Mr. Hiss. My further understanding, Mr. Boileau, is that it is impossible, administratively, to do that without breaking down exactly and entirely the control of the entire condition that is sought to be controlled.

Mr. BOILEAU. You would break it down by making exemption to the share-cropper and the tenant; you mean it is a matter of degree as to how much exemption can be made?

Mr. Hiss. I understand the degree is considerable in this instance. Mr. BOILEAU. In other words, from a legal standpoint, whether it is right to exempt land depends upon the degree; whether he will produce a bale and a half or two bales?

Mr. Hiss. As a matter of fact, the difficulty is in the interpretation of the act which makes it unworkable.

Mr. BOILEAU. Your idea is that if you exempt the share-cropper and the tenant you destroy the fundamental purpose of the act, destroy the original purpose of it?

Mr. HISS. Yes.

Mr. BOILEAU. That is the contention that is made. What authority has the Department to determine how far it can go toward a violation of the original intent of the act?

Mr. Hiss. As I stated to the chairman of the committee a while ago, if it will be helpful, the Department will be glad to furnish a full statement analyzing this whole matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would like for you to do that.

I would like, with your permission, just to ask one further question. Mr. HISS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Along the line of the questions Mr. Kleberg asked you, about making allotments to individual farmers, providing the farmer has joined in the reduction program and voluntarily reduced his cotton acreage, he is not to be penalized in favor of the farmers who have not done so.

From the legal viewpoint, do you not regard the tenant farmer the renter, and the share-cropper as farmers?

Mr. HISS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose one of these tenant farmers and share-croppers had voluntarily reduced his production under the terms of this particular section, how could you avoid that?

Mr. KLEBERG. That is the very point I had in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I am just going into that legal phase and referring to it a little further.

How would you justify any attempt to avoid that, where a tenant has made that reduction? To take a concrete example, suppose Mr. Fulmer has a tenant who has voluntarily reduced his production heretofore, and he has a production now of exactly two bales. Under the law the Secretary of Agriculture, in determining the manner of allotment to individual farmers, must provide that the farmers who have voluntarily reduced their cotton acreage shall not be penalized in favor of those farmers who have not done so.

Suppose there is another little farmer over here who owns his farm and has not volunteered a reduction in his acreage, and he still produces two bales of cotton. Now he, under that language, certainly would not be entitled to the same treatment as the tenant who had

voluntarily reduced his acreage; if so, that would be a discrimination. in his favor against Mr. Fulmer's tenant,

Mr. Hiss. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that wherever the administration could find out that such a state of facts existed, it ought to be taken into consideration. The difficulty would be in determining that fact for the hundreds of thousands of tenants.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. Hiss. The tenant who has lived here for one year and there another year, and how much land he had, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. But, taking the whole Cotton Belt, you could find that out, could you not, without much difficulty?

Mr. Hiss. The big difficulty, of course, would be to ascertain whether or not they have voluntarily reduced their acreage or whether the landlord has desired that they should reduce it.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. Zimmerman wanted to ask if you could require a limited number of tenants or a reduction

Mr. Hiss (interposing). That would raise practical difficulties, of

course.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all.

Mr. Fulmer wanted to ask Mr. Cobb a question.

Mr. FULMER. Yes. Mr. Cobb, I have one or two questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cobb, Mr. Fulmer wanted to ask you a question.

Mr. FULMER. I would like to ask you, Mr. Cobb, if you have given any consideration to a renter; for instance, the 1-horse renter or the 1-horse farmer on the land-the allotment base history would be the same for those farmers, as I understand it. Now the renter has got to pay the first cotton to the landlord and, in some instances, it may take his total allotment of bales, or the two bales, in order to pay the tax and to pay for his supplies and to pay his seed loan, and where the farmer who owns the land receives the same allotment he has got to use his tax-free cotton to pay his landlord and to pay for his supplies.

Now, does not that work a discrimination or a hardship on that renter as against the individual who owns his farm?

Mr. COBB. The allotment in that case, Mr. Fulmer, would be made to the farm on the base history of that particular farm, and if this particular tenant happens to be on that part of the farm he will get his share of the exemption that is allowed to it.

Mr. FULMER. My thought is that he would have to pay his rent, in a great many instances, and leave him no tax-free cotton at all. Mr. COBB. He would have his share of the tax-free cotton that goes with the farm; the allotment is to be made to the farm and not to the individual. In the case of the cash tenant farmer, the allotment would be made to him individually; but still the allotment is made to the farm on its base history and would be the same as the allotment made to the farm.

Mr. FULMER. Yes; but out of that he will have to pay his rent to his landlord; he is a renter, and perhaps he will have to pay the two bales that are allotted to him, or half of his production; he may only produce three bales and two of those bales may go to the landlord and he will be left one bale tax free and out of that he will have

to pay his fertilizer, pay for his supplies, and he is absolutely up against it compared with the man that owns his own land that does not have to pay any rent.

Mr. COBB. Well, still, that particular farm, if a 2-bale farm, would get those two bales under this plan.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cobb, you said something about finding out just what you could do with reference to cotton ginning. Have your been able to do that?

Mr. COBB. We have not, Mr. Chairman. The Secretary is out of the city, and we have not been able to get together with him as yet. The CHAIRMAN. But you are endeavoring to work that out, of course?

Mr. COBB. Yes; we are endeavoring to work it out.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, unless there are some further questions.

I am going to ask the members of Mr. Doxey's subcommittee and of Mr. Fulmer's committee to get together and go over any suggested amendments to the bill, or suggestions that involve amendments covering questions that have been raised.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you about the ginning proposition to which you referred?

The CHAIRMAN. That will come up before the subcommittee. You can file your statement, Mr. Zimmerman, if you would like to have it made a part of the report. If you will just give that to the reporter.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you can discuss it before the subcommittee, if you care to do so; Mr. Doxey's and Mr. Fulmer's subcommittees have charge of that particular subject.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I will be glad to file the statement, and also discuss the matter with the subcommittee; I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN, Judge Tarver, of Georgia.

Mr. TARVER. Mr. Chairman, may I state that I have attended the hearings for 3 days in the interest of an amendment to the Bankhead Act and the hearings have closed before I have had an opportunity to discuss it. I would like to make a statement to the committee, if it is permissible. I have not had opportunity to appear before the full committee, but will discuss it with the subcommittee, with your permission.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Tarver, we would like to have the benefit of your suggestions; and if you will prepare a statement to be published with the report, it will be made a part of the record and will be available to all the Members. Of course, you can discuss the matter before the subcommittee, but if you will furnish us a report we would like to have it made a part of the printed record.

Mr. TARVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no desire whatever to have my statement in the written report.

The CHAIRMAN. But we would like to have it.

Mr. TARVER. What I desired to say I can say to the subcommittee, since I do not have opportunity to present my views to the main committee. My reason is that I believe that some action by Congress in the form of an amendment to this bill is necessary. I am going

118908-35-SER D-7

to appear before the subcommittee, but I have no desire to have my remarks in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. But it would be available to the Members of the House who care to read it.

Mr. TARVER. I will give my views to the committee, however. The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have your views; and if you will prepare a statement, as suggested, it will appear in the printed record.

Mr. TARVER. My observation is that the Members of the House rarely read these hearings anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you will have opportunity to appear before the subcommittee.

Mr. TARVER. I assume they will notify us.

The CHAIRMAN. And if it develops that further hearing is necessary, we may have a hearing later on on the same subject. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the committee adjourned.)

STATEMENT OF HON. WALL DOXEY

Quite a number of bills were introduced by various Members of Congress, seeking amendments to the present Bankhead Cotton Control Act. All were referred to the Committee on Agriculture and the committee had general hearings for several days, but came to no definite conclusion in regard thereto. It was the will of the full committee that study of this question should be pursued further and the subcommittees of which Mr. Fulmer and Mr. Doxey are chairmen, respectively, were directed to continue the hearings and draft a bill to be presented to the full committee for further consideration, embodying such amendments as it deemed necessary to enact to remedy existing legislation.

The subcommittee had before it not only statements and statistics furnished by representatives from the Department of Agriculture but also had representatives of he ginners' associations and other witnesses, as well as various Members of Congress from the cotton States who were vitally interested, and present Bankhead Act. These gentlemen were of great service to the comall those Members who had introduced bills suggesting amendments to the present Bankhead Act. These gentlemen were of great service to the committee members in their endeavor to work out a practical solution to this important and complicated matter.

The subcommittee went into a very extensive study of the various features presented by each respective bill, and using the original bill introduced by Mr. Doxey (H. R. 5578), which is hereunto attached, as a basis, redrafted the bill for submission to the full committee, said bill to be known as "the Doxey bill (H. R. 6424)."

This bill in the judgment of the subcommittee is definite and includes certain amendments that if enacted into law will bring about a more satisfactory and equitable administration of the present act. It is one that will not only be least objectionable, as there is a great amount of opposition to any legislation in this regard, but it is one that it is hoped will remedy and clear up some controversial sections of the present act. In other words, the purpose of the Doxey bill is to enable the Department of Agriculture to better administer the Bankhead Cotton Control Act and by specific direction express the intent of Congress in regard thereto.

STATEMENT BY MR. ZIMMERMAN, OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, at this particular stage in your consideration of the problems of the cotton industry and the industry as affected by the operation of the Bankhead Act, I feel that some consideration should be given to the cotton ginner and the ginning business.

With a great many people the cotton farmer or grower is considered to be the only one primarily interested in the cotton-reduction program; and legislation, as

well as departmental interpretation, up to this time has given consideration to the cotton farmer or producer and has left out of consideration the other great branch of the cotton industry, namely, the ginning business. This erroneous view or notion has led to serious discrimination against the ginner and the ginning business, which should have the serious consideration of this committee at this time.

I remind the committee of the fact that the ginner is as vitally connected with and as much a part of the cotton industry as the cotton grower or producer. Up to this time the relationship of the ginner to the cotton industry has not been recognized, and it has suffered and has been penalized, as I shall hereafter set

out.

Without the ginner the cotton farmer or producer would be helpless, and the fruits of his labor would never reach the market or reach the place where he could cash in on his summer's work.

In the year 1930 there was approximately the sum of $250,000,000 invested in cotton gins located in the Cotton Belt. This enormous investment was made by individuals, firms, and corporations because of the demand at the hands of cotton growers and producers for ginning machinery and equipment necessary to handle the normal production of cotton throughout the country before the inauguration of our present cotton-reduction program.

In 1930 there were approximately 16,000 cotton gins in operation; whereas in the crop year of 1934-35 there were only about 13,000 cotton gins in operation in the country. Approximately 3,000 gins have ceased to operate and have gone out of business; and many of the gins which have operated under the present program have done so with a very low volume or output, rendering the ginning business unprofitable for a large number of gins still operating and engaged in business.

The loss of business and profits by the ginners of our country has and will materially affect the profits of the cotton farmers or growers. This is true, because when the ginning business ceases to be profitable the ginner no longer makes the necessary repairs and improvements in his plant which enable him to render the farmer that efficient service in the ginning of his cotton which yields to him a larger revenue and better price for the cotton raised and ginned; consequently, because of the situation in which the ginner finds himself at this time, the farmer likewise is in a position where he has and will continue to suffer loss of revenue derived from the sale of his cotton, due to poor ginning. As is known to most of you, cotton is sold on sample; and the classification of cotton for sale on the market is determined largely by the manner in which it is ginned in preparation for the market. Furthermore, if and when the time comes when the number of operating gins becomes further reduced, then the farmer will find himself subjected to increased ginning cost and diminished returns for his cotton.

When the cotton-reduction program was inaugurated and placed in operation the ginner was left out of consideration entirely. The act itself placed upon the ginner the onerous duty and burden of collecting the tax on cotton due the Government, without any provision being made for his remuneration for such additional burdens and duties.

As is well known to most of you, and as you have heard stated at this hearing, the ginner was required to hire additional help, at his own expense, in order to perform these new duties. In addition to the actual outlay of money for the necessary clerical force, the ginner was required to expend a considerable sum of money in the purchase of the necessary bond required by the Government, together with the necessary additional books and records which the Government required him to keep and which the Government refused to furnish. For this service the ginner has received nothing; and he has sustained a direct pecuniary loss, to say nothing of the time which he and his help have devoted to this additional work, for which he cannot in any way be compensated and for which he has not asked any compensation.

When this program was first inaugurated, the Department of Agriculture solemly promised the ginners of our country that this additional expense and burden would be taken care of by the Treasury Department or by the Department of Agriculture itself. Later, under a decision of the Department, it was contended they had no authority to pay the ginner for this additional service or in anywise compensate him for this additional work, so the ginner performed the work and received no pay or consideration therefor. At the threshold of a new crop-year we are confronted with the same situation, and unless some definite authority is given for compensating the ginner for