BASES FOR ALLOTMENTS In the Florida citrus marketing agreement the basis for allotment to shippers during periods for which proration is in effect is either the quantity of fruit controlled by the shipper, or his current performance, depending on which rating is the higher. The current performance of the shipper is determined by taking his past performance during the two previous seasons, adjusting it to the current production of the State, and multiplying by the percentage of the total crop remaining to be shipped before the proration period. The 1934 California cling peach agreement provides, by means of certificates issued to producers by the control committee for equitably allocating among the different producers, the limited quantity permitted to be canned. The control committee makes a survey to determine the probable total production of no. 1 cling peaches of each individual orchard and the combined probable total production of all orchards. The ratio of total production of all orchards to the total tonnage permitted to be canned is then applied to the estimated production of each orchard, and the resulting figure represents the deliverable tonnage for canning for each such orchard. The control committee then issues certificates to each grower for the amount of his deliverable tonnage for canning and no canners are permitted to receive for canning any cling peaches unless the peaches are accompanied by appropriate certificates. PROVIDING FOR ADJUSTMENTS IN ALLOTMENTS Allotments to processors of gum turpentine and gum rosin are made on the basis of their past marketings. Provisions are included for allotments to new processors and for adjustments in allotments to old processors if such adjustment is justifiable. In agreements such as those for California raisins and prunes, and walnuts grown in California, Oregon, and Washington, each handler is required to turn over to the control committee a specified percentage of all receipts of the commodity from growers. This percentage expresses the ratio between the total quantity that it is deemed advisable to market in regular trade channels, and the total available supply, the current total production plus carry-over as in the case of walnuts, or the current production, as in the case of raisins and prunes. IV. OPERATION OF MARKETING AGREEMENTS Marketing agreements relating to general crops are administered by governing bodies, usually known as control committees. All actions of the control committees are subject to the approval or disapproval of the Secretary of Agriculture. A marketing agreement, however well drafted, can be operated most effectively only if administered by men well acquainted with the many problems of the industry concerned who have the interests of the growers uppermost in their minds. The membership of the control committees of the first agreements put into effect consisted largely of handlers, but in the more recent agreements growers have at least equal representation with handlers. In the operation of marketing agreements designed to increase re turns to growers it appears sound policy for growers to have an important voice. The general procedure is for the grower members of the control committee to be elected by the growers and for the handler members to be elected by the handlers. In order to avoid the expense of elections some of the earlier agreements permitted the selection of control-committee members by organizations not directly connected with or bound by terms of the marketing agreement, but this has proven unsatisfactory. Direct election of the handler members of the control committee by the handlers does not invoke particular difficulties, since the number of handlers is usually relatively small. Direct election of grower members by growers, however, is frequently cumbersome, particularly in those cases involving a large number of growers and extending over a wide territory. In cases where elections by growers do not appear feasible the best alternative yet found is selection of grower members by the Secretary of Agriculture. FUNCTION OF FIELD REPRESENTATIVE The operation of a marketing agreement offers an opportunity for a maximum of industry cooperation and a minimum of Government supervision. A field representative of the Adjustment Administration has been assigned to each agreement so as to maintain a direct contact with the agreement without assuming the direct responsibility for its operation. In this way it has been possible to assist in getting new agreements into operation with a minimum of confusion and misunderstanding and also to adjust differences and complaints with a minimum of delay. The presence of such an Administration representative in the field has also done much to assure the entire industry that every effort is being made to obtain fair treatment to all parties. The effectiveness of this system of supervision is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there have been in operation only four agreements under which more than two enforcement cases have been necessary. The successful operation of control committees has been exceedingly difficult because of the lack of precedent for such activity. Most of the agreements have been completed just before the opening of the marketing season and in several cases after marketing had already begun. Frequently organization has been completed and the selection of a manager made under the most trying circumstances. Conscientious and unselfish service of committee members and untiring efforts of managers and organizations have largely been responsible for the success which has been achieved through the various agreements. PROBLEMS OF HUMAN RELATIONS The most difficult problems encountered in the operation of marketing agreements have not been those of an economic character, but problems of human relations. The committees chosen by those industries which had learned to cooperate on an industry-wide basis in the past have functioned effectively and with a minimum of differences. But in a few instances factionalism, which had largely been created by past differences, has been carried over into the operation of the agreement. The enforcement of a license depends to a large extent upon the committee operating in full compliance with the provisions of the license. In some instances committees have disregarded this principle and have thus made it impossible for the Administration to enforce committee actions because these have been taken outside of the authorization of the license or have been invalidated by failure to adhere to the provisions of the license. The degree of voluntary compliance with the provisions of agreements and licenses has been satisfactory and has greatly contributed to their effective operation. A number of agreements have been operated throughout an entire season without a single request for enforcement by the Administration. This cooperation can be attributed largely to a realization by all concerned that a marketing agreement and license provide a practical method for improving prices to producers and for handling other problems common to all individuals. The principle of endeavoring to secure compliance rather than to punish violators has been followed with distinct success. ENFORCEMENT UNDER LICENSE PROVISIONS The most common method of enforcement which has been followed has been that of administrative enforcement under the license provision of the Adjustment Act. This involves the issuance of an order to show cause why the license of an alleged violator should not be revoked, a hearing by a representative of the Secretary at which the alleged violator is given every opportunity to defend his actions, and a subsequent finding and order by the Secretary in accordance with the record of the hearing. Up to December 31, 38 orders to show cause have been issued. Hearings have been held in 33 cases. Twelve are now awaiting decision by the Secretary. Of the balance, 8 licenses have been revoked, 5 suspended, and 3 licensees have been found guilty of serious violation and excluded from a subsequent license. Charges have been dismissed in 4 cases and action has been withheld in 3 instances on assurance of compliance. Compliance has also been secured in two cases through court injunctions. V. CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION Four codes of fair competition relating to general crops are now in effect. The fair trade practice provisions of these codes are under the supervision of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Other provisions of the codes, such as wages, hours of labor, and budget assessments, are under the supervision of the National Recovery Administration. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CODE The code of fair competition for the fresh fruit and vegetable industry became effective July 16, 1933. It contains fair trade practice and credit provisions for the distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the country. Approximately 20,000 firms are affected by the code which offers a means of preventing disastrous price wars in the fruit and vegetable industry, and supplements the more direct influence of marketing agreements. CODE FOR ANTI-HOG-CHOLERA SERUM AND VIRUS INDUSTRY The code of the producers of anti-hog-cholera serum and hog-cholera virus became effective March 6, 1934, and affects about 50 producing concerns in an industry whose whole business is valued at approximately $10,000,000 per annum. Serum and virus are manufactured under licenses issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, because the vaccines were a discovery of the Department. The code is designed to prevent destructive price wars which have been prevalent in the industry, and to provide consumers with adequate supplies of serum and virus during hog-cholera epidemics. COMMERCIAL BREEDER-HATCHERY CODE The commercial breeder and hatchery code became effective December 27, 1933, and affects about 13,500 hatcheries in the United States. It contains provisions prohibiting unfair trade practices such as destructive price cutting, misrepresentation of products, and false advertising. Since the code has been in operation, improvement in the price situation, quality of produce, and reliability of hatchery output, have been effected. NEW YORK LIVE-POULTRY CODE Undesirable trade practices which have been experienced by the live-poultry industry of New York City, have been handled under the New York live-poultry code which became effective April 23, 1934. While this code has been in operation only 8 months, it has effected savings of approximately $252,000 to shippers of live poultry through the reduction of coop and cartage charges. It has also brought about an appreciably greater degree of stability in the live-poultry market in this area. PROPOSED NORTHEASTERN LIVE-POULTRY CODE On December 5, 1934, a public hearing was held in New York to discuss a proposed code for the live-poultry industry in the State of New Jersey and the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, Boston, and Providence. This proposed code contains provisions similar to those in the New York live-poultry code. CHAPTER 14 COMMODITY LOANS SALIENT FACTS ABOUT COMMODITY LOANS 1. Loans disbursed on cotton direct by Commodity Credit Corporation up to Dec. 31, 1934: Disbursed on 1933 crop-. Loans on 1934 crop repaid. Loans on 1934 crop repaid. 2. Approximate loans on cotton disbursed by lending agencies under Corporation's purchase guarantee: Disbursed on 1933 cotton crop-- 3. Loans disbursed on corn direct by Corporation: Disbursed under 1933 program.... 4. Approximate loans on corn disbursed by lending agencies under Corporation's purchase guarantee: Disbursed under 1933 program_ Disbursed under 1934 program. 5. Loans disbursed on gum turpentine and rosin Disbursed direct by Corporation___ Disbursed by agencies under Corporation's purchase guar- The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the laws of the State of Delaware on October 17, 1933, pursuant to the President's Executive order of October 16, 1933. Its entire capital stock of $3,000,000 was subscribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Governor of the Farm Credit Administration, who hold it jointly for and on behalf of the United States. Funds for this purpose have been made available by the President's allocation of $3,000,000 out of the $100,000,000 appropriation authorized by section 220 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and by the Fourth Deficiency Act of the fiscal year 1933, approved June 16.8 Under its bylaws the Corporation is permitted to make loans only upon such commodities as may from time to time be designated by the President. These loans have contributed support to farm prices by enabling producers to retain title to products which might have been dumped upon the market with price-depressing effect. They have made it possible for producers themselves to gain the advantage of price increases which otherwise would have been lost to them through enforced marketing, and have contributed to orderly marketing. Under the policy established by the board of directors, loans have been made only upon commodities in connection with which adjustment or marketing programs of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration have been developed. The loan plan adopted permits banks Public No. 77, 73d Cong. |