1018 * GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Such a statement was tantamount to saying that now that Chinese 

 tung oil had appeared back on the American market in vohime our 

 American tung farmers should either cut down or abandon their 

 orchards. In what other way could they adjust their production to 

 "postwar conditions"? 



This attitude seemed so unbelievably harsh and un-American that 

 a group of tung growers, composing the Special Tung Growers Com- 

 mittee, delegated Mr. and Mrs. John Watts, publishers of Tung World 

 magazine, to go to Washington and question CCC officials, as well as 

 other Government bureau heads, in an effort to clarify the situation. 



Mr. and Mrs. Watts visited Washington in October 1948, and con- 

 ferred with Frank Woolley, deputy administrator of the CCC, George 

 L. Prichard, head of the Fats and Oils Division of the Department of 

 Agriculture. Asked the point-blank question if the statement above 

 referred to was the official attitude of the CCC, Mr. Woolley admitted 

 that it was. Asked by Mr. Watts if it was a recommendation of the 

 CCC that the American tung farmers abandon their orchards, Mr. 

 Woolley refused to comment. He expressed himself as being opposed 

 to the entii^e support-price program, and declared that it was the — 



spinelessness of our Congressmen in being unable to say "No" to the Nation's 

 farmers that had gotten this country into the support-price program in the first 

 place. 



We believe this is a remarkable attitude for an official of an agency 

 charged with administering the laws of Congress to take, regardless 

 of whether or not tung oil is considered. We believe the Congress 

 should look into the views of Mr. Woolley and Mr. Prichard to see 

 whether these gentlemen intend to administer regulations promul- 

 gated by the Congress or whether they are so totally out of sympathy 

 with the parity and support-price programs as to be stumbling blocks 

 in the way of a fair and impartial administration as set down by 

 Congress. 



Recently an occurrence came to light which we believe sheds some 

 light on the unexplained and repeated statement of the CCC regarding 

 its "experience" with the 1947 tung support-price program. It was 

 revealed in the public prints that an American miller. Earl Wallis, 

 had purchased four tank cars of American tung oil from the Com- 

 modity Credit Corporation and had sold it to a manufacturing client. 

 The client paid Mr. Wallis for the oil, about $69,000, but Mr. Wallis 

 failed to pay the CCC in turn in some sort of banking transaction. 

 The CCC pressed Mr. Wallis for its money, and the latter was forced 

 to post as collateral on a note to the CCC stock in two American 

 tung mills in the amount of about $125,000. After two extensions 

 of the note CCC foreclosed, seized the stock, and took control of both 

 mills, one being located in Floral a, Ala., and the other in Gulfport, 

 Miss.; the stock was recently sold to officials of two paint companies, 

 and they are now operating the mUls. 



Can it be that this is the "experience" which led the CCC to turn 

 thumbs down on the American tung industry's request for a 1948 

 support price? 



Granted that the experience with Wallis was an unpleasant one, 

 is it just or reasonable that the CCC penalize the entire American 



