Page images
PDF
EPUB

Crookston, 11 miles east, or East Grand Forks, 15 miles west. But today we have a modern village with water and sewer systems, numerous modern homes, an efficient fire department, a community hall, three churches, and we will have dial telephones in the spring. Our family farms are being operated by a unit consisting of the father and from 1 to 3 sons, each living in his own home with his own family, with enough acreage to make for a profitable operation. The small marginal farm is fast passing out of the picture.

To summarize the 81 years here in the Red River Valley, since homestead days, the tendency is for larger farms, larger schools and churches and fewer small businesses and I can see no way to change this trend, even were it desirable.

GARFIELD, MINN., November 29, 1957.

DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN: I want to express an idea which would be an easy and simple way to overcome our present difficulties-the main one being, of course, the lack of income due to low prices for that which we sell.

The real solution is to turn our excess grain into alcohol and let us farmers use it for fuel in our tractors. Or, in other words, take enough grain off the market for alcohol to bring the grain price up to full 100 percent parity. This could fluctuate from year to year depending on the crop.

This could be handled nicely by the national co-op or set up a system for grain like the TVA.

It does cost to distill grain but a farmer would gladly pay a couple cents extra for fuel just to get full 100 percent parity. This extra cost would be a lot less than our present storage and spoilage cost.

We farmers are making the surplus so let us use it up. Of course, the big oil companies will fight it and that's as far as it will get.

I really believe no one really wants to solve the farm problem. There is too much advantage this way to the nonfarmers, who are, after all, 85 percent of the population. We farmers have three so-called farm organizations whose main purpose is to fight one another, so how can we get fair recognition?

If our grain price was once stabilized at 100 percent parity the livestock industry would also automatically adjust itself higher to correspond to the price of grain. We, therefore, must start with grain as a base.

It would be so helpful to the farm cause if this idea were to be brought to all legislators. Would it be too much to ask you to see that all members of your committee got the idea or this letter to read.

I wish there were more I could do to sell this idea and get it started. The farmer is the greatest consumer of goods there is and this makes for prosperity. It seems a shame that more men in high places can't see this and really do something.

Yours truly,

GORDON HORSTMAN.

[From the Park Region Echo, Alexandria, Minn., October 31, 1957]

FAMILY SIZE FARM HEARING AT FERGUS FALLS IMPORTANT

An important hearing will be held at Fergus Falls November 14-15 when the Family Farm Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee will hold a congressional hearing. People from all walks of life are welcome to testify at this 2-day hearing. Representative Thompson of Texas is chairman of the committee with Representatives Coya Knutson, of Minnesota, and Otto Krueger, of North Dakota, included among the members. As the subject scheduled for discussion is highly important to this area, which is composed primarily of small family-sized farms, it is hoped that many will avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard. Testimony, however, should not only be confined to farmers as those of us in business in this area also should be concerned as the larger the farms grow the fewer farmers there will be to trade along Main Street. It just isn't possible for one big farmer to buy as much as a number of smaller farmers.

We hear a great deal about the efficiency of large farms as compared to smaller family-sized farms. In some instances this may be true. But a fact which cannot be denied is that countries comprised mostly of large farms are not considered as the most progressive. Rather, countries comprised of large farms

usually are considerably more backward than those countries whose citizens are family-farm owners and homeowners. For some reason or other, family-farm owners and homeowners are about the same because where large farms are the rule there usually aren't many homeowners either.

While not much may be done at this hearing to stop the trend to large farms, we cannot help but feel that this trend can be slowed considerably by removing benefits now available to large farmers through various Government programs. We often have contended that if large farms are so efficient, they certainly are in need of no help from the Government. If the committee can bring back a report which will convince Members of Congress of this fact alone it will be well worth while.

-G. E. D.

STATEMENT OF REV. LOUIS J. MILLER, ST. PETER'S RECTORY, COLMAN, S. DAK,

HONORABLE and Dear Mr. SWENSON: I am writing, Mr. Swenson, on behalf of 600 paid members of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference in eastern South Dakota-dirt farmers they are. My schedule makes it impossible to testify at your hearings on behalf of the family farm.

So may I briefly indicate a few thoughts about this family farm. This country was settled by two types of people when it came to attitudes about land. First there were those who wished to have a piece of land that they might call their own, and on which they might be free men. In fact the early farmers in this country were called freeholders. The land for them involved a way of life they were convinced was good for their families and good for their Nation. The people with this attitude toward the land, thanks be to God, were the ones who, as they moved westward, gave us the precious heritage of a family farm pattern in American agriculture. It is no accident that the Constitution and the laws of this land were drawn up at a time when 95 percent of the people of this Nation were family farm people.

But there was another class of people who also wanted land, yes, large tracts of land. However, they also wanted other people to do the work for them. Because of this attitude there evolved the plantation system of agriculture, over which we fought one of the bloodiest civil wars in history. We thought we ended slavery, but we did not. When Americans took over the landed estates from the Spaniards, various forms of slave labor had been used. The frightening thing is this: I learned just recently (and your investigations into the family farm in the Southwest will likely confirm this) that up to 1870 the family type of farm operation was the predominant pattern in the great State of California. With the advent of irrigation, agriculture in California became an ever larger business venture on a purely speculative basis, employing slave labor-whether those laborers were Mexicans, Mexican nationals, Japs, Chinese or what have you-cheap exploitable labor is now doing the farming in that State. No longer is the family type of farm operation the predominant one in California.

If that family farm can be eliminated in one State, it can be lost also in others.

It is no consolation to family farmers to be assured by the Secretary of Agriculture in the "egg throwing" speech here in South Dakota that "the ratio of family farms to large commercial farms is about the same as it was 25 years ago." That statistic does not change the fact that the valuable human institution of the family farm has been almost eliminated from the face of sunny California.

Mr. Swenson, let none of us forget that never before in the history of the world has there been such a gathering of families on land of theirs as here in these great United States, especially in this middle and upper Midwest. We all know the cause of much of the disorder in South America; it was a landless peasantry that brought communism to power in Russia, gave it its start in China. Are we going to sit back and let greedy influences ruin a human institution so valuable to our country?

The test of any government farm program must be simply this: Does the program strengthen or threaten this family on the land. A maximum number of families on the land that is consistent with good economics is an essential if our rural communities are to survive, if the stable middle-class farmer is to provide a sane balance wheel in our great Nation. God help us if factories in the fields become the order of the day, with nothing but hired hands working for absentee capital. That is not American.

90133-58--10

I am sorry I cannot be present. However, may I ask you to give me a summary of your hearings when they are published, for I believe that is usually done.

You are to be commended for your leadership in this field, and focusing attention to the heart of the entire agricultural picture—this family on the land.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN JOHNSON, THIEF RIVER FALLS, MINN.

I wish to testify to the Family Farm Subcommittee, the following recommendations for the family-sized farmer.

1. Direct payments to farmer on marketing quota with a gross base payment of $20,000 per family-sized farm.

[blocks in formation]

This $20,000 base could be drawn on one commodity if individual desired. 2. Premium would be based on difference between market price and 90 percent of parity.

3. Any farm commodities produced in excess of the base, no support price. 4. Acreage control has proven itself a failure, therefore we do not favor it. 5. Family-size farm would never produce a surplus and this would discourage commercial farming.

PROPOSALS FOR A FARM PROGRAM

WHEAT

We propose the following program for wheat:

1. A reduction of 25 percent in wheat acreage on farms of 640 acres or larger. 2. No reduction in wheat acreage for farms less than 640 acres.

3. In return for taking this acreage out of wheat, we feel that wheat farmers deserve full parity.

4. Acreage taken out of wheat would have to be seeded to grass or legumes, in order to prevent farmers from creating an excessive surplus in feed grains. 5. This acreage should not be pastured or used for hay, with the idea of discouraging wheat farmers from creating an excessive amount of meat products. 6. Farmers should be paid only enough for this idle acreage to cover the cost of seeding the cover crop and the expense of clipping for weed control. We feel this is enough in view of the fact that full parity would be achieved for wheat. 7. Wheat owned by CCC would sell at the present price in order to better compete with world markets. This price would be effective until such a date that CCC wheat stocks would be down to normal.

8. This wheat program would be effective until our wheat supply would be at a normal carryover. We believe this is a drastic reduction in acreage and would surely help to swiftly alleviate our surplus at which time some acreage would be restored.

This type of program would not cut back wheat acreage for the average-size spring-wheat farmer, but at the same time would increase his income with a full parity price.

There is really no surplus of the high quality, high protein, spring wheat which is blended with lower quality wheat for flour.

This program would, however, cut back immensely the production of winter wheat, and at the same time increase the income of the winter-wheat producer by lowering his operating cost for these fewer acres in production, increase his income by attaining full parity for the wheat he produces, and when the surplus is reduced to a normal carryover he should have an increase in wheat acreage which would probably be necessary to keep the Nation supplied with wheat.

FEED GRAINS

1. We feel that feed grains must be supported at full parity, since the surplus in dairy products, pork, and beef is the spawn of cheap feed.

2. If any farmer expects full parity for his feed grains, then in all fairness, he must expect acreage controls on these feed grains.

3. We in this area know little about the problems of the Corn Belt; however, we sympathize with these people and expect the hog and beef feeder should have a feed-grain program with more flexibility than ours.

4. We are deliberately asking for controls on our feed grains. That being the case, we sincerely believe the feed-lot farmer certainly deserves supports on his hogs and beef, supports that would be in a direct ratio with his higher priced feed.

DAIRY

This is not considered a dairy area, here in the upper Red River Valley. Yet, in our DNIA, almost every member has remodeled his barn to accommodate more cows, or else contemplates doing so.

shudder when I think what must be going on in the strictly dairy areas. The dairyman has but one alternative, increase his cow numbers, and seed a few more acres of feed.

If his price goes down, he still has to pay bills which get bigger every year, so he milks a few more cows, and adds to the surplus.

This is the old story of cheap feed increasing cow numbers, more milk being produced at a cheaper price.

We realize the eastern dairyman is interested in buying feed as cheaply as possible. We hope he is interested in what this cheap feed is doing to his future market. We can remember the day when farmers around here were more than willing to sell their oats and barley for a profitable price, rather than add to their livestock numbers with the idea of shoving all that cheap feed down the business end of a hog, steer, or dairy cow..

Since most dairymen have no other substitute crop to turn to, we are in favor of a direct payment program for the dairy farmer, payments which would give him full parity.

We believe this program would not be costly, since most of the dairy area is heavily populated, and the increased dairy income would have a very stimulating effect on these areas, and the cost of the program would be paid back by increased income taxes from the farmer as well as urban people.

OBSERVATIONS

We have written down a few ideas here after much deliberation and also after a great deal of frustration with unprofitable prices. These ideas were attained in all sincerity and with the idea that this is a program which proves we don't want something for nothing. We are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve our goal of fair prices. However, please bear in mind that we have already sacrificed a great deal and need a decent program as quickly as possible,

A good many people depend on the American farmer, about 170 million in this country alone. That being the case, we think the farmer should be able to walk tall and with a great deal of dignity. It is exactly the opposite. Everyone is shouting louder than the next fellow that the farmer is the root of all evil, and they all have a hard time remembering how much they themselves were subsidized in the last 20 years or so.

We hope that when Congress convenes, our lawmakers will remember that in this country, there seems to be a lot of pride in the fact that this is a democracy. If we are not mistaken, somewhere in the archives of Washington, D. C., there is a document, signed by great men. This document is known the the Constitution of the United States.

We believe that every Senator and Representative should be required to take a good long look at it, since it states that every citizen of this country is equal, has equal rights, and equal opportunities.

We farmers are citizens of this country.

Lets prove that this is a democracy.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. In other words, the people are the Government. What can be more democratic than the Government enacting laws whereby everyone gets a fair share, farmers included?

We are deeply grateful for the wonderful way that Senator Humphrey, Congresswoman Knutson, and Senator Thye have carried the colors for the farmers in this State, in the face of overwhelming opposition.

We hope the hearings in Fergus Falls will inspire them to carry on.
Respectfully submitted.

ROBERT H. BARR,
HENRY BARR,
MAGNUS HORGEN,

STATEMENT OF RAY MUMEY, HALLOCK, MINN.

Warren, Minn.

With the help of my wife and son, plus some seasonal hired labor I operate a 1,040-acre farm in Kittson County.

We need a farm program that will give a farmer adequate return for his labor and investment, with benefits reduced or eliminated on farms larger than family size.

Due to excessive moisture 3 of our last 4 years have been disaster years. This coupled with increased cost of production have created a need for long-term low-interest loans. The hard-money policy should not apply to the familysized farm in my community, as we are not contributing to inflation in any way.

Support of our cooperative with credit and partnership type tax is desirable; as our cooperatives are invaluable in holding down farm production costs, and in helping obtain a larger share of the consumer's dollar.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ALVIN JOHNSON, SR., PELICAN RAPIDS, MINN.

The farmers of Lake Eunice, Becker County, would like to see that parity be based on the old method of 1910-14, instead of the way that Secretary of Agriculture Benson does it from the 3 previous years. We believe this would give us a better income and we would be able to cope with the high prices of machinery (instead of fixing all the time, it might make a difference on a new one).

It would not make any surplus as far as dairy and grain, etc., are concerned, because we smaller farmers would be glad to quit burning the candle at both ends to try to make ends meet.

Most of us are trying to hold down two jobs or our wives are, in trying to help our children to get an educatiton and things they need.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD COYLE, MARSH CREEK PEMBINA FARMERS' UNION LOCAL

During the past 5 years the State of Minnesota has lost 12,000 farm families, and the small-business men on Main Street of the small towns are now unable to survive because of lack of farmers' purchasing power. We are deeply concerned what this trend is leading to. In our local township, we have lost 20 percent of our farm families. The farmers who remain have lost their purchasing power, and the farmers as a whole are going deeper and deeper in debt. This condition is forcing the young farm boys off the land. Unless the Congress of the United States does something constructively to protect the interest of the family farm, it soon will be too late, and a system of large corporation farms will be the pattern of American agriculture.

In order to remedy the present situation and reverse the trend, we recommend the following proposals:

1. We favor parity of income for the production of the family farmers, a limit on gross income of $25,000 at full parity should be set.

2. To accomplish full parity of income for family farmers, we recommend that in addition to the CCC program for grain, that perishable farm products be supported by direct payment from the Government to the farmer, to make up the difference between what the farmer receives in the market, and the full parity figure, for the current year.

3. Where acreage and production controls are necessary to bring production into balance with demand, we favor the above-mentioned controls.

« PreviousContinue »