Agricultural relief: Agricultural relief

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 101947257X

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-35839

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Reuß, Alfons http://d-nb.info/gnd/1051831989

Title:: Frédéric Le Play in seiner Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der sozialwissenschaftlichen Methode

Place of publication:: Jena

Publisher:: Gustav Fischer

Year of publication:: 1913

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (IV, 145 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Zweiter Abschnitt. Beurteilung der Methode Le Play's

Collection:: Economics Books

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 271 Now, Doctor Aswell has suggested that perhaps I do not repre- sent very much. I have never claimed to represent more than cotton farmers that are in the cooperatives. I do not claim to represent them fully. Some of them are, like him, not for this bill; on the other hand, a great many on the outside are for this bill, and it is only the organized groups of people, you gentlemen know, that can have representation, except as they might write you individual letters and farmers are not much given to this. Bo I represent the only group of organized cotton farmers there is in the cotton-producing States. I do not ask you gentlemen to attach any more weight or importance to that than it really deserves. But I want to say this to you: In the two years that this legislation has been discussed in the South—the cotton group only came into it two years ago—that it has become pretty generally known. There has been a great deal in the press—general press and the agricultural press—about this measure. There is scarcely an issue of our agri- cultural papers that does not carry something about this. 1 happen to be a director in a farm paper with 500,000 circulation, that circulates in the cotton territory from Virginia through to Texas— the Progressive Farmer. I contribute now and then to that paper, and I have had a number of contributions in the paper on this subject. I have not had so many letters from farmers approving it, but I have had none disapproving it. In the talks I have made I have not had so many word-of-mouth approvals of the measure, but I have had practically none disapproving it. Now, just before the holidays, in fact, as a holiday message, I sent out this statement, and it went in the State organs of practically all of the cotton cooperatives throughout the South, as a holiday message. 1 want permission to read this, Mr. Chairman, along the line of developing the thought that this matter is better understood than many would want to admit, among the farmers of the country, and it has far greater support now than it has ever had. [Reading.] Ture NEED FOR FEDERAL FARM RELIEF LEGISLATION AND ITs PURPOSE There is greater need to-day than there has ever been for farm surplus control, or Federal farm relief legislation, as it is commonly called. While farm condi- tions in the cotton growing States are better this year with a smaller crop and better prices than they were last year with a large crop and low prices, the loss on last vear's big crop will not be evened up, much less overcome by the larger returns from the smaller crop of this year. The Department of Agriculture in Washington is authority for the statement that the 18,000,000 bale cotton crop of 1926 brought the cotton farmers 505,000,000 less than the 16,000,000 hale crop of 1925. The 1925 crop averaged the grower about 18 cents, which is around the average cost of average production throughout the territory, accord- ing to Government estimates. The 16,000,000 bale cotton crop of 1925, there- fore, brought the producers just about the cost of production, and the $505.000,000 less obtained for the 18,000,000 bale crop of 1926 was loss, and came out of the invested and operating capital of the farmer. The Department of Agriculture on December 1, 1927, estimated that the 13,000,000 bale cotton crop of 1927 would bring the growers $330,000,000 more than the 18,000,000 bale crop of 1926. It is, therefore, easy to see that the tremendous loss on the 1926 cotton crop can not be overcome bv the better prices for the 1927 crop. There have been like swings in prices disastrous to the producers in other vears of surplus production of cotton and other crops, ‘and until there is some national legislation giving the farmer the necessary maclinery for handling these temporary surpluses as they occur, disaster will continue to come to the farmers of the country in the future as it has in the past in consequence of these surpluses. It is generally agreed that overproduction or erop surpluses of our : : y | ~gpi >» a Nn Q WJ A DO - BS 2 ot & = # o £ mm ® QO ~ « ~ a ~ QO -— oO oN oO oo o aD o o Az = ” ge -— - lo © n= i © j=} oN 2 wn a ~ oN m ~N [&) <E n | }

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 4)

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation