked fo r the rejection of the surplus 

 control bill on the ground that it would 

 tend to rail e the cost ^ of food and raw 

 material to indutsry in the United States. 



The mess: :ge is evidently a compilation 

 from seven 1 sources assembled without 

 any resulai order ; consequently an or- 

 derly constd -ration of its salient points is 

 Impossible 'wnthout rearranRement and con- 

 densation of the reasons given for the veto. 

 This is attempted in the following "14 

 points" of tae veto message : 



"That tha measure deals with few. not 

 all, f^rra commodities and in operation 

 would discrsninate against some farmrrs 

 in favor of others; would check crop diver- 

 aification and promote one-crop farming." 



Here's Class Legislation 



One is tanpted to point out that the 

 tariff, the immigration exclusion act, rail- 

 road' labor legislation, and many other 

 laws benefit a few, not all, classes of cit- 

 isens and inpustries. Almost on the very 

 day of his Ifarm bill veto the President. 

 ander the so-called "flexible" provision of 

 the tariff law, raised the duty on pig 

 iron by 50 per cent— an act certainly for 

 the special protection of one group at the 

 expense of bthers in this country. It is 

 significant that the President at this ses- 

 sion of Congress signed the Lenroot-Taber 

 milk bill, oflextremely doubtful soundness, 

 which woulA use sanitary regulation to 

 anpplement tariffs to protect New Eng- 

 land and Ne4r York dairymen, although the 

 reault probably ia to raiae the coat of 

 dairy products to consumers, including 

 farmers, in those districts. 



The President asks why beef, sheep, 

 dairy produats, poultry products, potatoea. 

 fruit, veget^Iea, flax, and other important 

 agriculture products are not included. This 

 ia a direct Iquestion and can be directly 

 answered. Beef cattle were not included 

 because no effort was made by producers 

 of beef to ^ome under the law. just as 

 many commodities are on the free list be- 

 cause its producers have not sought tariff 

 protection. As a Nation we are deficient 

 in wool production, and the tariff therefore 

 is of practi&l help to the wool man. We 

 have no surplus of wool. The same holds 

 true of flaxJ poultry products, and butter. 

 ' Wheat is] an important cash crop over 

 most of the United States. Cotton, to- 

 bacco, swine, and corn are the most im- 

 portant caan crops in great areas. These 

 are normally surplus crops. Their atabil- 

 ixation and protection would have a steady- 

 ing, helpful] influence in the entire agri- 

 cultural stracture, particularly in substi- 

 tute crops of livestock, rye, oata and bar- 

 ley. If the President's advice ia good, and 

 if we should turn from production of the 

 staple crops to get away from low prices, 

 what wiH happen to the dairy producers 

 and other farmers now relatively well off 

 when wholesale shifts bring increased pro- 

 (Auction in competition with them T 



It costs money to change from one type 

 of farming |to another. The farmer who 

 ia presaed t^ meet his fixed charges when 

 cash crop Drices are low is more likely 

 to plant mo3e land in caah crops if he aUya 

 on the farmj than he ia to bay a herd of 

 dairy cattle :o go into competition with the 

 dairyman. The bill does not put a prem- 

 ium on one- crop farming, but it seeks to 

 reach and htlp certain basic crops that are 

 in need of aid and that lend themselves 

 to assistance through surplus control. This 



obviously is 



not the case with perishables 

 like fruit i nd vegetables, which i^ the 

 very good a iswer to the President's query 

 as to why 1 hey were not included. 



There are provisions in the hill (sec. 12) 



asked for by dairymen and fruit growers 



to them the asaiatance they 

 was adapted to their needa. 



The bill Offered aid to every class of 

 farmers in the United States who wanted 

 or needed its benefits. Let the bill itself 

 speak on this point. Tbe sum of $225,- 

 000,000 is made available as loans to 

 farmers' cocperatives to manage the sur- 

 plus of any agricultural product produced 

 in the country, whether named in the bill 

 as a basic c ommodity or not. This same 

 section of ttie McNary-Haugen bill made 

 $25,000,000 available to producers of any 

 and all agri rultural products ( 1 ) for ac- 

 QQiring wart bouses, processing plants, and 

 other facilites: (2) for capital stock of 

 I 'atiooa for extending produc- 

 es) for expense of terminal 

 market fede ration of producers' coopera- 

 tives. The8< ' benefits were made available 

 to producer: of beef cattle, aheep. dairy 

 producta, poiltry products, potatoes, hay, 

 fruit, veget^blea. oata, rye, barley, and 

 flax, which i he President mentiofis as ex- 

 cluded from benefits under the bill. 



Finally on this point, if presidential ap- 

 proval to a J arm law ia withheld until one 



credit corpo 

 tion credit : 



reaches him that benefits all farmers and 

 all commodities in identical degree, then no 

 farm bill will ever be signed. And if the 

 President is opposed to better prices for 

 wheat and com and cotton unleas some 

 magical method can be devised where bet- 

 ter pricee can be secured without some one 

 paying them, then the farmers had better 

 become reconciled to low prices, if the 

 President can keep them low. 



"That it would not beneflt the farmers, 

 because increased production and decreased 

 consumption would follow better prices." 



This is, of course, an entirely hopeless 

 view. The President says increased prices 

 are bad for the fanners and would tend 

 to ruin him through increased produc- 

 tion and decreased conaumption. This ob- 

 jection may be raised with equal justice 

 againat any increaae in price to farmera 

 no matter what causes it. but it is atrange 

 to hear it urged in the present crisis, 

 which is due to low prices. The aame 

 objection would tie against any farm legis- 

 lation effective to aid agriculture. It 

 would be even more valid againat legisla- 

 tion to use Treaaury funds without an 

 equalization fee, since in such a bill the 

 production and the responsibility of car- 

 ing for crop surpluses are divided. The 

 masaag* somewhat uncertainly indicates 

 that aome kind of farm legislation might 

 have presidential approval, but the Presi- 

 dent serves notice in this objection that he 

 is opposed to any bill the effect of which 

 would be to raise pricea for the farmers. 



The measage errs in stating that authors 

 of the measure "proposed originally to off- 

 set this tendency (to increase production) 

 by means of the equalisation fee," but 

 that "in the present bill the equalization 

 fee is to be paid by only part of the pro- 

 ducers." The original intent, and the in- 

 tent in the bill Congress passed, is to col- 

 lect the fee on each unit of a commodity 

 that moves in regular channela of com- 

 merce. The exemptiona from the fee are 

 of small interfarmer transactions and are 

 no broader in the 1927 measure than in 

 former bills. In each case the fee places 

 on the industry benefited the responsibil- 

 ity of earing for crop aurpluses, which is 

 the only sound principle of surplus con- 

 trol. 



The message says : "Experience shows 

 that the high prices in any given year 

 mean greater acreage the next year." With 

 due deference to the President, this is not 

 supported by the facta. For example: 



The Facts Are These 



The price of com on the farm dropped 

 10 cents a bushel, or 20 per cent, from 

 December, 1909, to December, 1910, yet 

 the area planted to com in 1011, the 

 spring following, increased 7,600,000 acres. 

 In tbe fall of 1913 com on the farm aver- 

 aged 69.1 cents a bushel, the highest De- 

 cember price of the Ave years 1909-1913, 

 and an increase of 20 cents over the pre- 

 ceding December price; but the acreage 

 instead of increasing fell off 2,400,000 

 acres. The highest corn acreage in history 

 was reached in 1917 with 116.730,000 

 acres. Com sold for the highest average 

 farm price known to that time, $1.27 per 

 bushel, but the next spring's acreage 

 showed the greatest decline in the history 

 of corn in this country — 12,263,000 acres. 

 That year (1918) the average farm price 

 was $1,866 per bushel, the highest of all 

 time, but again there was a spectacular 

 drop in acreage, this time 7,297,000 acres, 

 to a total acreage in 1919 below that of 

 1909, when the price of corn was only 

 about one-third as great. 



The next year (1920) the price dropped 

 to about one-half — from $1,366 to $.67 a 

 bushel. The acreage again disproved Mr. 

 Coolidge's theory by increasing over 2,- 

 000,000 acres in 1921. By 1924 the price 

 (98.2) had more than' doubled the 1921 

 price (42.8 cents), bat the acreage in 

 1925 showed a decrease of 2.000,000 acres 

 below 1921. 



Similarly with wheat, during the four 

 years 1866-1869 the wheat price dropped 

 ateadily, until in 1869 it was almost ex- 

 actly one-half the price in 1866 ($1.62 7/10 

 per bushel in 1866; $0.76 6/10 per bushel 

 in 1869). Yet the wheat acreage increased 

 from 16.424,000 acres in 1866 to 18,993,- 



000 acres in 1869. 



During the decade 1880 — 1889 the De- 

 cember 1 farm price of wheat averaged 

 83.4 centa per bushel, and the acreage dur- 

 ing the last year of the decade (1889) was 

 38,580.000 acres. Daring the following 

 decade, 1890 — 1899, the December 1 farm 

 price of wheat averaged 65.1 cents per 

 bushel, or 22 per cent lower. Following 

 Mr. Coolidge's reasoning, one would ex- 

 pect to see the acreage of wheat fall off 

 correspondingly, but the reverse was trae. 

 The wheat acreage during the last year of 

 the decade (1899) was 62,589,000, an in- 

 crease of 67 per cent over the acreage 10 

 years before. Carrying the comparison out 

 through the following decade (1900-1909) 

 it is interesting to note that the December 



1 farm price of wheat averaged 76.7 cents 

 per bushel, an increaae of 18 per cent 

 above the average price of the preceding 

 decade, but the acreage, instead',of show- 

 ing corresponding increase, decreased to 

 44,262,000 in the last year of the decade 

 (1909), a drop of 16 per cent. 



It is possible to get more accurate com- 

 parisons after 1909, owing to the fact that 

 a weighted average farm price for wheat 

 is available commencing with that year to 

 replace the December 1 price. During the 

 five years, 1910 to 1914. the average 

 weighted price of wheat dropped from 

 $1.01 in the season of 1909-10 to $0,793 

 in the season of 1913 — 14. a decline of 

 21.4 cents per bushel. But the acreage 

 went the otherway, and increased from 

 46.681,000 in 1909 to 53.641.000 acres In 

 1918. an increase of 8,860.000 meres. 



It ia true that the acreage of wheat in- 

 creased during the war while prices were 

 high, but no one has forgotten that the 

 highest possible pressure was applied by 

 every Government officer, from the Pres- 

 ident down to the humblest school-teacher, 

 to increase the acreage planted to wheat. 



Trends in cotton to which the President 

 refers as an increaae in the cotton acreage 

 of 17,000.000 acres In the last five years, 

 "under the atimulua of high prices." merit 

 more careful study than the message ac- 

 cords them. The facts disclose that this 

 addition of 17.000,000 acres to the area 

 planted in cotton was drawn from other 

 cash crops, notably corn, cattle, and swine. 

 The increased cotton acreage, therefore, 

 was due to low prices of competing crops 

 fully a^ much as to high cotton prices. If 

 cattle and com prices had been stable and 

 fair, and if the plan proposed in this bill 

 had been in operation to equalise the sup- 

 ply of cotton to demand ov^ a period of 

 years, the acreage would not have shifted 

 to cotton. 



Inconsistent Here 



The message argues, on the one hand, 

 that we have overproduction of agricul- 

 tural staples in the United States and, on 

 the other, that production can be curbed 

 only by decreased pricea. Congreaa [>aased 

 the bill in tbe belief that the farmers, 

 given effective machinery to stabilise and 

 protect their markets, would consolidate its 

 advantage and not throw it away through 

 reckleaaly increased production. The bill 

 sets up comprehensive machinery to as- 

 sist in adjustment of production to the 

 best advantage. 



The board, the land-bank district con- 

 ventions, the commodity advisory councils, 

 and cooperative associations are knit to- 

 gether in an organization to work to bring 

 about the adjustment of production to se- 

 cure maximum advantage to the producers. 

 If farmers ever can benefit from better 

 prices, they can under this act. 



There is evidence to justify this faith. 

 Labor has not thrown away its wage ad- 

 vantages under the stimulus of good pay 

 for short hours, with attractive rates for 

 overtime. The Corn Belt for two years has 

 exercised restraint upon numbers of hogs 

 produced notwithstanding increased and 

 fairly satisfactory prices aince the close 

 of 1924. The number of hogs on farms on 

 January 1, 1927, was 62,686,000 compared 

 with 62,066,000 a year before. 



The assumption that increased prices of 

 staple farm commodities mean decreased 

 conaamption is not conclusive. The price 

 of wheat since the war has been consider- 

 ably below pre-war exchange value, yet the 

 per capita consumption of wheat has fallen 

 off 26 per cent from the rate of 20 years 

 ago. The falling off of pork consumption 

 to which the message alludes is due to lack 

 of pressure of supply rather than to high 

 price. There has been no radical change in 

 retail pork prices. Of coarse, it is impos- 

 sible to raise pork prices out of line with 

 other meats and keep them there and this 

 fact, instead of being an argument against 

 the bill, is one of the elements relied on to 

 make it work, since <a) the point at which 

 consumers will turn to substitutes is the 

 economic barrier to unreasonably high 

 prices, and (b) this tendency to substitute 

 would extend the benefits of operations in 

 one commodity to the growers of com- 

 petitive substitutes in this country. 



The wheat farmer gets 16 to 18 per cent 

 of the retail price of a loaf of bread, and 

 therefore the price of bread does not fluct- 

 uate with the price of wheat. The cotton 

 farmer gets but 16 to 20 per cent of the 

 retail price of cotton cloth, and a much 

 smaller share of the retail price of articles 

 made from the cloth. A fair price to the 

 farmers would not affect the retail prices 

 enough to influence volume of conaamption 

 at all, while the increased purchasing power 

 of farmera would be a new and stimulating 

 influence in national prosperity. 



"That it involves both price fixing and 

 buying and aelling of farm commodities 

 by government." 



No Price- fixing Mentioned 



There are no price-fixing atandarda or 

 proviaiona in the hill. Purchases and sales 

 made under contract with the board would 

 involve only the excess supplies— the sur- 

 plus — leaving the remainder, the great 

 bulk of the crop, to be bought and sold 

 at any price, buyer and seller could agree 

 upon. Even for the surplus that might 

 be handled under contract with the board, 

 the bill fixes no price, nor need the board 

 fix any price in its contracts. Purchases 

 under contract could be made fairly at pre- 

 vailing market pricea. The influence on 

 price is not secured by purchaaing at an 

 artificially fixed figure, but by withholding, 

 removing, and diapoaing of aurpluaes. With 

 the surplus removed, pricea would riae 

 until checked by danger of importa, or by 

 economic factora auch aa substitution of 

 other meats in case of operation wth live* 

 atock. 



The aim of the bill is to regulate the 

 movement of these staple commodities in 

 commerce — not to fix pricea. It would In- 

 fluence prices, to be sure, but ao do the 

 tariff and many other laws. 



It is charged that the bill involves 

 government buying and selling of farm 

 commodities. Under its proviaiona the 

 Government board can not buy or sell a 

 pound. It can not as a board, own any 

 farm commodities. Purchases and sale 

 would be made by private agencies, on 

 their own account, but their operations 

 would be made possible and guided by the 

 board to the extent neceasary to secure an 

 orderly movement of the commodity dealt 

 with. 



No Guarantee Here 



"That it guarantees profits to packers, 

 millers, and cotton spinners at the ex- 

 pense of farmers; would destroy all pro- 

 cessors who failed to secure contracts with 

 the board, and diacriminatea againat pro- 

 cessors by collecting an equalization fee 

 on imported units of the raw commodity, 

 but not on imported products of that com- 

 modity." 



The report of the Senate committee an- 

 swered the first point convincingly when it 

 said: 



"The committee feels that power to con- 

 tract with processors may be necessary in 

 order to insure, for example, that as much 

 of the exports of wheat as possible may be 

 sent abroad in the form of flour, thus en- 

 couraging the employment of mill capacity 

 and mill labor in the United States and 

 retaining the feed by-products within this 

 country. Again, in order to maintain a 

 stable hog market in this country. It may 

 be necessary to enter Into contracts with 

 packers covering auch export operations 

 as result In the sale of lard abroad. 



"Nothing in the bill gives any justifica- 

 tion for the charge that tht bill, because 

 of this provision, insures that the business 

 of a packer or a miller shall be conducted 

 at a profit. On the contrary, the measure 

 specifically provides (subdivision (e) of 

 section 6) that the profits resulting from 

 any such agreements between the board 

 and the association, corporation, or person 

 handling the surplus shall accrue to the 

 stabilization fund for that commodity. The 

 board is given tbe authority to enter Into 

 sneb contracta aa are necesaary to se- 

 cure the handling of the aurplua in the 

 intereats of the producers. Th«-e is no 

 reason to assume that it would not ne- 

 gotiate terms as favorable to producers 

 aa poaaible." ^ 



If this provision of the McNary-Haugen 

 hill Is objectionable, it may be observed 

 that the Curtis-Crisp bill, which the mes- 

 sage indorses by implication, permits cor- 

 porations to use Government money to 

 make contracts which guarantee profits of 

 packers and mUlera. The safeguard is 

 that the hoard must approve such con- 

 tracts. The same safeguard and additional 

 ones are in the McNary-Haugen bill. 



Processors that had no contracts with 

 the board would be no more discriminated 

 against than are those msnufacturera and 

 contractors today who fail. In competition, 

 to secure contracts for Government sup- 

 plies and services. 



The objection that processors are dis- 

 criminated against because the equaliza- 

 tion fee is collectible on important units 

 of a raw commodity, but not on manu- 

 factured products of that commodity is 

 valid only if domestic prices rise above 

 prices outside of the United States by 

 more than the amount of the tariff. Up 

 to that point the duty on the raw material 

 and the compensatory duty on the manu- 

 factured products would protect the man- 

 ufacturer. 



"That the equalization fee is Impossible 

 of exact predetermination ; would not be 

 collected on units of a commodity that do 

 not move in commerce: its collection would 

 prove an impossible task; and the return 

 of any excess collected to the producer is 

 not provided for except in the case of 

 cotton." 



In practice the equalization fee would 

 be fixed at an amount which would, over 

 a period of years, adequately cover the 

 average coats and losses, if any, of opera- 

 tions. The fee would be adjusted from 

 time to time to conform to experience and 

 changed conditions. The bill is very care- 

 fully drawn to cover this point. If the 

 amount collected under one equalization 

 fee ia too great, the fee would he reduced 

 by order of the board for succeeding opera- 

 tions. If the amount collected is not 

 enough, the fee would be increased. 



If the fee Is collected on the unita of 

 the commodity in the stream of com- 

 merce. Its identity with the grower of 

 the commodity ia loat and Its return to 

 the producer Impoaaible, notwithatanding 

 the provialon giving the board power to 

 issue participation certificates and return 

 any excess collected in the case of cot- 

 ton. This provision for cotton was In a 

 former draft of the bill which provided 

 for collection of the cotton fee at the 

 gin, and was carried over after the change 

 in the point of collection was made. This 

 rendered the cotton participation certificate 

 paragraph inoperative, but at least it is 

 harmless and not of sufficient importance 

 to justify Executive disapproval. ; 



Fee Not a Tax 



It is objected that the fee would not 

 be collected on units of a commodity that 

 do not move in commerce. These are all 

 important cash crops. The aim Is to col- 

 lect the fee on that portion which 

 actually sells as a cash crop and to ex- 

 empt the portion that is consumed at home 

 for feed or seed, as well as the small in- 

 terfarm transactions which are apecifically 

 exempt bccauae they are not part of the 

 stream of interatate and foreign commerce, 

 as they would he if sold to an elevator or 

 mill or shipped by common carrier. The 

 fee Is not a tax on production but a fee 

 necessary to the proposed promotion of 

 orderly movement of commodities in com- 

 merce. Therefore the exemptions are not 

 objectionable, but are necessary and justi- 

 fiable. 



The message cites somebody's estimate 

 that the fee would be collected upon 16.- 

 000,000.000 units, creating the Impreaslon 

 that the very number of units makes col- 

 lection impossible. It should be noted, how- 

 ever, that the foe will be Imposed at the 



narrowest point In commercial movement 

 of a commodity, and the persons and 

 firms from whom it would be collected are 

 in fact few. The board Is «npowered to 

 collect the fee on "sale, transportation, or 

 processing." Each term is carefully de- 

 fined. The board would probably collect 

 the fee in the case of cotton from tha rail- 

 roads transporting It, which would add 

 its amount to their freight charge. Some 

 cotton would be trucked or sold direct for 

 milling or export. Fees on such cotton as 

 had not moved by rail would be collected 

 on the aale. There ia nothing impossible 

 about it. Similarly, there ia a practical 

 point on which the bulk of the fee would 

 be collected on any commodity and aup- 

 plemental points on which the fee could 

 he collected on the remainder. 



Salaried Positions Few 



That it "means an enormoua building up 

 of Government bureaucracy." 



Actual aalaned positions created by the 

 bill are few. Adequate personnel to oper. 

 ate the system on behalf of the facfn pro- 

 ducers would, of course, be required ; but 

 there is no reason to suppose the force 

 required for satisfactory operation would 

 be "enormous," as suggested by the mes- 

 sage. Regular trade agencies would per- 

 form all the market functions involved. 

 The collection of the eqoalixation fe« 

 would be narrowed down to the fewest 

 posaible points. Instead of being charit- 

 able toward the farm bill on this question, 

 the message is uncharitable. This line of 

 reaaoning has not been invoked in oppoai- 

 tion to the great and growing ayatem of 

 Government intervention on behalf of in- 

 dustrial and commercial groups. 



That the method of nominating the 

 board ia not only unconstitutional, but 

 when taken in connection with the broad 

 delegation of powers to the board consti- 

 tutes a dangerous precedent in govern- 

 ment.'* 



If the restriction on the President's 

 power to name whom he desires on the 

 farm hoard should be held invalid, that 

 need invalidate no provision ' other than 

 those for nominating the board. If the 

 bill had been permitted to become a law. 

 and the President, accepting the nomin- 

 ating committees* recommendations, ap- 

 pointed from the lists submitted to him, 

 the question would not be raised at all. 



This Assumption Unfair 



Fear is expressed that the board would 

 be free from restraints imposed by anti- 

 trust law, and because "no time limit ia 

 placed upon the contracts which the board 

 may make." It is not fair to assume in 

 advance that the farm board would be un- 

 patriotic, stupid, selfish, unethical, and 

 incompetent, yet this is what the message 

 in effect implies, not only in its objection 

 from the standpoint of - delegated powera 

 but at nearly every other point. Congress 

 is in session annually; and if ex[>erlence 

 demonstrated that the board as constituted 

 used its delegated powers unwisely it 

 would not only be easy to change the law, 

 it would be next to impossible to prevent 

 changing it. 



"That it might obligate the Government 

 beyond the $250,000,000 receiving fund." 



This not only evidences an unwarranted 

 lack of confidence in the board ; it con- 

 tradicts the provisions of the act itself. 

 Tbe board, in its operations is not em- 

 powered to make contracts obligating the 

 revolving fund, or the Treasury, for any 

 sum whatever. It is empowered to make 

 advances out of the revolving fund to 

 the stabilization fund for any commodity 

 "in anticipation of the collection of equal- 

 ization fees." If all the money in the re- 

 volving fund should be advanced to the 

 several stabilization funds the board 

 would have no power to advance 

 further. The extreme illustration with 

 cotton used in the message is not only 

 inconsistent with the provisions of the 

 bill: it assumes that the board would be 

 foolish and incompetent. While the col- 

 lection of the fee remained in doubt, or if 

 restrained by injunction from its collec- 

 tion, the board would only enter into con- 

 tracts under which risk of loss would be 

 slight. 



"That it would not aid cooperative mar- 

 keting, but would remove the reasons why 

 farmers now join cooperative associations." 



The fact that nearly every large scale 

 cooperative association in the United 

 States handling a basic commodity had a 

 hand in drafting the measure ought to be 

 aufflcient on this point. The Senate com- 

 mittee report aaid of this objection : 



"The cooperative associations represent- 

 ing producers of wheat, cotton, rice, corn, 

 and swine are asking Congress to pass the 

 committee bill — a sufficient answer to the 

 objection that the measure would affect 

 their interests adversely. The bill would 

 remove the present handicap to successful 

 operation which cooperative associations 

 arc unable to overcome — the surplus. It is 

 the only measure propoaed that makes all 

 who contribute to the production of a sur- 

 plus, not alone those in tbe cooperative 

 association, responsible for caring for the 

 surplus in the interests of orderly ma[ket- 

 Ing and a fair domestic market." 



In addition to the cooperative named as 

 asking Congres to enact the bill, the com- 

 mittee might have added the burley and 

 dark tobacco growers associations. 



A Trivial Objection 



"That the provision for expression of 

 producers' sentiment thronsli State con- 

 vcations is unworkable." jt - 





