Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Gentlemen, everyone of you know full well that a man who would pull the $2 million cheese deal has no business in the Cabinet of the President of the United States and our beloved President should have had the intestinal fortitude to have asked for his resignation on the first inkling of the news of that deal. The distance from dishonorable government to no government is not very great. I would never have dreamed that Eisenhower would have kept Secretary Benson after that deal.

Gentlemen, we cotton and tobacco farmers have always overwhelmingly, about 9 to 1 in most cases, and in some very much great percentage, voted for any control that the Department has suggested. For a truth, 1 acre with profits is better than 10, a hundred or a thousand with losses. And, we know that you cannot support prices with uncontrolled supplies or production. But, you must remember that farmers do not have the power to have a fixed yield, or output, as do the manufacturers of steel, iron, coal, oil textiles, and the like, as our production depends mostly on the will and pleasure of our common God who doeth all things well. And, we would be little and puny men indeed to think of 10 million bales of cotton as a curse instead of the great blessing that they

are.

Gentlemen, if the old arch double-crosser of history, Molotov, did not open the eyes and the minds of the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress of the United States this last week, all that I can say is that you have not eyes to see. He did away with that smile, and to think of all the hopeful world leaning on a smile of that old hypocrite and trusting any good from Soviet Russia, He took off the smile and informed everybody that the freedom-loving people everywhere had better heap up surpluses of cotton, foods, guns, cannons, shells, military forces, A-bombs, H-bombs, radar and everything else that we might use if we have any hopes of remaining free from their domination. Not one spoken word at Geneva indicates that they have any idea of freeing one soul that they have enslaved, and, on the other hand, every act and scene over on their side proves their aim is more enslavement of other people and we seem to be their chief target. God help you all in high authority to see their aims. Ten million bales of cotton at 30 cents a pound about the present price on the exchange would amount to about $12 billion. Gentlemen, cotton is real wealth, not like money, the medium of exchange, but a product that this amount of 10 million bales would turn into 10 or 12 billions of dollars in the commerce and industry of the United States annually. Instead of taking such little and shortsighted views of our farmers' production, let us all this night thank our Heavenly King that He has been good enough to see that we have food and fiber in abundance to feed our stomachs and clothe our backs. And, then, let's set about, in spite of Ezra and Ike, to see that the men who feed and clothe us shall not go unrewarded for their successful labors that give us good assurances for the coming year at least.

Now, how can we do for our farmers? We can determine what a fair parity price is by taking into consideration all the things the farmers have to buy, including labor at a cost equal, or more nearly so at least to what most all other Americans are earning in gainful employment in the commerce and industries of our country and let's look and see what the Government employees, teachers, preachers, lawyers, doctors, the labor union members, the railroads, the mines, and factories, and all the men of all our commerce and industries getting paid, and meet them with a fair parity figure. And, then, let's see that the cotton mills of America give them that fair price for their cotton. You have told them all that they had to go down in their pockets and pay a living price for labor through minimum wage law and, in God's name, where is the difference in that and setting a prescribed price for us? And, then hold us to the American demand for cotton or, if not, at least set up a two-price system. We Americans cannot compete with Hindus and the like in producing anything on earth. I have in my hand a clipping in the papers during the last 30 days written from Bombay, India, saying that the women over there work for 15 cents a day, not an hour mind you, 15 cents a day, and the men are paid the big sum of 20 cents per day. How can any man or set of men find a way for farmers living in the land where everybody, or least the average man, reecives $1 per hour or more, to compete in price with those who are paid 15 or 20 cents a day? The mills would not mind one bit where you set the price of cotton if they only knew that you would not set a lesser price on it during the next month or two. They don't want you to set it high today and then, let it drop where a competitor can underbuy them the next day or the next month. They too cannot possibly compete with Hindu, Chinese, or Japanese labor anymore than we farmers can. We cannot enjoy the

highest living standards the world has ever seen and sell in competition with underpaid, underfed, and underclothed people of other lands.

I know that I have taken too much of your valuable time. But, I just must call to your most earnest attention to one of the greatest obstacles or handicaps in the way of the farmers of America and that is the operation of cotton and grain exchanges. While I am unfamiliar with the grain exchanges but, through observation and experience I have learned of some very unfair rules and regulations that govern the sale and delivery on the New York Exchange. There is daily trading on New York Cotton Exchange from seventy-five to two hundred thousand bales per day, usually about 150,000 bales per day. If you buy a contract of 100 bales of cotton, say for this December delivery, there will come at about November 23 or 24 (first notice day), that is the day that the seller has to start with, and will last for 20 days. Now, while the seller has 20 days to give you notice that he desires to deliver the purchased 100 bales of cotton, he can select any time any day during the 20-day period to give you notice of delivery. Now, how long does the buyer have to tell him whether he wants him. to deliver the cotton or sell back on the exchange? He has 20 minutes at the most. Think about it, gentlemen, 20 days for the seller and 20 minutes for the purchaser of the contract. But, that is not all; the seller can deliver cotton at any one of about a dozen points in the United States. Say a buyer lives in Columbia here and would like to have his cotton delivered here in Columbia, the seller can deliver it in Houston or Dallas, Tex., a point from which it would cost you from $7 to $10 per bale to get it to your desired location. And, further still, he can and does deliver a class of cotton unwanted by the spinning industry. So, you see, there is no way on earth for the exchange seller to help the farmers, but, instead, they forever practice trading in such a way as to hinder the farmer from getting a fair price. In proof of this, I have been most reliably informed that not one contract bought on the exchange has ever been delivered during all the trading that has been carried on in one of the leading broker houses operating on the exchange because of the above facts which hinder a buyer from taking delivery of the contract. And, for further proof that the seller does not anticipate any delivery of cotton bought on the exchange, there are today less than 7,000 bales, mind you only 7,000 bales of cotton, certified for delivery on contract. If that is not conclusive proof that the New York Exchange is run, if not exclusively so, for gambling, it is nearly so run. And, too, it can't work but one way as far as the effect on the price of cotton, as they sell from 50 to 60 million bales annually.

Now, Honorable Senators of the United States, in whom all of us have put our trust and in whom rest great and tragic responsibilities, do for us, the men who clothe and feed you, just what you did for your own good selves when you fully realized that times and prices had put you in short financial supply and you voted yourselves increase in your salaries in an amount from $15,000 to $22,500 per year, or a jump of 50 percent at one time. Remember, gentlemen, you increased your income, or pay at least 50 percent while that of the farmers has been decreased 35 percent, for the cotton farmers at least. If you are good enough, fair enough, and strong enough to do for the lowest paid people in America the same percentage way you were able to do for yourselves, why, no one can find fault with you. However, if the speaker did not have the same courage to do for the men who are flat and who furnish us with the prime necessities of life that he had done for himself, he would not feel worthy to kiss an innocent baby boy or daughter or a true and pure wife goodnight, nor worthy to meet our loving Lord the last day.

My last say is that God will help you be men enough to act in such manner as to save our American way of life. For, on you and you alone rests the future of our country, as "a chain is no stronger than its weakest link," and our prosperity cannot endure half in unprecedented prosperity and half in dire poverty, and while we farmers are now flat on our bellies, God in his own way and wisdom will pull you others flat unless you are wise enough and strong enough to lift us up.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Manning?
Give your name in full please.

STATEMENT OF W. M. MANNING, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE PENITENTIARY, COLUMBIA, S. C.

Mr. MANNING. I am W. M. Manning of Columbia, formerly of Sumter, S. C. I farm in Sumter County. I lived there until I went to the war. I am now superintendent of the State penitentiary here in Columbia.

In that connection, sir, I would like to digress from my brief long enough to express the hope that the Congress will permit penitentiaries to be added to charitable institutions and hospitals for the purpose of getting perishable and surplus goods.

One other thing I would like to say is I hope that some steps will be taken to prevent the Department from selling grain and other farm produce just at the time when we are harvesting our crops and crops and finding difficulty in getting a price.

Last June there came out just while we were harvesting our oats, came out offers from Dallas of several hundred thousand bushels of oats to be bid on from the surplus. It was thoughtless and stupid, I thought, and I told them so.

Senator JOHNSTON. I called attention to the same thing in regard to cotton. They were about to dump it right at the time we started gathering.

Mr. MANNING. That is their favorite time for selling.

I have here reference to one amendment that I would like to suggest for the Agricultural Act as amended. It has to do with section 344 (M) (2). I believe that was your amendment to permit a man to give up his allotment and retain

Senator JOHNSTON. Transfer within the county and if the county didn't use it, transfer it to the State.

Mr. MANNING. I thought it was a fine amendment with one exception. There is one clause I would like to see deleted and I think I will take this opportunity of offering it to you.

The clause reads:

Except that this shall not operate to make the farm from which the allotment was transferred eligible for an allotment as having cotton planted thereon during the 3-year base period.

In other words I went into town and released my allotment with the feeling I would be safe on it if I wanted it back the next year. I did that both years, 3 years I think it was, and didn't catch this clause. Therefore, I did not bother to plant a tenth of an acre which would have been sufficient to safeguard my allotment. I didn't think about that. My allotment is gone. There is nothing you can do now to help me. But I believe that that militates against small farmers, mostly, who aren't as alert as the larger business men are. I don't see that it would do any damage because the planting of a tenth of an acre doesn't prove a man is interested in cotton. It doesn't make it certain that he will want to retain that allotment.

I didn't have but 22 acres on allotment. It didn't make any difference much to me. I did have this year a neighbor with 8 children that wanted to sharecrop that 20 acres and I was going to let him and I went to make my arrangements and found I didn't have any allotment at all.

There is another point about that that I would like to emphasize. An allotment of cotton increases the value of your land, makes it more available. Now it can easily happen as it did in my case that a man as he begins to approach his retirement age and his son's have all gone to other sections of the country and other professions, he has no member of the family that will want to continue his farm, he begins to think about selling that farm. I began this spring to see if I could sell a part of mine. I found there was no demand for it because I had no allotment of cotton.

In other words, my land depreciated in value from an innocent mistake. I don't think Congress intends that. I would like to recomment that that provision be deleted from the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

(Mr. W. M. Manning's prepared statement follows:)

1. I respectfully recommend that the following restriction clause be deleted therefrom: "except that this shall not operate to make the farm from which the allotment was transferred eligible for an allotment as having cotton planted thereon during the 3-year base period :".

2. Reasons: The basic purposes of the Agricultural Act as amended are twofold: (1) To allow for a reducation of cotton acreage when conditions demand such reduction; and (2) to provide an orderly method of alloting the acreage to farms where such allotment is needed. There is no question but that the act serves the first purpose. Nor is there any question but that paragraph (2) of section 344, subsection (M), substantially serves the second purpose.

However, the clause in paragraph (2) which it is desired to delete merely complicates the procedure. It does not require that a certain proportion of the allotment must be planted, fertilized, cultivated, and harvested. It merely requires that cotton must be planted at sometime during the 3-year period.

Under that requirement, a farmer with an allotment of 1 acre, or 10, or 20, or 1,000 acres, need only plant once in 3 years one-tenth of an acre to maintain his allotment. Can that seriously be thought to indicate a need for an allotment on that farm. When the farmer with an allotment takes the trouble to go to the county seat and sign a voluntary release, does not that indicate his desire to retain his allotment as an asset of his farm? Why then require the additional and useless gesture of planting a little patch?

A further and more cogent reason for this deletion is the effect of a loss of allotment on the value of property. When the allotment is lost through an inadvertent failure to comply with this unreasonably burdensome provision, it is a long uphill struggle to reestablish that allotment. Yet it is important to the value of the property that there be a reasonable allotment.

Take the case of a farmer approaching the age of retirement, whose sons are in other professions or in other sections of the country. As retirement approaches he begins to plan the sale of his property. For some years, because of scarcity of labor or other causes, he has devoted his farm to other crops, has planted no cotton, and now finds that he has no cotton allotment. Has he been blameworthy? Has he hurt the cotton industry by failing to plant cotton? He has not. Then why arbitrarily deprive him of an asset of his farm? As a result of the loss of his allotment he finds it more difficult, if not impossible. to sell his farm even at a reduced price.

Mr. HOUSTON MANNING. I want to say I oppose planting any acre of land diverted for control and supported crop into any other crop in the land that is being controlled or supported. I wanted to put that in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taylor, please. Give your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF EARLE R. TAYLOR, GREER, S. C.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am Earle R. Taylor. I am a peach grower in Greer, S. C. I am 56 years old. I own 640 acres and rent approximately

200 acres. I have about 250 acres in peaches and 150 head of cattle and my cotton allotment was 15 acres.

Gentlemen, I wanted it understood I am speaking for no one but myself. I represent, I might say I am president of the South Carolina Peach Council, also chairman of the fruit and vegetable committee for the Farm Bureau and I am also on the agricultural marketing commission for South Carolina but I want it understood I am speaking only for myself.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. TAYLOR. In my estimation the No. 1 problem of our peach industry and vegetable industry is in the field of marketing. When I say that I mean the big terminal markets, especially New York City. I understand there is a bill in the House, not affecting New York but affecting any of the markets. This big terminal market in New York City controls the markets of our fruit and vegetables of this country. It is just like you might say your political saying, “How goes Maine so goes the Nation." That is absolutely more true in our vegetable and fruit industry. The market today in New York City is used on us in an f. o. b. price back in Spartanburg and Greenville Counties when we are selling peaches. If the market breaks in New York it breaks where we are. And you know that is not right.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you remedy that? What would you want us to do?

Mr. TAYLOR. The thing I want you to do is straighten out that mess in New York.

The CHAIRMAN. But how? You can't force them to buy your peaches.

Mr. TAYLOR. You can at least bring enough pressure from Washington to bear to where it can be moved out and put in a place where we can cut down the handling cost of our vegetables that go in there. If you pull a truckload of peaches in there, my truckloads of peaches in there, say I pull them in there they meet me and I have to put a driver on and I have to pay those high handling costs and it is the most dilapidated market in the world. It dates back to the horse and buggy days. For any further information on that I would like to refer you to Mr. Crow in Washington. He can give you

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Crow is in the Division of Marketing.
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. It is just one of our big troubles.

The CHAIRMAN. I am wondering how we can handle that legislatively.

Mr. TAYLOR. We here in South Carolina had a problem here in Columbia of a market here. We suggested that the State take the thing over, which they did, and moved it out of the city of Columbia and it is self-supporting, it is not costing the State of South Carolina one cent and it is paying its bonds before they come due. If the same thing can be worked in New York, we realize it would be a larger scale. The CHAIRMAN. Is that not a local matter over which Congress has no control?

Mr. TAYLOR. That of course would be, but the point we are trying to bring to you is that that thing should be a national matter because it represents your State and my State.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. TAYLOR. And affects the price of all of our fruit and vegetables. The CHAIRMAN. You see, there are certain areas in which the Fed

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »