STATEMENT OF HOUSTON MANNING, OF LATta, S. C. Honorable chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Houston Manning of Latta, S. C., 63 years of age, and have farmed all my life and have no other business. I mainly produce cotton and tobacco. I want to say that I appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing before you gentlemen. We flue-cured tobacco growers are in a very apprehensive position economically and we are forced to look to you for laws that will improve our financial status. In considering any laws which benefit the farmers I want to implore you, with all the emphasis of which I am able, to keep in mind that the farmers are the poorest paid people in all America. They are an unorganized mass of growers while most all of the people we have to deal with are highly organized and they place us in a very unenviable position. It lends us a ray of hope to see you considering Resolutions 768 and 769 which were introduced by the Honorable John L. McMillan of the Sixth District of South Carolina and affect the flue-cured tobacco growers. They would prove of very great benefit to us and I want to urge you to act favorably on them aiding us in this great crisis. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We feel we speak for the agricultural segment of the largest tobacco-producing county in South Carolina when we urge that the proposed 20 percent cut in tobacco acreage be appropriately placed under soilbank program. To date tobacco production has been self-supporting and further tobacco taxes add some $2 million to national budget. I urge support for tobacco reduction to be financed through soil-bank program. Consider last year's reduction-this year's poor crop. Further reduction without some financial refund as rental will add to distressing condition for our farm population. Yours very truly, JOHN M. KIRBY, COLUMBIA, S. C. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Member of Congress, Florence, S. C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I have just noted in the newspaper that Secretary of Agriculture Benson has proposed a cut of 20 percent in the flue-cured tobacco for 1957. As you know, the tobacco acreage has been consistently reduced each year for the past several years. Farmers agreed that reductions were necessary; however, all such reductions have been made across the board without consideration of the hardships this practice has placed on the small farmers who only had an initial allotment of 3 or 4 acres. As a result of these consistent reductions across the board, many of the small farmers have now reached the breaking point. If the proposed cut is put into effect, many of these farmers will be forced to abandon the farm and seek a livelihood from some other source unless some compensation is allowed for the reduction. I think it is time that the powers in Washington realize this fact and make further acreage reduction in a sensible manner. As owner of a small tobacco farm in the Pee Dee area, where tobacco is the only real money crop, I can truthfully state that a tobacco farmer cannot adequately support his family if he has less than 31⁄2 acres of tobacco. Why can't the officials in Washington take this fact in consideration and make the proposed reduction for 1957 applicable only to the acreage a farmer has in excess of 3% acres, which is just plain commonsense. Since this method would exempt all farmers from any reduction on the first 32 acres, I can't see where a gripe would be justified from the larger farmers. The tobacco farmers will of course be required to vote on any proposed reduction and can be expected to vote for a reduction as always because they know that without a support price the tobacco companies will get their tobacco at a price far less than its value. The tobacco farmers have always cooperated with the Federal Government since the program was initiated long ago; however, I feel that the United States Department of Agriculture did the farmers an injustice in 1956 by reducing the support price $5 to $6 per hundred on most grades from that established for the prior year. Of course, that Department will deny this fact. If you will check you will find that this reduction was accomplished by the sneaky method of revising the grading system. It seems to me that, as a result of the consistent acreage reduction each year, the Department of Agriculture would be inclined to raise the support price rather than lower same in order to compensate the farmers a little for the loss in income by reduction in acreage. The soil-bank program as you know has been praised as the savior of all farmers and makes good propaganda so far as the small farmers are concerned. I agree that this program sounds good and is ideal for the large landowners, but I can't see that it will be of any benefit to the small farmers and perhaps was never intended as such. I recently read that the cigarette companies now have a new inexpensive process in force whereby they are able to greatly increase their cigarette output from the same amount of tobacco previously required for a smaller output. As a result of this process, I don't think we will see a decrease in the price of their products. They are of course increasing their profits at the expense of the farmers which seems to be standard operating procedure with all farm products. You may recall reading where some character recently proposed that the Federal Government limit the number of tobacco plants a farmer can set per acre. Congressman, when that day comes I would appreciate your seeing that I am buried somewhere away out on the lone prairie. Congressman McMillan, I know you are well aware of the situation of the small tobacco farmers in the Pee Dee area, therefore, I urge that you utilize all means at your disposal to rescue these small farmers before it is too late. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. McCLAM. LORIS, S. C., December 6, 1956. Representative JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Member of Congress, Washington, D. Č.: We, the tobacco board of trade, strongly urge that 20-percent cut in tobacco acreage be compensated by payment from soil bank at the current rate. We feel that this is only fair, since tobacco-support program has cost the Government very little. Unless financial aid is given our farmers, drastic economic hardship will result. J. H. YON, Secretary, Loris Tobacco Board of Trade. [From the Charleston (S. C.) News and Courier, February 3, 1957] THE FARMER FROM QUIETUDE-TOBACCO LONG HAS PROVIDED SOUTH CAROLINA WITH ISSUE By O. L. Warr, a special writer LAMAR. From time to time issues of a farm nature develop upon which there is marked and honest disagreement between dirt farmers on the one side and city farmers on the other. Since no individual or group has any monopoly upon human wisdom or foresight, the passage of time sometimes awards the decision in one direction, sometimes in another. As an example of the variance of interest and attitude upon a matter which would appear of mutual concern, I would point to the old argument over enforced grading and tying of tobacco in this State. In one of the years soon after the turn of the century the biggest American tobacco company joined with its British counterpart to take the flue-cured crop for a song. They did just that too. So little did they pay for it that South Carolina farmers had the gumption to quit grading and tying it for them. On through 1921 we continued to sell it that way. The men who lived out on the land and who did the actual work involved in producing, harvesting, curing the crop and putting it upon the warehouse floors, preferred it that way. In the spring of 1922 the legislature was persuaded to pass a measure which, by exercise of the power to set a prohibitive license fee, effectually prevented the continued sale of loose leaf tobacco in this State. Proponents were able to point to the fact that, for the 3 preceding years, North Carolina farmers had averaged about 10 cents a pound more for their graded and tied leaf than we had received for our untied product. Too, the newly organized Tri-State Cooperative Marketing Association was anxious that the South Carolina product be in uniformity with the crops from the two other Commonwealths. The arguments in favor of imposing legislative fiat upon the normal and competitive processes of the open market place seemed reasonable and strong. The law was adopted at the behest of almost all of those connected with the tobacco industry except those who performed the manual labor of producing the crop. The men and women and children who had that extra work to do were vehemently opposed to that law. Who could blame us? It is doubtful if over the years, all things considered, we have averaged any net return whatever for our labor. It only served to increase the element of drudgery in our lives. An additional argument in favor of that step was that it would decrease production. It did reduce it-in South Carolina. But Georgia, seeing us throw a good thing away, picked it up and soon surpassed our own poundage figures. Most fatal and damaging of all, and unforeseeable by anybody, was the fact that this law held down the production of tobacco in this State during those years which later came to be adopted as the basis of allotments under the crop-control program. Viewed from that angle, there is no telling how many hundreds of millions of dollars that that act has cost the Pee Dee area, and never an end of that loss in sight. The dirt farmers turned out to be right that time. The city tobacco men had imposed upon the whole tobacco economy of the State a most costly and irretrievable error, despite the excellence of their intentions and the apparent strength of their arguments. We have an exactly similar division come to pass again today. Those who with their own fingers grow crops of tobacco out in the fields, have fallen in love with a variety which grows far better, makes much more, and cures more perfectly than any other that they have ever seen. Indeed, it produces so many pounds of what has always been regarded as the higher priced grades that the outpourings from its acres have driven all except the men who grow it to a point of hysteria. It has made possible average poundages never before deemed attainable. That fact has made heavy acreage cuts an unwelcomed necessity. Those extra pounds have been unneeded by manufacturers, and much of the very best and highest priced leaf has been placed in the Government support program. because it was sorry, but because it was surplus. Not The resulting hysteria has, as usual, sought outlet and release in the form of governmental edict, this time of administrative source. Indeed, one cannot but be amused at the vehemence, the vengefulness-I am almost tempted to add, the viciousness of the shrill-toned pronounciamentos that regularly issue forth upon the subject from that center of knowledge and fount of wisdom that is called Washington. What will be the outcome of it all? I am going to hazard a guess right here that the crop produced this year will be less than the buying companies will need. They will buy almost all of it, allowing very little to reach the stabilization hogsheads. The support-price level will make little difference, because not many piles will go in that direction. The farmer who has the nerve to plant the forbidden leaf and say so frankly will be the most unpopular man in his community because he will pocket several more hundred dollars-of tobacco company money-from his crop than will those of us who are afraid to stick out our necks. With the slow return to a more balanced viewpoint that is more than apt to take place as the surplus diminishes, I'll project that prophecy 10 years into the future and guess that we'll look back upon the present hassle with a feeling of disgusted amusement. It is easy to gather from what is written above that my own opinion and sympathy lies upon the dirt farmer side of the argument. Naturally. A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Introduced by Mr. Altman MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO MAKE ADDITIONAL MONEY AVAILABLE FOR THE SOIL-BANK PROGRAM Whereas the purpose of the soil-bank program is to help curb the surplus of certain farm commodities by paying the farmers not to plant certain crops; and Whereas many farmers who desire to take advantage of this program are unable to do so as there is a limited amount of money available for the program; and Whereas the purpose of this program cannot be effectively carried out unless additional funds are made available: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress be memorialized to take such action as will provide the soil-bank program with such additional funds as may be necessary to allow all farmers an opportunity to participate in the program; be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all Members of Congress from South Carolina. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, In the House of Representatives, Columbia, S. C.: FEBRUARY 14, 1957. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the South Carolina House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate. [SEAL] Congressman JOHN L. McMILLAN, INEZ WATSON, MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I urge that your committee turn out a favorable report on the placing of the 20-percent reduction in the tobacco acreage in the acreage-reserve program. I also advocate the placing on the world market of 150 million pounds of our surplus tobacco. Congressman JOHN L. McMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: MARVIN PHILLIPS. MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. Please give every consideration toward making a favorable report from your committee on placing the 20-percent tobacco acreage reduction in the soil-bank program. I also endorse the offering of 150 million pounds of our surplus tobacco on the world market. Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: THOMAS BAXLEY. MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. I urge that your subcommittee recommend to our Congress the passage of a bill to allow the 20 percent tobacco acreage reduction to be placed in the soil bank program. I also am in favor of 150 million pounds of our surplus tobacco being offered for sale on the world market. E. J. WIGGINS, Jr. MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. Congressman JOHN L. McMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Please consider giving favorable consideration toward endorsing the placing of the 20 percent acreage reduction in the soil bank program and also the placing of 150 million pounds of our surplus tobacco on the world market. J. H. STEEDLEY. Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. I wholeheartedly support the two tobacco bills which are up for consideration before your subcommittee on Wednesday, March 13, 1957. GARLAND SLOAN. MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957, Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I urge that your committee do everything possible to give a favorable report on placing all of the 20 percent acreage reduction in the soil bank program. I also support the offering of 150 million pounds of our surplus tobacco on the world market. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, K. O. BULLARD. NICHOLS, S. C., March 12, 1957. Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: In a Grange meeting held last night, March 11, 1957, your two bills pertaining to our tobacco situation were discussed with much enthusiasm. A vote was taken and 100 percent voted in favor of supporting you in helping to relieve us tobacco growers of our financial problems. I regret very much being unable to attend your hearing on these bills on the 13th. Yours truly, P. L. ELVINGTON, Chairman of the Tobacco Grange Committee. NICHOLS, S. C., March 12, 1957. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.: People in this community all approve and support your efforts to relieve tobacco farmers their hardships with your two bills. Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, More power to you. JAMES A. BATTLE. MARION, S. C., March 12, 1957. Washington, D. C.: I would urge that your committee recommend to Congress for immediate approval the placing of the 20-percent tobacco reduction in the soil bank program. I also wholeheartedly endorse your bill requiring the sale abroad at world market price 150 million pounds of surplus flue-cured tobacco. If something is not done immediately to help the tobacco farmers in this area I am fearful that the small farmer who is the backbone of our agriculture economy will be forced to sell out and look for employment elsewhere. T. C. ATKINSON, Jr. CHARLESTON, S. C., March 10, 1957. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I have really worked during the past week to get support for your bills up for hearing Wednesday, although I've been assured again and again they're doomed to defeat. All week I've been driving Tom Waring crazy asking him to save room in Sunday's paper for an editorial supporting you and on Friday I took him a 10-page letter telling him why-yet imagine my surprise today to see that he actually did it. To get an editorial from Tom Waring supporting any phase of the soil bank is a victory, and I'm taking personal credit for it. I've also called Mr. Agnew and asked him not only to be at the meeting in Florence Monday but to get some people ready to go to Washington Wednesday. I've also asked the newspapers for coverage, so we'll know who it is fighting us. |