Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 6 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
'WAnirs Elect Committee) i
'TcTiSrudy Review
A'13-man committee was elect* 1 ed at the farmers’ meeting Friday night to continue the study; of the Family Farm Review. The county-wide meeting of farmers heard three speakers and then decided to do the best possible, in the short time allotted to give the best attention to this “family farm” census of opinion on the agricultural, program.
The committee, elected to study the recommendations and report back to another county-wide farmers’ meeting, was headed with' H. S. Barksdale as chairman and two farmers from each of the six magisterial districts: Hampton District, Wade H. Massie, Jr., aadL C. J. Miller; Hawthorne District* John Davis and C. M. Ramey; <Jackson District, W. G. Eastham and John Lawrence; Piedmont District, L. J. Kilby and J. W. Fletcher; Stonewall District, Nor- Ifg man Grimsley and Raymond John* son; and Wakefield District, J. P. nv Cook and Russell Sbtphin.
The motion to study the program and submit the best report that time would allow was made by IE. M. Jones. R, J. Wood made the motion to elect a committee \ to study the program end con-.-* tact as many fanners ai possible and bring such report back to the county-wide group of farmers for their opinion. *
The first speaker at the inf was C. D. Jordan, of tho stato mobilization committee, nrho said that the recommendations, in the report mailed to the county mobilization committee, were not meant as recommendations but wore sent as suggestions in order to stimulate discussion.
’H. L. Manwaring, of the PUA, . ' and also in attendance at tha meeting as a local farmer, «nwered questions where answers were available, and explained that each a review was conducted in yM order that a program may bel made up by the secretary of agriculture in complete accord with the wishes of the majority of farmers.- :n*■'•*,***. •**>«}:
Giles H. Miller, Jr., bankerfarmer of Culpeper, read a report from a Washington (D.C.) commentator in which this Family Farm Review was termed a “Second Brannon Plan.” Mr. Miller said that he was one who believed that it was time to curb spending in government and put more controls back into the state and county hands,' and discourage this trend toward centralization, continued government controls, and! continued enormous government spending.
Mr. Miller stated that government was a non-earning business; at best, all it could do was to take the citizens’ money and give them back the best possible benefits, minus an enormous administrative fde.
52.1%