SEDGWICK, KANS.

August 30, 1955.

Mr. EZRA TAFT BENSON,

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BENSON: Regarding the 20 cent per bushel loan price cut on certain wheat varieties, not considering soil and weather conditions, whch really make or break milling quality and gluten strength; also noting in the newspapers how you showed the Russian delegation our superior American way of life, free enterprise. We wonder why you can listen to the cheap, misleading, deceptive propaganda, put out by the agricultural colleges against all private free enterprise.

In 1912, when I was 15 years old, I found Blackhull wheat in the Russian Turkey wheat that came from Russia 1906, and it beat everything from the colleges so much that they got some millers with them and fought it, saying they would dock it 25 cents per bushel. So I searched further and found a harder variety which I called Superhard Blackhull. Then the colleges and millers fought it, as it did so well, it pushed the College Kanred out of the picture. Our Blackhulls were very hardy wheat that yielded and tested so high that the millers couldn't dock it several cents per bushel (as they did to other varieties), so of course they were with the college in the fight.

Then I secured a cross between Blackhull and a good beardless wheat and got rid of the beards, which were a nuisance in harvesting. The yield and test were also increased. About that time the college came out with Tenmarq, which was a light yielding and testing wheat that took a dock, favoring the millers again, so the fight went on. Again, Clark's wheat was very hardy and stood the rough weather conditions, insects, plant diseases, hail, etc., best, being a thorn in the sides of the colleges, running their inferior pet idols out, over a vast territory. Of course, the millers like a light testing wheat, that they can dock on test weight, until a bad year makes the stuff so light and chaffy that they have to get some of Clark's better wheat to bring up the test. We have received many, many such reports from the farmers, telling how they received a premium of 4 to 10 cents per bushel.

Three times the college tried to put private free enterprise out of business by introducing bills in the Kansas Legislature to control the introduction of new wheat varieties, by the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, cooperating with the Kansas State Agricultural College, but some liberty-loving farmer legislators blocked them in setting up that dictatorship, which would have outlawed over 75 percent of Kansas wheat.

Several years ago, when Clark's Chiefkan wheat was going strong in western Kansas, a special meeting of elevator men was called, and a Kansas City miller started reading off some propaganda against Chiefkan wheat. After reading a while, a husky young fellow got up, pointing his finger at the miller and said, "You ought to be indicted for making and selling that good-for-nothing white flour with all the germ and vitamins taken out, so the flour can sit around a long time, with no bugs or worms in it, because they would starve to death in it. I am from Kentucky, and there were no rejects to the Army from our family. Father grew the wheat, ground it up whole, mother made good whole wheat bread from it and we all were healthy and strong." Then a young baker said, “If you could see and smell the dose that comes in cans to put in that white flour to revitalize it, you wouldn't want any of that either." Then an elderly doctor said, "I see the final result in poor, weak, diseased humans trying to live on devitalized food." That broke up the meeting.

Milling and baking tests on our better wheats show them to be as good and better than any college "approved" wheats, fully as high protein, and as strong gluten, when grown and milled under similar conditions: Why not? I have tested many thousands of varieties in our wheat nursery, and keep and grow only those that have strong, deep-rooted plants that go deep into the soil for the vitamins and minerals that God put there for us to live and work on when we use that staff of life complete as He made it; but the processors ruin the best food, making it a "broken reed"; therefore many consumers have almost quit eating the good-for-nothing deathly white, devitalized bread, that they would starve death on, hence the 50-percent cut in wheat consumption.

Then we have acreage allotment controls, and many farmers use synthetic, chemical fertilizers, hoping for bigger vields, but producing poorer, devitalized wheat. Those fertilizers put back only 3 or 4 of the 22 minerals that the human body needs to survive on. You can fool part of the people part of the time, but you can't fool nature, or many red-blooded, liberty-loving, brave American wheatgrowers, who will keep on planting Clark's better seed wheat, that even

our enemies, the tax-consuming agricultural colleges admit are good yielders of high-test wheat. And we know that Clark's better wheat will make as good and better quality bread as any college wheat, when grown and processed under the same, unbiased conditions, proven by many reports.

Some timid farmers, struggling to make a living, will be scared into planting the inferior "approved" college-bred wheats, then when those varieties go down under the onslaught of drought, winter killing, soil erosion, insects, diseases, hail, etc., cutting their profits and buying power, and hastening on the worst depression and crash that this country ever saw. Is that what the enemies of free enterprise wish to see? Or is that a new scheme to cut production and surpluses? Our tax-supported agricultural colleges put in their time fighting free enterprise that produce superior varieties of wheat that will grow in most all soils and weather conditions and make fair to bumper crops under the same conditions that the "approved" wheats fizzle out, except under good conditions, then by misleading propaganda and juggling of figures they try to scare the farmers into growing their inferior wheats. If they would put in that time looking for and breeding up hardy varieties that will produce good crops of high-quality wheat, and help educate the people away from devitalized foods, they might earn their paychecks. Are they working for the heartless, coldblooded money power that care nothing for anyone else, but want the farmers to grow light wheat that they can dock, or is it great jealousy and fear that the farmers will reject their inferior products and plant the stronger, reliable, hardier products of American free enterprise?

Therefore, Mr. Benson, we are ready and willing to match our wheat varieties against anything that the colleges have, both on the farm and in the milling and baking institutions, and since you have started the program of docking the loan value 20 cents per bushel on certain varieties of wheat, and since those docked varieties came from free enterprise and are the best yielding and testing varieties, yes, and best milling and baking varieties when given fair unbiased tests. It is plain enough who are the enemies of American free enterprise, trying to set up a cheap, dishonest, dictatorship over the American wheat growers. And don't anyone think for a moment that the brave pioneers of the land of the free and home of the brave are going to submit to a gang of pirates. robbers, racketeers, profiteers, and propagandists who have tried over and over again for many years to put down American free enterprise and set up a foreign-inspired dictatorship.

The only fair thing to do is stop that lying propaganda against American free enterprise and set up honest milling and baking laboratories to make unbiased tests on every load of wheat that goes into the elevators, identified only by number, not by variety, testing all varieties fairly and let each lot stand on its own merits, also checking information about late spring freezes, kind of soil (old, new, summer fallow), previous crops, fertilizers used, seeding dates, rainfall, soil tests, etc. Then we all can learn how to grow better and better wheat that should satisfy everyone (except the jealous propagandists and profiteers who want to beat a lot of air, water, and dope with a very little flour to a bubblegum foaming dough, of very little food value. And here is where the Pure Food and Drug Department should get on the job and put a stop to bakers selling that fluffy, bubble-gum-like, deathly white, bleaching compound, poisoned, devitalized bakery products, and help educate the people to the facts about the health value of complete foods as our creator intended they be used, so the people of this great Nation will be strong, healthy, and happy.

A few examples of 40 years war between American free enterprise and wouldbe dictators:

At a Kansas State fair booth was shown a large loaf of approved wheat bread side of a very small loaf of Clark's wheat bread; the exhibitor admitted that certain ingredients were left out of the Clark's wheat bread. A certain county cooperative wheat test plots showed Clark's wheat yielded over 10 bushels per acre more than any of the college wheats, but when the report came out in the local paper, Clark's wheat showed a number only, with a statement that the college had some very promising wheats, not named, but numbered. I asked the paper for a correction, but was refused except by paid advertisement; I don't think the college paid for their erroneous advertisement. Was that Clark wheat averaged up with the other county tests in that district? That's only one example of juggled figures. Think.

Several reported prosperous growers of Clark's wheat purchased adjoining farms from approved wheat growers who went broke.

A miller was fighting a Clark wheat bitterly until he purchased a car of it and said, "That Turkey wheat is the best wheat I have milled this year." A chemist gave a poor report, knowing he was testing a Clark wheat, then ran another test (for a second party) on an average sample from several fields, same variety (thinking it was approved wheat), and said, "That was wonderful, wonderful wheat."

A multitude of reporters say Clark's better wheat yields 40-50-60-70, even up to 160 and 208 bushels per acre, favorable conditions, and many times that of approved wheats unfavorable years. One example, Clark's better wheat yielded 40 bushels per acre, stood up, no mosaic; approved wheat made 18 bushels, lodged, much mosaic. Another plowed up much of his approved wheat, the rest made 3 to 8 bushels, Clark's wheat made 14 bushels.

Several millers advertised they would pay top price for approved wheat but wouldn't buy Clark's wheat at all, but the next summer was a wet year and the approved wheat sprouted in the head, and was docked 75 cents per bushel, while Clark's wheat did not sprout in the head and brought top market price, even when harvested in August and September.

While traitors and enemies from within are fighting over varieties, our foreign neighbors are selling their wheat to the world. This from a letter from Canada: "Please get me a dozen of those Manhattan Do! Do! Do! Doddle Doo! circulars," which is the greatest selling help for Canadian wheat that has ever been published when put into the hands of English brokers to show English trade that Kansas wheat is no good. Think.

Better cancel that unconstitutional 20-cents-per-bushel steal. Don't make liars of the wheat growers, and thieves of the buyers. Let right prevail and your conscience be your guide.

Most sincerely yours,

EARL G. CLARK.

STATEMENT FILED BY OSCAR Colglazier, OAKLEY, KANS.

I do not believe we should have a farm program that makes a hardship on the small farmer. He can get a job now when industry is looking for help but what are we going to do with him when depression hits industry. He is not fitted for special jobs. Under the present program the large farmer is getting larger and the small farmer is getting off the farm as fast as he can.

Soil conservation is something that is important. History tells us that all the nations that reached a high state of civilization did fall because they did not keep the fertility of their soil at the very best.

We must move this large surplus of wheat. It hangs over our market and will continue to be a handicap to the market as long as it is there. We are told and I am sure it is true that a large part of it is not good milling wheat. If that is true, classify this wheat and the part that is only good for feed be moved as such and let only good milling wheat be reported as surplus. That would remove such a large amount of this large surplus that we carry on the books, our surplus would not appear to be so burdensome.

It is very unfair to penalize the man that has been practicing summer fallowing for years, he has been working out this land bank plan that is becoming very popular at the present time. To cut his acres the same as the man that has been seeding all his ground is not fair and that has caused a lot of criticism that could easily be corrected.

Qaulity wheat should be one of the main points in our program. Under no circumstances should a farm program support a low quality of wheat in any

form.

We must prove to the people that the Government is not a market for our wheat, it is only a support to prevent extreme fluctuation of price either up or down.

We have got to the place where we raised wheat for the loan price, never giving a thought to what the Government could do with the wheat. Stop Government storage, let all wheat be stored on the farm.

A high guaranteed price on wheat does not make sense if there is not strict control of acreage to avoid a surplus piling up in Government hands. A good price for all wheat used for home consumption is all the wheat farmer has any right to expect. If he raises more than that let him take the world price for it and the farmer sell his surplus wheat himself. Don't make the Government be a middleman in the deal.

Parden me for using a personal illustration. We have 1,920 acres of land in Logan County, Kans., in the very best of the quality wheat-growing territory. About 500 acres in grass. We had been practicing sowing only summer fallowed ground to wheat for several years. Then when the acreage control came along

it cut our wheat acreage so low that it makes it had to stay in the game and sell on a gradually lower wheat market and buy commodities on a market that is controlled by rising labor prices on every hand.

STATEMENT FILED BY MARK COUNCE, WELLINGTON, COLO.

Our surpluses were created under rigid support prices. We have never been allowed to see what variable price supports would do. If we continue high support prices and allotments, the wheat farmer is going to lose his acreage to the small wheat farmer of 15 acres.

High price supports fixed by the Government without regard to supply and demand, results in lower farm income because farmers who might not produce wheat at lower prices will raise wheat at the guaranteed price, and will produce more wheat than is necessary for what we eat and sell in the United States. Also, it will put ground in wheat that could be used otherwise. For instance, in the State of Michigan, 1 million acres previously used for beans is now in wheat. In the East, wheat fields that were used for feed on the farm, are now being used as milling wheat. In other words, they are selling this feed wheat to the Government.

We have used about 425 million bushels of wheat per year for milling purposes in the United States since 1906 although the population has increased at least three times since that time.

We have less exports because of the rigid support price which has put our wheat price above that of Canada and any other wheat exporting country. This wheat moves into Government hands, but there is no way of our knowing whether the Government will release this wheat or not. This hurts our cash market. Thus we have Government controls which are not good for the farmer, and we are one step closer toward socialism or communism, whichever you choose to call it.

When we have more controls, we have less acreage to plant, and thus the 15-acre farmer has more chance to produce the wheat necessary for use in the United States. If this keeps on, a large proportion of our wheat will be raised on the 15-acre farm, just as the majority of the burley tobacco is being raised on less than 0.9 of an acre. This is not efficient farming, because the farmers that really produce the food will have to cut down on their operations. Then if we should have another war and need this wheat, as proven in the past, the 15-acre wheat farmer will turn to something that he can raise more profitably, and we will be out of wheat.

Most of the farm products in serious trouble today are those we have endeavored to support on a rigid 90 percent of parity, without regard to changing supply and demand relationship.

What we need is lower guaranteed prices to the wheat farmer, and more and better markets for our wheat. Also, to trade our wheat for strategic material that can be stockpiled in the United States that is essential in the case of war. Another improvement would be for the commodity marketing corporation to discontinue the practice of making the same loan on feed wheat as it does on good milling wheat.

STATEMENT FILED BY WAYNE CRANSTON, CHAIRMAN, FARM AND HOME COMMITTEE, TISDALE METHODIST CHURCH, WINFIELD, KANS.

The farm and home committee of the Tisdale Methodist Church in open session moved that the disposal of all farm surpluses be made in such a manner that they do not return to the open market, and do away with the whole farm program excepting the Soil Conservation Service.

STATEMENT FILED BY CARSON E. CRAWFORD, BURNS, KANS.

In seeking a solution to the problem of low farm income, we must realize that there are many things that determine farm income.

It seems that there is a very vocal minority which declares the farmers want controls. This is one of the most deceptive voices that attempts to speak for farmers. Farmers who vote for controls in most instances do so because they feel that controls are the only way they may get a small share of the kind of income being demanded and obtained by labor unions. Organized labor through strikes and other un-American methods are depriving agriculture of an income which agriculture should in all fairness receive. Organized labor passes on its added taxes and other rising costs in the form of higher wages. Industry passes on its added taxes, wage increases, and other rising costs in the form of increased prices on its products. The nature of agriculture prevents farmers doing this. We must realize that a solution to low farm income involves something other than controls, incentives, Federal land rent, and other forms of Government interference in a good, proper, and legitimate business. One of the reasons many farmers hesitate to speak against these Government controls imposed upon them is the abusive attacks, hate, and name-calling that is heaped on those who have the courage to speak openly against Government interference in the lives of our people. Letters I have written to editors on this subject have drawn bitter and hateful replies from other readers upholding the Socialist idea.

Farm controls are comparatively new. They are not a part of our American heritage. Farm control laws came into being only during the time of rising communist influence in American Government. Our Government today has degenerated to the place where it is not governing but is becoming an agency of minority pressure groups who are attempting to destroy our freedom and private enterprise. These minority pressure groups have been amazingly successful in their attempts.

Taking all things into consideration, the only real purpose for controls is to prepare the last segment of American freedom and private enterprise for eventual integration into international Communism.

In the beginning, some 20 years ago, the farm program was not compulsory. In about 1941 came the year of the wheat penalty. Compulsion was found to be necessary to enable the planners to make their plan work. Now we have degraded to the place where the possibility of Government renting millions of acres of farmland is being considered. This is only one step from Government ownership of land and communism. Another plan being studied will permit the farmer to raise all he wants, sell it on an open market, and then the Government make up the rest of the farmer's income Wheat could easily go to 5 cents a bushel under this plan and the farmer would almost completely be dependent upon the party then in power for his essential needs. This would be the biggest political patronage deal ever invented and would certainly and inevitably lead us to communism and a very low standard of life.

One thing we must remember is that farm prgrams and controls in the last 20 years have not accomplished what they were supposed to do. I have realized for some time that there is a great disparity between what I receive and that which labor receives. Occasionally I hire a man and nearly always must pay $1 per hour which forces me to work 3 hours to pay for 1 hour of labor. One farm magazine report showed that the average for labor was $1.87 per hourin Kansas the average farm operator receives 30 cents an hour for his laborthis means that we must work 6 hours in order to buy 1 hour of labor's work. Regardless of whether we must buy a bolt or a plow the labor cost is all out of proportion. Farm controls and the farm program have not helped, rather they have increased, the disparity between farm and organized labor income. It doesn't matter whether the percentage of parity is 75 percent or 90 percent, net farm income cannot, under controls, be adequate; 75 percent of parity is desirable over 90 percent of parity for the reason that it would give us greater freedom and less dependence on bureaucratic Government. Agriculture being a basic business must stand on its own feet, be free to merchandise and promote the use of its products. If the time that is spent thinking up plans and promoting them were spent to promote the use of agriculture products, the economic weakness and instability of agriculture would not be a political football.

The cost of the vast bureaucracy which must be maintained to implement farm controls of whatsoever nature are financially crippling to agriculture. A cow or a hog can stand some lice, but when the condition advances to the stage where mange sets in-something must be done. The solution is not to increase the