Agricultural relief: Agricultural relief

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1831932415

Document type:: Multivolume work

Title:: Agricultural relief

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1831934515

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-232102

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Agricultural relief

Volume count:: Pt. 4

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: III S., S. 255 - 297

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 9250 Mr. KiLcore. I stand on the fee, if you want me to answer yes or no. But I am going to amplify that a little later, if you gentle- men will permit me. In answer to your question, Mr. Kincheloe, my main purpose in the statement that I am beginning to make to you, gentlemen, is to show in my judgment the absolute necessity for the equalization fee in effective form for surplus control legislation. Mr. AsweLL. Now, Doctor, would it disturb you to be interrupted? Mr. KiLgore. No. Mr. AsweLL. You made a statement that your cotton exchange demands the equalization fee or nothing, in substance? Mr. K1Lgore. You remember just how I answered. Mr. AswerL. I remember what you said. What part of the cotton producers do you claim that your exchange represents richt now? Mr. K1LGorE. At its best it represented 10 per cent of them. Mr. AswerLr. May I interrupt you here to read the report of the Department of Agriculture, prepared at my request, and it is a detailed report of an official of the bureau, and I would like the committee to get this [reading]: The average of the United State. That is, the cotton sections: 1921 and 1922, handled by the cooperatives was 5.3 per cent; 1922 and 1923, it was 7.4 per cent; 1923 and 1924, it was 8.9 per cent; 1924-25 it was 8 per cent; and 1925-26 it was 9.1 per cent. That is the highest? Mr. KiLGore. That is the highest. Mr. AsweLL. That was not 10 per cent. The year 1926-27 they handled 6.7 per cent of the entire cotton crop produced in the United States; that is, that year there was 18,000,000 bales produced and the cooperatives handled a little over one million bales. So, if your exchange represents all the cooperatives—which you do not—-— Mr. KiLgore. All except two, and they are for this bill. Mr. AsweLL. What two? Mr. KiLgore. Staple and short staple in Mississippi. Mr. AsweLL. Is the cooperative in Oklahoma for this bill? Did they not send you a telegram about it? Mr. Kingore. They are for it; they voted for the resolution. Mr. Frailey moved—— Mr. AsweLL. They do not stand for the fee or nothing? Mr. Kircore. Of coutse, they are for it. Mr. AsweLL. What about Georgia? Mr. KiLcore. Mr. Conwell last year was against the McNary- Haugen bill. I stated in my testimony before the Senate committee last year that all of the cooperatives in the exchange except Georgia were for the bill. Mr. Conwell, who is the general manager—— Mr. AsweLL. 1t is not necessary for you to prove it; I will accept your statement. Mr. KiLgore. This year, Mr. Conwell, the general manager, said {reading]: [ want farm legislation as badly as anyone. Referring to the McNary-Haugen bill and to his representatives he says: They all know that I am in favor of farm legislation—

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 4)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation