Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Stop destroying family farmers, for they will surely pull the rest of us down with them.

Stop undermining our very foundation as free people, which is in family farmers.

It is proposed to pay rentals for the land taken out of production, while at the same time spending huge sums to reclaim by irrigation new land for production. It is argued that the parity paid separately would be a direct subsidy-strongly opposed by the Congress. What would those proposed rentals be, or what were the billions just given away to various countries?

The Agriculture Department would also bolster, by direct handouts, the income of small farmers, instead of giving them a chance to do their own bolstering. The present farm program inequities are entirely due to the farm families not being considered at all in our farm policies, yet the land belongs to the people.

SILVERTON, TEX., October 24, 1955. DEAR MR. WHITE: Just a few lines about price support on farm products. We cannot operate under the sliding scale. What we need is 100 percent parity. Yours truly,

Mr. and Mrs. L. A. McJIMSEY,

Secretary of Briscol County Farmers Union.

STATEMENT FILED BY W. M. PIERCE, PILOT POINT, TEX.

It is a privilege to submit the written statement which was prepared by a committee of Jeff Pedigo, Albert Duesman, Frank Pelzel, Lenard Berend. Albert Pelzel and W. M. Pierce. This committee's farm program suggestions has the

approval of our community center composed of some 400 farm families.

The group will work hard for the following points:

(a) 100 percent support price for the basic crops.

(b) Acreage control on production.

(c) Help for the small farmer.

(d) Abundance in farm commodities are essential.

(e) We believe REA's program as is.

(f) 100 percent price support for dairying with production controls.

(g) SCS with farmer organized districts.

Brief discussion of the above points, we have their ideas which was given, why can't we have parity as the retailers and wholesalers do, their's is 100 percent. They reason it is better to have less acreages to work with better prices, but not the two to be low.

With a unanimous opinion small farms should have at least 10 acres of cotton or peanuts and can plant both. Twenty percent of our farmers have off-the-farm jobs to make a livelihood.

Do we really have an overproduction or was it created by the Department of Agriculture to force the sliding-scale program into being? Why does our State Department have the dictate to whom our products can be sold in a foreign market? Don't you think this a coverup for the USDA? Why can't the farmers under an open market as Mr. Benson wants us to have? This could be subsidized with a guaranteed price of 90 percent of parity. Why did the USDA import 100,000 tons this summer and fall? Was it to create a surplus and lower the price, also ask for an acreage cut? With our decline in prices makes problems like W. M. Pierce had this summer. He took his platform canvas to local dealer for a repair job. He was told that a repairman was not available. So a new one was bought costing $45. Mind you this was cheap combines being bought new in 1953 for $1,175, but the comparison was it took 3,000 pounds of maize to pay for this canvas.

Our people think that cooperatives are healthy for our economy and we should have the right to continue REA as first enacted. It gave us light when private enterprize wouldn't. REA has paid its way so they say.

We approve the Soil Conservation Service to continue work through soil conservation districts which is controlled by farmer-elected supervisors.

STATEMENT FILED BY R. C. ROBINSON, IOWA PARK, TEX.

I am for any kind of legislation that will help keep the family-type farmer on the farm as there has been too many farm families left the farm already and moved to town. If we all have to move to the cities and hunt jobs that will create more labor troubles, of which, everyone knows we have plenty already. Farmers have never asked for handouts from the Government and never will, but we think the farmer should have equal chance with other businesses as farming is one of the largest and most important businesses in our country.

For farmers to get their fair share of the Nation's economy we should be guaranteed 100 percent of parity. Of course this brings up the question of surpluses but at the rate our population is increasing, in a very short time we will be having food and fiber shortages.

We are not only thinking of the present but the future security for the farmer today helps to maintain security for our children and this is one thing we all know that any time the farmer prospers, business over the country will be good and thereby helping the laborer and then everyone is happy.

Respectfully yours,

R. C. ROBINSON.

STATEMENT FILED BY ALVIN SAHM, GEORGE WEST, TEX.

I am Alvin Sahm of George West, Live Oak County, Tex. I now own 211 acres. I came to Live Oak County in 1925 and started to develop a 100 acre tract of brushland into a farm homestead. I put 600 acres in cultivation and put up a little frame building to live in, which, of course, was intended for an outhouse and garage later on.

In 1929 I lost my wife and 9 months later lost a 3-year-old boy. All this caused plenty of hardship and grief but there was more in store, for in 1931 came the depression and then the New Deal program.

Up to that time I usually planted 18 acres of cotton 1 year, 22 acres the next and 28 acres the following year and then back to the 18 acres. The balance was planted in corn and feed for my workstock and milk cows and a few tons to sell or carry over into the next year and also planted some few acres in Red-top cane for seed. This provided a very nice income to tide me over.

Then came the New Deal. I had a high yield per acre but was forced to take the community average when it came to issuing script to cover the poundage allotted. And at that, I did not get what I should have received and then I'd have to wrangle around the AAA office, with apparently no results. Then, when I wanted to sell my cotton I had to go to the bank and borrow the money and buy script out of the Government pool. And then way late in the year or early the next year I'd receive some more script issued to me. It didn't do me any good then; after I had spent borrowed money to get script to cover my cotton and I put into the Government pool to be sold. But then came the bad news, the program was abandoned and everyone that had script in the pool was paid for only his proportionate share of script sold. I received a little less than $10 out of some $100 to $200 worth in the pool. I wonder, dear Senators, if you think that such a procedure makes the farmer happy, and if you don't agree with me that we who had bought script are not entitled to get our money together with a reasonable interest repaid, for as the matter stands it was a clear case of renouncing what the Government owed us. The New Deal certainly did not help me progress or prosper.

Then there was the Government land that could be planted to cane for home use but many farmers sold the cane to seed company who would have the seed threshed and leave the farmer the feed. Well, that was the end of cane seed business. Too much black-market stuff-and I was forced to quit.

Of course, when the new program started on the acreage basis, I did not have much of a base to start with and still had to take a cut on allotted acres and it finally didn't pay to stay with cotton. But we could not discard it altogether as cotton can always be planted late after other crops might have failed to come up or were destroyed. Since 1944 I raised a few head of hogs as a side line and increased as years went by it was then that I had a hard time getting an allotment.

In 1950 1 had 18.6-acre allotment and planted 18 acres, in 1951 I planted 24 acres; 1952 no cotton; 1953 no cotton. In 1954 I received 18-acre allotment but too late, all my land was planted and crops were up, so I turned it back for redistri

bution. But I did not get any consideration for it on 1955 allotment. I would have planted a little cotton if I'd had it in time. I applied for 3 acres as new grower but along came late March and no returns on my application, so I planted the acreage to hegari. The days after that I got the 3 acres and I returned them for redistribution. Unless a farmer has his allotment at least 2 months before planting time it disturbs his whole program and he stands a chance to lose some valuable time or moisture.

If it had not been for off-the-farm work, I long time ago, would have had to quit the farm. These jobs provided me enough cash to meet my payments on my farm.

Since 1946 I served as census enumerator for the George West School District. And it affords me the opportunity to meet the farmers and observe their manner of farming. Ever since milo maize became a basic cash crop, farmers did not plant much cane or hegari for feed. They harvested the grain and put it in Government loan and let them worry along. Acreage allotment and high parity is just another term for "raising a commodity under contract." It does not benefit the farmer and ultimately the Government is loaded up with high priced stuff it will have to sell at a loss. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill.

Now, therefore in view of all the above said inequities I would suggest or recommend that the farmers be set free to follow their own pursuits of life and happiness according to their own pleasure. Let them plant any crops they please, store them in bonded warehouses and borrow from any private lending agency and stand behind their note or mortgage until it is paid off. That will let the Government reduce losses and in due time strengthen our Government. Since we seem to have too much land in cultivation, I favor the soil bank policy. Retire a fixed percentage of every farm and put it to grasses or legumes to build up the land.

I also suggest that the Government supervise all State and county PMA offices a little more closely to cut out some of this "patronage" that some of the committeemen's buddies enjoy.

May the Good Lord guide you in your duties and strengthen you in taking a stand that is for the best interest of the Nation.

As it stands down here, farmers have lost their faith in their Government very much and it takes more than high parity to restore it-it takes freedom to pursue their business unhampered.

Mr. JOHN WHITE,

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

Commissioner of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: As I will be unable to attend the meeting in Fort Worth of the Agricultural Committee, I would like to express my opinion about our farm situation. I am definitely against the sliding scale support system. Farm people are entitled to 100 percent of a fair price for all farm products, just the same as all the other segments of industry are entitled to a fair price for their products. Personally I don't think there is now or has ever been a surplus of farm products. It has been underconsumption instead of overproduction. I think something like the Brannan plan is our best solution.

Your sincerely,

A. K. SHELBY.

STATEMENT FILED BY GUS J. STRAUSS, HALLETSVILLE, TEX.

I have the honor of representing seven rural counties in the State of Texas. Within the confines of this senatorial district there are thousands of farmers who carry on family farm operations. Under present conditions, circumstances, and regulations these people are very rapidly vanishing from the American scene as farmers.

The Senate of Texas, recognizing this great problem, during the 54th legislature held this year, adopted a resolution by a unanimous vote, petitioning the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Congress to carefully review all laws, rules, and regulations dealing with our farm program. This was done with the hope that some relief might be obtained for those farm families who have had great hardships cast upon them.

My appeal to you today is on behalf of those people who actually live on farms with their families, operate farms as family units, and their very existence depends upon the income derived from this source. Their only request is that they be permitted to earn a livelihood and to maintain their place in our American society as citizens.

We fully realize that there probably is no perfect solution to our problem, however there are certain suggestions that we would like to make to you for your consideration. We feel that crop allotments should be on a graduated basis, following a plan similar to our present income-tax laws. Cotton allotments should be in lint instead of acreage, and there should be a separate allotment for parity, limited to a certain number of bales per family.

We want to thank you for this privilege of directing your attention to this grave situation, a problem which has grown to such proportions that so many thousands of our families find it impossible to earn a living in agricultural pursuits. We feel that you recognize the seriousness of the situation and humbly ask of you to give due consideration to the plight of the family farmers in your deliberations.

STATEMENT FILED BY G. O. STROOPE, TEXAS BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION,
WAXAHACHIE, TEX.

This year, the United States Department of Agriculture, under the honey price support program, is supporting honey at 70 percent of parity. Dollarwise, this is three-tenths of a cent per pound lower than the average price support level of 1954, and three-tenths of a cent per pound less than the year before. Beekeepers are being faced with these lowered support figures for their honey; yet their items of expense incurred in operating bees are higher than they have ever experienced.

As representative of the Texas Beekeepers Association, I am asking that the United States Department of Agriculture support honey at 75 percent parity in 1956, and also make provisions for instituting an export subsidy program on honed in 1956 if a bumper honey crop is produced, and provided, of course, normal markets will not take the honey.

With the Commodity Credit Corporation's records showing a profit on honey handled for the fiscal year 1953 totaling $4,924, and also again for the fiscal year of 1954 a profit of $8,812, it is difficult for us as an industry to see the justification for a support figure less than 75 percent of parity.

In 1946, a comprehensive research project was set up in Utah to study alfalfa seed production. Those studies showed that honeybees were necessary as pollinators to produce a profitable alfalfa seed crop. The State of California, applying these research findings, was able to triple the acreage devoted to seed alfalfa and doubled their production. Consequently, California now produces about one-third of the Nation's alfalfa seed.

Research on cantaloupe pollination in Arizona in 1950 showed that honeybees were absolutely esesntial for production of melons. When bees were excluded from the vines, no fruit was set. A subsequent survey by United States Department of Agriculture personnel in 1953 showed that where growers had bees placed in sufficient numbers in or adjacent to their melon planting, the average crop was increased more than 50 percent over fields where growers left the matter of pollination to chance. Research on almonds, apples, peaches, plums, and other deciduous fruits has indicated that without honeybees for crosspollination, the production of these crops would be unprofitable.

On and on we could go citing instances where bees benefit agricultural crops; yet the beekeeper receives comparatively little for this service, and, in the main, he must depend on the honey produced from the bees for his major source of income.

Every consideration given the beekeepers' needs by your committee will be sincerely appreciated.

Mr. JOHN WHITE:

SILVERTON, TEX., October 22, 1955.

I am a dryland farmer in Briscoe County and am interested in farm prices very much. I am asking for your help in getting 100 percent parity for farmers. Thank you,

C. A. TIPTON.

Mr. JOHN WHITE,

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

Texas Commissioner of Agriculture. DEAR SIR: Not being able to attend the agricultural meeting in Ft. Worth, Tex., I would like to express my opinion on the present sliding scale price support for farm products. I am very much opposed to the sliding scale. It is causing too much margin between what we buy and what we sell.

I think farm products should be supported at 100 percent of a fair price so the farm people could have their share of the national income, and enable us (the farmers) to replace our worn-out equipment. Yours truly,

H. B. WEAVER.

STATEMENT FILED BY T. D. WILSON, HEARNE, TEX.

The present farm crisis grew out of the tariff and other trade barriers that block international trade, causing surpluses and inequitable price relationship. The first protective tariff act to develop infant industries for national defense became a law in 1815. The factories went into the stockade and left the farmers outside to till the soil and fight the Indians. Many times they wished to give the country back to the Indians.

In 1824 Daniel Webster predicted that high tariff would drive American shipping out of foreign seas. American shipping fell from 90 percent of total tonnage in 1821 to 8.7 percent of total tonnage in 1910.

In 1892 a New York industrialist, after returning from the Midwest where he saw abundant crops, predicted great prosperity for the Nation. He said abundant crops make cheap farm commodities, and cheap farm commodities bring prosperity. Shortly afterward a long depression began.

In 1928 the economists advised Coolidge that high tariff was bankrupting the farmers. The answer was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. The same year Coolidge, Hoover, Irving Fisher, of Yale University, and Mr. Whitney, president of New York Stock Exchange, said the stock market was reflecting normal growth. Mr. Whitney said there would be no economic cycles. Then knew how to control it, but the outcome was disastrous. We hear such talk today. Now tariff has driven our cotton out of foreign markets, directly and indirectly, in accordance with Webster's predictions of 1824. Tariff bankrupted Austria and Hungary in the 1920's. That was the beginning of the 1929 depression.

Free trade brought Western Germany out of the depression of 1948 to be the most prosperous nation in Europe today.

Will our great American cities have to be leveled to the ground before the American people will understand the evil of our foreign-trade policy? We have the best Government on earth and the best men giving their lives to serve Mr. Clarence B. Randall, economic adviser to President Eisenhower, says: "I wonder whether the businessman who sabotages the competitive system is not a greater enemy of our way of life than the Communist that he cries out against."

us.

Now the news reports are that the farm situation is the only dark spot on the economic horizon, but the farm income is only 4 percent of the national income and the farm income could fall 25 percent and reduce the national income only 1 percent. The germ in a grain of wheat is a very small percent of the weight of the grain, but destroy the germ and there will be no more wheat.

The farm program that most of the farmers desire:

I. 100 percent parity price support for cotton on planted acres.

A. Because parity is flexible acting alone.

B. Machinery already set up to handle this program.

C. Farmers are familiar with this system.

D. Program is constitutional.

E. The CCC has made a profit of over $268 million on cotton.

F. Makes possible legal stockpiling.

II. Soil conservation payments or rent equivalent to 100 percent parity.

A. Because parity base of cotton as of 1910 to 1914 was under world price

of cotton and was based on total acres farmed at that time.

B. Farmers are mining their soil and water resources as never before.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »