Mr. WALSH of Montana. substitutes an entirely new bill? Mr. JONES. In one sense it is an entirely new bill. It embodies all the provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate, and some additional provisions.

It strikes out everything, and

Mr. WALSH of Montana. So that really the Senate has never had an opportunity, except as the opportunity is now accorded it, to discuss the subject of this subvention for carrying the mail?

Mr. JONES. Except as it might have done so before the bill was sent to conference.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, what is the motion?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is to recommit the conference report with certain instructions.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and Mr. ASHURST responded in the negative.

Mr. SIMMONS. I understand it is not only a motion to recommit, but it is a motion to recommit with instructions. I want to know what the instructions are.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator from Wisconsin restate the instructions?

Mr. BLAINE. The instructions are to strike out from the conference report those provisions relating to the increased subventions for carrying the mail, and also the provision relating to increasing the loan fund and the appropriation authorized-to strike out the subsidy and the additional loan feature.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. If the motion to recommit with the instructions referred should prevail, would it probably result in the prevention of the passage of the proposed legislation during the session?

Mr. BLAINE. My judgment is that it would not.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I ask the question because I have heard a number of Senators express the opinion that it would defeat the proposed legislation.

Mr. BLAINE. I think not. I think there would be no obstruction.

Mr. HOWELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the roll call is in progress and that debate is out of order, the Senator from Arizona having responded to his name. The VICE PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken, and the clerk will proceed with the roll call.

The legislative clerk resumed the calling of the roll. Mr. BAYARD (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED]. In his absence, I withhold my vote.

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. BRATTON. I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON]. I understand that if he were present he would vote as I intend to vote, and therefore I shall vote. I vote "nay."

Mr. KENDRICK (after having voted in the negative). I have a general pair with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM], who is absent. I am informed that if present he would vote as I have voted, and therefore I allow my vote to stand.

Mr. WHEELER. I have a general pair with the Senator from Idaho [Mr. GOODING], who is absent. Not knowing how he would vote if present, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I would vote "yea."

Mr. WATSON (after having voted in the negative). I have a pair with the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH], who is absent. I am unable to secure a transfer, and therefore I withdraw my vote.

Mr. WALSH of Montana (after having voted in the affirma- | tive). I have a pair with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. DALE], which I transfer to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. HARRISON], and allow my vote to stand.

Mr. JONES. I desire to announce the following general pairs:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. DU PONT] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. TRAMMELL]; and

So the Senate refused to recommit the conference report with instructions.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, some 10 years or more ago the Government invested about $3,000,000,000 in a commercial shipping enterprise, under the control of the United States Shipping Board. It is reported that the assets of this board now do not exceed some $250,000,000. A greater portion of all this vast sum has vanished, a loss to the people of the country, and in my opinion a loss largely due to the policies adopted by the Shipping Board and the administration. Whereas we have been endeavoring to conduct a commercial business, we have flouted the primary principles of business in doing so. As soon as a shipping line became profitable it was sold. Lines that were unprofitable were operated. Whenever bids were made for lines that had been established, they were sold at ridiculously low prices.

I have in mind one particular case. The Government established and was operating a line from New York to Mediterranean ports. If I remember aright, it included in the neighborhood of 18 vessels. Undoubtedly those vessels at the time they were sold could not have been replaced for $50 a dead-weight ton. They were sold for $7.50 a dead-weight ton, one-fourth down and the balance payable in 10 annual installments. What did that mean? It meant the Government received, from a corporation with little net assets, a contract to purchase the vessels at $7.50 a dead-weight ton, whose reproduction value could not have been less than $50 a dead-weight ton. That Senators may understand that I am not exaggerating: In July, 1924, the most ordinary specification freighter could not be purchased in British markets for less than about $38 a dead-weight ton. The ships in question were not ordinary specification freighters. Yet they sold them for $7.50 a ton-$1.87 down, the balance payable at the rate of 56 cents per ton per year. Yet the annual depreciation on these vessels was nearly $2 per annum per dead-weight ton.

It is such policies that largely have frittered away the $3,000,000,000 of the American people invested in our commercial shipping enterprise. I believe this is one of the most depressing episodes in the history of governmental business. It is asserted that the Government can not successfully conduct business. It can, in my opinion, if it is conducted for blood. But how has this business been conducted? A former head of the Shipping Board, when asked whether the reason the Shipping Board is losing money was not due to the fact that it is trying to run a commercial business without hurting its competitors, stated, "It is far worse than that. It is attempting to run a commercial business aiding its competitors." That statement typifies in a few words the policy that has guided the Shipping Board.

The chairman of the Commerce Committee came before the Senate with a report from his committee and stated in effect that he was satisfied the only way American shipping could be maintained on the seas was for the United States to continue in the business, but upon different terms. One of the principal changes he proposed was that the Shipping Board could not sell ships for a song unless a large proportion of the Shipping

Board approved of the sale. The Senate finally amended the bill so that sacrifice of shipping could not be repeated without a unanimous vote of the Shipping Board. There are seven members, and it was provided in the Senate bill that if a vessel were sold there would have to be seven votes in favor of the transaction. The bill was opposed by the shipping interests. It went to the House and has been amended, and comes back to us now with a provision that ships can be sold upon a vote of five members.

Why did we make that provision? Do Senators realize that the Senate bill and the bill as it comes here now authorized an unlimited appropriation for the building of new vessels? It was felt. when the provision was made, that something should be done to prevent the new ships being sold, almost immediately, for a song. The anchor to leeward was the unanimous vote of the Shipping Board. That provision respecting appropriations is still in the bill, but the bill comes back with a provision that five members of the Shipping Board can sell the new vessels at any time. yes; within six months or less after completion, for one-half or one-quarter of what they cost.

The bill also provides for the reconditioning of vessels. The history of the Shipping Board shows that it has reconditioned vessels at great expense and then sold them for half, or less than half, the cost of repairs. Why? The policy of the Shipping Board seems to have been to give to the shipping interests of the country a subsidy notwithstanding Congress had refused it. How? By selling them ships at bargain prices. In my opinion it is little less than robbery of the American public that has been indulged in.

Mr. President, the bill also provides for the loaning of $250,000.000 or more to shipping interests-upon what terms? Upon terms that no private interest would consider for a moment; upon terms that the United States Government will not grant to farmers. When the Federal Farm Loan Board was created and a Government loan was placed in its hands, initially, for the establishment of land banks, it was provided that if any farmer borrowed money he must join an association, and that every member of that association had to guarantee every loan made; furthermore, that there should be 12 banks in the country, and that each of the 12 banks should reciprocally guarantee the loans of every other bank.

Now it is proposed to place in the hands of the Shipping Board, to be loaned to the private shipping interests of the country, more than $250,000.000, to be loaned how? Are shipping corporations to be called upon to form associations and guarantee each other's loans? Oh, no; they would not want it that way. Why? Because corporations with little capital will be formed for each contract. They will proceed to borrow from the Government and if an enterprise succeeds the Government will be repaid, but if an enterprise fails the Government, of course, will hold the sack. They are to be able to borrow threequarters of the cost of new vessels or the cost of reconditioning of an old vessel. If we think best to loan money to the shipping interests, we should compel them to form associations just as borrowing farmers are required to form associations.

Not only that, but it is proposed to let them have money at rates that only the best security can command, and that is United States Government obligations, tax free.

The bill pro

vides that these relatively large sums of money can be loaned to shipping interests at the rate, in effect at the time of application, upon any Government obligation outstanding, issued subsequent to 1917.

Prior to 1917 we issued Government securities at rates as low as 2 per cent. Seldom has the country been so prosperous as it is to-day. Seldom has money been so plentiful as to-day, and hence we can expect that possibly Government securities may be issued at rates as low as 2 per cent, and then the shipping companies will get Government money at 2 per cent.

But how about the farmer? A farmer must have the guarantee of all his neighbors. He has to pay not less than 5 per cent at the present time for his money. What is the Government paying to-day? Upon about $12,000,000,000 of Liberty bonds it is paying 44 per cent, and yet we propose to let shipping institutions, without adequate security, without guarantee ing each other's loans, have Government money for from 3 to 3% per cent and possibly down as low as 2 or 21⁄2 per cent. Is there any wonder that our agricultural interests feel that they are continually discriminated against, that industry and every other line of endeavor is to have protection, is to have consideration, but not the farmer?

Mr. President, this conference report should not be adopted. I presume I am speaking to no purpose, but nevertheless I can not but say we are forgetting, in connection with a great business the Government is carrying on, the primordial principles

that govern private business, and that render such business successful. It may be that those who advocate these provisions and that the Government should get out of business, believe that thereby they will ultimately get the Government out of the shipping business; however, in so doing they will be putting the Government into the loaning business, and putting it in the loaning business upon about the same indefensible, losing basis whereon our shipping business has been conducted. They will be putting the Government into the loaning business upon such a basis that the Government will not, can not, get its money back.

Then, what more will we be doing? We will provide a bounty also to the very interests that will borrow this money, practically without security. True, in so doing we will be giving them but the same privilege which the manufacturing interests of the country are enjoying through the tariff.

Senators will recall that Hamilton held that a tariff and a bounty were practically the same thing, and that he thought a bounty the more desirable of the two. So we are proposing to do for the shipping interests exactly what we are doing for our manufacturing interests. We propose to give them a bounty, a subsidy, a subvention, in addition to these huge loans and low interest rates. However, when we have contemplated giving the farmers of the country a bounty, we have been assured by the administration that it is opposed not only to an equalization fee but also to a bounty. In short, we are adopting a policy for shipping that we are assured can not be adoptednor anything comparable therewith-for the farmer, and we are doing it right out offhand.

Yes; we are providing for a subvention in the way of mail contracts for the very interests to which we are to loan our money that will cost the Government as estimated from seven to ten million dollars annually, but there is no limit to what it may be.

The proponents of this legislation will tell us about similar subventions which are granted by Great Britain in connection with its shipping; but, Mr. President, the total of these do not exceed $4,000,000 a year, as I understand. It is urged that we shall get this money back in the form of additional business for the post office, but, in my opinion, this suggestion is but cheerful optimism.

What we will also be doing, Mr. President, is to create another great interest to influence Congress that will be here on the ground constantly. We shall be taking a backward step. Under no circumstances, in my opinion, ought this conference report be adopted in its present form. The Senate should insist upon the safeguards it threw around the measure when it went to the House, and accept nothing less.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ODDIE in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the time has come when the Government should cease contributing out of the public funds to the transportation companies engaged in the shipping business. I have taken the trouble and the time to ascertain how much money Congress has appropriated for shipping projects. As I understand, the maximum shipping program, as of October, 1918, provided for 3,148 ships, of 17,493,286 tons. In 1918, after the armistice was signed, orders for the building of 963 ships, of 4,808,365 tons, were canceled. That left 2,185 ships, of 12,684,921 tons.

I understand that the active fleet under the control of the Shipping Board as of 1924 was made up of vessels aggregating 2,712,877 tons, and that there was under the control of the Shipping Board at the same time an inactive fleet of over 6,000.000 tons.

Under the jurisdiction of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, whose functions were later taken over by the Shipping Board, 2,185 ships, of 12.684,921 tons, were actually constructed, while to-day the Shipping Board has an active fleet of only 2,712,877 tons. The ships represented by the difference between the two figures have gone somewhere. The tonnage has been lost to ocean transportation. Herein lies another subvention, another subsidy that has been granted to private shipping interests.

Professor Van Dorn, of Columbia University, in discussing the Emergency Fleet Corporation, states that on July 1, 1924, the total fleet still under the control of the corporation consisted of 1,294 vessels, aggregating 8,907,326 deadweight tons. That information is taken from the Eighth Annual Report of the United States Shipping Board of June 20, 1924, and the quotation will be found on page 94.

He further says:

Deducting from this the active fleet of 2,712,877 tons, we have left a total inactive fleet of approximately 6,000,000 tons. In other words, seven years after the war two-thirds of our Government fleet is still Inactive.

I do not believe that this conference report is defensible, and I am not surprised that scarcely a voice is raised in defense of it. I am not surprised that Members of this body who will support the report remain silent. The apology for it is that shipping in American bottoms has been driven from the seas. I can not agree with that statement, and if it were true, I could not bring myself to the conclusion that the American people are to be taxed for the benefit of private industry or private transportation in order to induce them to engage in foreign commerce. If that is the theory of government, if the policy indicated by this bill is to prevail, why not buy farms for the million or two million farmers who were driven from the money at 3 per cent interest for the purchase of farms and equipment of the farms, and then offer them a gratuity, a subvention, a subsidy, that would absorb the other 25 per cent, assuming that the loan is made on the basis of three-fourths of the value of the property purchased? That is what this bill does for the private shipping interests.

Five of these splendid American ships, built by the American Government out of funds taken from the pockets of the taxpayers of America, were purchased by R. Stanley Dollar at a price of only $1,125,000 apiece. The Dollar Line paid but onethird in cash, and the balance of the purchase price is owing by the Dollar Line at a rate of interest of only 4 per cent, and the Dollar Line agrees to operate those ships for a period of only five years. Members of the Shipping Board have testified that those five splendid ships sold to the Dollar Line would cost about $25,000,000 if they were reproduced new. In other words, these five ships were sold at $1,125,000 apiece when their original construction cost would be over $25,000,000.

Professor Van Dorn, of Columbia University, quoting a part of the testimony given by Commissioner Thompson, said:

The price paid was only one-fourth of, or $15,000,000 less than, the amount it would cost to build the vessels at this time

Referring to the time when he was making his statementand one-sixth of, or $25,000,000 less than, the original cost of the vessels.

He further stated:

The San Francisco-Orient Line is showing no money loss in operation, therefore not necessitating any sale at this time at sacrifice value to stop any losses requiring moneys from the Treasury of the United States.

Professor Van Dorn, in analyzing the sale of these ships and the consequences that arose because of that sale, says:

A further argument made against the sale of these ships to the Dollar interests was that it created a monopoly of American passenger lines in the Pacific. The Dollar Steamship Co. is already the owner of seven of the President type of vessel, purchased from the Shipping Board in 1923. With these it operates a round-the-world service from San Francisco, part of the route parelleling the Pacific Mail Line. In addition, the Dollar Steamship Co. is the managing operator of the Admiral Oriental Line, whose ships ply from Seattle to the Far East. The acquisition of the Pacific Mail ships thus gives it complete control of all American passenger lines to the Orient.

Those are statements of facts; and the American people have been called upon to pay and have paid by way of a gratuity, a gift, a subsidy in favor of the Dollar Line, at least $15,000,000. Professor Van Dorn, in discussing the policy involved and the price America paid, says:

The factors which have produced this situation are twofold: First of all, the enormous building program undertaken during the war created a world surplus of shipping, even after deducting the huge war losses. World commerce was unable to absorb the excess tonnage.

There is no doubt but there were quantities of ships sufficient to take care of the foreign commerce of America; and in discussing the sale of the American ships to the Dollar Corporation Mr. Van Dorn makes these conclusions:

Whatever advantages and economies may be achieved by giving to one company a monopoly of the Pacific passenger trade, this much seems clear, that for these benefits the Shipping Board paid an extremely high price.

The result was not only that the American taxpayer gave to the Stanley-Dollar Line $15,000,000 in value but as well that transaction resulted in the creation of a monopoly-a monopoly controlled by one single organization of the shipping interests in the ocean transportation of the Pacific. This conference report, if adopted, is going to result in additional payments to the Dollar Line, which has already profited to the extent of $15,000,000 at the expense of the American people.

If it is right, if it is the function of government, to make these contributions to private transportation agencies, then it is the duty of government to make a similar contribution to everyone who may be driven from his business because of trade depression or an economic necessity. The same reason prevails for the giving of gratuities to the smaller manufacturers, a large percentage of whom have failed in the last few years; for giving gratuities to the grocers, who are constantly being driven out of business by the chain store; for giving a gratuity to the 4,000,000 unemployed in this country-unemployed because the machines and the improvements of the machines have displaced them in industry.

If this policy is to be pursued, then, Mr. President, we owe to everyone, when he is driven from his occupation, a gratuity which will mean a sufficient income for his prosperity, whether he is engaged in farming, in merchandising, manufacturing, in labor, or in professional services. That is the policy proposed by this conference report.

seas.

I do not understand that American shipping in American bottoms, in vessels of American registry, has been driven from the An examination of the facts does not justify such a statement. These transportation agencies have been more successful, on the whole, than have been the agricultural workers of America--the farmers of America. Shipping companies have been as successful, on the whole, as has been industry. There is no demand from the country for a subsidy and a subvention for the shipping interests. I find that in the years 1921 to 1926 there has been a considerable amount of inbound and outbound foreign cargo tonnage. I have here the report of the American merchant marine, volume 2, an independent report made by Mr. Lawrie, economist of the Bureau of Operations, United States Shipping Board. I find from an analysis of that report-and I shall quote from the report-that American bottoms are carrying a considerable portion of American commerce. Of course, there is no one who will contend that all the commerce from all the foreign countries, the inbound commerce, must be carried in American vessels flying the American flag. If that is the contention, then the British Government can make the same contention, that all inbound foreign tonnage destined for Great Britain should be carried in British ships, and the Italian Government, with as good reason, would contend that all inbound foreign commerce to all the Italian ports should be carried in Italian bottoms, vessels flying the Italian flag. What Great Britain and Italy, therefore, would demand if that were to determine the natural flow of commerce or rather the arbitrary flow of commerce-every other nation would demandFrance, Germany, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, Spain, Portugal, all of the maritime countries, European, Asiatic and South American.

That is not the basis upon which to calculate the amount of tonnage that rightfully belongs to the vessels of the respective nations. America can not expect to monopolize the commerce of the seas, and for one I hope she does not monopolize the commerce of the seas, for the very moment that time would come then, sir, the nations of the world would join together against America in a defensive, commercial compact and that would mean war. I believe that American vessels are entitled to their reasonable share of the commerce upon the seas.

The very suggestion that there should be a subsidy, the very suggestion that there should be a subvention or gratuity to American ships, is an acknowledgment of their incompetency to meet the commerce competition of the world.

Here in America ships can be built more rapidly than in any other nation. American ingenuity, American invention, American skilled labor in the building of modern ships capable of carrying the maximum tonnage to-day can produce finished vessels with a rapidity undreamed of by any foreign nation.

I do not believe that American industry and American transportation interests are incompetent, but when they ask for this subsidy, this subvention, this gratuity, they are demanding that to which they have no right.

This development in America of the shipyards industry is of only recent origin. Professor Van Dorn briefly discusses the problem. The Federal department having in charge investigations with respect to safety in occupations and safety in engineering has gone into the question and gives some of the factors that make American industry efficient. The question of industrial accidents is one of the factors that enters into the problem. The mere matter of enhanced wages to American mechanics is not a factor, because the machine has made it possible to displace human labor, and therefore the labor element instead of increasing in the aggregate cost decreases in the aggregate cost-true, increasing as to the individual employee but decreasing in the aggregate cost of industry on account of labor. In other words, the labor factor in industry is becoming less and less as human labor is being displaced by the machine.

The record month was September, 1919, during which 145 ships, of 788,053 tons, were delivered. Thus in one month we completed more than twice the tonnage produced in this country during the whole of 1916.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me in order that I may make a request for unanimous consent? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Kansas? Mr. BLAINE. I yield.

ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORTS Mr. CURTIS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of the conference report on the so-called McNary-Haugen bill and vote on it without further debate, and that, at the conclusion of the vote on that measure, the Senate vote, without further debate, on The PRESIDING OFFICER.

to build ships that compete with foreign industry.

The Federal department found certain defects. They were known, it is true, but they were catalogued by the department. They found that certain injuries were most frequent, such as eye injuries caused by flying particles of steel, and that placed a tremendous burden upon industry. A constant danger arising from riveting, reaming, clipping, caulking, and drilling was a factor. I give these two only for illustration. Industry has found a way by which substantially all of these casualties may be avoided-simple ways, inexpensive ways-such as the protection of the eye by the wearing of goggles, the protection of flywheels and emery wheels, by simple and inexpensive devices tremendously reducing cost. They also found that the physical welfare of the worker affects his productivity. Not only the physical welfare, but as well the mental attitude of the worker affects his productivity. Means were sought to avoid these accidents. In investigating the question of workmen's compensation in order to draft a bill suitable for the employees of the District of Columbia, I found that industry, due to the installation of safety and protective devices, had to a large extent reduced the cost of their operations by the prevention of

accidents.

We have in the past few years developed a tremendous efficiency. It is this efficiency of American workers and American industries that enables it to meet foreign competition. In this spirit of rivalry that was developed, the mechanic and the machinist became interested in their own development; and there at once entered into their work the very human element of competition, human contest, just as there enters into a game of football or baseball the desire to win, to excel, to be swifter than some one else. This is what happened. Professor Van Dorn uses this as an illustration:

Word was sent out

This was in the shipping yards, it was not in industry generally, but the illustration is taken from the shipping yardsWord was sent out that a man in Baltimore had driven 685 rivets in a day.

An unknown and almost unbelievable number.

A few days later a man in the same yard drove 1,414 rivets in eight hours. The first man then came back with a record of 2,720 rivets in nine hours. This was soon surpassed by a New Jersey worker who drove 2,919 rivets in eight hours.

The Englishmen heard about this and they entered the contest

Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the agreement is entered into.

FARM RELIEF CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I do not know the parliamentary status. I presume that I yielded for the Senator from Kansas to make a request for unanimous consent. I understand that the agreement proposed by the Senator from Kansas has been entered into.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The agreement has been entered into.

Mr. BLAINE. Then, I yield the floor.

Mr. McNARY. I submit the conference report on the socalled McNary-Haugen bill, being Senate bill 3555, and ask unanimous consent for its present consideration.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the consideration of the conference report is in order. The report will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3555) to establish a Federal farm board to aid in the orderly marketing and in the control and disposition of the surplus of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment insert the following:

"DECLARATION OF POLICY

"SECTION 1. In order to stabilize the current of interstate and foreign commerce in the marketing of agricultural commodities and prevent suppression of commerce with foreign nations in such commodities and unjust discrimination against such foreign commerce, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to promote the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, and to that end, through the execution of the provisions of this act, to provide for the control and disposition of surpluses of such

Then prizes were offered.

The prize was won by a negro in a Baltimore yard, but his record was broken the following day by a worker in Oakland, Calif., who drove 5,620 rivets in nine hours.

That merely illustrates how America excels.

Before the war

Doctor Van Dorn says

it required from nine months to a year and a half to build a modern steel vessel of from 3,500 to 9,000 tons. During the war the same vessels were built in from one to four months. In one yard the average time from keel laying to delivery was less than 70 days. One steel ship,

such commodities, to prevent such surpluses from unduly depressing the prices obtained for such commodities and from causing undue and excessive fluctuations in the markets for such commodities, to minimize speculation and waste in marketing such commodities, and to further the organization of producers of such commodities into cooperative associations. "FEDERAL FARM BOARD

"SEC. 2. (a) A Federal Farm Board is hereby created which shall consist of the Secretary of Agriculture, who shall be a member ex officio, and twelve members, one from each of the twelve Federal land-bank districts, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.