PINK BOLLWORM ERADICATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, April 4, 1928. The committee, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., proceeded to the further consideration of House Joint Resolution 237, Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear you, Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, there is here this morning Mr. Lee A. Strong, assistant director of the department of agriculture at Sacramento, Calif., who was sent by authority of his State as a delegate to the Memphis meeting on the pink bollworm, and we would like to hear a few words from him. STATEMENT OF LEE A. STRONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, California is interested in the eradication of the pink bollworm of cotton, both from the standpoint of the general interest of the cotton industry of the United Stats and as a cotton-growing State. We realize that the pink bollworm, if established any where in the United States, is a menace to the cotton industry, and we believe if it becomes estabished in Arizona on the Thurberia plant, which was mentioned here yesterday by Doctor Hinds, that it will be a constant menace not only to Arizona but to California and to the entire cotton industry of the United States; because there is not any known means of eradicating the pink bollworm and the Thurberia plant in the mountains of Arizona, if becomes established there, and we understand that plant is a host. We are convinced it is possible at the present time for the Federal Horticultural Board, if given the authority and money, to eradicate the pink bollworm in the United States, especially in those areas which now constitute immediate danger points in the western extension of Texas and Arizona. We believe past experience by the Federal Horticultural Board has demonstrated it is practicable and feasible to eradicate the pink bollworm and we urge this be done at this time. And I can assure you, gentlemen, that the cotton interests of the Southwest, in the irrigated sections of the Southwest, will be absolutely in favor of the resolution presented by Mr. Buchanan. Mr. ADKINS I did not catch who you represent. Mr. STRONG. I am assistant director of the State department of agriculture. I am here representing the cotton organizations in connection with this bill. Mr. JONES. Have you had any experience with the pink bollworm? Mr. STRONG. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is your business? Mr. STRONG. I am assistant director of the California State department of agriculture. Mr. HOPE. You have never had any pink bollworms in California? Mr. STRONG. No, sir; we have not. Mr. ASWELL. But you are uneasy about it? Mr. STRONG. We are very uneasy about it; yes, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. BUCHANAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the discussion of the main problem and of the particular plan which I desire to present, if I may, I would like to take a little time of the committee to clear up a little controversy that occurred here yesterday on the measure of damages to the farmers who may be in noncotton zones, and of the respective culture of cotton in the noncotton zones, in this newly infested area, and of kafir corn, or feterita, or sorghum, which are practically all the same. Doctor Marlatt presented to you a statement gotten up by the Department of Agriculture which, on a careful weighing, I think is plain and concise. The only question was that the statement is not understood by the committee. Now let me state at the outset I do not want a single member of this committee to vote for this resolution under a misapprehension of the facts. I want them to know all of the facts and we might just as well meet those facts squarely, state them frankly and understand them clearly. This newly infested area in northwest Texas that directly connects with continuous cotton culture from there to the Atlantic seaboard, is in a section of our State that, so far as a money crop is concerned, can raise cotton as the only crop. It is absolutely foolish, gentlemen, for any member of this committee to expect any other crop to be planted in the condemned cotton cultured land. I want you to get that clearly in your mind. Feterita, or kafir corn, is raised in that country; it is a dry-land plant; it will grow abundantly; it will make, fine, so far as production is concerned; but, when you make it, what are you going to do with it? It is good for stock feed and it is valuable to them only in so far as they raise enough for their own consumption. Mr. HOPE. Will you yield to a question right there, Mr. Buchanan? Mr. BUCHANAN. Surely; any question on that point. Mr. HOPE. Is it your idea, then, that some of this land that is now producing cotton would not be put in crop at all? Mr. BUCHANAN. Absolutely, gentlemen; that is a fact. We might just as well meet that squarely. Those are facts. between railroads out there, Mr. Jones? Mr. JONES. In some places, 60 or 75 miles. How far is it Mr. BUCHANAN. Sixty or seventy-five miles between railroads. Mr. JONES. That is not always true, but there are several counties out there that have no railroad at all. Mr. BUCHANAN. In this immediate section there are no railroads at all. How far is it from Dawson to Big Spring? Mr. JONES. Well, from Dawson to Big Spring it is about 65 miles. Mr. BUCHANAN. And not a railroad between them. Mr. ADKINS. As a matter of interest, you say there is no market for this kafir corn outside of local feeding? Mr. BUCHANAN. Absolutely. Mr. FULMER. In other words, at the expense of moving that and the price they would receive, they could not afford it. Mr. BUCHANAN. Absolutely. Mr. FULMER. Except for their own immediate use. Mr. BUCHANAN. That is all. That country is a sparsely set.led country, little towns maybe 30, 40, or 50 miles apart. There are no horses there; automobiles have taken their place, and what are you going to do with it? When you raise cotton, you carry it to the gin and compress it in a small bulk of great value, and you can take your wagon or truck and haul six or eight bales of cotton of a value of $600 or $800, 10, 15, or 20 miles to the railroad, and you have an unlimited market for shipment; but you take the surplus kafir corn you raise and how much can you haul? Thirty bushels; and how much is its value? $15. It would take a wagon team an entire day to haul it to town and then, when you get to town, the freight rate to another place would eat it up. It can not compete with cotton. Mr. JONES. You understand there is a railroad that runs into Dawson County; but, between there and Big Spring there is no railroad. Mr. BUCHANAN. I know; there is one at Big Spring and then there is one in Dawson County. I was up in that section last July and went over a considerable portion of it and I am familiar with that territory. Mr. FULMER. Is there any of this infested territory in your district? Mr. BUCHANAN. No, sir; it is three or four hundred miles from my district. I have no interest in it. Mr. HOPE. Was there any farming carried on in this territory before the introduction of cotton growing? Mr. BUCHANAN. Kafir corn has been grown in that country for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, but only for home consumption and to carry over a little bad spell where the catle get poor and they are compelled to feed them. Mr. HOPE. There has been no further developments of small grain growing, then? Mr. BUCHANAN. Oh, no. Mr. HOPE. The development has only been in cotton growing? Mr. BUCHANAN. Only of cotton growing. Now corn, some years, makes fine. When I was up there last July, I saw cribs full of corn and I saw corn piled in great piles out on the ground, where it had remained all year, rotting, because it was not profitable for them. to haul it to the station and ship it in competition with the product of the great Corn Belt. So that you might just as well get in your minds there is but one money crop they can raise there, that pays them to raise (otherwise it is a stock grazing country), and that is cotton, and for every acre of condemned land the farmers will have to be paid the actual and necessary loss by condemning their right to plant cotton. Mr. KINCHELOE. Do they raise any stock there? Mr. BUCHANAN. Some. Mr. HALL. They do not feed them? Mr. BUCHANAN. In some instances, they feed stock, but it does not pay to raise kafir corn there to raise stock on. You have to have extensive pasturage in connection with that. Kafir corn is a nice food to fatten stock, with cottonseed meal and hulls to finish them off; harden the flesh. Mr. HALL. That was originally a ranch country? Mr. BUCHANAN. Nothing but a range country. Mr. HALL. Where great herds of cattle were kept out there? Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. Now, getting down to the figures of yesterday over which the controversy arose which took so much time of the committee (and I ask the chairman's attention to this, who I know is sincere and earnest and desires to do right), Doctor Marlatt presented to the committee figures of the cost of cotton growing, without charging for the rental value of the land, of $16.50 per acre. An acre of cotton some years makes 80 pounds of lint, some years 125 pounds. I am talking about a 12-year record now in that section. We will take the average; we will take 100 pounds of lint to the acre, because it is easy to calculate. That makes $20 for lint and $3 for seed, or $23 as the gross amount of money that the farmer gets from the land. That is $6.50, above the cost of producing that 100 pounds of cotton, for the use of land. Now, the chairman says he would be glad to rent his land for $5 an acre. The CHAIRMAN. I will rent you 5,000 acres for half of that. Mr. FULMER. But here is a difference between the chairman and a farmer: The chairman is a farmer making a living on the side and the farmer has to live off of his labor. Mr. BUCHANAN. Just let me develop that. Now, mind you, in developing this point before this committee, these people are four or five hundred miles from my district and I have absolutely no political interest in their welfare. It is only my love of justice that compels me to make this statement. If the chairman of this committee was a little farmer and all that he owned in this world was 200 or 300 acres of land; if the only avocation or profession or following he knew was farming, just imagine your position. You have this little farm; you may have a tenant house or two on it and two or three tenants; you have bought enough mules to cultivate the entire farm; it is a going concern conducted in an efficient manner for farming; you can raise only one crop, we will say, and that is cotton, and here comes along a man and says to you "I will give you $10 an acre for this land for two years.' "You say, "What are you going to do with it?" "I am going to let it lay idle." You say, "Well, then, what am I going to do for a calling? I do not know anything but farming, I will be out of a job to transfer my calling, which is my farm labor, into money on which to live. To what use am I going to put the energy of my mules? For two years you are asking me to disrupt my whole going farm operation, for $10 an acre. I would no do it for $20 an acre." Why? Because, during that two-year period what machinery you had would rust and deteriorate; your tenant houses would deteriorate, and you would not have any calling for your own labor and the labor of your family. In other words, to analyze these figures, there is $23 for this 100 acres of land, gross. How much does the farmer get? He gets $6.50 per acre for the use of his land and, taking off about $2.50 for seed and repair of machinery, he will get $13.50 or $14 for his labor, for his calling, for his business. . And, when the Government goes in there and condemns that farm for cash, he has no calling and no business to follow. In other words, he has lost his job; he has lost the value of his labor; his tenants-if this whole area is to go into a noncotton zone, his tenants would move clear beyond that zone and it may be years before he can get them back. Why, gentlemen, looking at the fearful situation which will be established on those farms by these noncotton zones-if they put these seven counties in a noncotton zone, it will paralyze industry in that district. Every tenant farmer will leave; every laborer that lives on a farm will leave this country. Mr. FULMER. You feel, under this arrangement, you are going to have a lot of dissatisfaction? Mr. BUCHANAN. Why, Mr. Fulmer, practically every man living within the noncotton zone will kick like a bay steer. Mr. JONES. They are already sending telegrams to me opposing it. Mr. BUCHANAN. They have always done it. Before my committee last time, we had a great congregation there kicking on the tuberculosis in cattle, the corn borer, and the foot-and-mouth disease; we had kicks from every section, when it came before my committee. Mr. FULMER. Right there we had a considerable kick from the corn borer people and, in the meantime they were allowed to plant and gather their money crops. Mr. BUCHANAN. Absolutely; this is much more drastic and there will be a greater kick. I am only advocating this resolution and the adoption of the noncotton zones in the interest of the great cotton producing industry of this Nation. Texas, in my judgment, should use the iron hand and put those zones in immediate effect. Now I will go to the main subject; but, in concluding that part of it, I have no idea but that Texas will, during some period during this year, if this appropriation is passed, establish noncotton zones. It will have to do it; not only to protect itself, but to protect the balance of the country. Now let me call the committee's attention to this resolution in regard to safeguarding this money, and then I will leave that section. Under the laws of Texas, a commission is created to assess the damage to each individual farmer by reason of the establishment of noncotton zones. That is an importial commission. The laws says the farmer shall receive the "actual and necessary loss." Mr. ADKINS. That is a State law? Mr. BUCHANAN. That is a State law-"the actual and necessary loss" (it uses those two words), occasioned by the establishment of a noncotton zone. It is presumed those men will do their duty; but I did not take any chances on that in this resolution. You will find in this resolution a provision that, after that commission has assessed the damages of each individual farmer and it has transmitted that to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture can review it, change it, modify it, and allow what he thinks is right. There are two checks upon the appropriation. Can this Congress or this committee do more? Now I will leave that; that is all a matter of administrative detail. |