880 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



in helping those who merit help, and think our Government'should always favor 

 those in this class. 



Now, in my study and observation of the Agricultural Act of 1933, according 

 to my understanding it is the most discriminating, unfair, and unequal law ever 

 written. It has paid premiums to those who do not deserve any help at all, and 

 has continuously and consistently penalized those who should have the financial 

 support of our Government and the good will and moral support of all of our people. 



This act provided, here in the cotton section, that every cotton farmer must 

 have his acreage planted to cotton for the 5-year period of 1928 through 1932, 

 calculated, and then strike an average for that 5-year period, and this figure would 

 be a basis for calculating future plantings (when the quota system was used) and 

 a basis for calculating all Government subsidies, conservation payments, and so 

 forth. I understand these basic figures have been used ever since this act was 

 passed. 



Here is an example of how this worked: We have two farmers, A and B, who had 

 the same sized farms, and planted the same cotton acreage in 1928 and for years 

 previous to this. They had practically the same size family and the cost of living 

 was the same. In 1928 cotton prices went down sharply, and farmer A looked at 

 this as a good businessman should have done. He reasoned, that the price was 

 down, because our production was too high. Both A and B planted 40 acres in 

 1928, and then A cut his to 35 acres in 1929. The price was down again that fall, 

 so he cut again in 1930 down to 30 acres, and in 1931 to 25 acres and in 1932 to 20. 

 This gave him an average of 30 acres for the 5-year basic period. Farmer B says, 

 well the price of cotton is down, so I will just have to make more cotton, so in 1929 

 he planted 45 acres: in 1930, 50 acres; in 1931, 55; and in 1932, 60. His average was 

 50 acres per year for the basic period. Had all cotton farmers done what A did 

 there would have been no emergency and no need of any cotton quotas set up, but 

 after he had done what all should have done he received the unthankfulness of our 

 Congress, and they passed a law which has penalized him ever since, by setting^ 

 him up a basis or quota of 30 acres, and B, who did the verj^ thing that wrecked 

 the cotton farming and brought the emergency on, was given 50 acres for his 

 allotment. The law has granted him almost twice as much pay, and allowed him 

 to grow almost twice as much cotton, when marketing quotas were established as 

 A, thus paying him a premium for overproducing and penalizing A for doing what 

 all should have done, reducing his production. 



This 1933 law, a part of which I understand is now in effect, is full of inequities 

 and discrimination, so it should be repealed and a new democratic law passed to 

 take its place. Of all the things we need today, we need most to convince the world 

 that we are truly democratic, and to do that we must practice here at home what 

 we try to teach others. The Government is now paying conservation payments 

 and other benefits, based on the basis set up by this discriminating act, so this- 

 most certainly should be corrected. 



Now, I oppose any legislation restricting production in our crops, livestock, etc., 

 as I believe there are enough people in other parts of the world, who are badly in 

 need of all the overproduction we can grow, hundreds of millions of them who are 

 not half fed or clothed, and our Government would do well to furnish this to them, 

 even though they were not able to pay us one penny. But if the Congress sees 

 diffeiently and decides to write a restrictive law, let them for once use common 

 horse sense by writing one that is really democratic. Our Constitution says all 

 men are born free and equal and should have equal rights and privileges imder all 

 the laws adopted by our Congress. But when a law says one man can grow tax 

 free so many pounds of cotton, bushels of wheat, etc., and another man an entirely 

 different amount, are they being measured by the same yardstick? Is democracy 

 being applied to them? No! A thousand times no! The only way I can see how 

 a restrictive law can be constitutionally written is to measure everyone by the 

 same yardstick, or give unto everyone the same allotment. They who grow more 

 than their proportionate part, should pay whatever penalty is decided upon, so 

 let them buy exempt marketing certificates from those who make under their 

 allotment, and let the law stipulate the price of these. Those who grow more than 

 their proportionate part, are the ones causing overproduction and should be 

 penalized therefor. 



By passing this kind of a law, it will be in harmony with our Constitution and 

 will be doing a distinct favor to the little, backward, and ignorant fellow at the 

 bottom of the ladder. It should be the function of our Congress to protect and 

 enhance the rights of this class, as those higher will take care of themselves. 



This would also give a greater income to the one in the greatest need and 

 would thereby give a greater buying power for our products, while on the other 

 hand, if given to those at the top, as the present law does, much of this income 



