answer. They must have an assurance that they have had a full and free and fair hearing. You realize that. Mr. Cовв. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you cannot have a satisfactory program of this type without it. Now, these gentlemen want to go further into that, but there is one other question I want to ask, because it is the main thing that has bothered us, in our section, and I am sure it has bothered all others. I am sure that Mr. Doxey and Mr. Fulmer and all of the other cotton people would have just as large an amount of exemption as is possible, as a practical proposition, for the small farmer. Mr. Doxey has talked to me about it, and so have Mr. Fulmer and Mr. Owen and Mr. Kleberg, all these cotton people that are on the committee, and Judge Tarver, and a great many of the other cotton people have. I understand the President's statement and indication, the promise on which the vote was taken, to compel these gentlemen to reduce their exemption to the 2 bales, to comply with that "victory vote" , you might say, by the farmers. Here is what I am interested in. We put in section 8, the exemption proposition, that the 10 percent should be reserved for four purposes (a) To producers of cotton on farms where for the preceding 3 years less than one-third of the cultivated land on such farms has been planted to cotton. Of course, that was taken into consideration. I do not know how much was given to that, and how much to the other features of those four enumerations, but I would like to ask you, if we are going to have a program of this kind, where a man plants less than one-third of his tilled ground in cotton, why should he not have a complete exemption from the Bankhead Act on that? Mr. CоBB. Mr. Jones, the answer to that involves just so much beyond the experience that we have had that I do not believe we have the answer. My feeling is this: That we are going to be able to answer practically all of the problems set out in the 15 or 20 bills that have been presented to us, as practically as it is possible to do it, without any amendment at all to the present Bankhead Act; and what we would like to do would be to have some of this year's experience back of us before we approach the recasting of this measure, which, in my judgment, is going to be necessary, and which I believe is the only practical solution. That is the way I feel about that. I just do not believe we have enough information to indicate at all at the present time what the result would be if we attempted to follow the suggestion you make. I am not unsympathetic with it. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. Mr. COBB. I am not unsympathetic with any of these questions. The CHAIRMAN. That question was up, and it is very, very vital, I think, everywhere. You know there has been an effort for years to introduce rotation. Mr. COBB. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. To handle this question by a voluntary planting of other crops, and many farmers have tried to do that, and have reduced their acreage voluntarily, even before this program was commenced. It seems to me that if you exempted entirely from the operations of the Bankhead Act any man who planted less than one 118908-35-SER D--2 third of the acres actually tilled that would be a fair method, if you are going to have a Bankhead bill at all. At least, that man should be favored to that extent, if you are going to go into the realm of exemptions at all. Mr. COBB. I think not only that, but there are a number of other vitally important considerations that ought to be taken into account when we go into the matter of making or laying out a system of exemptions in the years ahead. I think we have got to do that. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Jones, in that connection, suppose a person is planting a large part of his land in tobacco acreage. Suppose he has 150 acres, and he plants less than a third of it in cotton, and the balance of it in tobacco. Do you think he should not be affected by the Bankhead bill? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he should be permitted to increase his acreage over a base period, but I do not think, if the man has been reduced, that he should be forbidden to sell his cotton, or taxed with the sale of his cotton, where he has been reducing right along, where he has planted less than 25 percent or 35 percent, or whatever would be a fair percentage. I think if you are going to go into the realm of exemptions, that is as fair a place of exemption as you can get. Mr. COOLEY. That would be entirely true, in your State, where you do not plant, but in North Carolina and South Carolina, where they plant large crops, it would apply. The CHAIRMAN. I think that should be safeguarded by provisions that could not be taken advantage of. Of course, it would have to have certain safeguards. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marshall. Mr. MARSHALL. This does not affect me directly, but for my information I would like to know this: How do these two acts, the voluntary control and the Bankhead bill, operate together? In other words, suppose a farmer does comply with the voluntary program under the A. A. A., and he is allotted a certain acreage. If the weather is good, and he raises more than he expected to on that acreage, is the Bankhead bill then applied to him? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MARSHALL. Preventing him from selling the cotton that he has raised under the voluntary program? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MARSHALL. Do the two bills dovetail and work together like that? The CHAIRMAN. All in excess, as I understand it, above what his allotment is under the Bankhead bill. Mr. MARSHALL. It seems to me if the Bankhead bill is going to be used at all, the other program might well be wiped out, and forget we had ever had it. The CHAIRMAN. The Bankhead bill was favored largely at least, this committee's end of it-as a deck-clearing proposition, and not with the intention that it should be permanent. That is at least the thought I had in mind. Now, we are going into the question of the exemption bales, and Mr. Kleberg would like to ask a question. Mr. KLEBERG. I want to ask this question of Mr. Cobb before we get off the subject. I refer to the exemption board, the allotment board, and the appeal board question: It seems to me that there will inevitably be considerable argument raised over an appeal taken to the State allotment board and the appeal board, in the first instance, being called upon to set up the allotment, and then you go back to court, and we have it as the court of final appeal on the question of allotment. I am just wondering whether there is not some way to work out of this dilemma. Take a State such as Texas, where we have such tremendous mileages, scattered all over the surface of the earth, do you have the power, if wise, to divide the State into cotton districts with appeal boards located at particular places to make decisions, other than the allotment board, as a State board of appeals. I am wondering whether or not that would not be advisable. I would like to have that phase discussed. Mr. COBB. I will ask Mr. Gaston to answer that question. Mr. KLEBERG. Just a moment, so you get my position clear, Mr. Gaston. Largely on questions involving dissatisfaction by producers with allotments which are made originally through county committees, but at the behest of State boards, the producers would feel that they were going back to be tried in the court where they had been in jeopardy originally. The question inevitably will arise as to whether or not politics or something else, "favoritism if you please, might not affect the judgment of the appeal board in attempting to substantiate their own set-up. Mr. GASTON. Mr. Kleberg, I would like to point out first that the duties of the allotment board as such are entirely mechanical. They do not make judgments or decisions excepting on appeals. Theirs is mechanical in merely computing, on the basis that they have been submitted, on the application of the producer, the allotment out of the county allotment that is due to them, on the basis of those figures. Mr. KLEBERG. I grant you that. Let me interrupt right there, because it will fit in best. Say the argument is on the proposition that an error in computation has been made by the allotment board. Mr. GASTON. If that error in computation has been made by the allotment board, they should correct it immediately. Mr. KLEBERG. But say they had the case on appeal. Mr. GASTON. A case on appeal from an error in computation? Mr. KLEBERG. Yes. That would be their own original finding, in the first place, and they would be called upon to go into reverse gear. Mr. GASTON. If they have made an error in computation, mathematically, in multiplication and division, they should correct that immediately, and if they do not they should be fired. Mr. COBB. They did correct them last year, Mr. Kleberg. Mr. COBB. We had innumerable instances of that character to occur last year, and they were immediately corrected. Mr. KLEBERG. We had some in my district, and due to the absence of an appeal board they remained in the original state. Nothing apparently effective could be done to satisfy the one or two excep third of the acres actually tilled that would be a fair method, if you are going to have a Bankhead bill at all. At least, that man should be favored to that extent, if you are going to go into the realm of exemptions at all. Mr. COBB. I think not only that, but there are a number of other vitally important considerations that ought to be taken into account when we go into the matter of making or laying out a system of exemptions in the years ahead. I think we have got to do that. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Jones, in that connection, suppose a person is planting a large part of his land in tobacco acreage. Suppose he has 150 acres, and he plants less than a third of it in cotton, and the balance of it in tobacco. Do you think he should not be affected by the Bankhead bill? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he should be permitted to increase his acreage over a base period, but I do not think, if the man has been reduced, that he should be forbidden to sell his cotton, or taxed with the sale of his cotton, where he has been reducing right along, where he has planted less than 25 percent or 35 percent, or whatever would be a fair percentage. I think if you are going to go into the realm of exemptions, that is as fair a place of exemption as you can get. Mr. COOLEY. That would be entirely true, in your State, where you do not plant, but in North Carolina and South Carolina, where they plant large crops, it would apply. The CHAIRMAN. I think that should be safeguarded by provisions that could not be taken advantage of. Of course, it would have to have certain safeguards. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marshall. Mr. MARSHALL. This does not affect me directly, but for my information I would like to know this: How do these two acts, the voluntary control and the Bankhead bill, operate together? In other words, suppose a farmer does comply with the voluntary program under the A. A. A., and he is allotted a certain acreage. If the weather is good, and he raises more than he expected to on that acreage, is the Bankhead bill then applied to him? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MARSHALL. Preventing him from selling the cotton that he has raised under the voluntary program? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MARSHALL. Do the two bills dovetail and work together like that? The CHAIRMAN. All in excess, as I understand it, above what his allotment is under the Bankhead bill. Mr. MARSHALL. It seems to me if the Bankhead bill is going to be used at all, the other program might well be wiped out, and forget we had ever had it. The CHAIRMAN. The Bankhead bill was favored largely-at least, this committee's end of it-as a deck-clearing proposition, and not with the intention that it should be permanent. That is at least the thought I had in mind. Now, we are going into the question of the exemption bales, and Mr. Kleberg would like to ask a question. Mr. KLEBERG. I want to ask this question of Mr. Cobb before we get off the subject. I refer to the exemption board, the allotment board, and the appeal board question: It seems to me that there will inevitably be considerable argument raised over an appeal taken to the State allotment board and the appeal board, in the first instance, being called upon to set up the allotment, and then you go back to court, and we have it as the court of final appeal on the question of allotment. I am just wondering whether there is not some way to work out of this dilemma. Take a State such as Texas, where we have such tremendous mileages, scattered all over the surface of the earth, do you have the power, if wise, to divide the State into cotton districts with appeal boards located at particular places to make decisions, other than the allotment board, as a State board of appeals. I am wondering whether or not that would not be advisable. I would like to have that phase discussed. Mr. COBB. I will ask Mr. Gaston to answer that question. Mr. KLEBERG. Just a moment, so you get my position clear, Mr. Gaston. Largely on questions involving dissatisfaction by producers with allotments which are made originally through county committees, but at the behest of State boards, the producers would feel that they were going back to be tried in the court where they had been in jeopardy originally. The question inevitably will arise as to whether or not politics or something else, "favoritism", if you please, might not affect the judgment of the appeal board in attempting to substantiate their own set-up. T Mr. GASTON. Mr. Kleberg, I would like to point out first that the duties of the allotment board as such are entirely mechanical. They do not make judgments or decisions excepting on appeals. Theirs is mechanical in merely computing, on the basis that they have been submitted, on the application of the producer, the allotment out of the county allotment that is due to them, on the basis of those figures. Mr. KLEBERG. I grant you that. Let me interrupt right there, because it will fit in best. Say the argument is on the proposition that an error in computation has been made by the allotment board. Mr. GASTON. If that error in computation has been made by the allotment board, they should correct it immediately. Mr. KLEBERG. But say they had the case on appeal. Mr. GASTON. A case on appeal from an error in computation? Mr. KLEBERG. Yes. That would be their own original finding, in the first place, and they would be called upon to go into reverse gear. Mr. GASTON. If they have made an error in computation, mathematically, in multiplication and division, they should correct that immediately, and if they do not they should be fired. Mr. Cовв. They did correct them last year, Mr. Kleberg. Mr. COBB. We had innumerable instances of that character to occur last year, and they were immediately corrected. Mr. KLEBERG. We had some in my district, and due to the absence of an appeal board they remained in the original state. Nothing apparently effective could be done to satisfy the one or two excep |