Page images

I understand we will receive $25 per acre for the soil bank. Twenty-five dollars per acre in soil bank will not do.

Mr. Benson really is carrying out his plan in putting the small farmer out of business who is the "backbone of the Nation." Hope you can do something for us.



D. M. DEW & SONS, INC., Latta, S. C., January 13, 1958.


House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: Appreciate the interest you showed in our corn problem in Dillon County while talking to several of us on the telephone Friday.

We are making an effort to take the matter up with the State ASC office and will, of course, appreciate what you can do through Mr. McLean or other sources in Washington.

[ocr errors]

We feel that this matter is serious this year, and should it continue year after year as a part of the agricultural program of the county, it would indeed be disastrous.

Yours very truly,

Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Florence, S. C.

D. M. DEW, Jr.,


DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As chairman of the Horry ASC County Committee, I have the occasion to come in contact with a large number of farmers in this county. They have expressed to me great concern regarding our county being classified as a commercial corn-growing area.

As you are well aware, there are in Horry County about 4,000 small farms, averaging less than 50 acres per farm with approximately 25 acres of cleared land. With the loss of 40 percent of their gross income resulting from a series of tobacco-acreage reductions, the farmers had just begun to move toward the production of hogs to supplement the tobacco loss and to diversify their farm enterprises. Now, unfortunately, the corn allotments will greatly curtail their move in this direction.

I feel that it is indeed a hardship on those farmers who wish to participate in the soil-bank program. If they participate in the soil-bank program they must, as you know, stay within their allotted acres.

Most of the farmers in Horry County are not commercial corn growers, and during a normal year would have very little surplus corn. However, during the last 2 years, due to an exceptionally good crop and to the increase of farm operating and living expenses, the farmers have actually been compelled to sell corn which should have been retained at the farm.

The farmers in this area are caught in a "squeeze" of continued increase in the cost of operation and a declining gross income. The corn allotments, as I see it, will only serve to aggravate an already serious situation in this area.

I hope that you will use your influence in removing corn allotments from Horry County.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN H. ATKINSON, Jr., Chairman, Horry ASC County Committee.


Dillon, S. C., January 15, 1958.

Congressman, Sixth Congressional District,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR JOHNNY: The current corn program in which Dillon County has been included this year appears to impose undue hardship on quite a few Dillon County farmers. The average farmer in Dillon County produces a majority of his corn

for his own use rather than for sale. With the reduction of his money crop to a minimum he must of necessity turn to other sources of income. Foremost among these other sources is the raising of hogs and cattle. The tremendous cut, which the average farmer in Dillon County has had to take in his corn allotment for the coming year, will drastically change his plan production in both hogs and cattle.

In addition to the farmer who raises hogs and cattle, the dairyman has been hurt particularly by this program. Corn which he has planted to harvest as silage is counted as part of his allotment. Certainly this should not be considered part of corn production and allowances should be made for this type of farmer.

If the corn allotment continues along the same lines that it has begun and as both the tobacco and cotton programs have done, many Dillon County farmers will be forced to sell their farms within the next year.

Of the many farmers that I have discussed this program with, I feel that a large majority of them feel that they are not in sympathy with the program and that either the allotments in the county should be increased to a more realistic figure or else the county should be excluded from the program.

Yours very truly,

DILL B. ELLIS, President. LATTA, S. C., January 13, 1958.


Washington, D. C.

DEAR JOHN: I have 2 farms under 1 worksheet No. 7097, cleared acres 267.7, with a cotton allotment of 26.7 acres, tobacco allotment of 11.49 acres, and a corn allotment of 19.1 acres.

You can see that my allotments are low for the number of acres and the proposed corn allotment is less than a fourth of what we have been planting, therefore, I can't put any of my land in the soil bank unless I comply with the corn allotment. So you see I can't take any part in soil bank.

Last year I put my wheat allotment in the soil bank, thinking that the land I set aside and plowed to keep the weeds down, could be planted in hay or milo after wheat-harvesting time, but was not allowed to plant or graze until after January 1958. Personally, you can see that I am opposed to the soil bank, allotments, and all controls. I would like for the farmers to be their own bosses again. With my personal regards and best wishes to you for a good year.


P. S.—I had rather plant what I want to plant and get less for it, if we have to. I thought you would like to know how we feel about these things.

R. L. R.

LATTA, S. C., January 13, 1958.


Congressman, Sixth Congressional District,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned members of the Pineland Grange Community, Dillon County, S. C., are much opposed to the farm corn acreage allotment in Dillon County, S. C., on the following grounds:

1. Insufficient corn is produced in Dillon County for human and livestock needs.

2. Insect pests have reduced corn yields.

3. Small farmers and tenants will be penalized to the hurting point.

4. Dairy farmers will face disaster-especially so if silage corn is not exempt from the program.

5. Pork for home use will have to be reduced for families who are not now receiving enough of same.

We urge you to seek relief in this situation in some way.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. MCMILLAN. This is the first time that we have had any experience with the commercial-corn program in my district and I presume that is one reason that it has caused some trouble.

If you will give us a statement as to how these two counties happen to get into the commercial-corn area and who gives it information for placing them in this, we will be glad to hear that.


Mr. POLLOCK. I would like to have Mr. Walker make that statement. He has the figures to support his statement.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, if you will permit me I would like to develop the answer to this question in some kind of chronological order.

Mr. MCMILLAN. That will be satisfactory to me. I have not been able to give a good answer to the people of my district.

Mr. WALKER. We will do our best to clarify it here. I have here a compilation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Under subsection 301 (b), paragraphs 4 (a) and 4 (b), we have the provision of law that provides the guidelines for the establishment of the commercial corn producing area. And if you will permit me, I want to read it even though it could be taken from here to go into the record, but I want to get it before you so it will be a foundation for future discussion.

Paragraph 4 (a) reads as follows:

Commercial corn producing areas shall include all counties in which the average production of corn, excluding corn used as silage during the 10 calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year for which such area is determined, after adjustment for abnormal weather conditions, is 450 bushels or more per farm, and 4 bushels or more for each acre of farmland in the county.

Under this provision of 4 (a), a county must meet these standards on a 10-year average production basis and on a county-wide basis. Now 4 (b) reads as follows:

Whenever prior to February 1 of any calendar year the Secretary has reason to believe that any county which is not included in the commercial corn producing area determined pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph (a)—

Just read

or that any minor civil division in a county bordering on such area is producing,

excluding corn used for silage, an average of at least 450 bushels of corn per farm, and an average of at least 4 bushels for each acre of farmland in the county, or in the minor civil division, as the case may be, he shall cause immediate investigation to be made to determine such facts. If upon the basis of such investigation the Secretary finds such county or minor civil division is likely to produce corn in such average amounts during such calendar year he shall proclaim such a determination and commencing with such calendar year, such county shall be included in the commercial corn producing area.

There are other provisions here, but that is the meat of this provision. Mr. MCMILLAN. As I understand you, in Dillon County, from the correspondence I have had, there is only one township in that county that raised enough corn to place it in the commercial area.

Mr. WALKER. That is true.

Mr. WATTS. Can I ask one question? When you talk about a minor civil division, do you break it down into smaller units than counties? Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATTS. You say half a county?

Mr. WALKER. No; minor civil divisions, as in Georgia, the military district, but in most States they are called townships.

Mr. MCMILLAN. This is a township.

Mr. WATTS. We are divided into counties and magisterial districts. Mr. WALKER. That is similar to the townships.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WATTS. You mean that if one of the magisterial districts raised corn or produced corn on the rates that you talk about, that would become a commercial-corn area, and the rest of the county would not be?

Mr. WALKER. That township would bring the whole county in.
Mr. MCMILLAN. The whole county?

Mr. WALKER. Only if it is adjacent to a county that meets the requirements on the 10-year basis.

Mr. WATTS. What has that got to do with the "adjacent to"?

Mr. WALKER. That is the provision of law.

Mr. WATTS. Why was it put in there? What is the purpose?

Mr. WALKER. We will have to go back to the origin of the AAA Act to find why.

Mr. WATTS. I don't see why, because some other county happens to be in that.

Mr. JOHNSON. You mean if the township is adjacent to it?

Mr. WALKER. No; any township within any county that is adjacent to a county designated on a 10-year basis.

Mr. JOHNSON. It could be 20 or 30 miles away from the other township.

Mr. WATTS. It may be a hundred miles away?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. MCMILLAN. That is what is causing so much trouble. I cannot understand why a little township within the county, because they happen to grow a certain amount of corn, places the whole county into the commercial-corn area. That is more than I have been able to explain to my farmers up to the present time.

Mr. WALKER. As my second step here I would like to refer you to this exhibit that you have. In the first place, Dillon and Horry Counties, S. C., are tested because they are adjacent to a county that meets these requirements on a 10-year-average basis.

Mr. MCMILLAN. They border on Robeson County, N. C.?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, Robeson, N. C.; that is right. They all corner right in the middle of the river there. So, they are adjacent.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We understand that part. But we could not understand why one little township would bring the whole county under the commercial-corn area, and we further could not understand why, with so much of the corn being used on the farm.

Mr. WALKER. The provision of law specifically excludes corn used for silage purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I imagine the dairy people put that in.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We have 25 cattlemen in that county and, in fact, all of them will be out of business if your order remains in effect. Twenty-five cattle farms in that one county will be without feed. Mr. WATTS. You have what? Please explain more fully.

Mr. MCMILLAN. They won't let silage go into the allotment.
Mr. WATTS. You mean they can't raise enough corn?

Mr. MCMILLAN. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. They do not have to comply.

Mr. MCMILLAN. They can't put any of their money crops in the soil bank if the Department's order prevails.

Mr. JOHNSON. I see.

(The tables previously referred to are as follows:)

Corn-Annual yields and acreage planted to corn, excluding silage, 1948–57

[blocks in formation]

1948-57 average.

1948-57 average, adjusted for abnormal weather conditions.

10-year average production as adjusted for abnormal weather conditions

[blocks in formation]

ing silage


89, 890


90, 920


99, 710


91, 710


91, 890


88, 370


91, 720


100, 800


94, 300


84, 800

[blocks in formation]

1948-57 average, adjusted for abnormal weather conditions

10-year average production as adjusted for abnormal weather conditions

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »