446 WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION

Their argument seems to be.fallacious for two major reasons. Inthe first
place, an abundant supply of American labor is available if freed from the competition
 of Mexican labor, provided it is paid a decent wage and is enabled to
maintain a reasonable standard of living. Actual experience has proved this
to be a fact, which all the arguments of the opposition can not destroy. A San
Diego newspaper, under date of October 27, 1929, stated that because ofa
scarcity of cotton pickers in the Calipatria district, growers were forced to pay
$1.75 per hundred pounds for pickers and ‘the number of laborers is steadily
increasing as a result. * * * Ag a result of Mexican labor moving farther
inland because of fear of deportation by the immigration authorities, many white
nickers are appearing in the fields in the north end of the valley.”
Here is concrete evidence of the fact that white laborers are willing to pick
cotton if paid fair wages. The burden of proof is clearly on the opposition with
weight sufficient to crush their selfish demands for “cheap” labor. In the
second place, labor-saving machinery seems to have been perfected to the point
where it is both practical and economical to use it, especially in the most difficult
of all the operations in cotton production, viz, picking. Although hundreds of
so-called cotton pickers have been invented, patented, and promoted, it was not
until this year that one has been placed on a commercial basis. About the size
of a motor cycle, weighing less than 300 pounds, and selling for less than $500,
this machine is not only a practical substitute for Mexican and negro cotton
pickers, it also cleans the cotton as it is picked, effecting a big saving in the cost
of ginning.
In a test made in September, 1929, near Corpus Christi, according tb the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram, the hand-picked bales graded strict low middling while the
machine-picked bales graded strict middling, a difference which made the machinepicked
 cotton worth 1% cents a pound more money than the hand picked. The
tests made indicated a direct saving of $7.50 per bale in the increased value of
the machine-picked cotton and of $2.70 in the cost per bale of picking and ginning
the trash in the hand-picked cotton, or a total of $10.20 per bale in favor of the
machine-picked cotton. According to the tests made it seems that the machine
ran easily pick 2 bales of cotton per day.
According to the Business Men’s Commission, previously referred to, the cotton
 acreage in the United States rose from 33,036,000 acres in 1922 to 48,730,000
in 1926, the increase in the main being due to the development of cotton production
 in the Southwest on land formerly used for grazing. But for the subsidy
resulting from cheap Mexican labor much of this land would be below the margin
of cultivation under existing conditions. This normally submarginal land has
added to the surplus cotton crops of recent years and has tended to lessen the
profits of all producers of cotton in this country, Only by the elimination of
this cheap labor and the introduction of labor-saving machinery, with the farming
 done by American labor can we hope to see prosperity return to this phase
of agriculture. It is true that many cotton producers in the Southwest would
no longer be able to have an abundant supply of ‘‘cheap” labor, but to argue
that these same farmers will be ruined financially seems illogical and contrary to
the facts. For with the industry once again restored to American labor, freed
from the deadly competition of Mexican peons, we would have every reason to
expect a revival of prosperity in cotton production, similar to that which has
come to Eastern industries since their supply of cheap labor from southern Europe
bas been cut off by the quota legislation.
Nor is the case fundamentallv different in the production of vegetables and
fruits in California. }
Dr. George P. Clements, of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, is authority
for the statement: “The Mexican laborer, if he only realized it, has California
agriculture and industry in the hollow of his hand. If we demand the return
to his own country of the illicit Mexican in California, if we place Mexico on the
quota list, if we persist in charging him, as at present, what really constitutes a
small fortune to him that he may serve us, if he in coming be unionized, well—
California agriculture is at an end, and with our agriculture will go our industry,
ecommerce, and prosperity.”
According to Prof. R. L. Adams, of the University of California, “the need for
common labor by California farm operators fluctuates during the year. This is
due to the seasonal nature of many of the operations incident to the production of
most crops of high man-labor requirements. © There are certain time limits within
which the work must be done. This applies to pruning, to spraying, to planting
time, to soil handling, and particularly to the harvesting of perishable crops,
truck and fruit being heavily represented in the list of perishables.”