686 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Hughes. I believe that they had the same thought in mind — 

 and I would say this, that the intention was to effect the same result, 

 and the intention was exactly the same as that used in the case of 

 cotton, only there is a different date of planting, and I do not believe 

 that it would make any particular dift'erence in the feeling of the com- 

 mittee. I think the intention would have been the same. 



Our thought was that some farmers would plant excessive amounts 

 in the fall of 1948, or probably in the spring of 1949, to the disadvan- 

 tage of farmers who continue good soil-conservation practices and who 

 did not do that, and that it would be giving them very favorable treat- 

 ment compared with the man who has gone along and engaged in good 

 soil-conservation practices, with the idea of his land being built. 



I think most all wheat growers recognize that some kind of acreage 

 control would be put into efi"ect and they just felt like they would 

 like to build up their history, and for that reason we did not feel it 

 should be considered. 



Mr. Hope. Of course, that would be as true of the man who in- 

 creased his acreage in 1948, and for 1947 and 1946 if it were made 

 with the same idea in mind. 



Mr. Hughes. I think that is true. On the price factor, I have heard 

 the feeling expressed that this may be the last year we will get 90 

 percent of parity support for the crop, and we had better get it while 

 we can, because it may be next year there will be a lower price. And 

 of course I think that had some influence too. 



Mr. Hope. No doubt those things all had some influence, but it 

 seems to me you have a dift'erent situation where you pass a law 

 ahead of time and say you are not going to count acreage you planted 

 this year, because we are trying to cut down acreage; we do not want 

 to encourage the expansion of acreage, so we are going to tell you in 

 advance it won't count in determining the base. That is one thing, 

 and the theory there is that you will accomplish something by dis- 

 couraging the planting of increased acreage in order to get a base. 

 It seems to me that is a perfectly justifiable thing to do. But if you 

 come along now after the acreage has been planted and the wheat 

 put into the ground and say, *'\Ve are not going to count that under 

 any circumstances" — notwithstanding the fact that it was put in in 

 perfectly good faith, without any violation of any law or regulation 

 and without anybody being sure that there would or would not be 

 acreage allotments in the years ahead, that is vastly different. One 

 man might have planted an increased acreage to increase his base; 

 on the other hand you might have another man in an area where 

 moisture conditions were better than they had been for years, and he 

 would be perfectly justified in putting in an increased acreage in the 

 fall of 1948. In 1947, in many areas, the weather conditions were 

 such and the market conditions were such that some farmers planted 

 only a small portion of their acreage and left a large amount of ground 

 to summer fallow, and in 1948 that was put in. Now, to come along 

 after a farmer has done that perfectly legitimate thing and say it is 

 not going to be counted in giving him his base, is a vastly different 

 situation than we had in the case of cotton, for instance, where we 

 passed the law before the cotton planting took place. 



Do not you think it will work an injustice in a good many areas? 



Mr. Hughes. I think it might be an even break. I think I can 

 see your point very well there. For instance, in areas of the South 



