The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 61, July 1957 - April, 1958 Page: 123
591 p. : ill., maps, ports. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Texas Cotton Acreage Control Law of 931-1z932 123
of the cotton crop; and since normally more than half of the
South's cotton had to be sold outside the United States, chiefly
in Europe, it was usually the European market that had deter-
mined the economic condition of the Southern farmer at any
given time. The distressed condition, therefore, of the Southern
cotton farmer in 1931-1932 could not be appreciably relieved
until the export market for American cotton was restored at a
better price level.22 This dependence of Texas upon the exporta-
tion of cotton was emphasized by W. L. Clayton, one of the most
competent authorities on cotton in the nation, at the annual
meeting of the Houston Chamber of Commerce on January 7,
1932. Clayton pointed out that about 90 per cent of the cotton
produced by approximately one-third of the people of Texas had
to be sold outside the United States. It is certain that any com-
modity that employs the energies and provides the support of
one-third of the people of any state determines the economic
status of a much larger part of the people of that state. Clayton
stated that the Texas cotton farmer was among the chief victims
of the collapse of the export market.23
For a few years before 1931-1932 there was a reduced con-
sumption of American cotton, but there was not a corresponding
reduction of production. It is obvious that the most essential need
was the restoration of normal consumption. Even normal con-
sumption, however, would not have absorbed the surplus which
would have been created if normal production had been con-
tinued in the meantime. It was a recognition of this fact that
prompted the holding of special sessions of the legislatures of
several cotton-growing states to enact laws limiting acreage. The
Texas law, as has been stated before, limited acreage to 30 per
cent of the cultivated land. Arkansas, Mississippi, and South
Carolina enacted similar laws. These states, however, provided
that their law should go into effect only if states producing 75
per cent of the total American cotton crop passed similar leg-
islation.24 Louisiana enacted a law prohibiting the planting of
cotton entirely during 1932, but repealed it.25
22Ibid., No. 3 (January 19, 1931), 3-
28Ibid., VIII, No. 2 (January 9, 1932), 2-3.
24Ibid.
25Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 27, 1932.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 61, July 1957 - April, 1958, periodical, 1958; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101164/m1/143/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.