Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

SILVERTON, TEX.
October 24, 1955.

MR. JOHN C. WHITE,
Commissioner of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR MR. WHITE: I am a small farmer and think we should have full parity of 100 percent, as I think you will agree. I am not opposed to big-acreage farms, but I certainly think they are in better position to bear acreage cut than we small farmers who need every acre to produce more than good crop to have a decent living for our families.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR JOHN: Thanks for your letter of September 29 in which you express your willingness to submit my views on the farm problem to the Senate Agricultural Committee which is to hold a meeting in Fort Worth, November 5. Although I do not presume that I have the solution to this problem, I do think that I recognize some tragic faults in the present program.

It seems to me that if the present program, especially as it relates to cotton, is continued for long, it will bring about its own destruction.

Inasmuch as the industrial segment of America is protected by various means such as tariffs and labor union contracts, it would be unfair and also unwise to withdraw all governmental assistance to agriculture. But we must cease growing crops with the purpose of selling them to the Government through loans or purchases.

Because of the type of work in which I am engaged, I am more familiar with the cotton problem than I am with other farm problems. All of us know that the cotton situation is deplorable. (a) We are reducing our cotton acreage each year while at the same time foreign cotton-growing countries are increasing their acreages keeping the world production at about the same level. (b) Our unrealistic pricing policies and the operation of the Government loan is causing us to pile up huge surpluses of cotton in America to the point where we will soon run out of warehouse space. At the same time foreign grown cotton is underselling our cotton and is being consumed. (c) Also, at home our pricing policy on cotton is encouraging the producers of synthetic fibers to take over our domestic markets.

I certainly do not have the answers to this problem, but I do know that what we are now doing is bad for all concerned in this country. It is my hope that the Congress will face the farm problem realistically and without too much political consideration. I believe that the American farmer can compete for world cotton markets if his Government will give him a fair chance. Again, thanking you for writing me, and with best regards, I am, Sincerely,

B. T. JUVENAL.

ALVORD, TEX., October 21, 1955.

DEAR MR. WHITE: I wish to let you know I am for 90 percent parity on farm products and also dairy products. Mr. and Mrs. T. KUYKENDALL.

STATEMENT FILED BY WILLIAM M. LIGHT, SAN ANTONIO, TEX.

In order that you may know something of my background and experience, I wish to mention that my family and myself have been in the ranching and farming business in the State of Texas since the year 1853. At the present time, in partnership with my two brothers, David W. Light and Jack H. Light, I own and operate farm and ranch properties in the following counties of Texas: Collin, Denton, Dimmit, Grayson, Jackson, and LaSalle. Individually I own and operate a farm and ranch in Comal County, Tex. I am also a member of the city council of Alamo Heights, Tex., having been on said council for the

last 4 years.

Over 90 percent of my time is devoted to farm and ranch matters. I should like to discuss some changes in the cotton control law needed by cotton farmers in regard to the control quota assigned counties which have both cotton and peanut farms, the method of allotment of cotton acreage by such counties to the individual farms in those counties, and to suggest some basic changes in the method of support of cotton prices that I feel will in time relieve the Government of the large surplus of cotton on its hands and at the same time permit the cotton farmer in this country to stay in business.

First, I should like to confine my discussion to the changes in the cotton control law needed by cotton farmers in regard to the control quota assigned counties which have both cotton and peanut farms and the method of allotment of cotton acreage by such counties to the individual farms in those counties.

In Denton County my brothers and myself have over 18 different farms upon which we have managing share tenants. Denton County is almost evenly divided between black-land farms and sandy-land farms. On the black-land farms, cotton is the main cash crop, whereas on the sandy-land farms peanuts are the main cash crop. Peanuts are not planted on the black-land farms, and cotton is usually, except under controls, not planted on the sandy-land farms. Cotton planting on the sandy-land farms of Denton County went out of vogue during the 1930's and comes back only to a limited extent during the years when cotton acreage controls are in effect. Our farms are in the black land of Denton County.

By the operation of the cotton acreage allotment system as now in effect, our tenants in Denton County have been forced in the 2 years of controls to make reductions in their cotton planted acreages of from 50 to 55 percent of their usual noncontrolled cotton plantings. The worst is yet to come, because, even if there were to be no reduction made nationwide next year under the control law, the black-land cotton farmers of Denton County will be forced by the operation of the law to make still further reductions. This is in contrast to the operation of the cotton acreage allotment system on our farms in Collin County, where our tenants have so far had to reduce their cotton planted acreages only by 20 to 25 percent of their usual noncontrolled plantings. The reason for this disparity is that in Collin County all farms are black-land farms and all plant cotton, whether controls are on or off.

As you know, when the Government gets ready to apply cotton control after a period of years of noncontrol, it endeavors to find out what the nationwide acreage planted to cotton has averaged over several past years of noncontrol. To do this they have every county obtain from the individual farms in the county the number of acres planted to cotton over the years in question, and thus obtain the county's base cotton acreage. Thus, it so happens in Denton County, that the county's base cotton planted acreage is made up almost wholly from the plantings of cotton by the black-land farmers of the county, because the sandy-land farmers have not been planting cotton. The county's base is the figure that is used under controls to make the reductions that are deemed necessary under the control law.

Let's say that the Agriculture Department decided on a 20 percent cut in cotton plantings. This 20 percent cut is then applied to the county's base and the resulting figure gives the county's new cotton allotment base. Now that the county has its new controlled acreage allotment base, you would think that it would then go back to the individual farms upon which cotton had been planted during the base years and use the percentage cut to arrive at each farm's cotton acreage allotment. However, this is not the way it works.

When the county gets its controlled acreage allotment base, it then takes the figure of the total cultivated acreage on each farm in the county and adds them up to obtain the total county cultivated acreage. Then, using the county's controlled acreage allotment base against the figure representing the total county cultivated acreage, it arrives at what proportion the county's controlled acreage allotment base is of the total cultivated acreage in the county. The percentage figure thus arrived at is then used on each farm in the county to arrive at the number of acres of cotton allotment each farm is to have for that year, based on the total number of cultivated acres in the farm.

It will be immediately evident that every farm upon which any land has been cultivated in the year before cotton controls gets a cotton-acreage allotment. whether or not that farm has been planting any cotton. Also, it is easy to understand why the cotton-control law operates to penalize the black-land farmers of Denton County and other counties having the same planting circumstances, and why the law does not so penalize cotton farmers in other counties where all of the farms plant some cotton.

Now we have reached the point in our discussion where the peanut farmers (sandy-land farmers) who have not been planting cotton since the last time cotton controls were in effect have each received a cotton-acreage allotment. What can such a farmer do with this cotton allotment? He can plant all of it, or so much of it as he pleases, or none of it, or he can turn all of it back to the county, or some of it back to the county, if he is not going to plant it. What do they actually do with it? A small percentage of them turn it back in to the county, from whence it is allotted out among farmers who have applied for increased quotas, but most of them just don't do anything in regard to this cotton allotment. They neither plant it nor turn it back in to the county. This causes the county's average planted cotton acreage to drop each year by the amount of acres allotted to the sandy-land peanut farmers which are not planted. I know of no instance where the total cotton allotment on a blackland farm in the county has not been planted. Each year that control are in effect, one of the past years which were used in the beginning to arrive at the county's cotton planted acreage base is dropped out and in place thereof there is substituted the year just past, which in the second year of controls would be the first year of controls. Thus, in the third year of controls, to obtain the county's cotton planted acreage base they would be using the last 2 years when controls were on and the last year before controls went on.

Thus it is clear that the longer controls are on cotton under the present law in Denton County, and in other counties having the same planting circumstances, the smaller the county's cotton acreage allotment becomes and the smaller the individual farmer's cotton acreage allotment on an individual farm becomes, even if nationwide no additional reduction is decreed by the Agriculture Deaprtment. I don't believe that Congress intended to put the cotton farmers of Denton County and other similarly situated counties out of the cotton business with the cotton-control law, but this is what is actually happening. As I understand it, the peanut-control law does not have the gimmick in it that the cotton-control law has. Thus, although peanuts and the acreage allotted to the county for peanut planting are under controls like cotton, the peanut-control law does not give a peanut allotment to a blackland farmer who has not been planting peanuts. Thus, the net effect of these two laws is that the cotton farmer of Denton County has to share his cotton allotment with the peanut farmer of Denton County, but the peanut farmer of Denton County does not have to share his peanut allotment with the cotton farmer of Denton County. Now it will be said that if the peanut-control law is changed so that it works the same way in Denton County as does the cotton-control law, and the blackland cotton farmer were to thus get a peanut allotment, he would not plant it anyway. The answer to this is that he probably would not plant it, but if it is all right for a peanut farmer to get a cotton allotment and not plant it, why is it not all right for a cotton farmer to get a peanut allotment and not plant it?

I really do not think that were the peanut-control law to be changed so that it would work like the cotton-control law and give the cotton farmer of Denton County a peanut allotment, that the peanut allotments thus given cotton farmers would not be planted, because I believe the cotton farmers would use these peanut allotments to encourage the peanut farmers to turn back to the county their cotton allotments that they are not going to plant in return for the cotton farmers turning back to the county their peanut allotments that they are not going to plant, and that these turned back allotments would then be parceled out among those cotton and peanut farmers who applied for an allotment increase, and thus all of the cotton acreage allotted the county would be planted and all of the peanut acreage allotted the county would be planted. To make sure that this would be the result, these cotton and peanut acreage allotments could be made negotiable between farms in the county, and in this way a cotton farmer with a peanut allotment could go to a peanut farmer with a cotton allotment and swap allotments with him.

The above paragraph outlines one way in which the situation could be remedied. This way would involve changing the peanut acreage control law so that it would be handled in the same way as the cotton acreage control law, and then making both laws provide that the acreage allotments made to individual farms and farmers thereon negotiable countywise between farms in the county.

Of course, still another way would be to change the cotton-control law so that in counties like Denton the cotton allotment would be allotted only among the farms which had been planting cotton in the years immediately before the cottoncontrol law was placed in effect, or have the law provide that each farm would

share in the county's controlled acreage-allotment base in the same proportion that the said farm contributed acreage to the county's cotton-acreage base.

I have now arrived at the point in my discussion where I would like to suggest that basic changes should be made in that part of the cotton-control law which has to do with the price-support and cotton-loan system. It appears from our experience the last several years that our cotton is being priced out of the world market by the workings of this part of the law. Our cotton exports are in a steep decline, cotton is piling up in the Government loan, and foreign countries are breaking out new lands by the millions of acres each year and planting them to cotton. Our cotton has just about quit moving in the world market places.

To remedy this situation is going to take drastic action and a major about-face in our method of aiding the cotton farmer to obtain a decent price for his commodity.

For your consideration, I should like to recommend the following plan of action be taken by Congress in regard to the cotton-control law. Keep that part of the law having to do with acreage controls, correcting the inequities in the law, one of which I have previously discussed. Freeze as much of the present stocks of cotton owned by the Government and now in the Government loan as is thought necessary. Permit cotton farmers to sell their 1956 crop at the best price obtainable in regular cotton-marketing channels. This will permit our 1956 crop to move in the world market.

Then, as an integral part of this plan, set the support price at say 80 to 90 percent of parity for the 1956 crop year, and have the Department of Agriculture, at the end of the usual cotton-marketing season for the 1956 crop, determine what was the average price paid farmers for their cotton of various grades during the marketing of the 1956 crop. If these average prices for various grades of cotton are less than the support price as set above for the same grades, then allow the individual farmers to apply with his sales receipts for this difference. Congress already has this plan in operation in regard to wool and mohair, and it appears to be working very satisfactorily. Of course, this plan will be open to the charge that it is a direct subsidy to the cotton farmer, but, if it is all right to tax the American people to subsidize foreign countries as we have been doing since the end of World War II, it surely should be all right to subsidize some of our own people to prevent bankruptcy and to get them over this critical period. Naturally, this plan will also have to run the gauntlet of foreign criticism, but has any plan ever been devised for Americans that has not been objected to by foreign nations?

I greatly appreciate the opportunity you have given me to present my views before your important committee. Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM M. LIGHT.

MATADOR, TEX., October 14, 1955.

DEAR JOIN: I am a family-size rancher and as time for that agricultural meeting is about here, I would like to make the following suggestions: 1. The family-size farmer is beginning to get some recognition.

2. The family-size rancher is still the forgotten man, as we have taken a loss for the last 4 years.

3. Everything we buy is protected and the only thing we sell, which is calves, is not protected.

4. Any product that a man depends on for his only income is a basic commodity to him.

We appreciate the efforts you have made in our behalf.

Yours truly

DUKE LIPSCOMB.

(W. D. Lipscomb).

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

JOHN WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tex.:

I would like very much to testify before the Agriculture Committee to be held in Fort Worth.

I am taking this occasion to make my wishes known.

I am very much apposed to sliding scale in farm prices. If you will take notice to price rises in industry and the things farmers have to buy, you can see that the sliding scale is bankrupting the farmers.

Nothing less than 100 percent of parity will prevent farm disaster.

I meet hundreds of farmers and I have yet to meet one who is in favor of the sliding scale regardless of political party.

Sincerely,

J. A. LITTLETON.

STATEMENT FILED BY HOWARD LOGAN, CELINA, TEX.

As a farmer in Collin County, Tex., I wish to express my opinion on the following phases of the farm program:

First. We, as producers of Collin County, think that we should have the opportunity of handling our farm program, without too many directives from a central agency. We believe that we are qualified to elect people from a local level, who are qualified to administer our program better than any centralized agency.

Second. As to the scale of production payments, I believe that any method of payments should be stabilized and adopted far enough ahead of time, so that the producer can plan his operations during the period, either 1 year or

more.

Third. I am heartily in accord with the Secretary of Agriculture in any economy move, in the operation of farm agencies, so long as the efficiency of operation is not impaired.

STATEMENT FILED BY WALTER MALEC, PUBLISHER, THE TRIBUNE, HALLETTSVILLE,

TEX.

What would happen should those at the bottom be subjected to the same rate of income tax as those at the top? That would make it impossible for most of our people to make a living.

Just as destructive and unjust is the cotton allotment policy those small diversifying farmers same as the commercial producers. Our diversifying farmers actually suffer more than the others.

In spite of their original diversification our counties still lost two-thirds of their cotton acreage while the commercial farm sections plant more cotton now than

ever.

And with the cotton, went also the farmers. This Ninth Congressional District lost 29 percent of its farmers and is losing more. Many of our counties were thrown back to what their population was 60 years ago.

This State, as reported, lost half of its farmers, and nothing has been done to stop this trend.

Yet this great loss of family farmers is either utterly ignored, or dismissed as natural and good, simply a result of farm mechanization and efficiency. Hence less farmers produce more crops, that's all.

But this mechanization did not move the cotton acreage from here to big farm sections.

It was not the machines that denied so many family farmers the right to make a living.

Not this factor is driving our farm people into the cities and denying our young people a future on their farms.

The main cause is in the farm program inequities. And there also is the remedy.

Make the cotton allotment graduated-cutting those most who are responsible for the surpluses. Don't penalize our small family farmers for the benefit of the large commercial producers.

More cotton could be sold at the market price unhindered by the artificially high parity price.

More farmers we would have if the parity could be paid separately and limited to so many bales per farm family.

More justice in the allotments in lint, instead of acreage.

Let us stop favoring commercial producers chiefly responsible for the surpluses.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »