694 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Hughes. Stating my personal opinion — of course, this was 

 not discussed at the Omaha meeting — I would say probably he should 

 not have that authority. 



Mr. Pace. He should not be able to play any favorites? 



Mr. Hughes. That is right. 



Mr. Pace. He should treat every producer exactly the same, like 

 Mr. Woolley stated this morning they were trying to do to the dif- 

 ferent elements that went in the acreage allotment. 



Mr. Hughes. T think that is right. 



Mr. Hope. Right there, I just want to make this observation: 

 While I think one producer is entitled to the same consideration in 

 the program as another, if they are in the same program, no matter 

 whether they produce cotton, wheat, or what they produce, at the 

 same time I would not want to subscribe to the idea that we have to 

 have absolute uniformity in program as to the various commodities, 

 because certainly you have different situations that might make 

 one program work in one commodity and not in another. 



For instance, there is no doubt in my mind but what the program 

 submitted yesterday by the wheat growers in the Northwest has a 

 great deal of merit as applied to wheat, but you could not apply a 

 program of that kind to corn, perhaps, or to many other commodities. 



I am agreeing with Mr. Goss of the Grange when he says he thinks 

 one mistake we made in working out farm programs is that we tried 

 to make the same formula apply to everything. I think in the interest 

 of getting a program as it affects the various commodities we should 

 consider the fact that commodities are diff'erently situated in their 

 production and distribution and we should vary the programs and 

 confine one program to one commodity and another program to 

 another. 



Mr. Pace. I agree with you, there are some peculiarities, but let 

 us stick to that one point. Do you think the producers of one com- 

 modity should get support, when acreage allotments and the same 

 privilege is not accorded to producers of other commodities, or that 

 both must go under quotas? 



Mr. Hope. I would say, if we have the identical program, yes; if 

 you have an identical program and the commodities are such that 

 they are marketed in the same way and under the same system of 

 distribution, m}^ general answer would be yes. There might be some 

 exceptions, but I will agree with you on the general principle. 



Mr. Pace. Let us be specific. Take wheat and cotton. They are 

 enough similar in their marketing sj^stems that they could both be 

 treated alike. 



Mr. Hope. Perhaps they are alike in the fact that they are both 

 cash crops in the main and both have a domestic and export market 

 and there are varied uses for them. They are quite similar in that 

 respect. But there is one difference, I think; that is that wheat is a 

 commodity that competes with certain other commodities, with all 

 grains, as a feed grain, and has a relationship to those other grains 

 that cotton does not have with very many other commodities. It 

 has them perhaps with wool and nonagricultural commodities like 

 rayon. 



Mr. Pace. I was hoping you would not say cotton does not have 

 some competition. 



