170

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

has come from leaders of the operatives, who would have benefitted more than
anvbody by the scheme of control that has been suggested.
Mr. Stone has done all who are in favor of such a control scheme as he suggests
2 service in demolishing many of the bogies of the opposition beforehand. There
is, for instance, the undesirability of allowing the Government to have anything
whatever to do with business. ‘The argument about the farmer trying to put
the Government in business would have some weight if the Government were
not already in business,” comments Mr. Stone, who names about a score of businesses
 from land irrigation to road building and banking in which the United
States Government is engaged already.
Indeed, Mr. Stone’s statement of the case for surplus control and some better
organization among the*farmers in the American Cotton Belt is excellent all
round, and brings together more and better arguments in support of his plea
than any I remember to have seen put on paper previously. I shall watch with
interest the development of the scheme, wishing it the success it deserves.

ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION

We give below a table which is suggestive, in connection with the general
problem of controlling cotton production by limiting or increasing cotton acreage.
We have taken a series of vears, beginning with 1914 and including 1926. This
series includes what may remain for a long while record years for both high and
iow lint production. In 1914 the vield was 209 pounds of lint per acre. In 1921
it was 12414 pounds. We have taken the official cotton acreage harvested each
vear, as given by the Department of Agriculture, and have applied to this acreage
the yields of each of the years 1914 and 1921. The results are interesting.
For example, take the record acreage of 1926, which was 48,898,000. The
estimated crop is approximately 18,000,000 bales. Suppose we had had a year
like 1921. To be more exact, suppose we had had a 1921 yield, which was 12414
pounds per acre. Instead of 18,000,000 bales, the 1926 crop would have been
12,175,000. On the other hand suppose we had had a duplication of 1914, when
the vield was 209 pounds of lint per acre. The 1926 crop would then have been
20,439,000. In one instance we would have had a reduction of 5,825,000 bales
below the actual yield, in the other case an increase of 2,439,000. If we add the
difference between the actual yield and the possible high and the possible low,
we have a total potential variation of 8,264,000 bales. This total is more by
286,222 bales than the actual American crop of 1921, which was produced on
30,509,000 acres.
And yet we are told that the southern cotton grower should control his crop
bv his acreage. The truth is. in the ageregate he can control neither.

Faar

ROTH J
1915. ee
1916__ ee
917 sll
Oe ea.
en TTT i

Acreage
harvested

16, 832, 00C
31, 412, 000
34, 985, 000
3, 841, 000
3,008, 000
3, 566, 000
5, 878, 000
0, 509, 000
3,036, 000
7,122, 000
1, 360, 000
16, 053, 000
48. KOR. O00

Bales
actually
aroditced

15, 905, 840
1,068, 173
1,463, 915
1, 248, 242
1, 906, 480
1,325, 539
2 270, 97C
1977, 778
9, 729, 306
0, 170, 694
13, 639, 399
16, 122, 516
18 000. ON

Pounds
'int cotton
per acre

209
170
15614]
50
5914
6114
78145
2414
“a1
13014
15714
167
TR4

Minimum
production
in bales
based on
12414
sounds per
acre produced
 in
19921

9, 171, 00G
"821, 000
, 711,000
, 426, 000
966, 000
358, 000
933, 000
, 596, 000
© 226, 000
9, 243, 000
10, 298, 000
11, 467, 000
12. 175. O00

Maximum .
production | Fossnle
in bales  Jitierence
based on , \0 baleage
209 from
pounds per ma mum
acre pro- an
duced jn | @¥unum
1914 yield

, 395, 000
(3, 130, 000
14, 623, 000
1, 145, 000
%, 051, 000
+, 030, 000
997, 000
753, 00C
', 809, 00C
5,517, 00"
17, 288, 00G
19, 250, 000
20. 429 000

6, 224, 000
5, 309, 000
5, 912, 000
5, 719, 000
6, 085, 000
5, 672, 000
6, 064, 000
5, 157, 000
5, 583, 000
6, 274, 000
6, 990, 000
7,783, 000
? 964. 000

1924, final figures. 17.755.070=181 nounds lint per acre

The Cnamvax. We will adjourn now until to-morrow morning
it 10 o’clock.
Whereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until
0 o’clock to-morrow, Tuesday, January 24. 1928.)