Evening star., 1927-02-25


feeder who purchased such ground
feed would be compel ed to market s.is
cattle with the added cost NJ the
eQua liza ton fee on the corn. THIS. OF
course. would be true as TO swine:
moreover. the feeder who had been
compelled TO purchase the GROUND 1eed
would pay the fee on that. ana Wheh
he sells his swine he pays an addl'
tional fee on that transaction tie.
pays twice.
Co-author Is Quoted.
1T is provided in the law the board
shall determine in the case of any
class of transactions in the commodity
whether the equalization fee shall be
paid upon transportation. processing
or sale While this language Is not
very clear. a plan is set out by Rep'
resentatite Haugen. one of the CO.
authors of the bill, in the following
language Congressional Record, Feb
rruary 10, p. 352sJ:
For wheat on hand at the begin
ming of the operation period the board
would undoubtedly have to collect on
the processing. In the case of trans
action during the operating period the
board would pick either the sale or
the transportation
The act itself provides in section
10 tb) the board may, by regulation.
require any person engaged in the
transportation processing or acquisi-
tion by sale of a basic agricultural
commodity: % ~ to collect
an equalization fee as directed by the
board and to account therefor Thus
the common carrier if on transporta-
ton. or the professor if on processing,
or those who secure by sale, if on sale.
collect the fee which must fall on the
producer. Transportation under the
act means the acceptance of q. com
modify by common carrier for de-
livery (section Is (5). Regardless of
Just how it is collected it is the intent
that it shall fall upon the producer.
The farmer pays it when his product
moves.
Thus the Senate report. page %,
SAYS: 80,
''Fhe fees are imposed at the point
of transportation. processing, or sale
as the board may determine. Their
amount will, of course, be, reflected
in the price to the producer. =
The committee bill, however, requires
agricultural producers to meet their
own losses with their own moneys
"On page rs it adds:
Neither of the above effects Of the
fee constitutes price fixing The
producer or other person may self
for such price as he chooses. The
buyer may pay such price as he Wills.
There is no limitation upon the price
to be fixed by the contracting parties
save that the equalization fee, Just as
a brokers' fee, will be taken into
account in arriving at the price to
be paid
Levying Equalization Fee.
ut is important to bear in mind
that the equalization fee can only he
levied upon unit of the basic agri-
cultural commodity. This means the
actual commodity itself as defined in
section 6. to wit. cotton, wheat, corn,
rice, tobacco. and swine. The refer
eflce In subdivision (hl of section 6
to food products of the commodity
specifically limits the application
thereof TO sections Id, (e). and 90
of section g. which do not in any
way relate to the equalization fee. All
OF the sections dealing with the equal
iZation fee and all of the references
to it clearly limit its application to
the basic agricultural commodity itself
and they cafot lay fee upon -four or
other products of wheat. meal. or other
products OF corn, meats, or other
products of swine.
while there may be some conceiva-
BILE way of reaching an import Of any
OF these agricultural commodities as
such, there 10 no possible way of reach
ing any of the products Of these COM
modtties after they are processed. The
result would be to throw all of our
professors and millers who would have
tn hIIx "a
the equalization fee added into COM
petition with imports from Canada or
other countries who sent in any prod
uct of any of the basic agricultural
commodities. Of course. the miliers
or other professors who happen TO get
desirable contracts from the board
might be able to recOup that loss to q
certain extent, but the milling ca
pacity of the small mills and large
mills is great enough to take care of
twice the amount of milling and other
processing to be done; and the mills
which were not fortunate enough to
get such contracts would be ruined.
ut is a fundamental principle In
writing a tariff law that when a duty
is placed upon a raw product q
compensatory duty must be placed on
the manufactured or processed product
Ah tIiC law pIOuuCL lS uSGO.
Here is a fee placed upon the raw
product without an opportunity 60
place a. like fee upon the processed
product which might be imported.
Raw products, dumped abroad can
there be processed and reshipped here
TO the disaster and destruction of this
whole bill.
Must Estimate Crop.
'In fixing the smount of the equal.
cation fee the board must necessarily
estimate the crop, because 1t is their
duty to estimate the probable 'ad-
vances, losses. costs, and charges to
be paid" and to determine the amount
for each unit. OF course, they are com.
PEELED to estimate the crop in order
to estimate the number of units. One
of the coauthors of the bill suggests
that II the law had been in operation
from 1925 the equalization fee on
wheat should yield 131,750.OOO. r.
mention this to show the large sums
involved. If either the estimate of
the crop or the size of the fund need
ed should be inaccurate, so that there
is collected many millions more than
needed, there is no way to return IL
to the producer.
Suppose there should be estimated
an exportable surplus of 200, 900, 900
bushels of wheat and there Is a sur
plus of but 100 200. 900, the fund would
be almost twice as large as it should
be-. and IL the amount involved
should be anything like that stated
by Representative Haugen the board
would have fifty-f1ve or sixty millions
more than needed of the farmers
money. There is no way to return il.