Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

That is why in a measure the law was changed later. Don't you think it was fair to do that?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. I mentioned that that I believe is why we lose part of our cotton allotments. These people that come back to the farms and want to make a living there they can't make it on 2 and 3 acres of cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't feel it would be fair to give it back to them and take it away from somebody else who stuck with it? Mr. BELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is another one of the problems that is hard of solution.

Do you get the point?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There are those who stuck with it through thick and thin. If you take it away from them and give it to one who got in and out and in again your action is not justified.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. BELL. Gentlemen, I don't know that this is even to be considered by Congress. I have heard something to that effect and we do have this condition in this State, but please don't pass laws affecting the water rights of the people of the several States and under no circumstances take this valuable property right away from the farmer without paying just compensation therefor.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you have in mind?

Mr. BELL. I mean, sir, that we have got a proposal down here in this State, we have riparian rights in this State and that boils down to the simple statement that it gives every landowner along a stream rights to use that water for useful purposes provided he doesn't use it to such an extent as to interfere with the one below him or above him from a like use of the water. That is the law we have. That is a valuable right that belongs to the farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of anybody who is trying to take that away from you?

Mr. BELL. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is?

Mr. BELL. It is a proposal down here in the legislature of this State. The CHAIRMAN. That is something that

Mr. BELL. That is a State matter.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think we have jurisdiction in Washington. Senator JOHNSTON. I see Senator Thurmond has come in.

The CHAIRMAN. Come up, Senator Thurmond.

Mr. BELL. No. 6: I respectfully suggest that the Congress appoint a committee to investigate and make recommendations concerning the monopoly of timberlands rapidly being built up by vast corporations. This situation is rapidly reaching the acute stage in my section of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. What are they doing?

Mr. BELL. Buying that land up.

The CHAIRMAN. What could we do to stop that?

Mr. BELL. I just thought maybe it might go into the question of being a monopoly and I wanted Congress to investigate that because they are buying it up and leaving it out there, what pulpwood they are buying.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe the State could handle it. It is a State matter. I don't think Congress would have too much to say about that.

Mr. BELL. I just thought maybe Congress could appoint a committee to investigate that.

Senator JOHNSTON. You are going to find also, speaking of your water rights, that it is going to be a matter within the State for the State to decide wherever it doesn't cross State lines. That is a matter for each State to regulate within its own State. I think in regard to your forests where the Federal Government itself doesn't hold title to the land and it is within the State, the State will have to regulate that also.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ashmore is here. Please come up with us, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. BELL. Our No. 7: I conscientiously feel there should be 100 percent parity on our basic crops, placing the farmer on equality with other groups. I don't see why farmers should take 90 percent. That 10 percent can make or break a man.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you change that?

Mr. BELL. 100 percent parity.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean strike out 90 percent and put in 100 'percent?

Mr. BELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. On all commodities.

Mr. BELL. No, sir; just basic crops.

The CHAIRMAN. Just basic crops?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, those who oppose 90 percent of parity state that the price of cotton is so high that you can't sell it abroad. Now, suppose you put a hundred percent. Wouldn't that aggravate the situation more?

Mr. BELL. I wouldn't think so.

The CHAIRMAN. You wouldn't?

Mr. BELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the contention of a lot of people. I am just asking you.

Mr. BELL. The way I see the thing it is that the Government puts a floor under wages and they place import duties and tariffs on things imported to protect the manufacturers, in other words, to give them a good profit, and you give wages to the working people, good wages. You have raised that to a dollar per hour to go into effect in March. They protect those fellows and by the same token I understand this parity business is to find out what would be a reasonable price for our stuff

The CHAIRMAN. You don't have to argue with me on that. I want you to give me a formula.

Mr. BELL. Take the same formula you have with the 90 percent and take out 90 and put in a hundred. I feel it would be just that easy. The CHAIRMAN. Just that easy.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir, if they are going to subsidize on one thing they should subsidize another and not discriminate.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if it has the effect of raising cotton and thereby making it less possible for us to dispose of that cot

ton abroad, you would want the Government to step in and subsidize the difference. Is that what you are suggesting?

Mr. BELL. My understanding is

The CHAIRMAN. Is that what you want?
Mr. BELL. That is what they are doing.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you base your reasoning upon the fact that the exports have fallen off so that it looks like we will have to consume all the cotton we grow in the United States?

Mr. BELL. Do what I mentioned back here, what the Government has on hand, every time they increase acreage just have it and dump some on the market and retain our market, that way.

We just can't continue to pile it up. We know that.

Senator JOHNSTON. You realize at the present time that the cotton price, say in Houston, Tex., is around 35 cents at the present time for American cotton, while cotton grown right across the line in Mexico is around 28 cents.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

In submitting 100 percent of parity as you have stated, do you think Congress should limit that 100 percent to cotton that is really salable and usable,? In other words, encourage production of good cotton above seven-eighths inch and not the short stuff that is a halfinch and maybe

Mr. BELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You would want that?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been suggested.

Mr. BELL. I certainly agree with that. From an inch and above. The CHAIRMAN. Put a premium on production of cotton that we can store and sell.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Readily sell, that is.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the record shows today that of the huge surplus we have on hand about 42 percent of it is seven-eighths or under and it is very difficult to dispose of that kind of cotton. Your idea would be that if we put a better than 90 percent or up to a hundred percent that it should be on a quality of cotton that will readily sell in the markets?

Mr. BELL. I certainly do.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BELL. Now I notice where they are having this soil-bank proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BELL. I respectfully urge you gentlemen to take into consideration the cost incurred in seeding or planting of crops required by Government on land taken out of production in connection with the amount you pay on that land. In other words, I saw, I believe in the U. S. News & World Report yesterday or day before, I believe it was the Iowa State College or something that raade the statement or were advocating that you take from 5 to 7 percent of the appraised value of the land and pay that to them and, of course, that would give them, they appraise their land $300 or $400 an acre, that would give $15 to

$25 an acre. Land in other sections of the country worth $50 or $75 and at the same rate it wouldn't give but $2.50 but that wouldn't pay for disking the land.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be in South Carolina you have better assessors than you have in Iowa. That might be what makes it different. Mr. BELL. It could be, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Along that line we have had quite a few suggestions made on that in these hearings. Some have gone so far as to say that any land that is taken out of cultivation because of excess size of our plant for every acre put out of cultivation the farmer should receive at least the net income he would make on that acre. What do you think of that proposal?

Mr. BELL. Senator, I don't think that would

The CHAIRMAN. You don't think that would be fair?

Mr. BELL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be too much?

Mr. BELL. All I am asking for the farmer is a fair shake with other groups.

The CHAIRMAN. I just want your opinion.

Mr. BELL. I don't think that would be fair.

The CHAIRMAN. Others have said this. I want your ideas because these proposals I am mentioning now were given by quite a few farmers. Others said that in addition to a certain percentage on the value of the land, you should add taxes on that and others have said in addition to the percentage on the value, taxes, you should add depreciation on the equipment that was purchased in order to plant these acres. In other words, what they have advanced is simply this: That if a man has, let's say, 500 acres and he bought equipment so as to cultivate and plant that 500 acres, if you take away from him a hundred acres of that he ought to be compensated for a certain amount on the losses that he would sustain because of his inability to use the tractors and equipment he bought to plant that hundred acres which was taken out.

Mr. BELL. I don't believe in that.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't believe in that?

Mr. BELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. To what would you restrict his payments?

Mr. BELL. The lands you take out of cultivation.

The CHAIRMAN. And you base the compensation on a certain percentage of the fair value?

Mr. BELL. No, sir; I wouldn't say that.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say?

Mr. BELL. If I understand it right, the Government is going to require you to put that in grasslands or something else and leave it there to build up the soil.

The CHAIRMAN. No, the Government won't require anything else unless we say so. Let's not forget that.

Mr. BELL. That is the consideration maybe that Congress might pass in the bill, that if you call it a soil bank you want to build it up and have it in case of national emergency. That is what I mentioned. They would probably want us to put it in certain grass or legumes to leave and build the soil up. I think they should take into consideration what it will cost the farmer to do that plus the certain percent of the value of his lands in addition. That is my idea.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any idea what that would cost in South Carolina? Take your farm and see how it would work.

Mr. BELL. Well, Senator, when we get into that

The CHAIRMAN. We have to have examples. You are a farmer. You propose a plan. How would you want the plan to work on your farm on an acre basis? What would you expect? That is the test, you see. As chairman of this committee I guess it will fall to my lot to handle this bill on the floor of the Senate and if some fellow from California out there asks me what does the State of South Carolina expect, I would like to have your answers as a farmer.

You give me what you think you ought to get and how much you think it would amount to in dollars and cents per acre.

Mr. BELL. Well, Senator, I will be fair with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to be. That is what we are trying to be. You say you don't want the farmer to get more than he deserves. You are a farmer. How much do you think you ought to get?

That is the only test. Let's hear from you.

Mr. BELL. Senator, I would say that when you take into consideration what the land is worth you have your timber and things

The CHAIRMAN. No. The plan is to affect land in cultivation only. Forget your timber.

Mr. BELL. Could I answer it this way: Land is renting around there, if you rent 5 or 10 or 15 acres, $5 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. $5 an acre?

Mr. BELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Five percent at a hundred dollars an acre.
Mr. BELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What else would you add to that?

Mr. BELL. I would add to that the cost of sodding or seeding or disking or whatever the Government requires, all that cost that the Government requires.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would that cost?

Mr. BELL. What the Congress would require.

The CHAIRMAN. Take your farm. What kind of grass seed would you plant?

Mr. BELL. I don't know what the Government would require.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the one telling us what to put in there. The Government won't do a thing except that Congress passes the law and the Congress won't pass the law except as it is suitable and workable. You are one of the farmers. What would you suggest we do on your farm?

Mr. BELL. If you seed that to crimson clover it will take 25 pounds an acre, at 20 cents a pound.

The CHAIRMAN. $5 or more.

Mr. BELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How much does it cost to disk it and harrow it and plant it?

Mr. BELL. I plow land at $3 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. That is $8 plus $5. That would be $13 an acre on your farm.

Mr. BELL. You have to sow that seed and then you have to harrow it under, which is another operation.

The CHAIRMAN. How much is that?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »