Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

ADDITIONAL FACILITIES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF COTTON

JANUARY 28, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. FULMER, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 329]

The Committe on Agriculture, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 329) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional facilities for the classification of cotton under the United States cotton standards act, and for the dissemination of market news information, having considered the same report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment: Page 3, after line 11, add the following sentence:

The Secretary of Agriculture may cause to be collected such charges as he may find to be reasonable for licenses issued and for facilities extended under this act, and the amount so collected shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture in paying expenses of the Department of Agriculture connected therewith, The joint resolution herewith is as follows:

[H. J. Res. 329, Seventy-first Congress, second session]

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional facilities for the classification of cotton under the United States cotton standards act, and for the dissemination of market news information

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture be requested to extend to cotton growers facilities for the classification of cotton authorized in the United States cotton standards act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. L. 1517), with such supervision of licensed classifiers as he shall deem necessary, and to increase the dissemination of market news information now carried on under authority of the United States cotton futures act.

SEC. 2. Further to carry out the purposes of the said United States cotton standards act the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue to any person, upon presentation of satisfactory evidence of competency, a license to sample cotton. Any such license may be suspended or revoked by the Secretary of Agriculture whenever he is satisfied that such licensee is incompetent or has knowingly or carelessly sampled cotton improperly, or has violated any provision HR-71-3-VOL 1-63

of said act or the regulations thereunder so far as the same may relate to him, or has used his license, or allowed it to be used, for any improper purpose. The Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe by regulation the conditions under which licenses may be issued hereunder, and may require any licensed sampler to give bond for the faithful performance of his duties and for the protection of persons affected thereby and may prescribe the conditions under which cotton shall be sampled by licensed samplers for the purpose of classification by officers of the Department of Agriculture, or by licensed cotton classifiers. The Secretary of Agriculture may cause to be collected such charges as he may find to be reasonable for licenses issued and for facilities extended under this act, and the amount so collected shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture in paying expenses of the Department of Agriculture connected therewith.

SEC. 3. That to provide for the supervision of classifiers and samplers which may be licensed pursuant hereto and further to effectuate the purposes of the United States cotton futures act, the United States cotton standards act, and this resolution, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, and thereafter such additional sums as may be

necessary.

Attention is invited to the hearings before the committee where the necessity and feasibility of this legislation is gone into with considerable detail.

The report is not intended to cover the reasons submitted in the evidence, but it is considered sufficient to insert the opinion and attitude of the Secretary of Agriculture and others who are in a position, from the standpoint of experience to speak with authority.

Hon. H. P. FULMER,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., June 4, 1930.

DEAR MR. FULMER: I have your letter of May 5, asking for report on H. J. Res. 329, a joint resolution to authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional facilities for the classification of cotton under the United States cotton standards act and for the dissemination of market news information. The resolution clearly points out the depressing influence upon the quality of the American cotton crop which is exerted by methods of cotton buying commonly employed in growers' markets. The department has repeatedly stated its belief that if a downward tendency in the quality of our cotton production is to be prevented the premiums for better qualities and discounts for lower qualities which prevail in the larger markets must in some way be carried back to the individual growers. The increase of facilities to growers for determining the classification of their cotton and for obtaining market information as to the respective values of cotton of the different grades should help materially to meet the needs of the existing situation.

Substantial progress has been made in the administration of the United States cotton standards act in establishing standard of cotton classification. The standards so established are now in use not only in the principal markets of this country but in the markets of the world where American cotton is sold. Services of classification by officers of the department have also been provided. It has been possible, however, to make these services available only at points where cotton is concentrated in great volume, inasmuch as services are supported out of fees collected. In consequence it has not been administratively practical to extend to cotton growers the services of the department's boards of cotton examiners as fully as has been wished.

There is, however, a considerable and rapidly increasing demand for services of classifiers licensed by the department under the United States cotton standards act but not actually employed by the department. Success of this feature of the legislation requires, however, that the department provide adequate supervision to insure the accuracy and dependability of classification performed by licenses. The resolution, as I understand it, would express it as the desire of Congress that means be taken to increase this supervision and to make more generally available information as to cotton values. The department is in full sympathy with these objectives and believes that their attainment will benefit large num bers of individual cotton growers and that their influence upon the quality of the cotton crop will prove advantageous to the country as a whole.

The resolution confers authority to license samplers which is desirable in that it affords means for insuring that samples submitted for classification actually and faithfully represent the bales from which they are said to be drawn. It would be in the interest of the practicable administration exempting for the purposes of the resolution officers of this department from the limitations of the last sentence of section 4 of the United States cotton standards act which prohibits classifiers from having knowledge of any interested parties.

Sincerely yours,

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary.

As shown by the following letter, the Department of Agriculture has been considering this type of legislation since 1924:

Hon. H. P. FULMER,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., June 16, 1924.

DEAR MR. FULMER. Your desire to locate a classification board at Columbia is quite in line with the intention of the department ultimately to bring the benefits of the act directly home to agriculture. In the meantime, we are endeavoring to lay a solid foundation by getting the standards actually into use in commercial channels. The rivalry of southeastern cities for the location of our office is presenting us with a new problem which we are finding rather hard to solve with satisfaction to all concerned, and with justice to our program.

Sincerely yours,

HENRY C. WALLACE, Secretary. The following letter is from ex-Congressman A. Frank Lever, who served in Congress for 18 years, being chairman of the Agriculture Committee during a part of this period of time:

Hon. H. P. FULMER,

Washington, D. C.

COLUMBIA, S. C., January 21, 1931.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I know that you are still actively at work on your bill to establish, in the various States, licensed grading offices with a view of extending the benefits of your cotton grading act to all cotton farmers. I am glad to see you are doing this.

At most of the small cotton markets of this State the matter of grading takes into consideration only the color of the cotton. The length and tensile strength and uniformity of the grade are entirely overlooked, and I think you and I, as producers of cotton, will understand that these are in fact the really important factors in grading. Color is negligible unless it happens to be in the form of stain.

In 1929 I grew on my own farm cotton which I knew from the type of seed planted should grade at least an inch and a thirty-second staple, and that such a length of staple should command a premium anywhere from $6 to $10 per bale. I sent some of this cotton (3 bales) to the nearest local cotton merchant who offered the price of ordinary seven-eight length staple. I told the tenant not to sell the cotton, but to bring back the samples with the price offered him. The next day I took these samples to one of the graders detailed by the Department of Agriculture to work in connection with our State warehouse commission. He did not know who I was, but he graded the cotton and it graded one and thirty-second inch, carrying with it, as he informed me, a premium of $7.50 a bale over the seven-eight length staple which, as you know, is the usual length in this State. He gave me documents to this effect, and the following day I sent the tenant back to the same merchant, presenting him with the licensed grader's papers and was promptly given the premium.

I do not raise much cotton, because I am a small farmer, and this year I am not planting any, but if I had gotten the premium on all the cotton that I sold for 1929, these premiums would have more than paid my taxes and those of my tenants as well.

Real worth-while things are sometimes hard to get going, but I am sure you have the patience to keep on pushing. You have a real meritorious proposition, and if I can be of any service whatever in helping you put it through, you can command whatever there is of me in experience or ability.

Sincerely yours,

A. F. LEVER.

The following statements and excerpts were made by parties who are experienced and deeply concerned about the passage of this legislation for the extending to farmers the benefits of the premium on high quality and staple cotton, as well as to improve the quality of American cotton so as to be able to command a real demand from foreign markets:

By William Gonzales, editor Columbia State, Columbia, S. C.:

Even with relatively so little long staple grown in South Carolina, how much is lost because of improper grading and the ignorance of the producers? Here is one illustration and it is startling: In the presence of our informant, who is a man of wide experience in handling cotton, a buyer for mills in another State recounted in a boastful way of having this season purchased several considerable lots of cotton, mentioning specifically Springfield, Orangeburg County, as one place of purchase; that these several lots were of certain staple lengths and were worth 28 and 35 cents a pound; that he had bought them for 23 cents and left the sellers very well pleased. Our informant, after figuring out the price paid for the cotton sold and the actual value of the different lots, estimated the growers had lost $18,000.

What is it to the farmer that mills pay prices accurately adjusted to grade and staple, if no such adjustment marks the prices paid him by the first-hand purchaser. the local cotton buyer? What incentive has he to produce superior cotton? By Dr. A. B. Cox, director of Business Research, University of Texas:

In so far as cotton is concerned, the two outstanding problems are the trend downward of the average yield per acre in the United States, and, second, the decline in the quality of the cotton grown.

The decline in quality of American cotton is serious enough to require extreme methods of treatment. This deterioration is not the result of a single cause, but certainly little progress can be made toward improvement without discriminatory buying, and this can not be until the cotton is classed at the time it leaves the farmer's hands. Proper coordination of work already being done by the United States Department of Agriculture and the cooperation of the cotton merchants could be made to accomplish this in a short time.

A strict inspection and checking service on the work of these classers would make it possible for the merchants to give local representatives grade and staple limits based on such classifications. In this way the farmers would be practically selling to the big merchants in the central markets and having the active competition of these merchants from various markets. Such a method of marketing would certainly give the farmers the best prices available for their particular quality of cotton at that given time.

Hon. H. P. FULMER,

House of Representatives.

FEDERAL FARM Board,
Washington, April 15, 1930.

DEAR MR. FULMER: I regret that my absence from the city has delayed a reply to your letter of April 9, in reference to your resolution authorizing an appropriation and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional facilities for the classification of cotton. It seems to me that the purpose of this resolution is excellent.

Yours very truly,

CARL WILLIAMS, Member Federal Farm Board.

GEORGE ROGERS CLARK SESQUICENTENNIAL
COMMISSION

JANUARY 28, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. LUCE, from the Committee on the Library, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2643]

By the resolution establishing the George Rogers Clark Sesquicentennial Commission, approved May 23, 1928, an appropriation of $1,000,000 was authorized for the purpose of erecting at Vincennes, Ind., on the spot where Fort Sackville stood, a monumental memorial to commemorate one of the most notable and eventful episodes in American history. It was hoped that this amount, added to the appropriations by the State of Indiana, Knox County, and the city of Vincennes, and expenditure by the State of Illinois, would suffice to meet the need. As the work of the commission has progressed it has been found that additional expenditure would be justifiable in order to build the monumental edifice which won first place in the competitive submission of plans, and also to embellish the surroundings in accord with the advice of the eminent landscape engineer whose services the commission had secured. Senate bill 2643 contemplated adding a Federal expenditure of $750,000. Your committee deems it better to follow sundry precedents and make the total Federal appropriation match the total of local contributions, within a limit of $1,500,000 in all from the Federal treasury, this being thought a sufficient sum to attest the interest of the Nation as a whole in this project.

In connection with the commemoration of George Rogers Clark the citizens of Vincennes have thought it best to engage in certain improvements which, however desirable in themselves, have no direct relation with the Fort Sackville episode nor would they be necessary to the artistic treatment of the Clark memorial. We have not thought it logical to include them in the estimate of local contribution. We have, however, taken into account that part of the cost of a new

« ÎnapoiContinuă »