feed, and gives it to another class, the big growers of wheat. Yet our Federal courts "pass the buck" constantly, which you recognize as an old maneuver in such highly charged political legislation, as did United States District Court Judge Frank L. Kloeb of Toledo, Ohio, who was quoted recently in the Toledo papers as saying: These hearings (on wheat penalties) are preposterous. I will begin handing out stiff sentences. And finally adding: I refuse absolutely to go into the question of constitutionality. But the legislator says, "pass the law and let the courts decide its constitutionality." In the famous Wickard v. Filburn case Justice Jackson stated: The conflicts of economie interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it, are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress, *. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness of the plan of regulation (Agriculture Adjustment Act), we have nothing to do. Gentlemen, you can surely see this is 20th century legalism for Pilate's old hand-watching act. If the courts thus decline to exercise their balance of power, who will defend our rights, our Constitution? We believe you can perceive the responsibility for removing such dangerous and ineffective legislative controls, of restoring our freedom, have been placed back in your laps. If you do not act now to curb these abuses of judicial and administrative power by clarifying, restricting, or withholding such legislative grants, then soon it would appear not beyond the realm of imagination that the Federal Government may control, under threat of fine or imprisonment, all Americans who grow vegetables in their gardens, and every housewife who bakes her own bread or biscuits— on the grounds this affects interstate commerce in such products. Then who will dispute the fact our freedom and our country has been lost in a final Armageddon to the insidious forces of slavery under socialism or communism? Or as Emerson once said: For what avail the plow, or sail, RESOLUTION ON AGRICULTURE Whereas the Government of the United States under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (as amended) has accumulated alleged surpluses of various farm commodities in attempting to control the unalterable laws of supply and demand for reasons of political expediency, resulting in a constantly increasing number of restrictions to subsidize and control farm operations; and Whereas many of the regulations in said act were originally conceived and written by men in the Department of Agriculture now known to have been under Communist influence as revealed in congressional committee investigations, and whose sole objective was the complete regimentation of agriculture as advocated by Karl Marx; and Whereas the socialization of one great segment of the American people through the establishment of dangerous legal precedents and the bypassing of constitutional safeguards may well establish the pattern for complete socialization of the remainder of our people as advocated in the Communist manifest; and Whereas the system of referendum voting provided for in said act as a supposed safeguard permitting farmers to reject compulsory stipulations in the act is confusing, unjust, unsound and undemocratic resulting in a very small minority subverting the wishes of the majority of farmers; and Whereas the Department of Agriculture publicly makes no clear distinction between what constitutes adequate reserves of various commodities for national emergencies, and what constitutes true surplus in excess of such reserves; and Whereas various regulations and interpretations issued by the Department of Agriculture under authority of said act violate the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Bill of Rights-Article IV: That Persons and House To Be Secure from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; Article V: Citizens are Entitled to Trials for Crime and Just Compensation for Private Property Taken for Public Use; Article VII: Right of Trial by Jury; and Article X: That Powers Not Delegated to the Government Are Reserved to States and People, respectively; and Whereas all the forementioned violations of the Constitution have been incorporated into the Soil Bank Act and the contracts authorized thereunder, whereby farmers in return for a lucrative bribe or subsidy relinquish their rights under the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Federation of Independent Farm Organizations, direct the full force of its efforts toward repeal of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (as amended) and the Soil Bank Act, and also toward opposing in any legal manner the implementation of the above acts in order that the American farmer may regain his birthright of freedom. Mr. ALBERT. We thank you, Mr. Woods, for your position on this matter. Are there any questions from members of the committee? If not the committee appreciates having your statmeent. The committee will now be pleased to hear Mr. Valoris Tidswell, office of the Associated Farmers of Richland County, Ohio. Is Mr. Louis Basom here? Mr. TIDSWELL. He has not arrived yet. He may be here before this is over. Mr. ALBERT. The committee will be glad to hear from you now. STATEMENT OF VALORIS TIDSWELL, ASSOCIATED FARMERS, RICHLAND COUNTY, NORTH FAIRFIELD, OHIO Mr. TIDSWELL. Chairman Albert, and honorable members of the Subcommittee on Wheat, we appreciate your invitation to express on behalf of our members, the Associated Farmers of Richland County, their views on the above-listed bills. These bills would appear to give the farmer some relief from the unjust Agricultural Adjustment Act in its present form. However, we realize from past experience the dangers involved in granting the Secretary of Agriculture such wide discretionary powers and the improper use of many such regulations now prescribed by the Secretary and their application in the field. I Would like to cite a few of these irregularities for the purpose of proving your good intentions are not always conveyed to the working field. For example: Regulation 9475, published in the Federal Register of December 17, 1955, defines a "farm" as all adjacent or nearby farm or range land under the same ownership which is operated by one person; including also: (1) Any other adjacent or nearby farm or range land which the county committee determines is operated by the same person as a part of the same unit in producing range livestock, or with respect to the rotation of crops and with workstock, farm machinery, and labor, substantially separate from that for any other land; and (2) Any field rented tract (whether operated by the same or another person) which, together, with any other land included in the farm, constitutes a unit with respect to the rotation of crops. The above quoted regulation is interpreted by the local county committee in a manner which shows favoritism to some, hardship to others, or just plain unequal rights of the American taxpayer. We have many cases where a farmer has two or more farms which were operated by the same person, same machinery and were practically adjoining which have produced penalty wheat for the year of 1955–56, and have presently ready for harvest penalty wheat. Mr. Lee Gordon, RD 1, North Fairfield, Ohio, and Mr. Charles Stevens, RD Greenwich Ohio, are two such cases where they were permitted by local committee to operate in this manner without being sued by the Secretary of Agriculture or their farms being reconstituted, while others which had identical operations have been cited in Federal court and judgment placed on them. This does not, in our minds, seem to be in accord with our Constitution giving us all equal rights. Mr. D. T. Herriman, Ohio State administrative officer, clearly stated the records contained at the local offices in Ohio pertaining to individual farm allotments were not open to public inspection. Thus closing the door to secrecy which places a Communist-type veil of secrecy over their operation. As another irregularity in the prescribed procedure it has been permitted a candidate for election as committeeman to sit on the tabulation board which procedure seems most unethical and improper, and another abuse of granting such wide and dangerous powers to the Secretary of Agriculture. In section III, A-1-B-7 and 9, it is clearly indicated that eligibility of each voter must be ascertained. However, at no time was the county office manager consulted on the eligibility of any voters during the count by the tabulation board, as indeed eligibility was impossible to determine since identifying envelopes were improperly removed. In conclusion, we feel bill H. R. 6784 is a step in the right direction to restore some freedom to the small farmer. However, we feel the scope could be enlarged and made retroactive to include all such presently pending penalty cases. And we would like to impress on you who are members of this committee that your most serious thought be given to bills of this nature which may in practice slowly but surely place the American farmer under complete dictation taking away all freedom of operation placing us under communistic controls, destroy private initiative, eliminate completely the most sound method of supply and demand and remove from the United States the small family farm which was the idol of the American way of life. Mr. ALBERT. We thank you, Mr. Tidswell. Can you give us the name of the county where the incidents referred to on the top of page 2 took place? Mr. TIDSWELL. The incidents referred to on the top of page 2 of my statement took place in Richland County. Mr. ALBERT. When; what year? Mr. TIDSWELL. In 1956. Mr. ALBERT. Thank you. Mr. HILL. Have they removed him, or is he still functioning? Mr. TIDSWELL. Yes. Mr. HILL. They hold office by right of election by the local committeemen? Mr. TIDSWELL. Yes. Mr. HILL. So you are right back to the grassroots, and all you have to do is to throw them out. Mr. SMITH. Are you a farmer? Mr. TIDSWELL. I am. Mr. SMITH. You have county commissioners; when they do not take care of the roads, you get rid of them. That is the answer. Mr. HILL. I would like to say this for the record, that any time the local committee is not functioning properly, it is the duty of the folks who are working under the program to throw them out of the window, and I would make it the second story window, if I had my say about it. I know of some places in my county where we have had trouble, and where, when the local farmers have paid attention they have cleaned up some conditions that I know are not too good yet. I am of the opinion, if you want a good local county cmmittee, the Secretary of Agriculture cannot give them to you, the administration forces cannot give them to you, and the Congress cannot give them to you. You have to hunt them out yourself and get new members, until you get a group of members that will operate the way you think this law ought to be enforced. Mr. TIDSWELL. I would like to elaborate a little bit on that. The procedure in which your county committee is elected goes back to your township committee. In the type of election that the ASC holds, they send out to the farmers a list that has already been made up in the ASC office. The regulations state that there shall be sufficient space provided on this list for writeins. We have lists made out where there was not sufficient space for writeins, thus closing the door to any writeins or to elect to the place somebody on the township committee of the sort of people that live in that community. Mr. ALBERT. Were there enough votes involved in this to make a difference in the outcome of the election, or was the election one sided. Mr. TIDSWELL. We considered that the election was one-sided, because there was not enough votes in the election for the number of prescribed votes to hold a legal election. There has to be a certain percentage of the qualified voters to vote in that election before that is legal. There was not that number that voted. Mr. ALBERT. Any further questions? If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Tidswell. Congressman Mumma, do you want to present your constituent? STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER M. MUMMA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. MUMMA. I am from the sticks of Pennsylvania, and Miss Mumma is of one of my constituents, and she will describe her farming situation. She has taken her case-maybe you have heard-to the Supreme Court twice, and it was tried in the local courts, and she has not gained much progress on the final determination. She does not believe she ought to give up, and she represents hundreds of the familytype farms in my district. And they would just like to feed a little grain for their own stock on their own farms, and she will describe it. Mr. ALBERT. We are pleased to have you present, Miss Mumma, and also to have you as a witness, and we will be glad to hear from you now. STATEMENT OF MISS ELSIE MUMMA, HUMMELSTOWN, PA. Miss MUMMA. I live in Hummelstown, Pa., on the Mumma farm, and our homestead house in which I live was built over 200 years ago. Today, our house stands on the Main Street in Hummelstown, and the 70 acres which I farm is right behind the house. This farm has been owned by members of my family ever since the grant was made by William Penn as proprietor of Pennsylvania. We have made our living by farming this farm, among other lands, ever since it was deeded to our family by the Penns. When I was younger I was in the insurance business (I would like to add there I was the first woman to write a million dollars' worth of life insurance in 1 year), but for the last 15 years I have been back home attempting to make my living by farming as my family did before me all those years. Until 15 or 20 years ago, nobody attempted to tell us how we could farm this farm. We always farmed it according to the will of God—we prayed before we planted it, and we prayed after we harvested it. We practice the system of crop rotation, which my ancestors brought over with them from Germany. Crop rotation is also in the Bible. I think the fertility of the farms in the Pennsylvania Dutch area is due to this practice of crop rotation and prayer. Under the present regulations, we get penalized if we attempt to follow the farming practices of our ancestors on the family farms of Pennsylvania as they were practiced ever since they were settled. I rotate my crops. It so happens that it is not always convenient to plant less than 15 acres like the Government says we must do if we are not to pay a penalty. The grain I raise on my farm I usually feed to my cattle, unless I need some quick money in an emergency and I must sell the grain to survive. Under these present rules, I have to upset my croprotation practices and buy my grain from the West, at high prices. These laws, if continued, will tend to drive the family farmers off the farms of Pennsylvania and so destroy the fertility of our soil. As you probably know, the Government sued me for $403.20, because they said I planted 24 acres of wheat in 1954, rather than 15 acres. Actually, I didn't plant 24 acres of wheat, but that's not important because, even if I did, I don't think the laws are right or constitutional. As you know, under the Department of Agriculture regulations it's almost impossible for a farmer to disprove the Government's claim as to how much wheat a farmer actually planted. Under these regulations the Government may enter upon a farm without a warrant, contrary, in my opinion, to the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Secondly, the Government tells you how much wheat you planted by making an estimate (as they did in my case), by looking at your fields at the side of the road. We don't think this is the kind of proof which is adequate where the Government is taking money away from |