1092 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



(The letters are as follows:) 



State of New Hampshire, 

 Department of Agriculture, 



Concord, March 4, 1949. 

 Congressman Norris Cotton, 



Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Congressman Cotton: I am sorry that I did not have more time to 

 talk with you on your recent stop-off in Concord. In particular, I would like to 

 have discussed price support with you. 



It is our opinion here that flexible price support is undoubtedly the only answer 

 at the present time, as fixed price support would continue to pile up surpluses. 

 If the Federal Government should continue to make it profitable to allow agri- 

 cultural products to be raised at a guaranteed profit and sell them to the Govern- 

 ment, it would be only a short time before all displaced persons in industry and 

 other activities would be farming for Uncle Sam. Unless strict and rigid control 

 were put into effect this, in most cases, would limit the product to a verj- select 

 group of people who might, or might not, be able to produce efficiently in farm 

 competition. 



For this, and various other reasons, I hope you will do everything possible tO' 

 support any move so that a flexible price-support program may be adopted. 

 With the best of personal regards, I am, 

 bincerely yours, 



Perley I. Fitts, Commissioner. 



Department of Agriculture, 



State of Maine, 

 Augusta, February 28, 1949. 

 Hon. Norris Cotton, 



House of Representatives, Washington' D. C. 

 Dear Sir: I realize that there is a strong feeling on the part of the House Com- 

 mittee on Agriculture for a rigid 90 percent support program for the basic com- 

 modities. Unless such a support program provides for substantial reductions in 

 production, it is obvious that we will have surpluses that may not be handled to- 

 the satisfaction of any one — the Congress, the administration, the Department 

 of Agriculture, the producers, or the public. 



Most of us here in the Northeast believe that control should be limited to- 

 minimums; that we should strive for a jiroduction which is adequate, but not 

 substantially in surplus. Probably acreage controls or quotas or what-not are 

 an essential part of the price-support program. However, price-support pro- 

 grams which assure protection from disaster are more likely to be acceptable to 

 all concerned and should result in a minimum of production control. 



Our northeast commissioners (comprising the area of New England, New York, 

 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland) meet the l7th of this 

 month at Hartford, Conn. I am sure they will be most likely to discuss this 

 matter and will forward to you their recommendations. If there is anything that 

 we can do to assist you in any way, be sure to let us know. 

 Cordially yours, 



A. K. Gardner, Commissioner. 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 



Department of Agriculture, 



Boston, March 7, 1949. 

 Hon. Norris Cotton, 



House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Mr. Cotton: The farm people of Massachusetts, in fact of all New 

 England, are definitely opposed to rigid high price supports. In such a program, 

 we can see no alternative but the arbitrary control of production. 



Here in New England, where our agriculture is so closely patterned to our con- 

 sumers' immediate requirements and needs, to be forced to reduce production, 

 could only result in hardship on ourselves and our consuming public. 



