The sun. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1937-1972, February 13, 1942, Image 5
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 13. 1842
THE NEWBERRY SUN
PAGE FIVE
Congressman Hare Pleads For Farmers
I am not unmindful that any leg
islation of this kind must necessarily
be based upon proof showing more
than a local disaster and there must
be suffering and need as a result
therefrom. I would oe opposed to
legislation if only a few people were
involved, because it would then be
the obligation of the community,
county or State, but here there are
thousands of people who are suffer
ing as a result of a disaster, and I
feel it is within the province of the
Federal Government to come to their
assistance somewhat in proportion
to their need and losses. I am not
personally familiar with the %otal
area involved, but what I have to
say is based upon personal knowledge
and facts that cannot be denied. I
shall use the circumstances in my
home county as an illustration in
support of my argument.
The record will show that from
about the 12th of June of last year
up to and shortly after August 1 we
had about 22 inches of rainfall, mak
ing it impossible for many farmers
to get into some of their fields for a
period of 2 months, and as a conse
quence many lost their entire cotton
crop and a great portion of their
com. According to the last census,
there were a little over 2,000 far
mers in this county, and I hold in my
hand affidavits from 1,485 of these
farmers showing their production of
cotton in 1940 and 1941. I have tab
ulated the information contained in
these affidavits and find that 10 per
cent of them did not pick 1 pound of
cotton this last year, and 36 percent
produced less than one-half of a bale,
the average of the 1,485 being less
than 2 bales, when the year previous
the average was between 7 and 8
bales. Their yield of com was
somewhat in proportion.
Anyone here who is familiar with
farm operations—and it matters not
whether you are from South Caro
lina, Texas, California, Nebraska,
Maine, or New York—will know that
when there is such a crop failure
there is certain to be distressing need.
Many have written me and said that
they have no cash income whatsoever,
and in many instances were unable
to secure meat, bread, or clothing for
their families. They have certain
ly had a disaster, and a great many
of them are in need. According to
the evidence submitted, a similar
situation exists in a majority of the
counties in my State as well as a
number of counties in other States.
Some who are opposing this bill
say they admit the facts but suggest
that the people should go to the W.
P. A. for relief. It may be that in
a few instances some may find em
ployment but in most localities in
my district there are no W. P. A.
projects to go to. Furthermore, I
would like to suggest that from my
observation and experience a man
who undertakes to make a living on
a farm has work to do every month,
every week, and every day of the
year, so if he is required to go to
the W. P. A. for the next 2 or 3
months, he will have made no pre
paration for his recovery next year.
I submit further it will be cheaper
for the Government to make the
grant herein proposed than to pro
vide additional funds for the W. P.
A. projects for the reason that the
grant in most cases will be less than
what it will cost the Government tc
maintain a farmer on the W. P. A
and when he is doing W. P. A. work
he will not be contributing very much
toward' the defense program, where
as if he is at home getting ready for
spring planting, he may be making
a very valuable contribution to our
defense program this next year.
I suggest further there are no
Federal W. P. A. projects in that
section of the country and the Fed
eral Government would obtain no
benefit from such an expenditure
but these men are farmers and agri
culture is the basis of our national
wealth, and if they can remain on
the farm and continue their opera
tions they will contribute to our na
tional wealth, which will be a partial
security for the enormous sums of
money we are now appropriating to
defend our Government and its in
stitutions. These people are without
subsistence, and if they are forced to
go elsewhere to find employment in
order to keep soul and body together,
then agriculture to that extent must
suffer, and this is a time when agri
culture is going to rank second to
none in our elements of defense. I
agree with the gentleman from Mich
igan (Mr. Crawford) when he stated
a short while ago that in his opin
ion there would be a breakdown in
our defense program from the stand
point of agricultural production with
in a period of 1 year unless w# are
able to maintain and retain labo* on
our farms. In my section a number
of farms have already been deserted
for the reason that the occupants had
nothing upon which to subsist, and
for the further reason that the Gov
ernment is offering fabulous prices—
prices too fabulous—for work on
some of its defense activities. I do
not blame these people at all—if I
were in their place I would go, too—
but the point I am trying to make
is that many of them are leaving re
luctantly, and if the Government
would only come to their assistance
for a few months, they would remain
and contribute toward the produc
tion of those crops so essential in
our defense program. It will be a
tragedy if we fail in our production
program.
Others have suggested that these
farmers should go to the Farm Se
curity Administration for aid. My
reply is that same have called upon
this agency for assita.»ce. I wish I
had the time to review the corres
pondence with the men and women
who say they have been going to the
office of the Farm Security Admini
stration for the past 2 or 3 months
and so far they tell me they have not
been able to get an opinion on their
application.
You understand I am not availing
myself of the opportunity to criti
cize the Farm Security Administra
tion but it seems that its programs
and regulations do not fit in and take
care of this situation. Under the
provisions of the Farm Security Act
providing aid or grants to farmers
when crops have been destroyed' by
hail, floods, storms, or otherwise a
representative of the Department
makes an investigation to determine
whether the applicant is in need of
assistance and then decide upon the
amount that may be granted. This
bill duplicates the existing law pro-'
viding that the Secretary of Agri
culture, and he can elect to do this
through the Farm Security Adlmini-
startion if he sees fit, shall first deter
mine who is entitled to aid under
existing regulations but instead of
leaving the amount of aid to be grant
ed within the discretion of an indi
vidual this bill provides a yardstick
to be used in fixing the maximum
amount of each grant and in doing
this it undertakes to distribute the
aid as near as mathematically pos
sible to the need and losses sustain
ed. Under the Farm Security Act
the amount of the loan or grant, as
I have already indicated, is within the
descretion of the inspector and the
sky may be the limit but under the
formula of this bill no person would
receive a grant in excess of $50o and
it could not exceed, in the case of
cotton, the diference of what he pro
duced this year and 40 percent ot his
normal production multiplied by the
parity price fixed by the Department
of Agriculture. To illustrate: If a
farmer’s normal production, as pre
viously ascertained by the Depart
ment of Agriculture, should be 300
pounds per acre, he would fiirst de
duct 60 percent, which would leave
120 pounds, and if it Were shown that
the farmer produced 90 pounds of cot
ton per acre this year he would be
paid on the difference between 90 and
120 or 30 pounds at the rate of ap
proximately 16.6 cents per pound,
which would give him $4.95 per acre,
and if he had 10 acres, he would get
$49.50. This is not a great amount
but it would enable that farmer to
stay at home and try to get ready
for another crop.
No. We have no municipalities of
any size. There is not a municipality
in my county with as many as two
thousand people in it, but there are
20,000 people in the county depend
ent upon cotton and corn for a liv
ing, and they have already said, they
had 22 inches of rainfall within a
period of slightly more than 60 days.
Mr. Chairman, under the policy of
this Government, as I said a few
minutes ago, from 1803 up until the
present hour, we have always given
relief to people when they were in
need and local facilities could not
take care of them. There is not a
section represented here today but
what has been the beneficiary of the
Government at one time or another,
and I submit there is every justifi
cation for favorable consideration of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, a point I wish to
emphasize and again call attention
to is that some of the people on
these small farms are of necessity
leaving the farm. They are going to
Pennsylvania; some are going to
Illinois; some to other sections of the
country; and I am daily recerving
people
letters and telegrams from
saying that this year their farms will things he has to buy, such increase
crop and it would, therefore. b« un
necessary to make additional appro
priations should the bill pass, and
the second is that the use of such
funds will in a measure compensate
The farmer for the increased price on
the things he buys due to the opera
tion of the tariff law. My understand
ing is that the parity-payment policy
established a few years ago was for
the purpose of providing farmers
with a benefit corresponding to that
obtained by industry as a result of
our protective-tariff system. Th»t is,
the parity payment in a measure is
to reimburse a farmer somewhat in
proportion to the amount he pays in
the way of increased prices for the
grow up in weeds or grass, because
they have nobody to work them. I am
venturing the prediction that unless
we can get some aid to this section
of the country the defense program
in the next two years will bog down
and you will have to draft men to go
on the farm and produce food for
the men in the front line of battle.
Further objection to the bill is bas
ed on the ground that funds already
appropriated for parity paymsrfits
this year are to be used in paying
the grants provided in case the bill
should be passed. There ar& two
reasons why the grants should be
paid from this sum. One is the pos
sibility that cotton farmers will not
receive parity payments for this next
being due to custom duties or tar
iffs. Or, to put it another way, it was
for the purpose of placing the pur
chasing power of the farmer on a
parity with the purchasing power «f
the beneficiary of our tariff system.
Now what is the situation with re
ference to these farmers we are en
deavoring to assist? They have had
a crop failure and there has, there
fore, been a reduction in the total
production of cotton to the extent of
such failure and, as a result of this
reduction, coupled with a number of
other factors, the market price of
cotton is now equal to or higher than
the established parity price; conse
quently, under existing law, the par
ity funds appropriated will not be
used for paying parity on cotton for
this next crop. These farmers, there
fore, will not receive parity payment
and they are now not only suffering
this loss but they will suffer the loss
sustained by their crop failure and
their suffering will further be in
creased or magnified by the fact that
they must continue to pay the in
creased prices on the things they buy
due to the operation of the tariff
law. That is, if the Congress fails
to act favorably on this proposition,
it will by its action in the passage
of the tariff law and the Parity Pay
ment Act compound the suffering of
these farmers who sustained a crop
disaster. Therefore, from a stand
point of equity and good conscience,
I feel that the Congress should give
favorable consideration to this bill.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr.
Chairman, I am urging favorable con
sideration of this proposal for two
outstanding reasons; one is to aid a
class of people in great need and who
are suffering as a result of a disas
trous crop failure due to causes over
which they had no control, and the
second is that such relief win assist
in rehabilitating these people on the
farm where they should be able to
carry on this year and make a con
tribution to the general welfare of
our country, our national economy,
apd our national defense program.
Tl) ESJOA V v ?< QV E M 7
1917
jo*
Xfty.ofxo; l
, :«,• • 5
toe-/?
g.i* c»x* >
Sr#* * •
re*”* * :
Making a Soldier
of Sugar
ao we have sent men abroad to ^
A America—as we have sent money-.*
-TV j r Tf?ed steel with other commodtues. into fight
mg-scrvte^r existed wheat and other fi^nglood*-
so we must make a soldier of sugar.
Nutriment for the nations at warisa^ vital
,o the outcome as the powder that f«ds the
Amer-
certam innusuiw - - yet the
workers -ho Wrt I™. ^
Amej
%>!
L> i
V.r «y!
i civilian is in this war with the ’ w
boss great and small. Amer.can cap.ul from Wall
. the remotest country bank, « w ‘ th *** y
every step of the way. The I/. S. means U-
1 of us arc in the fight with ^everything we have.
r of everything we ch^B
privilege to com*
rly to
to
WORLD WAR I
1917
The United States Government restrict
ed the use of sugar in World War I.
The response of The Coca-Cola Com
pany was expressed in the newspaper
advertisement reproduced at the left.
we
r ouf
E w. : conservation _
efforts in every direction that oP^rtunity may
lose, in manufacture as well a* beyond thescopeol
our immediate interest; and in this f ort J e ^ y men
bespeak the co-operation of dealers and
everywhere.
The Coca-Cola Company^
ATLANTA. OA
I
t*o* f-rf - .o y- >. '
> - • *••»«»-••••*»**.mMW
.... ^
t .
WORLD WAR II
1942
T.v,-
>7
TRADE MARK REG U S PAT OFF
p/*s tax
You trust its quality
History repeats itself in World War II. Sugar has been called to
war again. Our government has restricted the use of sugar for all.
Naturally, that includes Coca-Cola.
You’ll continue to find Coca-Cola around the corner from any
where, though we regret that you won’t be able to enjoy the pause
that refreshes as often as you might like. Our volume has been re
duced. But this we pledge: the character of Coca-Cola will be
unimpaired. The American people can continue to trust its quality.
As in 1917, we count upon the patience of dealers everywhere.
Conserving sugar is another step toward Victory. Whatever any of
us may have, or may not have, Victory we must have above all else!
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
SOTUEO UMOe* AUTHORITY Of THE COCA-COLA COMPANY »Y
NEWBERRY COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY