HOMES FOR SOLDIERS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-SIXTH CONGEESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 487 MAY 27 TO JUNE 28, 1919 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1919 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-SIXTH CONGKESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 487 MAY 27 TO JUNE 28, 1919 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1919 COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. N. J. SINNOTT, Oregon, Chairman. ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. JOHN S. BENIIAM, Indiana. JOHN A. ELSTON, California. JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. BERTRAND H. SNELL, New York. SCOTT FERRIS, Oklahoma. CHARLES A. NICHOLS, Michigan. EDWARD T. TAYLOR, Colorado. WILLIAM J. GRAHAM, Illinois. JOHN E. RAKER, California. JOHN M. BAER, North Dakota. JAMES H. MAPES, Utah. BENIGNO C. HERNANDEZ, New Mexico. JOHN N. TILLMAN, Arkansas. HAYES B. WHITE, Kansas. HARRY L. GANDY, South Dakota. WILLIAM N. VAILE, Colorado. HUGH S. HERSMAN, California. HENRY E. BARBOUR, California. PAUL B. JOHNSON, Mississippi. EDWARD D. BALDWIN, Clerk. , TABLE OF CONTENTS. (Index of witnesses at end of volume.) Statement of Page. Hon. Frank W. Mondell, Representative from Wyoming 3, 23, 52 Hon. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior 30 Thomas C. Atkeson, representative National Grange, Patrons of Hus- bandry 69 Hoyt Chamberlain, secretary National Civic Betterment League 77 Henry Sterling, legislative agent American Federation of Labor 81 Hon. Charles B. Timberlake, Representative from Colorado 93 J. H. Richards, attorney from Boise, Idaho 97 Gen. Charles H. Cole, Boston, Mass., Twenty-sixth Division 105 Hon. Riley J. Wilson, Representative from Louisiana 113 Hon. A. P. Davis, Director Reclamation Service 121, 429, 480 H. F. Hunter, supervisor of agriculture, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad 130 John I. Gibson, Michigan Land Settlement Commission 147 D. V. Chisholm, legislative representative Spanish-American War Veterans 157 Col. McElroy, National Tribune, Grand Army of the Republic 159 Wilbur A. Nelson, secretary Tennessee Soldiers' Settlement Board 167 Hon. William Kent, United States Tariff Commission 176 Hon. John N. Garner, Representative from Texas 187 Western Starr, Farmers' National Single Tax League 204 Carl Brannin, secretary Farmers' Single Tax League 222 Hon. F. R. Gooding, former governor of Idaho 228 Hon. J. B. A. Robertson, governor of Oklahoma 247 Hon. Frank Park, Representative from Georgia 255 H. Guy Hathorn, investment banker, Memphis, Tenn 260 Hon. D. W. Davis, governor of Idaho 271 Hon. Dick T. Morgan, Representative from Oklahoma 280 Hon. W. D. Boies, Representative from Iowa 294 Capt. Ellis Bashure, financial section, United States Army 328 E. Philip Rosenthal, Human Welfare Association 331 Hon. Herbert J. Drane, Representative from Florida 348 T. C. Atkeson. representative National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry. 351 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, Representative from South Dakota 381 Benjamin C. Marsh, Farmers' National Council 388 J. N. Cox, representing governor of Tennessee 415 Charles Springer, representing governor of New Mexico 416 Hon. J. W. Summers, Representative from Washington 423 Hon. John McDuffie, Representative from Alabama 424 Capt. K. S. Littlejohn, United States Engineers 471 Caleb R. Layton, Representative from Delaware 476 W. I. Drummond, chairman board governors, International Farm Congress 502 Hon. Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War 518 in IV CONTENTS. Statement of Continued Page. Hon. William R. Wood, Representative from Indiana 531 R. E. Shepherd, Jerome, Idaho 555 Mrs. Haviland H. Lund, secretary of the Forward-to-the-Land League... 558 Hon. Frank W. Mondell, Representative from Wyoming 595 Elwood W. Titus, representative New York State Federation of Farm Bureaus 618 John D. Miller, representative Dairymen's League 629 F. A. Saulsbury, president Ontario County Farm Bureau Association 630 Charles D. Porter, president Orleans County Farm Bureau Association 631 Hon. Robert M. McCracken, former Representative from Idaho 643 Mr. Emile A. Lehmann, former private, Company D, Three hundred and twenty-sixth Infantry, United States Army 647 H. C. Hallam, publicity agent, Southern Settlement and Development Organization 653 Mrs. W. H. Oxley, representing herself, Washington, D. C 669 Hon. Scott Ferris, Representative from Oklahoma 677 J. J. Harris, president and general manager Big Horn Irrigation & Power Co., Montana 678 Hugh Jeffries, president American Military Reform Association 694 William L. Hansen, Salt Lake City, bishop and manager colonization department, Mormon Church 728 Hon. William W. Hastings, Representative from Oklahoma, letter from. . . 751 Hon. William B. Wilson, Secretary of Labor, letter from 755 W. R. Green, jr., Buhl, Idaho, formerly United States Army 761 J. Leo Meehan, chairman soldiers' settlement committee, Utah American Legion, letter from 778 Hon . William Spry, former governor of Utah 778 Appendix A. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. Appendix B. Report of Chairman N. J. Sinnott to the House of Representatives. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, May 27, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Honorable Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this meeting has been called to con- sider the matter of the soldiers' settlement bill. We have a report from the Secretary of the Interior which will be printed in the hearings. Secretary Lane was to be here this morning, and also Mr. Mondell and Mr. Davis, and Mr. Cory. Mr. Mondell seems to be the only one here just at the present time, and if the committee wishes, we shall be pleased to hear him. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the committee to H. R. 487, a bill to provide employment and rural homes for those who have served with the military and naval forces through the reclamation of lands to be known as the " National Sol- dier Settlement Act." The following is a copy of said H. R. 487 : A BILL To provide employment and rural homes for those who have served with the lilitary and naval forces through National Soldier Settlement Act.'' military and naval forces through the reclamation of lands to be known as the Be H enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That to provide employment and rural homes for those who have served with the military or naval forces of the United States during the war between the United States and Germany and her allies and have been honorably separated or discharged therefrom or placed in the Regular Army Reserve, and former American citizens who served with, and were honorably separated or discharged from the military or naval forces of any of the nations allied against the Central Powers, and who have been repatriated, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as soldiers, there is hereby established a fund in the Treasury to be known as the " Na- tional Soldier Settlement Fund," hereinafter referred to as the " Fund," to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, hereinafter referred to as the " Secretary," for the purposes herein stated and as hereinafter provided. SEC. 2. That the Secretary is authorized to use the Fund for the purposes of this act. He may acquire by gift, purchase, deed in trust, or otherwise, the necessary lauds for Soldier Settlement Projects, hereinafter referred to as " Projects," and may withdraw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed public land* suitable for surli purpose*. No lands shall be acquired, however unless the price to be paid, and the conditions under which they are to be acquired shall be approved by (a) a representative of the Governor of the State in which the lands are located; (b) an appraiser designated by the Federal Farm Loan Board; and (c) the Secretary. Projects shall be selected with a view to the development of one or more projects in each of the several States in which feasible projects may be found. a 4 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. SEC. 3. That the Seci'etary is authorized through such agencies as he may provide to engage in such undertakings and do and perform such work as in his opinion is necessary for the permanent reclamation or development of the lands of projects, and when he deems essential to place them in condition for use and cultivation, including the building of essential public roads. The .Secretary shall, so far as possible, utilize the services of soldiers for suc-li purposes. The Secretary may also, through agreement with soldiers, m:ike provision for necessary improvements, but the contribution from the fund shall in no single case exceed $1,200, nor in excess of three-quarters of the cost or value of the improvements. SKC. 4. That the lands of projects shall bo subdivided into farms suitable for the support of a family and in the discretion of the Secretary into smaller farm workers' tracts. Dedication may ho made for schools, churches, com- munity centers, and other public purposes. Town sites suitable for the pur- poses of the project may bo established, developed. ;md sold as provided heroin. SEC. 5. That soldieis who are not the owners or proprietors of farms or rural homes shall be eligible as purchasers of a farm or farm workers' tract. I'ref- erence shall be- given to those who have boon employed in the development of such projects, and as between applicants with a view of safeguarding the settler and the United States, so far as practicable, against loss or failure. The Secretary shall make regulations general in character, or applicable to specific projects, as to residence and cultivation with a view of carrying out the pur- pose of making the soldier settlements the permanent home of the soldier purchasers. SEC. 6. That sale prices shall be fixed with a view of repaying the total cost of each project, and the price fixed for each farm, tract, or lot shall repre- sent as nearly as practicable its relative and comparative selling value. Ap- proved applicants shall at the time of entering into contract of purchase make a first payment of ." per centum of the sale price. The balance shall be paid in amortizing payments extending over a period to be fixed by the Secretary, not to exceed forty years. Sums advanced for improvements shall be repaid in amortizing payments extending over a period to bo lixod by the Secretary, not to exceed twenty years. The amortizing payments shall hear interest at. the rate of 4 per centum per annum, payable annually, computed from date of contract. The contracts for the sale of the farms, tracts, and lots shall provide for cancellations and forfeitures of payments made under the contract for failure to comply therewith. SEC. 7. Patents or deeds to project lands issued within ten years from the date of contract of sale shall contain the condition that, no transfer, assign- ment, mortgage, or lease made during that period shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary, and no transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease of any right, title, or interest held under a contract of sale shall bo valid at any time without the approval of the Secretary. The Secretary shall make all necessary regulations for the carrying out of the provisions and purposes of this act and for safeguarding the interests of the settler and of the United States, and is authorized to issue patents or deeds for the public and private lands embraced in farms, tracts, and lots within projects. SEC. 8. That the Secretary is also authorized to make short-time loans from the fund, not to exceed $800 at any one time, to a soldier settler for the purchase of necessary live stock and equipment, and provision shall be made for the repayment of such loans during a period not to exceed live years with interest on deferred payments at 4 per centum per annum, payable annually, computed from date of contract: I'mrhlcil. That no such loans shall exceed (50 per centum of the cost of the live stork and equipment purchased. SKC. 0. That whenever any Slate shall provide funds to ho expended in co- operation with the United States to provide rural homes for soldiers, the Secre- tary shall have authority to enter into contracts for such cooperation, and when (lie State shall furnish 2.~> per centum of the necessary funds the Secre- tary may authorize the State, subject to his general supervision, to carry on the subdivision of the land, improvement of farms, and the aid and direction of development after settlement. The Secretary is authorized to provide for reimbursement of funds so advanced by the State. He may also cooperate with other agencies to the extent he may deem advisable and likewise pro- vide for reimbursement to thorn of funds advanced. SKC. 30. That for the purpose of carrying into effort the provisions of this act the sum of $r>00,( KM .(M HI is hereby authorized to be appropriated. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 5 Mr. Chairman, since long before the close of the war, public- spirited men have had in mind what we might be able to do for our returning soldiers and sailors in the way of affording them opportunities to secure homes on the lands. Ours has always been a land of wonderful opportunity in the matter of acquiring" homes. At the close of the Civil War, the returning soldiers of both armies formed the vanguard of a movement of settlement and development that is without parallel in the history of the world. That has been true at the close of every war of the Republic since Revolutionary times. Within a year after the signing of the armistice, at least twice as many men will bid farewell to the Colors and return to their homes as formed the armies on both sides of the Civil War. but the opportunities that awaited those soldiers no longer exist. It is true that in many parts of the West, there are still homestead oppor- tunities, but the lands are not as fair and favorably situated as the lands of the Mississippi Valley. Still, in view of the fact that we are granting them to the soldiers in larger areas than formerly, they do afford opportunities for those who desire to engage in the char- acter of agriculture which can be successfully carried on on the dry lands. There are some opportunities under the reclamation projects; splendid opportunities so far as they exist. There are still areas of cheap lands in the country, although such areas are becoming smaller and less numerous all the time; and in view of the large number of men who are returning, the opportunities to .-('cure lands and homes will not meet the demand unless the Federal Government affords some aid in the matter. These matters were all considered, as I said at the beginning, even before the signing of the armistice by a great many people who are interested in the general welfare of the soldiers and who are inter- ested in the general development of the country. The Secretary of the Interior took up the matter very early and very eloquently, and urged it very forcifully. Members of Congress introduced bills. The present chairman of this committee Mr. Sinnott introduced a bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Morgan, introduced a bill. The then chairman of this committee, Mr. Ferris, had the matter under consideration. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Taylor, introduced a bill which went to the Committee on Irrigation and WHS favorably reported. A bill was introduced by the gentle- man from South Carolina, Mr. Byrnes, and went to the Committee on Appropriations. I introduced a similar bill which went to the Committee on Appropriations. I think some other gentlemen intro- duced bills. I do not remember all of them. The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Raker introduced a bill. Mr. MONDELL. Yes ; Mr. Raker introduced a bill. The CHAIRMAN. And I notice from this morning's record that Mr. Tillman also introduced a bill. .Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Tillman has also introduced a bill. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Smith of Idaho also introduced a similar bill with reference to reclamation projects. Mr. MONDELL. That is true. Almost every man from the western country, and many from other parts of the country, who have a spe- cial interest in these matters, were active in promoting the proposi- tion of soldier-land settlements, but the Congress which expired the 6 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 4th of March was a war Congress. It had to do with war mat- ters. It did not have the time to take up the matters of reconstruc- tion, restoration and development. So that comes before this Con- gress. At the close of the recent Congress, I remained in Washing- ton, and, taking advantage of all that had been said and all that had been done, and all that had been suggested and proposed in speeches and arguments and bills, I set to work to draft, or to aid in draft- ing a bill which would embrace what seemed to be the best features of the various suggestions that had been made, with a view to pre- senting them in a concrete, and definite form. I conferred with many Members on both sides of the House: in fact, all of the Members who had evinced a particular interest in the matter who were then in Washington. I conferred with the officials of the Interior Department, with the Secretary of the Interior, and with gentlemen who he had called to his aid, among others Mr. Cory and Mr. Smythe. At my request, and as it developed later at the request of the Secretary of the Interior also, Mr. Elwood Mead. who perhaps, has had more experience in land-settlement work than any man in America, or in Australia, where he did a great deal of his work, came on from Berkeley and aided with suggestions in the formulation of the legislation. So the bill you have before you is my bill only in the sense that I availed myself of all of the sug- gestions that had been made and that had been urged in regard to the legislation, and tried to put in a clear and concise form what seemed, after consultation, to be the plan that commended itself to a majority of the gentlemen who had given the matter considera- tion ; after a tentative bill had thus been drafted, in cooperation and in consultation, a meeting was held at the office of the Secretary of the Interior, at which all of the Members who had been active in this matter, who were then in the city, were present. Some of the gentlemen who have been very active were not pres- ent at that particular meeting, simply because they had not then ar- rived in Washington prior to the assembling of Congress. But at the Secretary's office we had a meeting of representative men of the House and of the Senate and of the department. Some suggestions of amendment or change were made and agreed upon there, and the bill which is now before you is the measure that was then tentatively agreed upon. I do not mean to say that any of the gentlemen there present are absolutely bound by every provision in this bill. I think all have open minds with regard to every provision of it; but from the examination that we were able to give it, with the light we had, with the suggestions that we had received from the gentlemen who had introduced bills and gentlemen who had discussed the matter. we present to you the product of our best judgment for your consid- eration. Now. briefly, as to the plan and purpose of the bill. It is proposed to secure by purchase, gift, by deed, or in some other manner areas of land in the various States and in all of the various States where such lands arc available in sufficient areas w r hen divided into farms to form complete and comparatively independent communities Mr. SNELL (interposing). Do you' want us to ask yon questions as you go along or would you prefer that we should wait until you get through ? HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 7 Mr. MONDELL. Would you mind letting me complete my first state- ment, in the meantime making a memorandum of those things you have in mind, because I may answer what you have in mind as I go along. The community settlement idea is at the. bottom of this legislation. It is believed that development by communities is essential ; that only in that way can we reclaim large areas of land that are now compara- tively useless, but contain all the essential elements of fertility when they are made available; lands that while they are not now available for intensive cultivation and successful use by reclamation in the various forms that may be necessary, depending upon the character of the area, may be made very desirable and very attractive places of residence and successful farming communities. I am emphasizing this feature of the matter because that is the very base of this soldier-settlement bill the community idea. If the thought on which this bill is based and on which practically all of the bills have been based, as I understand it, is carried out, no development will be attempted where there is not available a suffi- cient area of suitable land for a good-sized, comparatively independ- ent community, and the development will be with such reservations for towns and community centers as may be necessary to foster and develop and maintain the community idea. It is believed that areas of this sort can be found in almost every State of the Union except possibly some of the unusually fortunate States of the Mississippi Valley, where practically all of the lands are now under successful cultivation. There may be a few States that will not furnish areas such as we have in mind, but most of them will. As a matter of fact, curiously enough, one of the projects that is being tentatively considered. I am told, is within 25 miles of Boston where, as the cheap, virgin lands of the West beckoned, these lands of the early Pilgrim fathers were abandoned, and yet those lands are susceptible of development at a reasonable cost for fertilization, clearing, leveling, etc., in a way to make them very attractive and very profitable farming communities. To go a little further on the community idea, and as to the impor- tance of it, most of the gentlemen here know something about pion- eering and the development of the West, It is not so long ago that the Mississippi Valley was a pioneer country. It was when I was a boy. People do not mind exercising unusual economies, being unus- ually careful in expenditure or working unusually long hours and undergoing rather unusual privations if everyone in the community is doing the same tiling, and they are doing it for themselves. That is what has developed the West. That is what has developed the country from the Alleghenies to the Pacific. You all know what the pioneers have gone through and suffered. We do not expect that the pioneers on these projects shall be required to go through what the pioneers that I lived with as a boy did, and as the pioneers of to-day are doing in many parts of the West : but educated people, people who have been accustomed to the best of things, have cheer- fully, thankfully, and hopefully gone through all of the work of pioneering because all their neighbors were doing the same. They were inspired by the splendid spirit of pioneer development. There is nothing more inspiring in the world than the laying of founda- tions, making two blades of grass grow w T here only one or none grew 8 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. before, or making useful plants grow where only comparatively use- less plants grew before; building new communities, establishing new institutions, and developing all of the institutions of a civlized, prosperous community in regions where the land has been largely unused and uninhabited. . Under the pioneer idea, with the spirit of the pioneer which we hope to infuse into these communities, wonderful things can be done which could not be accomplished at all if you attempted to aid the individual here and there and elsewhere, surrounded by people who are very comfortably situated, who are riding around in their high- powered automobiles, who have made their way in the world and have established themselves. It is not plea-ant to have to live dif- ferently from your neighbors. It is a perfect joy to join with your neighbors in developing a country. Every man who has lived in the West can bear testimony to that fact, and the West in this respect has meant anywhere beyond the Alleghenies in the recollection of someone still living. Now the thought is that a ft IT these areas have been secured, arid in the West, cut over in the Northwest and in parts of the South, over- flowed or partly overflowed in some sections, abandoned in others, the soldiers and sailors will be invited to aid in the work of develop- ing and restoring them. They will be paid good wages in that work of development and they will be given to understand that under the provisions of the bill the man who works on the project, and inci- dentally the man who works longest on the project, because that would be within the discretion of the Secretary, shall have the prefer- ence in the selection of tracts when they shall be divided. In the development of these projects it is proposed to utilize the splendid organization of the Reclamation Service, expanding and enlarging, increasing and extending it. It is expected that the work shall be done with the very best organization that can be had with the very best appliances that are available, and with the best skill that can be secured toward the development of each one of these projects into a condition where they shall be fit for successful cultivation and for the establishment of homes. This will mean the pulling of stumps in some places and the building of dams in others, levees elsewhere, and a great variety of work. Under the provisions of this bill, as it stands and this is a rather important matter the Secretary may go into this work of develop- ment as far as he deems it essential to go, in order to place the lands in condition where the individual can with his own labor utilize them for farming purposes. That will mean that in some cases it will be necessary to do a con- siderable amount of work in leveling, grubbing, and clearing, in addition to the first initial work of reclamation. In other places where the lands are comparatively level, where the brush is small and the individual can clear it, it will not be necessary for the Gov- ernment to go further than is necessary to put the land in condition \\here the individual can begin fanning operations and complete his own additional work of clearing and reclamation, whate\er it may be. The THAI UMAX. That may also include the drainage of lands, or the drainage of wet lands? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 9 Mr. MONDELL. Oh, yes; of course that is one of the very important features of the plan. Some of the areas taken up will be overflowed lands or lands that are subject to overflow and that are tremendously rich when reclaimed. They can be made entirely sanitary by very simple means. From one to three years will elapse from the time a project is undertaken to the time when the lands can be subdivided into farms of the size deemed necessary for the support of a family. During that period, if the soldier is reasonably diligent and fairly saving, he can, even though he start without any savings, save enough to make the initial payment of five per cent on his farm, which will be $250 in the case of a tract costing $5,000. The farms are to be priced in accordance with their value as compared with the value of the other farms, and with a view of returning the total cost of reclamation and development. If $5.000,000 be expended on a project, the total of the farm values fixed for sale purposes must be $5,000,000, and the price fixed on each farm must be a price which measures its selling value as compared with the other farms. It will require judgment and intelligence of a high order to determine those values, but, of course, that is essential if we are to dispose of the tracts. Some of the tracts will, of course, be much more at- tractive than others, and, of course, the attractive lands must bear the higher price in order that equity shall be done among all the purchasers. The bill also provides for farm workers' tracts. That is in line with what has been done in Australia and in California, where they have found that there are certain men who prefer to work for others on a farm rather than actually farm for themselves, further than having a home and a garden where they can raise vegetables, fruits, poultry, and that sort of thing. Those tracts would also be avail- able for mechanics of the village community, and it is believed that those tracts will be very helpful in the development of a project. Thev will be located, naturally, about the village settlement or com- munity center. When the time arrives for the sale of the farms which have been divided the soldier who has worked on a project or on projects of that kind has the preference, and, naturally, as I said a moment ago, in the discretion of the Secretary, the soldier who had shown the most industry and interest might be given a preference over one who had not worked so long or, perhaps, so faithfully. Acting within his discretion the Secretary would dis- pose of the tracts. The purpose is to maintain those settlements as the homes of the soldiers who purchase, and to prevent, if possible, the purchase of the lands by outsiders or the consolidation of the farms. With that object in view, it is provided that there can be no trans- fer before the Government's obligation is met without the permis- sion of the Secretary, and that, in addition to that, there can be no transfer within 10 years after the sale without the permission of the Secretary. That is to meet a <-ise where a community might be par- ticularly prosperous and men might be tempted to realize on the increment and dispose of their land by paying off the Government obligation. Those are all matters for your consideration, and I am simply stating the provisions of the b'ill, as you will note them as you read them. 10 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. When a soldier has picked out his tract and paid his 5 per cent, in a majority of cases, or in many cases, he will need assistance in the matter of building his house, and provision is made for giving him such assistance up to $1,200, but that assistance can not be in excess of three-fourths of the cost or value of the improvements. In other words, if a soldier wants a house and barn which will cost $!,(>()< ), a contract might be made with him to make those improvements for $1,200, the amount which the Government advances, he contribut- ing the equivalent of $400 in labor, or he might have enough cash to meet the difference between the amount the Government advances and the amount which the improvements cost in order to reasonably secure the Government in its investment, Plans of buildings will be worked out by the service suitable to the locality; there would, of course, be plans of buildings at various costs, and these plans would be available to the settlers with a view of enabling them to select the character of buildings they may desire. The service would, of course, give the settler assistance in the matter of cooperative buying of building material, and in every possible way aid him in the development of his property. After the soldier has constructed such buildings as he may deem essential, in many cases he will need some further assistance in the purchase of live stock, implements, and tools, and section 8 of the bill authorizes short-time loans not to exceed $800 to secure stock and equipment; and there is a provision that no such loan shall exceed 40 per cent of the value of the live stock and equipment. In the matter of pay- ments the bill provides for payments over a period of 40 years on the lands, over a period of 20 years on the improvements, and over a period of 5 years upon advances for live stock and equipment, all at 4 per cent. Those are the most important features of the bill, and I do not know that it is necessary for me to take up any further the time of the committee in a general explanation. I will, however, be glad to answer any questions that gentlemen may have to ask with regard to any feature of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. While you are on the general statement, can you explain the difference between your bill and, for instance, the Ferris bill, which is identical with the Raker and Taylor bills? Mr. MONDELL. It would be difficult to fully explain the difference in detail between this bill and any or all of the other bills, and if one started to explain the difference between this bill and one of the others, it would be rather essential to explain the difference between this bill and all of the others. However. I can say this, that I think there is no essential difference in the thought and purpose underlying this bill and the thought and purpose that the gentlemen had in mind when they prepared the other bills that have been presented. Under the bill introduced by the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Taylor, and, I presume under the bill introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Ferris, about all that is proposed in this bill could luive been accomplished. T.he plan or general purpose is the same. As 1 said at the beginning, I and those with whom 1 labored and collaborated had the benefit of all of those suggestions, and our endeavor was to put in concrete form what gentlemen had proposed, and what it was difficult to work out in a detailed wav without more HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 11 investigation, suggestion, and cooperation than anyone had the ad- vantage of six months ago. I could not have written this bill except for the suggestions that had been made in former bills, and our labor, my own and that of the gentlemen I have mentioned, was to put in concrete form and in logical sequence provisions that would carry out the ideas that many folks have had in their minds from the beginning in connection with this matter of soldier settlements. The CHAIRMAN. I notice that your bill confines the relief or the homes to soldiers who participated in the war with Germany. Mr. MONDELL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. While the other bills, as I understand them, pro- vide homes for all soldiers. Mr. MONDELL. I followed that plan in my original draft. I did not have an opportunity to confer with all of the gentlemen who had introduced bills, but after a conference among the gentlemen who were here, it seemed to be the consensus of opinion that while some former bills did not definitely limit the relief to soldiers of the Great War, that was believed to be what all of them had in mind. I do not know as to that, and that is for the gentlemen of the committee to determine. In the first draft of my bill, I followed in this respect the phraseology of another bill, which, I think, would have included soldiers other than those of the Great War. The CHAIRMAN. I noticed a few other provisions, to which, if you will permit me, I should like to call your attention, so that you can make a general statement in regard to them. The other bills provide for the condemnation of land, while your bill does not. Mr. MONDELL. I have omitted that from the bill for this reason: In the first place there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to the right of the Federal Government to go into a State and condemn lands for such purposes. If this is done at all it must be done, of course, under the State laws. I do not think that it is necessary to begin this great work by writing into the law a provision that some people may not like and that might appear offensive to some as though we were proposing to condemn people's homes and farms. I think it will be entirely unnecessary. I do think that in carrying out the provisions of the bill you will find that in many of the States the tracts that may be needed, for instance, for reclamation, for drainage, and that sort of thing may be condemned under the State laws without any definite provision in this legislation. We con- demn now under the reclamation law. There is no provision in the reclamation law for condemnation, if I recollect rightly, but in every arid State they have provided for condemnation for public purposes, among which is the use of water for the irrigation of lands. Most of the States, I imagine, that have swampy or over- flowed areas have such legislation. If they have not, that is some- thing for us to meet in the future. The CHAIRMAN. There is another matter I want to call your atten- tion to : Your bill excludes soldiers who are now the owners or pro- prietors of farms or rural homes. Mr. MONDELL. Yes. That is a very general proposition, and it dif- fers from the other suggestions that have been made, which were of a very great variety and which were more or less specific. It may develop as time passes that we may find soldiers who have small 12 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. places that they perhaps ought to keep and still have a right to acquire one of these farms. That is a matter of discretion, and the language is descriptive. The Secretary under that provision would have some considerable discretion ; but it states the view that I had in mind. Our purpose was to provide rural homes for those who were not otherwise provided for in the way of farms or rural homes. If a soldier has such property and wants to secure a home on a project, he can sell it and use the proceeds to help in buying and improving the new home. Of course, it is a matter for the committee to consider and determine whether that language should be changed. The CHAIRMAN. Section 8 of the Ferris bill provides for the trans- fer to the Secretary of the Interior of war material. Mr. MONDELL. T*here is a general provision of law which will bo carried in the sundry civil bill, and possibly in the deficiency bill. for the sale of war material to various Government agencies. Now, let us not lose sight of this fact: This is not a bounty, this is not a pension, and this is not a gratuity : wo arc going to do everything on earth for our soldiers except to rob them of their self-respect: We will not do that. Nothing would have that effect more than to hold out the hope that the Government wv-^ giving some favored soldiers farms. That is not our purpose at all. We have outlined a plan un- der which the earnest and industrious man may secure a farm, and secure it with his own efforts if he is ordinarily fortunate. There is no doubt but that there is material of that kind that can be used, but if we got the material from the War Department, or get it anywhere else, we ought to pay for it. Of course we will not pay a high price for it because the war material would bo taken over at a price agreed upon. Therefore, this fund will undoubtedly acquire quite a con- siderable amount of engineering and tractor material at a very low figure, but it will be charged to the fund under that general pro- vision. Mr. RAKER. In that connection, of course, it would not be a gift to the soldiers and it would not be offered that way, but would it not be better to take over all of that material that can be used by the Reclamation Service that the War Department now has rather than sell it at a great sacrifice? Mr. MONDELL. Yes; and that is the purpose of the general measure to which I have referred, before it is sold all the various agencies of the Government shall be considered, and the sale and transfer of such material as they require shall be made to them. Mr. SMITH. It is merely a matter of bookkeeping, or the charging of one fund and crediting of another. Mr. MONDELL. It is more than that. Mr. TAYLOR. This provision was put in there, and I think I put it in myself, because the Secretary of War deliberately ordered some- thing like 75,000,000 pounds of T. X. T. thrown into the Atlantic Ocean, and it was through desperate efforts made, largely on my part and on the part of the Secretary of the Interior, that it was not done. I went to see the Secretary of War and prevailed upon him to turn that T. X. T. over to the Secretary of the Interior for use in this reclamation work. When this war was over, we had a largo amount of explosives that was dangerous to keep in storage, and the War Hoard de- cided, as I understand it. that if there was no use for it the -at'- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 13 est thing; to do would be to destroy it. When I learned about that, my thought was that it could be used in this work and that it would be a great industrial saving. We have some 25,000,000 pounds which was shipped to Wingate, X. Mex., and stored there for the purposes of this work. It is worth 40 cents per pound, but will cost the Reclamation Service only about 4 cents per pound. They have a lot of tractors and other thing that we need. Mr. MOXDELL. Leaving that provision out of the bill would not prevent taking over material, because the general provision of law to which I have referred will provide for this agency as well as all other agencies. They can take over that material and it can be turned over to the Reclamation Service, the Forest Service, and all other services of the Government. My thought was simply this, that we should not in this bill take over some Government property without paying some sort of price for it. If that stuff is worth only 4 cents per pound, let us give the War Department the bene- fit of that 4 cents. They are entitled to their salvage, no matter how y small it is, and we are entitled to buy it at the salvage price. If we are going to conduct a businesslike enterprise, I do not want to see anv tractors or other material turned over to the Reclamation Service gratis. If they are worth $10, $20, $50, or $100 or a thou- sand dollars, let up pay it just as the other agencies will have to pay. Mr. RAKER. This is "the thing that appealed to me ; I know from personal observation that the War Department in England is dis- posing of what we have there in a splendid manner, but in France it is a question of whether we shall get anything for our expenditures. They will not respect us and will not think as much of us if we turn it over to them for nothing. That property had better be returned here for use rather than give it away, and my idea was to take the matter up with the War Department so that if they can not dispose of the material over there, it may be returned here for use. . They will respect us more if they are required to pay for it. There is a lot of truck and machinery of all kinds, and we ought not to let it go undisposed of. Mr. MONDELL. The bill containing the general provision to which I have referred will be considered in the House, and you gentlemen can then determine the matter. Mr. MAYS. You have in section 2 of your bill a provision that per- mits the Secretary to acquire by gift, purchase, deed in trust, or otherwise the necessary lands for soldier settlement projects, etc. Do you wish to retain that in the bill? Mr. MOXDELL. Well, I do not suppose that anybody will give any- thing that is tremendously valuable. There may be cases where there are small properties involved which would be donated, but I do not imagine that anybody will give anything to this fund that is very valuable. That was in the various bills, and I left it in. I think we will get a good deal of property by deed of trust. Mr. VAILE. Would this not be open to the objection that it would be in the form of a gratuity to the soldier, as in the case of the transfer of materials from the War Department? If an individual desires to contribute to the fund, I do not imagine anyone would object. Mr. MONDELL. The gentlemen of the committee can determine what tlip.y want to do about that. I have simply stated my view. My thought is that under the general provision of law relative to the 14 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. disposition of war material, the various Government departments will first be furnished all they need and all they can use and all they demand at a fair price. That, in my opinion, is the fairest provi- sion both for the War Department and for the other services. The War Department is entitled to salvage values, no matter how small they me be, because they will help them to make a showing. Of course, it will be a very small price as compared with the cost. For instance, in the matter of powder it will be but a fraction, or perhaps not 10 per cent of the cost. At any event, we should pay the salvage price for it. I do not think that is vitally important, and I will be perfectly content with anything the committee does on that subject. I shall support the bill whatever you may do in regard to that. The CHAIRMAN. There is another difference that may be more ap- parent than real : The Ferris and other bills provide specifically for a lien to secure the repayments, while yours does not provide any, unless it is contained in the general language. Mr. MONDELL. The general language that was drawn in reference to repayments was drawn in the Interior Department; as a matter of fact, I did not think any specific legislation was necessary. I think that falls under the general authority granted in section 1. Mr. ELSTON. The contract itself is a lien. Mr. MONDELL,. The contract, of course, is a lien. First, there is a contract of sale which is a lien. Then when you come to the improve- ments there is a mortgage. Then when you come to the matter of the personal property, whatever the Government has advanced is secured by property of more value, I doubt if any specific language is neces- sary to accomplish that, but the gentlemen of the Interior Depart- ment thought it was, and it is in the bill. Mr. TILLMAN. You favor the retention of a lien, of course. Mr. MONDELL. There must be, of Bourse, a lien. In other w r ords, we must carry on this work in a businesslike; way. The CHAIRMAN. Section 9 of your bill provides for cooperation with the State and the taking over of a project by the State in some Avay. I should like to haA r e you expatiate on that. Mr. MONDELL. Let me say to the committee that that is a matter I have not given as much study to as some others, but my thought was this : This bill does not create a revolving fund. Whatever you make available for appropriation under the bill, whether it is the sum mentioned in the bill or a larger or smaller sum, it Avould be expected to be the limit of Federal obligation under this class ot work, I think it is a reasonable expectation, that during the period of this Federal development the States and private individuals Avould take up this class of work, particularly the States. Quite a number of the States have already taken up the matter and in one way or another have evidenced their interest and made provision for more or less cooperation. I have in mind the State of Arkansas Avhose offer of cooperation I saw just a day or two ago. In order to encourage that sort of cooperation it Avould be well to make some pro- vision under which, in the discretion of the Secretary, under given circumstances, the State might cooperate at least in the management. I want to say to the committee frankly that so far as that paragraph is concerned, while I think it is tremendously important, one of the most important features of the bill, I do not pretend to say that I ho HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 15 (provision we have made is just the exact provision you should make. Mr. RAKER. Your intention is, is it not, that all the money the Government advances eventually will come back into the Treasury ? Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Mr. RAKER. And if Congress sees fit and the projects are a suc- cess, as we feel quite satisfied they will be, money can be reappro- priated for additional work if Congress so desires. Mr. MONDELL. Of course it will be up to the future Congresses to say what will be done. It seemed to be the opinion of practically everyone that we should not now create a revolving fund, but that we should dedicate a certain sum which we believed would be suffi- cient to carry out the projects that now seem available in the States and complete them. Xone of us can look into the future. It may be that this work will be carried on so successfully, will be so helpful and so useful in development, that the Federal Government may want to carry it on. We feel very confident that in any event, whether we are particularly successful or not, the States will take the matter up, and that individuals will, and that the work that is done under the Federal Government organization will be helpful as pointing the way to do those things that are wise and possibly erecting a sign- post against taking the roads that lead to trouble and difficulty. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, there is another matter I w r ish you would explain for the benefit, particularly, of the new members. Your bill in section 10 provides for an authorization. I wish you would explain the difference between an authorization and an ap- propriation. Mr. MONDELL. Well, I suppose we all understand that this is not an appropriating committee and that therefore you can not appro- priate moneys. You can authorize the appropriation of moneys. If this bill passes, it will then be the duty of the Committee on Appropriations, under estimate presented by the Secretary of the Interior through the Treasury Department, to make the initial ap- propriation in the amount deemed necessary for carrying on the first year's work. M. ELSTON. In other words, Mr. Mondell, although this is an authorization for $500,000,000 the first appropriation for this cur- rent year need not necessarily be the full amount ; it might be much less. Mr. MONDELL. My thought is at this time, and I do not make that suggestion as at all conclusive or as intended to bind anybody j that $100.000,000 or $125,000,000 at the most, is all that could be economi- cally expended within a year. It may be that the department by the time the bill passes may have worked out plans to the point where they may conclude they could use a larger sum advantageously or they may conclude they will need a lesser amount the first year. Manifestly, it would not be wise to appropriate an enormous sum of money and go to spending it recklessly. The success of this enter- prise depends upon its being carried out in a business-like way. If we are going to do anything that is worth while, if we are going to help the soldiers to get property and to get a farm and a farm home, and retain his self-respect in getting it, this entire matter must be carried out in a thoroughly business-like way. 13331919 2 16 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BAER. Right there, Mr. Mondell, do you not think in order to carry it out in that way. and inasmuch as we have found that many appropriations have not been carried out in the past in a very busi- ness-like way, some commission or board composed of engineers and actual business men should be appointed to supervise the expenditure pf this money? Mr. MONDELL. My thought is that it is true that mistakes may be made; it is true that some mistakes are inevitable, but we must in all these things trust some one, and personally, I would rather trust one man that is, make him responsible than to trust a board so constituted that each could swear the failure off onto the other. I would rather hold the Secretary responsible. While this bill does not specifically place this work under the Reclamation Service, as some of the bills did, my understanding is, and I think there is no doubt about it, the work will be inaugurated under the Reclamation Service and under its organization. What it may be wise to do after the work is started and under way is. of course, another mat- ter, and it is in view of the possibility of the development of a situa- tion rendering it wise to separate the services that this bill does not specifically limit the operation to the organization of the Reclama- tion Service. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Mondell, there has been a matter which I have had in my mind now for some months. In the bill which I intro- duced, H. R. 415, which is practically the same as the others, there is this provision : The Secretary may make appropriate regulations " s 1 (l ask you as to the meaning of some of this language : Under section 2, how far is it contemplated that the governor of a State shall proceed in the selection of a project? I see that he has something to do with ap- proving the price. Mr. MONDELL. As I originally wrote that provision and I want to be very frank with you gentlemen in all the processes of this legislation as I originally wrote that provision, the governor of a State, or agent of the governor of a State, would have the right to pass on the suitability as well as the price of lands: but after a con- siderable amount of discussion, and for reasons which other gentle- men can elaborate on perhaps better than I can, it was agreed although I admit that I was not absolutely persuaded that, perhaps, in view of all the conditions that might arise, it would be better to limit the authority of the State in the matter of the price. That is a matter which the committee, of course, must consider. Mr. TAYLOR. I think, Mr. Chairman, that when this matter first came up there were a lot of projects in the various States, and a rush to get options, and things of that kind. There was an impres- sion, which injured us in Congress, that it was liable to be a real estate job, and things of that kind that would tend to bring the matter into disrepute. For that reason we thought it 1 tetter to obviate as far as possible any thought that Uncle Sam was liable to be swindled or that any undue rake-off or anything of that kind could be had. The CHAIRMAN. I know that you have a particular reason for putting in the language of section 6, providing that the price fixed for each farm, tract, or lot shall represent as nearly as practicable its relative and comparative selling value. I wish you would explain that. Mr. MONDELL. That particular language has been pawed over quite a bil. I have had some difficulty in persuading some gentlemen that that \vas the way to state it. and I do not know that all of those with whom I have discussed the matter are now fully in agreement with me. in regard to it; but, as I explained a moment ago, in fixing HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 21 the value of a lot or farm, or of a farm worker's tract, it is neces- sary, first, to have in mind the total cost of the project, because our purpose is to return the total cost of the project. There are so many acres of land that must produce a certain sum, that sum being the sum total of the cost of the project. Manifestly, it would not be equitable or just or wise to lay a flat price of so much per acre on all of this land. In the first place, you will have town lots, and you will have those small workers' plats or tracts which will be near your community centers, and, therefore, quite valuable per acre. Then, there will be the farms near the center; there will be the farms on the main road, because under this bill the Secretary can build roads and it will be necessary for him to build certain roads. It will be necessary for him to lay out all the roads, and then improve such as are necessary for the early development of the projects. There- fore, a farm beautifully situated near the community center or on the main highway, would have a very much greater selling value per acre than a farm at some distance, with possibly not so good soil and possibly not quite so smooth, and in many respects less desirable. There are plenty of men who would be quite as content to take the tracts that are not centrally located, because that land would sell at a lower price. Fortunately for us, there is a great variety of taste among men, and if wo fix the price on the relative or compara- tive value, we shall find a purchaser for every tract, if those prices are wisely fixed. Now, as to this language, I wrote that paragraph several times before I was satisfied with it, and then I had some difficult}' in persuading gentlemen that it ought to stand, and, as I said before, I do not know whether they are entirely persuaded, or not. It is the relative value as related to the cost of the whole project, and the comparative value as compared with other units of the project. Xow. if any gentleman can write that provision any bet- ter, I shall be delighted to accept the language that you may agree upon. That is the best I could do. The CHAIRMAN. Section 5 provides that preference shall be given as between applicants with a view of safeguarding the settler and the United States. I am referring to the language of section 5 in lines 21, 22, and 23. Does that mean that the Secretary may reject some applicant on account of the moral risk, or in cases where he does not consider that the applicant would make a good farmer? Mr. MONDELL. Yes. That leaves a very wide discretion in the hands of the Secretary in the selection of purchasers. Mr. RAKER. Would it be your idea, from your experience in the West, that any man should select, as between two applicants because of their appearance or color of their hair, in giving the right to file ou a homestead under this setlement act? Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman, we start out with a preference in favor of those wlio have been employed in the development, of these projects. Xow, I think all of us will agree that that is a proper preference and, of course, there must be some preference along that line as between men who have been employed on the projects. I pre- sume that would be exercised in favor of the man who had been there longest ; or who, by his constant application, had shown the greatest interest in the enterprise; or who had been most diligent and had given the best evidence of the possession of those qualities that would 22 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. make him a happy, contented, useful, and successful member of that community. My thought was that the Secretary should grant the preference how? With a view of safeguarding the settler and the United States they being the two parties in interest. There might be a case in which it would be as much to the disadvantage of the settler as it would be to the disadvantage of the United States to allow a man to take an obligation which, judging from his past per- formances, he would be unable to carry out and fulfill, and it would not be a kindness to grant him that opportunity. There would be other opportunities, possibly, involving less risk and less expendi- ture, which that man could avail himself of. I think that our experience with the Keclamation Service has proved this, that, perhaps, the one serious fault is that there is no discretion vested, with the result that sometimes men acquire tracts on a shoe- string, and in the knowledge of the men who take their filing, with- out any real intent or purpose to establish a permanent home. If these things are to be successful they must not be speculative. The Secretary may make mistakes, and there undoubtedly will be mis- takes of judgment in these matters. That is inevitable, but if we are to be successful there must be some discretion somewhere under which we can give the first preference to the man who, by his energy and application, has shown his good will and his ability. Mr. BAER. There is one more qualification to be considered and that is experience. If the applicant is a farmer's boy and has lived on the farm for years, he would be more likely to be a successful farmer than some clerk in a store. The trouble is that they will try to get people who are clerks in stores or banks who can no more run a farm than a farmer's son can run the First National Bank of New York. They are not experienced and do not know anything about it. Mr. RAKER. There is a thing that came up when the matter was considered originally, as to whether a preference should be given to anyone that is. the question of whether school teachers, storekeepers, doctors, and lawyers, who may not have made any success of their business, might go in and make a success of farming. The CHAIRMAN. The Ferris bill contains this provision: "He may by general regulations impose conditions as to the ability of the ap- plicants so as to insure the United States and the settler as far as possible against failure." I suppose that same idea is incorporated in your bill in different words ? Mr. MONDELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTON. Is it contemplated by this provision that immoral or vicious persons might make application? Mr. RAKER. The presumption is that no soldier would be that. The presumption is that the applicants will be soldiers who have been in the service. Mr. SMITH. Of course, this legislation is definitely advanced in favor of soldiers. In view of that, do you think that the provision on page 3 that the Secretary shall, so^ far as possible, utilize the services of soldiers for such purposes, is sufficient to give the sol- dier the preference right as to employment as well as the preference right of entry? It seems to me that that language should be more specific. Mr. MONDKLL,. The language " so far as possible " is about as strong as you can make it. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 23 Mr. SMITH. I think it should be a preference. Mr. MONDELL. It is more than a preference. Mr. SMITH. Why not make it read, " The Secretary shall, so far as possible, give the preference." Mr. MONDELL. I shall not quarrel with that, but that would not strengthen the provision, because when you say that " he shall, so far as possible," you put it about as strongly as you can, unless you say that no one else shall be employed. There will be conditions under which a soldier may not be available, as, for instance, for some engineering work, and there may be times when the work is going on and can not be suspended when it will be necessary to employ someone else because the soldiers may not be available. I do not see how you could make that statement any stronger, unless you absolutely prohibit him from employing anybody else. Mr. SMITH. My suggestion was that the Secretary shall so far as he can give preference to soldiers in the matter of employment. Mr. MONDELL. You could do that, but if you did the language would not be as strong, definite, and commanding as it is now. The CHAIRMAN. It is now nearly 12 o'clock, and I understand that several members of the committee desire to question Mr. Mondell further in the matter. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take any further time of the committee, unless the committee desires it. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I would like to call attention to : A soldier came to me yesterday and with bated breath said that this would not amount to anything for the soldiers, because it requires him to put up one-fourth of the money for the improvements and 5 per cent of the purchase price of the land. He said that for that reason, the soldiers being penniless, this will be of no value to them. I did not agree with him, but I thought it well to call attention to it. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until to- morrow, Wednesday, May 28, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, May 28, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Resumed. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have with us this morning Mr. Mondell, and I believe some of the members of the committee do- sired to ask him further questions. Mr. UAKEK. Mr. Chairman,' there is one question in my mind which I have marked here, and I would like to ask Mr. Mondell about it. It is in all of the bills in practically the same language. There is one question that has occurred to me, and perhaps to some of the others, and I would like to have his idea put before the committee 24 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. as to what would be the result of it. It is on page 2 of the bill, that the Secretary is authorized, and so forth, and may withdraw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed public lands suitable for such purposes. I would like to have you explain that provision, Mr. Mon- dell, and then I want to ask you another question in regard to it. Mr. MONDELL. My original draft of the bill did not contain that language. I do not consider it absolutely essential. I think other provisions of the bill give the Secretary 'the authority that is spe- cifically given him by this language, but it may be that it is some- what by inference, and therefore at the suggestion of a number of gentlemen, that language was inserted. The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What language is that, Mr. Mon- dell? Mr. MONDELL. The words on lines 13 and 14. Mr. RAKEK. Page two. Mr. MONDELL. "Withdraw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed public lands suitable for such purposes." Now, the question of withdrawal' is, of course, somewhat mooted as to the authority of the Secretary; whether the general authority granted under the act would authorize him to withdraw; whether the specific authority under the withdrawal act would authorize him to withdraw. Objec- tion is made to utilizing the authority under the withdrawal act be- cause of the fact that such withdrawals can only be made by the President, and it might be cumbersome and unnecessarily delay oper- ations to secure a Presidential proclamation in all cases, and there- fore I am rather persuaded that perhaps to make it entirely clear and definite that the Secretary may withdraw for these purposes, which means withdrawing possibly more than he intends to abso- lutely utilize, which would include withdrawal with a view to de- termining whether or not he would utilize the land, and in view of the fact that the authority may not exist in the general land statutes or in this bill by direct inference, it may be that that language is neces- sary. I personally somewhat hesitate about inserting specific author- ity to withdraw our lands for fear of the abuses that have sometimes arisen under authority to withdraw. Withdrawals are sometimes made without careful consideration of areas that can not be utilized, and in some cases they have interfered with other settlements and development, In this matter, as in all others, we of course must depend upon the good judgment of the Secretary. Have you anything further under that? Mr. RAKER. The idea in my mind, and the idea I wanted to put before the committee, was whether or not this authorization would be broad enough and extensive enough, in fact, to permit the Sec- retary to withdraw all the remaining public domain, if he wanted to, either temporarily or permanently. Mr. MONDELL. Of course, in order to do that, it would be necessary for the Secretary to make up his mind that he intended to utilize all the remaining public domain for this purpose. Of course, it is optional with him, but his acts must be based on the purposes and intent of this legislation, and it is to be assumed, of course, that he will not withdraw except where he has very excellent reasons or very good reasons to believe that the lands will be utilized for HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 25 this purpose, and of course, we must assume that after proper ex- amination which we hope would be reasonably prompt, such lands as are not to be utilized will be restored. This committee it just as familiar the older members of it, at least with that whole situa- tion, as I am. There is nothing I can suggest to the gentleman on my left and right, the present chairman of this committee or the former chairman of the committee in regard to withdrawals that they do not know all about, so I shall, so far as I am concerned, as an individual, be entirely content with the judgment of the commit- tee in regard to that matter. Mr. RAKER. The language of the bill, 415,. which is like the bill of Mr. Ferris and Mr. Taylor, reads as follows, and I wanted your suggestion on it, on page 2, line 16, of the bill: "The Secretary may withdraw, utilize and in like manner with other lands acquired here- under, dispose of portions of the public lands of the United States required to carry out the purposes of this act," and so forth. Mr. MOXDELL. I do not think you would want to use the words you use there, "in like manner." I think after considering that matter you would conclude that that was not appropriate language, because you do not dispose of those lands in like manner. You dis- pose of them in like manner so far as the fixing of prices is con- cerned, but it is different between the disposition of the public do- main and the disposition of the privately owned lands, and unless you change this bill, the disposition of the public domain portion of the lands utilized would be through the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Mr RAKER. Then it is your idea, Mr. Mondell, and I know you have given this subject a great deal of consideration, because you were at one time chairman of this committee and you have also been before the committee many times, and have given much con- sideration to it in the House, that this withdrawal feature unless it was abused would relate solely to lands to carry out the provi- sions of this act ; in other words, lands to be used for soldiers under the provisions of this act, and if there was a general withdrawal it would practically be an abuse of it, and we. would not expect that from any official. Mr. MONDELL. That is my view of it; that this language could not be properly construed to justify any withdrawal except for the purpose of examination with a view to utilizing the land under this law, in which event good practice and good administration would demand an immediate return to the public domain of such lands a? were not found, and found promptly, to be useful for these purposes. Mr. RAKER. Then under this bill the withdrawal of it at any time for car lying out the purposes of the act or for examination to find out whether it was necessary or proper, would be within the power of the Secretary, and he could return it to the public domain at any time he saw fit without investigation. Mr. MONDELL. Entirely. Mr. RAKER. One other question. There was in the former bill considered by Mr. Taylors committee language somewhat similar to this relative to a patent or deed. The committee after considerable 'consideration struck out the word deed because it is not used in the 28 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Land Department and used the word " patent/' Do you not believe, whichever way it is reported, we ought to stand on the word " pat- ent'' and not inclure or make any authorization for a deed, but stand on the law relative to "patent"? Mr. MONDELL. I am inclined to think that in this particular con- nection perhaps the word " patent " is preferable to the word " deed." The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, in section 4 it is provided that dedi- cation may be made for community centers, and then in the line below, line 15, there is the language, u Town sites suitable for the pur- poses of the projects may be established." I was wondering what distinction you had in mind between a community center and a town site. Mr. MONDELL. Well, this would be the procedure as it is in my mind. The first provision is that dedication may be made for schools. Now, that might be for a district .school, where a dedication of an acre, or half an acre, or two acres might be made, without re- gard to a town site or any special center for the accommodation of the immediate neighborhood; an ordinary dedication such as we have on the public domain generally for district or local school- houses. Dedications for churches might in some cases be made under the same conditions for a neighborhood church: dedication might be made for a community center without the establishment of a town. In other words, a tract might be dedicated to the public for a com- munity center adjacent to a schoolhouse or adjacent to a schoolhouse and church site. In other words, you might have a community cen- ter that was not a town ; that was not laid out as a town site. The CHAIRMAN. A community center as distinguished from a municipal corporation ? Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Mr. TILLMAN. It might be a sort of place for holding county fairs or just a schoolhouse. Mr. MONDELL. There are a variety of purposes that will occur to the minds of you gentlemen for which community centers could be used; community centers, as distinguished from" towns, and that paragraph is intended to cover that situation. However, that para- graph also applies to the towns, because those dedications for com- munity centers, for churches, and for schools, may be made in the towns. This paragraph relates entirely to dedications for public purposes, and such dedications might be in connection with a town or they might be entirely separate and apart from a town. The next paragraph relates to the establishment of towns within which the dedications provided for in the preceding paragraph might be made. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, have you considered the matter of yearly estimates for appropriations like we have under the recla- mation law? Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest right here that my recollection is that before you came in, a bill was up in the House which contained the provisions of this subdivision you refer to, and after a couple of days' debate, in which, I think. Mr. Mondell par- ticipated, it was defeated by the House, and I wondered whether they had changed their minds. Mr. MOXDKLL. AYhat was that bill'' HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 27 Mr. RAKER. A bill to authorize the Reclamation Service to do just what is provided here, and I wondered whether we had changed our views on that, " town sites suitable for the purposes of the project may be established." Mr. MONDELL. We have such a provision in the reclamation law. I think the discussion the gentleman has in mind was a discussion as to the distribution of funds from sale of town lots. An effort was made to secure for the benefit of the towns the use of a certain por- tion of the proceeds of the sale of the lots, and as I recollect, by a mischance rather than by direct intent of the House, that was de- feated, as I recall it, although my recollection is a little hazy. I think the gentleman from Colorado perhaps remembers about it. There was a little mix-up on it, and there was a little difference of opinion among those who were favoring it as to the terms, and in the midst of the somewhat of confusion of opinion the entire matter was lost. Mr. RAKER. May I ask this further question, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. RAKER. Under this provision and that part is new in the bill, and I would like to have your explanation of it if I may that would authorize the complete development of a townsite, laying it out in lots and blocks and streets and thoroughly developing it just as a private individual would lay out a townsite, and then sell the lots. Mr. Mo N DELL. I think so. I think under that provision the Sec- retary of the Interior could subdivide the tract into lots. He could set aside a tract or tracts for schools and churches; he could set aside a tract for a park or community center, or whatever you may call it, or build roads. He could do whatever seemed to be wise and necessary to put that townsite in condition to make it available for those who desired to use it. Mr. RAKER. Then the balance of it could be sold for commercial purposes? Mr. BAER. I think there is one big suggestion you are overlooking in reference to these townsites and community centers which appeals to me. Elwood Mead and the different men who propose the scheme nro trying to combine science with agriculture, and they are trying to devise new and efficient methods of marketing the grain, and the elevators and markets will all be in the community centers. That is one of the principles in it. Mr. MONDELL. Yes; and we discussed this paragraph, and all the others with Mr. Mead, and, I think, I discussed this matter with Mr. Mead more than any other one individual, and, I think, in the main, wejiave met his views. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Mondell, I notice sections 6 and 7 contemplate contracts with the soldiers, apparently reserving title in the Govern- ment for a long period of years. That would have the effect, I take it. of exempting these lands from local taxation until a patent was actually issued, as in the case of other public lands located and occu- pied before patent is issued. Mr. MONDELL. Will the committee allow me to interrogate the Director of the Reclamation Service in answer to your question? Mr. Davis, do any of the States attempt to tax the land on projects 28 . HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. where the title is still held in the hands of the Government, and do they do so ? Mr. DAVIS. There was such an attempt made but it was resisted by suit and the court held they had no right to tax the land but they could tax the improvements. Mr. MONDELL. They could tax the improvements but not the land until the certificate had been issued? Mr. DAVIS. Until patent was issued ; yes. Mr. MONDELL. Or the certificate which was the evidence of title? Mr. SMITH. That does not apply to Carey Act lands. Mr. DAVIS. I do not know whether it does or not because that was not involved in the suits. Mr. MONDELL,. Carey Act lands are not Government lands. Mr. SMITH. The title has not passed from the Government. Mr. DAVIS. The suits did not involve Carey Act lands, and I do not know whether it would include them or not, Mr. MONDELL. The title has passed subject to compliance with cer- tain regulations of the State. Mr. DAVIS. The title does not pass to the State until the law lias been complied with in regard to reclamation. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the practice is to tax the improve- ments. Mr. MONDELL. I imagine under this bill only the improvements would be taxable while the title is in the Government, I asked Mr. Davis that question in order that we might know in regard to what had developed on the reclamation projects where similar conditions exist. Mr. RAKER. Take the case of a large tract, say of 100.000 acres, which was in private ownership and subject to taxation, and had been taxed, and was transferred to the Government for carrying out these projects. It would not be taxed after the Government got title, and this would simply withdraw that land from taxation during the time of the work by the Government. Would that be your view, Mr. Mondell? Mr. MONDELL. The gentleman from California is a lawyer and I am not. I doubt if the lands could be taxed. Mr. BARBOUR. I think our statutes out there provide that land, the title to which is in the United States, is not taxable. Mr. MONDELL. You gentlemen who are lawyers are qualified to pass upon that question. I would not presume to offer my opinion on that question in this distinguished company. If I did 'l should say the land could not be taxed. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Mondell, may I ask you a question or two? When this proposition first came before the Congress at the last session, I understood that the primary object of it was to furnish employment to returning soldiers. Mr. MONDELL. Possibly that is not quite an accurate statement. The primary object is to furnish employment with a view to pro- viding homes. Mr. SM.I.L. That was one of the objects? Mr. MONDELL. That was and is. Mr. SNELL. From the statement you made yesterday, I took it that you thought the primary object of this was for the purpose of es- tablishing the community idea in the rural life of the country. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 29 Mr. MONDELL. Oh, no. I trust I said nothing that conveyed that idea. What I did say was this or if I did not say it, perhaps I should say it now Mr. SNELL (interposing). It produced that impression upon my mind. Mr. MONDELL. There had been many suggestions as to the way in which we could aid the soldier in securing a home on the lands. A good many people were of the opinion that all that was necessary to do was to let the soldier go out and pick out a piece of land wherever he saw fit, negotiate for its purchase and advance him the money with which to purchase it. That has been one view. Every man who has had to do with settlement, with establishing men on farms, or supplying men with farm homes that I have talked with insist that that policy will inevitably end in failure; that it has wherever it has been tried; that to grant any man or any considerable number of men, no matter how well intentioned the majority of them may be, an opportunity to borrow practically the entire cost of an improved farm or a partly improved tract, off by himself in a community already developed, is not a kindness to the man in the majority of cases, because it will result in failure and will be disastrous from the standpoint of the promotion of a wise public purpose. These men who have had to do with such move- ments of development which seek to attach men to the soil, to secure homes for those of limited means on the farm, I think, practically all of them, are of the opinion that the only certain and successful way to carry on this enterprise is in settlements or communities. Now, that means the development of the community spirit, more or less, depending upon the character of the people, their desires, and their inclinations. It means this, that everyone within a cer- tain compact area is a settler on a land project, purchasing his land under the same conditions of obligation with regard to residence, improvement, and paymeint. They are combined into a community enterprise. Everyone of them in many of these communities will live on his land and on his farm just as the average American farmer does now. In some cases they may be disposed to gather somewhat into communities. That will depend upon the individuals, and will be the result of individual disposition and desire, and x not grow out of any plan or purpose of the bill. However, we do think that it is essential to emphasize the community idea in this, that there is to be a community of interest, a community of obligation, a com- munity of hope. There should be, and we hope there will be, co- operation in the communities in many lines. How far that coopera- tion will extend, will again depend upon the people, upon the view of the leading spirits of the community, and upon the wisdom of the men who form the community. So far as the service itself is concerned, we w r ill begin by furnishing the people the benefits of co- operative buying of building material at least. Mr. SNELL. Do you mean that everything will be cooperative in these communities? Mr. MONDELL. No, sir; there is nothing in this bill that makes anything cooperative in these communities. There is nothing that requires anything cooperative in a community. In other words, we hope to do just as they are doing in California that is, buy the 30 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. lumber, posts, and bricks, so far as they will be needed in construc- tion, and other classes of material in quantity. Those advances to the settler for improvements will be very largely in the form of material. Now, that far you will have community cooperative buy- ing through the Government; but what the community will do in the way of cooperation must rest entirely with the community itself. There is nothing in this bill nor in the administration of it that compels or more than suggests that sort of thing. Mr. SNELL. You have community buying and community selling, and I thought that meant cooperative stores. Mr. MONDELL. No; but if a community wants to establish cooper- ative stores, that is their affair. There is nothing in this bill requir- ing that. When I say " community development " I am trying to emphasize the idea of the development of a compact area, every acre of it, with no alien within the boundaries, or no one within the com- munity who is not a part of the community. Everybody who is in that particular community is a part of it. Now, they may be just as independent in their methods of business as any American com- munity anywhere or they may do what other American communities have tried in other places and have cooperative buying and selling and that sort of thing. That is something for them to deter- mine. The community idea, as it is carried in this bill, from the standpoint of the statute, is the idea of developing a compact area large enough to constitute a community which will be largely inde- pendent. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell and gentlemen of the committee, the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane, is here; and I promised that he might go on punctually when he came. If you are willing to sus- pend for the time being, we shall hear the Secretary, and Mr. Mon- dell may resume later. Mr. MONDELL. I shall be very glad to go on further later, or if the committee does not care to 'hear me further I shall be entirely content. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, I wish to introduce to you the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane. We shall now be glad to hear you, Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANKLIN K. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. Secretary LANE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I am very sorry to break in on your regular hearing, and especially upon Mr. Mondell's talk. I have nothing particular to say, except to show you my continuing interest in this proposition. Its historv you perfectly well know. The reception that lias been given to this proposition for the past year, because it was just a year ago that this plan was presented to the President and to Congress, shows that it has struck a popular chord. Thirty-seven out of 48 States have either passed bills furthering this plan and developing a scheme of cooperation or have appointed committees to act with the Depart- ment of the Interior in promoting it. That shows a universal desire for some such plan as this. At first it was thought to be a |:lan which involved particularly the interests of the West, but as the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 31 Members of Congress and State legislatures, governors, and news- papers gave it consideration, they discovered that it was a plan that was coextensive with the country, and that it is in fact extending to the North and to the South that which you have already done for the West that is, a method of developing unused lands. Some days ago I received from Canada a statement or report that they have had made as to the desires of the men who are returning from France to Canada. It appears that they sent representatives to France to take a census or to make a report on the soldiers in France as to their desires with respect to taking up land, and, to my great surprise, I found that 49 per cent were reported upon their questionnaires, or about 100,000 out of the 200,000 who will return out of that force of 400,000 that they sent across, as saying that their desire is to get a piece of land for themselves and to take an agricultural course, to improve that land, and make farming their careers. We, of course, have not been able to make any such study in this country. We have sent to some of the cantonments during the winter a little pamphlet, which, no doubt, most of you have seen. It is a sort of questionnaire or cate- chism, and we have gotten responses from a large number of men. Up to this morning we had received 52,000 answers from men w**> expressed their desire to have one of these farms or to work on one of these projects. In addition to these we have received about 12,000 letters written by the boys themselves. Some of them came from France, but only to a very limited extent have we been able in any way to reach France as yet and find out what those boys there desire. These men, largely of their own initiative, and because of what they had seen in the American press, have written letters ex- pressing their desire to be counted in. The bill that is before you, I understand, is the Mondell bill. That is a result of a study made by Mr. Mondell of various bills that were presented at the last session of Congress. He came to me with the bill some weeks ago, saying that he had taken the Taylor bill and other bills which gentlemen had presented, and had put the pro- visions of those bills, with some modifications, into what he re- garded as a more orderly and consistent shape. He wanted us in the Interior Department to pass upon the bill as drafted. I referred it to the Reclamation Service and to those gentlemen who are familiar with the problems involved in a large way, and they made certain suggestions by way of amendments. After that a conference was held at which representatives of the House and Senate com- mittees were present. After full discussion Mr. Mondell introduced the bill in its present form in the House. I think that I can say without any disparagement of any of the other bills that probably the Mondell bill is one that gives expression in the most exact way, and, perhaps, as fully as may be necessary, to the desire of the de- partment. In other words, it is the ripe fruit of a larger experience. There is no urging that I can give to you in this matter. You appreciate that there is practically a call from the country for its passage. Some such plan is desired by the country, not simply for the sake of the men themselves, not simply to show gratitude for the service that they have rendered, and not simply as a means of staving off congestion in cities and giving employment to men who are un- 133319193 32 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. employed, but as a means for the further development of the United States. Each day it becomes more manifest to me, and I have no doubt it does to you, that a considerable portion of the support of the world for the next few years is to devolve upon us, and it be- hooves us to put as much of our land as we can under cultivation. Furthermore, it is manifest to everyone that the man who is the owner of a part of the soil has a new loyalty, or something that attaches him to America and to American standards, that the man who does not have that same identity of interest can not have. The American soldier ought to make an ideal farmer. The man who has been in France has had the kind of experience which ought to make him well fitted for this work. It is my hope that as an outgrowth of this plan, it will be possible to make conditions surrounding farm life far more tolerable to our people. You can not expect that we will pass through the next lew years without very considerable changes in our attitude toward all kinds of people who work with their hands, and who produce through a combination of capital, brains, and labor. One of the changes which seems to me to be most needed is a change by which the people who work upon the soil will have more of the advantages of those of us who can gather together in the cities. I find by my talks with men who have returned from France that they have been greatly impressed with the manner in which the French farming communities carry on their life. There, as you know, the farmer lives in a village and goes out to his little farm to work. That does not seem to be the desire of our people. They wish to have the home on the land. Then there are a good many who have no desire for farms, but Avho have a desire for a small acreage that they can use as a garden patch to supplement the wages that they make on the outside. For that reason, in this settlement scheme we propose to have a part of it divided up into tracts of from 2 to 5 acres, upon which those who dp not wish to take on the respon- sibilities of full farm life but are willing to work for wages can have their homes and can be to that extent independent. The plans that we have outlined to you in the past have been carried on to the extent that we could under the appropriations that were alloAved us. We have practically been able to do nothing more than we had done up to the time Congress adjourned, for the reason that our money has been expended. The data that we have gathered are at your service, as well as the men who are here and who have gone out and made a survey of all sections of the country. It is a remarkable thing to me that in parts of the United States where it was expected the least support would be given to this plan there has been a most generous and enthusiastic support. For in- stance, Massachusetts, which has been neglected agriculturally for a long while, is going through a period of rebirth with respect to agri- culture. And so it is with many of the other States. They realize the advantage of holding their own men to them and developing their own lands near the centers of consumption, and of proving llnit their land which was long ago deserted by their own people really never should have been deserted, because it has capacities that never have been realized. I have no desire to enter upon a discussion of the details of this bill lhat you gentlemen are very familiar with, but I simply wanted to HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 33 say a word by way of expressing the attitude of the entire country toward this measure. There was, in the first instance, some criti- cism, based upon the fact that it was supposed that we were to re- claim 250,000,000 or 300,000,000 acres of land out of hand, so that some of those farmers who have land of their own were afraid there would be developed something in the way of competition. But it has been made quite evident that not more than one-fifth of the demand for now land arising out of our increased population would be met by this plan. I think that is all I have to say, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I wish to ask you what machinery or organization you have in your department to handle this scheme ? Secretary LANE. Well, of course, the primary machinery we have is the Keclamation Service, organized for the reclamation of arid lands. We have supplemented that by adding to that service engi- neers who have made a study of the southern and northern sections of the country east of the Mississippi Elver. We are not able now to go further into the question of personnel, because until we know that this bill can be passed it is not possible for us to tender anyone a position. It is necessary for us to know just as soon as possible that this measure is going through, or that it will go through, in order that we may be able to carry out the chartered organization that we have. That is to say, we have a plan of the organization already pre- pared, but we are not able to say to anyone what positions there will be. The CHAIRMAN. How many replies have you received from soldiers saying that they would like to take advantage of this proposed legis- lation ? Secretary LANE. 52.000. Mr. SNELL. Have you a copy of your questionnaire here ? Secretary LANE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That may be inserted in the record at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) (Department of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane, Secretary, U. S. Reclamation Servict, Arthur P. Davis, Director.) " HEY, THERE! " Do You WANT A HOME ON A FARM? If so, read this; fill in back page; tear off; mail no postage required. WORK AND HOMES FOR OUR FIGHTING MEN. Q. What do you mean, work and homes? A. Just this: Favorable action by Congress at the special session is expected on soldiers' settlement legislation, similar to that introduced and favorably reported at the recent session. If such legislation is passed it will enable the Interior Department to begin work at once developing cooperative farm settlements for soldiers and sailors in all or nearly all of the States. Q. Who will get the farms? A. Those who create them by working on drain- ing, clearing, irrigating, and improving the lands. Q. Will all get farms'.' A. That depends on the amount of land reclaimed. Q. Is this plan only for men who have been across? A. No. It is for all of the men who have worn Uncle Sam's uniform in the Great War. Q. Where is this land located? A. In practically every State in the Union there are large areas of this land. There is dry land in' the West that needs water, which can be provided by building dams and canals. In the East are large areas of cut-over or logged-off timber land, from which it will be neces- 34 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. sary to blow the stumps and clear off the underbrush. In the South is a large amount of cut-over land and swamp land which must be drained. Q. Could I get a job near my old home? A. Probably you could. Those pro- posed settlements are scattered all over the country, and' it is planned to have one in each State, if Congress provides the money for construction. Q. How about wages? A. You would be paid fair wages by the Government while doing this work just as good wages as you would be able to get in outside work of like character. Q. Would I be enlisted? A. No. This work is only for men who have been honorably discharged from the service. Q. What kind of work is it? A. The Government will have work of all kinds in connection with these settlements, from the highest technical and clerical positions to that of laborer. Q. Now, how about getting a home out of this, A. After you have helped build the dams and canals, or cleared the cut-over land of stumps, or built the ditches to drain the swamp land: after you have helped to erect houses and barns, built fences, constructed roads, and laid out town sites, built creameries, canneries, warehouses, schools, etc.; after you have, in fact, actually reclaimed the land, the Government will allow you to pick out one of these farms planted in crops. Q. Does the Government give me this farm for nothing? A. No. And you wouldn't want the Government to do it. The plan is to arrange for you to pay for your farm home in small payments over a long term of years, with interest charges at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. Q. How about stock and farm implements? A. It is planned that the Gov- ernment will also furnish you with the necessary stock and farm implements, to be paid for by you in small payments spread over several years. Q. Where will I get the money to make even these small payments? A. You should be able to save the amount of the first payment out of your wages while working for the Government helping to build these settlements. The balance you should be able to pay from the proceeds from the sale of your crops. Q. I think I should like farm life, but I don't like the idea of being too far jiway from other people. A. It is the plan, if Congress passes the bill now pending before it, to build what are known as community settlements, each containing not less than 100 farm homes surrounding a town, so that you will have near neighbors, good roads over which to bring your produce to town, and a market for the sale of your produce within a short distance of your farm home. Q. How many acres will my farm contain? A. This will depend upon the location and kind of farming you engage in. For general farming from 40 ,to 80 acres^ each, live stock from 80 to 160 acres, fruit farms 15 to 20 acres, and truck from 5 to 20 acres. Q. I don't know anything about farming, but would like to get a farm home. How will I learn to farm? A. Competent instructors in farm practice will be stationed on each project to teach men like you just how to make a success of farming. Q. You say that this plan depends on Congress passing this bill. Then, why are you asking , me these questions now, before the bill is passed? A. Because Congress has asked the Interior Department to make a preliminary investiga- tion of possible settlements throughout the country, and also wishes to know whether, if construction of these settlements is authorized, the soldiers, sailors, and marines would be interested in securing work and homes on these settle- ments. Q. Can I get any further information about the plan? A. Yes. Fill out the post card on the last page of this booklet and mail it. It doesn't require any postage. Your name will then be on file in the Interior Department, so that you can be notified later if the plan is started. It is not possible now to say when this information can be sent you, and you should, of course, in the mean- time not sit idly by, but instead accept the best employment that now pre- sents itself. You are urged on your return home to get in touch with the Tinted Slates Employment Service in your locality and with your local council of defense, both of which organizations will gladly give you advice and assist- ance in securing employment, now. Now fill out the post card on the back page and mail it. You don't have to put a stamp on it. Be sure and sign your name and write plainly. But remember that this means work. This is not a bounty scheme. It will gi\e a chance to own u farm only to those who want to work a farm. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 35 DEPAETMENT OF THE INTERIOR. UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE. Name in full Home address How did are you? What was your occupation before you enlisted? Have you ever worked on a farm? Are you interested in this plan to provide work and a farm for you? What kind of farming do you wish to follow? State whether general, live stock, truck, or fruit Would you be willing to take a job on some project if offered to you? In your own State? Anywhere in the United States? WRITE PLAINLY AND MAIL TO-DAY NO POSTAGE REQUIRED. Mr. SXELL. Mr. Secretary, is there any section of the country where there is an excess of rural labor at the present time ? Secretary LANE. I do not know that there is. Mr. iSNELL. What would be the effect in any section of the country,, as, for instance, in central New York State, if you were to establish one of these projects? That is my State, and we have now a great shortage of farm labor. If you were to take up a large plat of ground there and establish one of these Government projects, what would be the effect of that upon the farm labor surrounding it in that State ? Secretary LANE. I do not know how it could affect that mate- rially. We have about 1,000,000 men still left in France, and I do not know what percentage of the men in the cantonments have been demo- bilized, but you must realize that as an outgrowth of this bill if you were to give us this year $125,000,000, that would take care of ap- Eroximately not more than 25,000 farms; so that the drain made upon arm labor'in New York could not be very great. Mr. SNELL. I am especially interested in the condition of the farmers at the present time. I represent a purely agricultural dis- trict, and there is absolutely no help to be obtained to work on the farms. All of our people are very much interested in anything that will tend to disturb what little farm labor there is. It seems to me that if a project of this kind were established in the central part of New York State in which you would employ, say, 1,000 men, pay- ing them $4 or $5 per day, the few farm laborers that we have would flock down there. Legitimate farmers could not possibly compete with that sort of market for labor and make a living. Secretary LANE. The wages that we would pay would not meet the wages being paid for any kind of skilled labor in New York. Mr. SNELL. I do not mean skilled labor, but I mean common farm labor. Secretary LANE. These men would not be there in the initial stages- of this enterprise in any such numbers as to be a source of embar- rassment to the farmers of central New York. Mr. SNELL. How many men would you put on a project in its initial stages, for instance? Secretary LANE. I would suppose that if we got 4,000 men on a. project that we would be doing extremely well. 36 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SNELL. The taking of 4,000 farm laborers from central New York would absolutely cripple us with what we have there at the present time. Secretary LANE. These men are not farm laborers, but they are men who are interested in this proposition, or men who have been everything street car conductors, foresters, miners, etc. They are not farm laborers who have sent these requests to us. About 70 or 80 per cent of them are men Avho have had some agricultural experience. Mr. SNELL. I appreciate that; but if you should establish one of those projects there, would not the boys in northern New York, for instance, say, " I would rather go down there and work for the Government for nice pay than to work as a common everyday farmer has to do in iNew York? " Secretary LANE. I should suppose they would. I should rather think that if I were a fellow with a chance like that, and who had been across in France, I would want to get some sort of farm for myself, and that if I saw an opportunity to get that farm I would not work regularly upon a farm for wages for somebody else but would strike out for myself. I think we ought to give them that chance. Mr. SNELL. But in doing that you would cripple the original farm industry in that section of the country. Secretary LANE. Coming from a farming section, as you know I do, because I come from one of the great farming sections of the country, I know that at this time of the year the farmer is always busy and is always unhappy because of the prospect of shortage of labor. Last year I remember distinctly, when the war was on, how utterly hopeless the promise was that there would be a sufficient amount of farm labor to harvest the crops; and yet you in New York got your women into the fields, and they were enthusiastic about it. Mr. RAKER. Before you get through I would like to ask a few questions, Mr. Secretary. There is a matter that has been discussed before, and one which is in the various bills, and I asked Mr. Mondell about it this morning, and I desire to ask you also, as you have given this matter from the very beginning your personal attention ; in fact, I know of no man who has been more active in it than yourself. Section 2 provides that the Secretary may withdraw, etc., public lands suitable for such purposes. I will refer only to that part of it relating to withdrawal; and the question in the minds of the committee, or some of us, is wehther or not that would give a general authorization to withdraw all of the public domain or just a part which was necessary or thought advisable for the project under contemplation ? Secretary LANE. That power, of course, is rather broad, and it might be used to do injury in some of the States unless it was carefully exercised; but the intention is to withdraw only those pieces of land that are needed directly for this purpose. It is a power that has gone generally with the reclamation projects. MF.KAKKK. While the power exists your view would be that only such lands us were considered suitable for this purpose would be withdrawn. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 37 Secretary LANE. Yes. We will follow the general policy which we 1m ve followed regarding reclamation projects which is that only when and where we undertake the examination of a project for con- struction do we withdraw the land, and if found unfeasible for any reason the land is restored to the public domain. Mr. RAKER. And even then, after an investigation is had, if a part of the land turned out to be not suitable for the project, it would be released so that it could be used for other purposes ? Secretary LANE. Yes. I can think of only one project, one large tract of land, in the whole West that we have not developed that we have withdrawn, and that is the Imperial Mesa, and that is with- drawn in the prospect of getting a canal through there. Mr. RAKER. And while that power is in the bill you feel, as Sec- retary of the Interior, that the people in the West would have no fear upon that score. Secretary LANE. I do not think there is any danger in that. I have never heard any complaint from the West upon that score re- garding reclamation projects. Mr. RAKER. I have just one other suggestion. The Members of the House will undoubtedly be asking for it, and if it is not too bulky, would it be agreable to the committee if the Secretary would insert in the hearings the laws of the several States passed upon this homestead bill at the present time, so that we might have them in condensed form. Secretary LANE. Very good; I will send you a copy of all the legislation and the action of all the States upon this matter. Mr. RAKER. And may we have that inserted in the record? Secretary LANE. It will not be long. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; without objection that will be inserted, al- though I think in the letter of the Secretary passing upon the bill, that is commented upon, although I do not know how extensively it is set out. Secretary LANE. Yes; and I sent to you also a synopsis of each one of the pieces of legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be inserted in the record together with the Secretary's report on the Mondell, Ferris, and other bills. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion in reference to that. Might we not transpose the insertion of these bills and the Secretary's report to the beginning of the hearing or has that been done ? The CHAIRMAN. No ; it has not been done yet. Mr. FERRIS. May I make that suggestion ? The CHAIRMAN/ I think it is a good suggestion. Mr. FERRIS. Then those who want to delve into the Secretary's views and the action of the various States, and the laws or the bills, could have that matter come first without wading through a long hearing such as this is apt to be. Mr. RAKER. That comports with my view, and I think it is a good suggestion. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. Mr. RAKER. I have just one other question. I do not like to take the time of the committee, but it is a matter that is in my mind 38 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. and if the committee will permit, I would like to ask the Secretary some questions as to residence. Mr. Secretary, in most of the bills the provision with reference to residence is about as follows : The Secretary shall make regulations general in character or applicable to specific projects as to residence, etc. Now, my question relates solely to residence. Is it not your view that there should be a specific residence of some kind by the home- steader and I will call all these soldiers homesteaders upon this land? Secretary LANE. Unquestionably. That is the policy of the Con- gress. We do not dispose of any land unless we have a residence provided for, and we want to see that these men stay with the proposition. We are trying to make homes for these men as well as develop the land. Mr. RAKER. This is a mater of detail, but the bill provides for patents or deeds. The bill as reported out by the Committee on Irri- gation of Arid Lands, of which Mr. Taylor was the chairman, was gone over, and the former bill, that was suggested by }'ourself, had the word " deed " in it. The committee struck it out because of the policy which is familiar to everybody who is familiar with patents, and you approved that substitution. I would like to ask whether or not it would be better to simply follow the practice of issuing patents and not get into the habit of granting deeds? It is only a matter of details, but I want to know your opinion on that. Secretary LANE. I do not think the presence of both would be any embarrassment. Mr. RAKER. It would make no material difference ? Secretary LANE. No. Mr. FERRIS. May I interrupt to suggest that inasmuch as this bill provides for the acceptance of bequests and gifts and donations, in that event you perhaps w r ould want to transfer by deed such deeded lands as might be given and received by gift. You would not want to go back and inject a Government patent at that stage. Secretary LANE. No; the expectation is that those lands that are acquired shall be transferred in the same way they are acquired, namely, by deed. Mr. FERRIS. That would necessitate the presence of that word. Secretary LANE. We thought it would be the safe thing to put in both. Mr. RAKER. Now, one other matter in connection with the con- tracts. The party would not be in a position to transfer a contract by mortgage, trust, or otherwise for 10 years. We had in one of the bills that the Government should retain its lien. Do you not believe that in some form we ought to retain that in this legislation; that where a contract is given or a patent is issued, if the whole price is not paid, the Government should retain its lien until it is disposed of? Secretary LANE. I think it does. It can not help but retain its lien until the price is paid. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Raker, Mr. Finney has prepared an amend- ment on that point, and I have it here. Mr. RAKER. Then just one other question. While the bill does not provide for it and it has not been followed very extensively in the West, and has caused a great deal of trouble in the way of abstracts HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 39 of title and keeping the records straight, and I want to ask the Sec- retary if he does not believe it would be a good provision to add in the bill that these matters of authorization by Congress and all con- tracts by the Government should be recorded' in the county in which the land is situated. That would relieve us from all this trouble we have had before. Secretary LANE. Yes, I do. I think it would be a very good thing if we could have a system by which there could be a clear run of title and have something along the line of the Torrens plan adopted, so a man would know what his property was and would be able to transfer it quickly. Mr.' RAKER. And everybody dealing with him would know about his title. There is one other question that Mr. Mondell was discuss- ing yesterday, and I think it was discussed with }'ou before, and you touched on it lightly this morning, and that is in regard to the com- munity life. Your* answer just given that the man should live on his place practically answers the question I intended to put; that the man should live on his place, and if he had a little tract he could go to the town. Would it be advisable for us to put in this legislation some provision whereby they could form as they are doing and as you have so successfully maintained in the West an organization so you would have something to deal with directly and would not have to deal with each individual man where he had filed upon land or had taken out his homestead. I don't know whether I make myself clear or not. Secretary LAXE. I think I understand you. What you have in mind is whether there should not be something analogous to a water user's association. Mr. RAKER. Yes. Secretary LANE. Of course, we can do that now. There is nothing to prevent* the formation of such an association. We want to keep our individual hold upon the man, but I think it would be wise policy to provide for the organization of cooperative associations. Mr. RAKER. And that could be done under present legislation the same as you are doing now. Secretary LANE. Yes ; there is no need for that in the legislation at all. That is beneficial as a means of dealing with men collectively, because the idea is that all these things should be continued in the hands of the Government no longer than is necessary. The trouble with us is that we hang on to things that we ought to get rid of just as soon as there is somebody who can take hold of them and handle them effectively. Mr. RAKER. That is what I was trying to develop. Mr. FERRIS Mr. Chairman, if the committee will indulge me, I would like to ask one or two elementary questions which I think will help us in presenting this matter. Mr. Secretary, your activity in this matter makes us all look to you more or less, and for that reason I want to hit a few high places if I may, and clear them up in vour testimony. Section 1, if you have the bill before you, as I read it and as I understand it, applies only to soldiers of the war with Germany. Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. And is that as it is intended ? 40 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Is there any doubt but what it excludes all civilians and others other than soldiers ? Secretary LANE. No. It was intended primarily to do two things, to give employment to these boys who come out of our Army now and to provide a means of their getting farms. Mr. FERRIS. If there is any doubt as to the purport and meaning of the section other than that, it will be agreeable to you to have it amended in that way? Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. What do you say as to the advisability of taking in the soldiers of any other war. 'for instance, the Spanish-American War, or the Veterans of the Civil War. if any there be? Secretary LANK. I think if you start this thing and carry it on for a year, and you find that is advisable, you can do it at the end of a year better than you can now; but we ought, I think, as a national matter, and as a matter of pride, do as much for these men as other countries are doing for their men who are similarly situated. Mr. FERRIS. And so for the present it ought to be made perfectly clear that it excludes all civilians, and on the other hand that it applies only to those soldiers who were in the war with Germany, who desire to avail themselves of it. Secretary LANK. Yes. Mr. SMITH. May I ask you a question, Mr. Secretary? Have you given any consideration to the fact than on the border, a year before we declared war, we had nearly 50,000 men, a great many of whom did not enter the Army in the war with Germany? Secretary LANE. Why not? Mr. SMITH. They may have been wounded or ill, or they were not able to meet the physical requirements, or there may have been a number of reasons why they did not have an opportunity of getting into the Army during the war with Germany. It seems to me it would be very unwise to close the opportunity to those men, and I do riot see where there is any argument in favor of limiting this law only to the soldiers who were in the war with Germany, when we have probablv many Spanish-American War veterans who would like to have the opportunity presented to them, although they might not avail themselves of it. When you discriminate between soldiers who have served our country in any war, you are inviting opposition which seems to me to be unnecessary. Secretary LANE. Just on that point of opposition, do you not think you will have more opposition if you make this too broad? Mr. 'SMITH. No; I think not. Secretary LANE. Suppose vou take in the Mexican War soldiers, then you take in the Cuban War soldiers, and then you go back and you take in the Civil War veterans Mr. SMITH (interposing). They are too old to take advantage of it, and probably only a few of the Spanish-American War veterans would take advantage of it, but they should have the opportunity. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed for a few "min- utes if Mr. Smith will excuse me and let me go ahead with a few things which I have in mind. As the bill now stands, and as it is intended, it applies to the war with Germany only; and if it does not do that, it ought to be made that way ; is that your opinion? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 41 Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Now, this bill grants an authorization of $500,000,000. Of course, it does not appropriate $500,000,000, but it authorizes that amount, this not being an appropriating committee. You have heard from 52,000 soldiers who have made direct reply that they would like to avail themselves of it. Of course, there are 4.000,000 soldiers in the service of one kind and another, including the Army and the Navy and all. Has anybody made a careful estimate as to what per- centage of the 4,000,000 soldiers in all probability will desire to avail themselves of this law ? Secretary LANE. No one can. Mr. FERRIS. Has any one made an estimate ? Secretary LANE. No. Mr. FERRIS. Will you make an estimate ? Secretary LANE. Xo: I do not think there can be any approxima- tion made as to the number of men who would want to go into it. You will remember that at the hearing last December, either before your committee or before the Committee on Appropriations, the doubt was expressed by some one as to the soldiers desiring to take up this kind of a proposition, and at that time we got up the little folder, which you have incorporated in your minutes, and sent it out to the cantonments along the coast here, just by way of finding out whether anybody wanted this thing or not, and the postal cards began to come in in reply, and that service has not been extended in any way. It has been purely tentative to find out whether there was any considerable proportion who wanted this thing and there is a very large proportion who do want it positively. Mr. FERRIS. Let me see if we can arrive at it in this way : You have had 52,000 direct replies. Would there be any objection to your tell- ing us just how many inquiries were sent out so we might estimate what percentage of them replied ? Secretary LANE. Yes; I think 250,000 of those little pamphlets were printed, and upon the basis of that figure 40,000 were returned to us. That would be 15 per cent, we will say. Mr. FERRIS. Let us see if it would. You had 250,000 printed, or a quarter of a million, and 40,000 returned as undelivered? Secretary LANE. No ; 40,000 answers came back. Mr. FERRIS. That would be almost one-fifth. Secretaary LANE. Not quite; about 16 per cent. Of course, there are 12,000 additional that are volunteer letters that have just come in. Mr. FERRIS. Going on that basis, if 16 per cent made direct re- sponse out of a total queried of 250,000, then it might be a rough estimate, with some degree of accuracy, to say that 16 per cent of the entire 4,000,000 might make reply if they had an opportunity to do so. Secretary LANE. I think that is perhaps as fair as anything you can get. Mr. FERRIS. As a mathematical proposition that would be about 640.000. Now, Mr. Secretary, I notice from reading the bill that there is no limit or exact sum fixed which the homestead and the im- provements thereon may cost ; in other words, there is no maximum. Secretary LANE. No. Mr. FERRIS. I know it would simply be a rough estimate at best, but what would be a fair estimate as to the cost of a suitable-sized 42 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. tract, with suitable improvements, within the contemplation of this law? Secretary LANE. We have figured about $6.000. We will prob- ably find that it will be a good deal more in some places and less in others. Mr. FERRIS. Undoubtedly that would be true, but a rough estimate of it is that the original 'purchase and the improvements thereon,, such as we have in contemplation here, would average probably about $6,000. Secretary LAXE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Then, if our other estimate had any value and this estimate had any value, it would be 640,000 soldiers multiplied by $6,000 as the possible sum total that we might expend on this project; of course, all of us recognizing that that is a rough estimate. (Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Now, Mr. Secretary, I have been glancing through this bill hurriedly, and there are a few things here that are trou- bling Members of the House who have talked to me about them, and some of them have troubled me a little, and if I may, I would like to have you answer some of them. Section 8 authorizes a $800 loan to the soldier, designated a short-time loan, and does not make any limit on the number of $800 loans that might be made to him. Of course you have a discretion which would control that, no doubt. Secretary LANE. That is, at no time can he have more than $800. Mr. FERRIS. At no time can he have more than $800, but there is no limit as to the number of times, and I have wondered if this might not drift into something like the placer law and whether there might not be abuses of it and whether there should not be some restriction there. You can observe in section 8 just what I have in my mind. Secretary LANE. With that proviso in, there is not a great deal of danger in the thing, and yet I do not think we ought to go into the general banking business so far as these people are concerned, except to give them a good start. Mr. FERRIS. Then, passing from that point, if I may. a soldier who was discharged Secretary LANE (interposing). I do not think it was contemplated that this should be a revolving fund. Mr. FERRIS. No; I understand not, but still they have in contem- plation that this money shall be covered back into the Treasury and provision is made all the way through for that, and I think very fairly: and if not. your regulations would reach that point. A soldier who was discharged came to me the other day and he was- talking to me about other things, a boy I was acquainted with, and he became greatly agitated over the iact, and said he had had a talk with some soldiers and he thought the bill might not have much value to it for the reason that you have this language on page 5, lines 16 and 17, "that no such loans shall exceed 60 per cent of the cost of the live stock and equipment purchased," and further down you require him to have 5 per cent of the sale price. Secretary LANE. That is the initial payment. Mr. P^ERRIS. You require him to start off with an initial payment of 5 per cent ? Secretary LANE. Yes. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 43 Mr. FERRIS. Now, his thought was that the soldier coming out of the service could neither furnish 40 per cent of the amount neces- sary to pin-chase the live stock he would be required to have to go forward, and neither could he furnish 5 per cent to make the initial payment. In other words, they say they come out of the service just like they came into the world without anything and they were fearful that even though that was intended, doubtless, to make them manifest their good faith in the proposition, his thought was that that would put it beyond the reach of the very felloAvs who really needed it. Secretary LANE. Well, suppose the farm cost $6,000 and you make him pay 5 per cent at first; that is, you make him pay $300. Sup- pose he has worked on the project for a year at $4 a day, he will have several times $300 saved up if he has any gumption, and we do not want fellows who have not gumption. Mr. FERRIS. Then, suppose he needs a pair of mules, to get right down to the practical side of this live-stock proposition, which cost $300. he would have to put up $120 and the Government $180, which he thought would be beyond his reach. Secretary LANE. I doubt very much if that is so. You can change the percentage, of course, in any way you want, but I believe in chal- lenging the best things in the boy and making him feel from the start that he has got to be thrifty. Mr. FERRIS. It is not necessary for me to say, Mr. Secretary, that I do not ask these questions in any captious way. Secretary LANE. I understand that, of course. Mr. FERRIS. But some of us will have to go on the floor and pre- sent this matter, and I think it is just as well to have a clear under- standing of it. If I may, I would like to direct your attention to section 6 for a moment, where it seems to me there is a direct con- flict. Let me read the first part of that paragraph : That sale prices shall be fixed with a view of repaying the total cost of each project, and the price fixed for each farm, tract, or lot shall represent as nearly as practicable its relative and comparative selling value. Now, let me add that you can not have your cake and eat it too. You can not get back for the Government what it costs and at the same time sell it to him for what it is worth in all cases. They would be rare cases in which you could do that, and I am wondering if you will not have to adopt the proposition you have in connection with the Reclamation Service of getting back for the Government exactly what it costs or else make it a straight subsidy, if need be, and sell it for what it is worth ; and I rather suspect the latter plan would be the more feasible one, because if the Government unduly makes these homes too expensive and too costly the soldier can not pay back what it cost the Government if it is way in excess of what the property is really worth. Would you mind giving us a word on that? Secretary LANE. That suggestion there arises out of this thought: Here is a great tract of land and here is a setlement over here [indi- cating]. There is some of that land which is remote, and because of its distance from the central community and the distance that products have to be hauled there is less value to that proposition over there than there is to one that immediately adjoins this here [indicating] . 44 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. Undoubtedly. Secretary LANE. And the idea was when we have gotten at the value of the entire tract, it would be a wise thing to put upon that land over there [indicating] a less burden than upon the -10 acres over here [indicating]. Mr. FERRIS. Undoubtedly, Mr. Secretary; but may I interrupt to say that that is more nearly an appraisal question than it is a matter of securing the return to the Government of what it costs, or its selling value. Secretary LANE. We wanted to put it in so that the total amount of the cost of the whole project would fall upon this single project, and each particular section would bear its particular proportion of the proper value of the whole project. Mr. FERRIS. I think this language ought to be revised a little in order to accomplish that. Secretary LANE. Perhaps so. Mr. FERRIS. You could easily change that. Secretary LANE. This says : " its relative and comparative selling value." Mr. VAILE, We might say as nearly as practicable. Mr. FERRIS. There is a little latitude there, it seems to me. For example, here is a soldier going on the land expecting to get a future home out of the project, and he is observing the expenditures of the Government in connection with these tracts, and if he con- cludes that the expenditures of the Government are going to be such as to make the farm cost more than it is really worth, you at once kill his interest in it, and he at once loses interest in it, even to the extent, perhaps, of moving off, and he will say to himself,. " This is going to cost me more than I can afford to pay for it," and we have got some reason for saying that, because on some of the reclamation projects due to the lack of experience which it is neces- sary to acquire, we have had trouble along that line, and I was won- dering if we could not perhaps correct that. Secretary LANE. We had that question up, and I think it was made originally by Mr. Mondell, in reference to the division of the lands in the Shoshone project that is, that there should be a differ- ence as to the charges imposed upon the lands that were farthest removed from the main portion of the project. We did not see that it ought to be done, and it is a difficult thing to do, but I believe that machinery can be arranged by which it can be done. Mr. FERRIS. If you invest the Government with full power to appraise and apportion the costs, and then if you were given here authority to provide that in no event should the sum exacted from the soldier who entered upon the project exceed its selling value, you would have an assurance given the soldier that he would not otherwise get. Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. I live right at a military fort, and they had in effect there this cost-plus 10 per cent contract plan. It might have been the best thing that could be done at that time, and probably was, but there were a good many abuses under it. I think that the soldier, in order to have this relief really secured to him, ought to be sure that at no time should he ever be compelled to pay for the project HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 45 which lie had selected or which had been apportioned to him by this commission a price that would exceed what the actual value of it was. If the Government paid a little more for the land, then let that be a straight subsidy to the soldier. Secretary LANE. I see no objection to that kind of qualification. .Mr. FERRIS. There would be some objection in the House to this on the part of those who closely scrutinize appropriations. They might say that it would make a drain on the Treasury, but for my own part I would prefer to have a drain upon the Treasury and make it certain that the soldier in taking the farm would not have to pay for it more than it was worth. Now, page 2, lines IT to 22, provides for your commission to handle this estate. In other words, it provides, first, a representative of the governor of the State in which the lands are located; second, an appraiser designated by the Federal Farm Loan Board, and, next, the Secretary. By " Sec- retary" I presume you mean the Secretary of the Interior? Secretary LANE. Yes, sir. Mr. FEKRIS. So that you have a commission made up, first, of the Secretary of the Interior; second, some commissioner appointed by the Federal Farm Loan Board ; and, third, a commissioner appointed by the goA'ernor of the State. That would be the commission to handle this large undertaking. Secretary LANE. No; that relates to the price. The bill provides that " No lands shall be acquired, however, unless the price to be paid, and the conditions under which they are to be acquired, shall be ap- proved," etc., by this commission. That relates only to the price. That is done in order to make sure that they will get the land for as little as possible. Mr. FERRIS. After the land is acquired the administration of it reverts to the Secretary of the Interior? Secretary LANE. Yes. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Secretary, referring to the disposition of this land after the projects have been organized and opened, is it your thought that, for instance, in the case of a project costing $1,000,000, you would divide it up and then sell it to the soldiers for seven or eight hundred thousand dollars or $500,000? Mr. FERRIS. If that is all it is worth, that is exactly what I would do. This bill is rather hazy on that subject, and I think it ought to be made clear. The other theory would be that in all instances you must get from the soldier exactly what it cost. That is one plan, and some very strong friends of the Treasury would advocate that. On the other hand, the soldier is going to say that if there should l)e any misadministration, if there should be any extravagance, if there should be any lack of experience, or if there should be any mis- takes, or if the cost should climb too high, you will be taking it out of the soldier instead of the Government. I would prefer that you take it out of the Government. Secretary LANE. I do not think there is much danger of that con- dition arising. Of course, there is one possibility at the beginning of the project and that is that it often looks poorly. Take, for instance, the Minidoka project, which, when I came into office, looked badly, and yet it is as prosperous now as any part of the United States. Six years ago, if you had asked what is the selling value of this 46 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. property, it might have been said that it would not have cleared the amount put into it; but to-day you can not get that land without paying tAvice as much as they put in it. We have had two or three misfits, which were started under a misapprehension, but I do not know of any project that we could not .sell out to-day for a great deal more than the money we put into it. Mr. RAKER. On the other hand, suppose the Government spent $1,000,000 on this project, which is all equipped and is ready to open. In other words, I presume it would not be opened until it is all ready with the land subdivided and classified so as to fix its relative price, and, as the Secretary said, those tracts close to the center would be more valuable than the far-away lots. Those far-away lots would be less valuable. Now, suppose you really and truly appraised and estimated the value of that project ready to open to the soldier and found that it was worth $2,000,000. You would not want the soldier to pay the extra $1,000,000 would you ? Mr. FERRIS. No; I would make a maximum for him, and would say that in no case shall the sum exacted from the soldier be in ex- cess of its fair market price or value at the time he receives it. Then the soldier would be sure of what he was getting. Mr. RAKKR. You would not in any instance ask the soldier to pay more than the actual cost of the project, would you? Mr. FERRIS. As this stands you could do it. Secretary LANE. No; it does not do it as it stands. It provides that it shall be not more than the cost. Mr. FERRIS. Not more than the cost, but that might be more than it was worth. Mr. SUMMERS. In view of the fact that practically nine-tenths of the countries of the world have enacted soldiers' settlement laws re- quiring either that the soldier shall have been an agriculturalist or that he shall enter upon training along that line in an agricultural college or training station, or that he shall be placed with a practical farmer for training before he is assigned to one of these tracts, I would like to ask whether you contemplate anything of that kind in the administration of this act? Secretary LANE. We do. Mr. BAER. Mr. Secretary, I think you are familiar with the bill I introduced in regard to schools and educational work to be estab- lished in order that people may have the necessary preliminary train- ing for their work. I am going to take that matter up with the committee and see if that system can be worked into this proposition. I think it would 'be impracticable to take men who are clerks in stores right now and put them on farm projects without any pre- vious experience in farming. Secretary LANE. I would say that the wise thing to do would be to see that each man before he got his farm had some theoretical and practical farming experience., and that can be effected to some ex- tent while the men are upon the projects, and it can be supplemented by definite courses that will be given at particular times in agri- cultural schools. We have taken this up with the agricultural col- leges of the country, and, if this bill had passed at the last session, it was our expectation that those boys who reported to us would take special courses in the agricultural colleges during the summer. We HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 47 have already had that matter up with the agricultural schools, but it is too late' to undertake it this year, because we would have to upset their curriculums now in order to do it. Mr. XICHOLS. Mr. Secretary, of the answers you received to the pamphlets you sent out, what percentage came from soldiers who went forth from the cities? Secretary LANE. I should say perhaps 55 per cent. It was just about one-half. Mr. DAVIS. Over three-fourths of them had had some agricultural experience '. Secretary LANE. That is, the boys said that they had worked on farms. Mr. RAKER. You do not intend to enact into this legislation that a man without previous experience in farming can not go out and pull off his coat and put on farm clothes and go to work without some previous farm education? Secretary LANE. We want to make it possible for him to get that training under this system, and we can do it with the cooperation of the State agricultural schools. Mr. RAKER. You mean to help him in advance, but not to retard him? Secretary LANE. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMMERS. I think that nearly every other country has pro- vided that, during the period of this training, where training is necessary, the soldier shall obtain a living wage. Is any such thing as that contemplated in this bill ? That is to say, during the period of his training, whether on the farm or in an agricultural training station, practically every law, I believe, that has been enacted in other countries provides that he shall have a living wage while in training. Secretary LANE, That has not been taken into consideration in the drafting of this bill, but in the conferences that we have had with the agriculturists and the agricultural professors and presidents throughout the country we found that it was a perfectly practical thing to give these men the kind of theoretical training that they ought to have while they are on the project itself. We have some rather distinguished instances of men with very slight practical knowledge of farming making a great success of it on some of our irrigation projects. We do not want to bar a man with good muscles and good brain, but we do want to bar the man who has no aptitude for farming. Mr. SUMMERS. Would it not be a good idea and a practical prop- osition for agriculturalists to be assigned to each particular project to live with those men of limited experience, and thereby give them their training at the time that they are developing their tracts? Secretary LANE. That is one of the plans we have thoroughly well in hand, l^hat is in contemplation. The CHAIRMAN. Under section 5 there is a provision that prefer- ence shall be given with a view of safeguarding the settler and the United States. I wish 3*011 would explain what will be the operation of that section. Secretary LANE. That is a rather broad provision which has for its purpose just what I have stated, and that is that if there should 13331919 1 48 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. be any case where men are manifestly taking these things up in a speculative way, and not for the purpose of making themselves into real farmers, there should be some right of excluding them from the benefits of the act, and that we should have a power of rejection. That exists in Australia and in Canada. Mr. BAER. The point I had in mind is one that our North Dakota Legislature has taken care of. Of course, these men who go into these projects do not want to get hurt after they have invested two or three years' work upon them. Suppose a man has lived for live years on .a project and becomes discouraged : In that event, do you think it would be advisable to have an arrangement whereby he could re- cover his equities in it? That is, that he should recover the original cost, and not the increased increment. I do not mean the value of the land, but the original cost to him. Suppose he decides, for in- stance, that he is not fit for the land ( Secretary LANE. Of course, after a man goes on the land we would dislike extremely to eject him. I do not think that is in contem- plation, and my idea was that there should be certain tests made before he went on the land. Now, you want to have the man taken care of if he does not make a success and wants to get off ? Mr. BAER. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. In other words, you would place a premium upon in- competency. Mr. BAER. I want the Government to make an arrangement cover- ing his equities in the land, so that he will not lose all of his time. Mr. FERRIS. May I suggest that within the first 10 years a trans- fer can be made with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, so that you might proceed along the line of a refinquishment pro- ceeding and allow him to recoup his losses. After that there seems to be no limitation upon selling at all. Mr. BAER. In our State, under the legislation recently passed, they can buy the farm, but if at any time they want to leave the farm the State takes an interest in it in trying to sell it and to see that the soldier gets the amount that he has already put into it in proportion to the original cost, and not the increased value. Now, there is an- other question I would like to ask : From your long and broad expe- rience, and speaking generally, do you not think that it would be more practicable and advisable to develop some of those .eastern lands near the centers of population, where they will find good markets for their produce, instead of going out and reclaiming arid lands in some of the other States? Secretary LAXE. I do. Mr. BAER. I am very much interested in seeing the market situa- tion taken care of. Now, if they are like they are in eastern Montana and western North Dakota and I am not casting any reflection upon any State the situation would be bad. Those farmers have become discouraged because they are so far away from markets, and eventu- ally they will have to get off of those lands. They can not make good on^them. If you take these men away out where you must develop railroads, the difficulties will be great. I think it would be practi- cable to try to fertilize these lands right here near the great industrial centers. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 49 Mr. SMITH. Is it not a fact that the farmers on the reclaimed arid lands in the West are more prosperous than those who live in any other section of the country ? Mr. RAKER. If this bill is to stop the development of the West, it would seem to me Secretary LANE (interposing). Mr. Baer's point is a perfectly good one. There has got to be some artificial incentive to bring about the reestablishment of people all around upon their own lands where they have markets near at hand. You will find that sentiment very strong in States like Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,. Maryland, and all down the coast. Mr. BAER. Now, I take it for granted that the reason they do not develop the land is because it is worn out, and it ought to be refer- tilized. The point is that here in Virginia and Maryland they have 56 inches of rainfall, which absolutely insures a crop, whereas in North Dakota we have 14 or 15 inches, and it is a gamble from the 1st of June to the middle of July as to whether or not we will get a crop. If we do not get rain, we do not get a crop. With the exception of the irrigation projects, I think it would be advisable for us to con- sider the fertilizing of eastern land in a great degree, in order to get nearer these centers of population, so as to reduce the cost of living. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. At Bridgeport and other places they are paying 58 cents per pound for round steak, and it costs only 25 cents per pound in Fargo. That is because we have cattlemen out there who slaughter the cattle right on the ground ta compete with the local people. It is not so much the packers as it i& the local people who charge these exorbitant prices in Washington and throughout the East. I think it is the hope of the Nation to resuscitate these eastern lands. I think that these boys in the East would as soon work in Maryland as in Colorado. Secretary LANE. About 50 per cent of them want to go to their own home States. Mr. TAYLOR. I want to ask the Secretary a question. Congress has been splitting hairs and microscopically looking to see whether or not some sentence in a bill could be perverted. That has been done for a year now when we ought to have been enacting this law. I wish you would give the committee, and especially the new members of the committee, a resume of what you have stated this country is expecting to do as compared with what the other English-speaking countries are doing for their returned soldiers. I want to say this, that they are not splitting hairs over the proposition, as I hope this committee will not do. Will you give us an idea of the comparative relief or development that has been provided? Secretary LANE. I do not know that I can give you definitely the figures. The CHAIRMAN. That is in the Secretary's report. Secretary LANE. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand undertook legislatioiTof this kind while the war was still on. Canada was even farsighted enough to start agricultural schools for many of the men. while they were still in the trenches in France. To-day, according to a letter I received from the Secretary of the Interior in Canada, a man can get $4,500 to apply anywhere that he wishes, provided it 50 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. has the approval of the department, upon the purchase of a piece of land, which can be supplemented by a loan of $2,500 for the improve- ment of that piece of land, and he can supplement that with $1,000 or $1 j500 in a loan for the purchase of stock and equip- ment. That is just an illustration of the appreciation shown by them of that situation. Mr. RAKER. Have you got that law and can you insert it in the record ? Secretary LANE. Yes ; I think it is in the record. In England, as you know, Parliament has given consideration to this proposition, and a large amount of money is available for the purchase of leaseholds and for the building of farm houses for their people. Mr. TAYLOR. They already Tiave these laws. They have not been quibbling around in the consideration of the bills. They already have them on their statute books and they are furnishing that relief. Secretary LANE. Of course, they saw the necessity for it long be- fore we did. There was more urgency. Mr. SUMMERS. I see that in April, 1918, France enacted legislation providing for the purchase and resale to. soldiers and to civilians \\lio had suffered as a result of the war tracts of land not to exceed $2,500 in value, repayable in 25 years, I believe, at 1 per cent interest. Mr. TAYLOR. My thought is this, that while we are quibbling and I think this committee does examine things microscopically while we quibble over little things we do not get the results that the Xation expects us to get. I hope we will submerge our little individual ideas about some provision in the interest of getting results for the American people, for the development of the country, and for the relief of the returning soldiers. Mr. TILLMAN. I take it that you are not in favor of the French system of living in villages. XOAV, is not that preferable to the Ameri- can system under which farmers live far removed from one another? Does not the French sj'stem in a large measure solve the school prob- lem, the transportation-to-school problem, the church problem, and other social problems that we in America have suffered from for many years by reason of living so far apart? Secretary LANE. It would. Mr. TILLMAN. Is it not preferable, in a modified way, to our sys- tem under which farmers live one and a half miles apart? Take, for instance, the Dakotas : The farmers up there have 640-acre farms, and they tell me that many of the farm women go insane because they have no means of associating with their neighbors. Many of the girls go to the towns because of the lack of social advantages. I visited a French settlement last year, and I rather liked it as com- pared with our system of living in remote places and far apart. Secretary LANE. I sought to find out somewhat about that by hav- ing one or two of our men meet men in the cantonments and talk with them about that, and the idea is very strong in their minds that the home should be upon the land, but we want to get a compromise between the French village and the isolated farm by which these lands are all laid out w r ith reference to a central community, so that the people will be gathered closely together and connected up with good roads and telephones, and be near the schools. I think we can get the primary advantages of the French system, and at the same HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 51 time obtain all the best advantages of the American system of farm Houses. Mr. RAKER. Just what particular feature of the French system would you adopt? Secretary LANE. I would take simph 7 the central settlement, with its school, its church, its garage, its bank, and post office. Then I would have these farms to radiate out from them, so that they would be brought close together. Then I would have all the community activities centered in that central place. Mr. TILLMAN. I thought you were opposed to that. You say that some of the boys coming from abroad did not like the French system. Secretary LANE. They do not like it in so far as it meant the homes. in the village away from the land. Mr. VAILE. How many French farmers own flivvers? Secretarj* LANE. We own in this country 5,000,000 automobiles,- which is more than is owned in all of the rest of the world put to- gether. Mr. VAILE. That fact alone makes a great difference in considering the advisability of adopting the French system, does it not? Secretary LANE. Yes; but they ought to be near together for the sake of the women and primarily for the sake of the children. Mr. RAKER. Each French town centers around a main street which runs right up and down. Each man has his home and his barn in the same house, and he has his pigpen, chicken pen, and manure pile in the front yard right on the main street. That is a typical French town or center. In Italy, this has been in operation for 2,000 years, and they are living in tents or wickie-ups like the Indianes are living today in California. I hope that this country will never get into that situation. Mr. FERRIS. I would like to ask one more question : Should there not be a value placed upon the homestead unit with some latitude going above and below, or should there not be some limitation on the amount that should go for an individual homestead ? Secretary LANE. Do you mean a maximum amount inserted in the bill? Mr. FERRIS. Yes, sir; either that way or some other way. For instance, have a homestead at $5,000 or $2,500, with a proviso that the Secretary may in some cases go beyond that by a certain per- centage. In other words, as the bill now stands, there is no minimum or maximum, or exact basis in dollars and cents for one of these homesteads. I think the bill will be subject to some criticism on the floor without that, and it will probably make it hard to get it through if we can not arrive at some estimate of what it will cost. Secretary LANE. I think the wise thing would be to make a maxi- mum estimate going pretty high, but possibly you would have as much criticism of that on the theory that by "Government develop- ment you would make them all maximum farms. Mr. FERRIS. There is something in that. Still, as the bill now stands, there is no maximum and no minimum for these individual allotments. Secretary LANE. That is a matter of judgment with this committee as to whether it is advisable to have that in so as to get it through. So far as we are concerned, we will try to make the farm one that will support a family. We will not want to extend it any more than is necessary. 52 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. Should there not be a minimum and maximum acreage as well as a minimum and maximum priced- Secretary LANE. No; because we have no trouble on that score under the reclamation projects, except where we have made a mini- mum that they thought ought to be a great deal smaller than it ought to be. Mr. FERRIS. Of course, different jurisdictions would require a dif- ferent acreage and a different value as between, say, 600 and 640 .acres, or $2,000 and $5,000. Secretary LANE. There would be no objection to that at all if there was any such latitude. Mr. BAER. I think it would be perfectly impracticable to have a maximum average individually, but you could have a maximum aver- age for the whole project. One farm might cost $10,000 to improve it, but it might not be any better than a farm that cost $2,000. Secretary LANE. I understand that that is Mr. Ferris's idea, that there should be an average on the project, but not on the individual piece. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until to- morrow, Thursday, May 29, 1919.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, May 29, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Resumed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell will resume his statement which was interrupted yesterday. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take the time of the committee further, but am at the service of the committee to answer any questions the members desire to ask. Preliminary to that, there is just one point that has been referred to, I understand, which per- haps it might be well to discuss for just a moment. A query has been raised as to the effect of legislation of this char- acter upon farm labor, its demand and supply. This is a country of 100,000,000 people. Just how many folks there are engaged as em- ployees or laborers on farms, I do not know, but, in the first place, the provisions of this act, helpful as we hope they will be; the operations under the act, extensive as they will be: and large as will be the num- ber of people to whom it will give employment, can not in the nature of things, in a country so large as ours, with so enormous a populat ion, a large portion of which is engaged in agriculture, have a .very con- siderable effect one way or the other on the supply and demand for agricultural labor. If it has any material effect in that direction, it will be to encourage men to seek employment on farms, because the discussion of a pro- gram of this kind, as a national policy, the fact of the Government's embarking on such an enterprise will tend to turn men's minds to- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 53 tvard farming and farm homes and be helpful in inclining men to seek farm employment ; not necessarily on these farms, but on farms everywhere. You can not discuss a matter of this kind extensively, widely, and general!}-, as it will be discussed, partly through the in- fluence of this proposed legislation, in a country like ours, without the effect of turning men's minds and inclination toward that kind of enterprise, and that form of employment. So that whatever effect it may have, it will tend at least to increase the supply of men and the number of men inclined to seek employment on the farms. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, we could hardly afford to take the position that by withholding necessary legislation, this committee would be willing to sentence these soldiers who formerty were farm laborers to a life as a farm laborer. Do you catch that point? Mr. MONDELL. I do not think I would state it just as the chair- man does, because I do not think that would be a sentence in the sense in which we ordinarily use the word. The happiest days 1 can remember, and I think the healthiest, were the days when I stood between the handles of a plow. Mr. SNELL. But you wanted to get away from it? Mr. MONDELL. I can not remember any greater joy in my life than my days on a farm or ranch. The CHAIRMAN. You did not want to follow it all your days? Mr. MONDELL. I can not remember a minute of my" life as perfect in content as when, behind a good team and a good, well-polished plow. I was engaged in turning the stubble. It is the height of con- tent and satisfaction. You do not sentence anybody when you in- cline them or urge them to that kind of employment. The next best thing to owning a farm is to work on one. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Mondell, I think the thought of the chairman is that you do not want to do anything to take away the hope of on of those men of owning that farm himself and owning that team himself. Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Now, getting to the chairman's thought, it is that it has been suggested that through this legislation we might hold out a hope to a man who has been working on a farm and who might, other than for this legislation, continue to work on that farm, that through this legislation his farm work might ripen into farm ownership and therefore take as a laborer from the farm. Even though that might be true, it should not, of course, deter us from the enactment of the legislation, because it would be a most excellent thing. We would hope, of course, that if through this legis- lation a farmer might lose a farm hand, that the hope w T e are hold- ing out the encouragement we are giving to farm work and farm ownership would raise up another farm helper to take the place of that man. and I think it would. Wherever you might take a man away from labor on farms now developed through legislation of this* kind, I think through the effect of the legislation, direct and indirect, and the discussion under it, you would incline the minds of two men or more toward taking up farm work. Certainly there is nothing that we can do that would be more useful and helpful to the country than that, because the more men we can get away from the bright lights, and the artificial conditions of town life, tremendously attractive as they are in these days, back to the soil, to the healthy conditions of life close to nature, and on 54 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. the soil, the better it is going to be for the country. Every nation that has ever prospered has been compelled to make it a part of its purpose to legislate along lines that will tend to incline men to fann work and employment and farm owning. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Mondell, in that connection, may I ask you a few questions at this time. I listened with a good deal of interest to your description of the farm boy's life. I suppose most of us have been there ourselves. Of course, that is more of an expression than a fact, and I suppose many of us have done the same thing, but while we are walking between plow handles and while an uncle who had not any relatives or any one else to leave his property to said, " Here, John, if you will stay with me this is all yours when I pass away," but, nevertheless, the boy keeps thinking as he walks between those plow handles and other things that he would like to branch out a little for himself. Mr. ELSTON. And be a Congressman. Mr. RAKER. And do a few r other things that other people have done and advance himself. Mr. MONDELL. I think I would still be between the plow handles if it had not been for some very unusual droughts and a long siege of grasshopper devastation. Mr. RAKER. The only way I got away from between the plow handles, notwithstanding the objection of my uncle, was to save my money and raise a few cattle and horses, and go to school, notwith- standing the promise of a gift of two farms if I had stayed. Maybe I would have been better off if I had stayed on the farm. Now, that same thing is found right here in this bill, and I want your best judgment on it and also the judgment of the committee. It is in section 7, page 4, where you tie the man down forever to this farm, and it is a change in every principle that we have had as Americans in the disposition of property. It first provides that no contract, transfer, or assignment or mort- gage or lease shall be made within 10 years without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. ELSTON. On what page is that? Mr. RAKER. Page 4 of the Mondell bill, section 7, and then follows this language, " No transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease of any right, title, or interest held under a contract of sale shall be valid at any time without the approval of the Secretary." Is it the purpose of this language to prevent the man, after he gets his certificate of purchase, or makes his payments whereby he gets a patent, from being in position to sell his property freely and voluntarily ? The CHAIRMAN. Judge Raker, will you permit me to call Mr. Mon- dell's attention to that language and to a thought which has oc- curred to me? That paragraph, beginning at the bottom of page 1. is an absolute prohibition upon a transfer at any time, and the first paragraph seems to indicate that he may transfer it after the 10-year period. There is a prohibition for a period of 10 years. and afterwards a prohibition for all time without the consent of the Secretary. I did not know whether there was any inconsistency there or not. Mr. MONDELL. If the gentleman will allow me, I do not think the language is inconsistent, although the members of the committee HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 55 must judge of that. The first provision is one that prevents a transfer within 10 years of the original sale of the property without regard to whether or not, in the meantime, the Government obliga- tion has been fully met, without the consent of the Secretary. That is the first proposition. For the first 10 years, even though the Government may have been fully reimbursed, may have issued its patent or its deed, there can not be a transfer without the con- sent of the Secretary. The purpose of that is to carry out the intent of the act to give all the benefit of this enterprise to the soldier purchaser. More than that, to strongly persuade the soldier pur- chaser to be the sole beneficiary for 10 years of the increasing values. Now, anyone who knows about development of this kind knows that conditions of this kind will likely arise they have arisen on our reclamation projects: An enterprise is unusually successful, property values rise rapidly, particularly in favored locations, and there is a temptation, particularly to the man who has never pos- sessed very much, to the man of a wandering spirit, to the man who possibly has not had instilled into his soul the necessity, or, at least, the importance, of having a home, to realize on a slight in- crease or considerable increase, as it may be, in the value of that property, and if the enterprises are successful, no end of folks are going to be hovering about to take advantage of it. It might be in one case that the offer was only a few hundred dollars above the Government obligation; it might be several thou- sand dollars above the obligation, and an individual whom we have no purpose in aiding under this bill, a person whom we are under no obligation to aid but who happens to be the fortunate possessor of some cash, might step in, taking advantage of the temporary dis- couragement of a settler, taking advantage of his desire to seek other fields or to realize in hard cash a small sum, and buy his property. It is a new provision under our law in the transfer of property. This whole proposal is new. We are embarking on a new sort of enterprise. There is a certain class of men we want to give an opportunity, and we want to encourage and defend them in securing all the benefits of our action. Mr. RAKER. Now, Mr. Mondell Mr. MONDELL (interposing). One moment, please, let me finish what I have in mind, because I think this is very important, and whatever the committee does in regard to this and to all these other things. The committee will have no quarrel with me about it. What we have sought to do is to give our soldiers the benefits of these en- terprises and the benefit of the unearned increment, if that is a proper word in this connection, that may arise out of this development. Mr. SNELL. Do you think these boys would be willing to tie them- selves up definitely for a period of 10 years ? Mr. MONDELL,. They would not tie themselves up absolutely. A transfer may be made at any time with the approval of the Secre- tary, which means with the approval of such board as the Secretary will establish, whose business it will be to study the situation. No such body of men are likely to deny a man the right to transfer his property when any conditions arise that make it important from his viewpoint and from the viewpoint of his welfare to transfer it. Conditions may arise under which it is essential that a man may be 56 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. given the opportunity to sell. Those conditions may be established, and there will be men on the ground who will be familiar with the situation and who will understand the conditions, and I am of the opinion that there will be no serious .cause for complaint under such management as we hope and confidently expect to have under a law like this. Now, you must either do that or you must admit that we look forward and anticipate that where one of these enterprises is really successful in a very short time the men who are the bene- ficiaries of it will not be the soldiers at all, but will be those who are fortunate enough to have enough money to pay off the Government obligation for the soldier, get his patent or deed, pay him a trifling sum and in many cases it will be a trifling sum over and above the Government's charge and secure the property. Now, another thing, without going too far into the matter of regu- lation, we want, if possible, to prevent the consolidation of these areas into large tracts. I know it is not necessary that I should go into a discussion of the importance of retaining, as far as we can in reason, land ownership in areas necessary for the support of a family rather than the gathering of lands into large ownerships leading inevitably to tenantry, and we certainly do not want to put the Government's money, obstensibly for the benefit of the soldiers, into an enterprise of this kind, and then discover in a few years that men have been persuaded to part with their property, the lands have been consolidated, and that a few men own the choice tracts on one of these projects. Mr. RAKER. You have given but one side of the matter and that is on the assumption of protecting the soldier, but you must remember now the experience of the last 10 years of people under the reclama- tion service who clamored and came to Congress, and Congress en- acted legislation coming from the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and I had the pleasure of helping to write that particular law after many conferences whereby a man was permitted to have his patent before he made his payment. Otherwise he never could sell his land until the final payments were made, which might be 1 year or 5 years, or 10 years or 15 years or 20 years, and we authorized a patent to be issued and re- tained a lien by the Government to the end that he might sell it whenever he saw fit. They all clamored for that legislation, and do you not think we ought to permit something like that in this legislation ? Mr. MONDELL. I can not agree with the judge that they all clam- ored for that legislation. A certain number of men clamored for it. I expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of that legislation. I have doubts now of the wisdom of it. I think it has resulted on some of the reclamation projects in more transfers than are for the -good of the original owner. I know of one project where there has been quite a number of transfers of the choicest part of the project. I believe it would have been in the interest of some of those who disposed of their lands if they had not been in a position to dispose of them so easily and so readily. Under the reclamation law anyone ran come and buy ami sell and there is no discretion. There is a discretion here. We are try- ing to aid a certain class of men. \Ye are not only putting land HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 57 in condition where it can be farmed, but we are proposing to aid In building homes, houses, and barns, and to lend money to buy the first cow and the first team and the first flock of chickens. Mr. BAKBOUR. May I interrupt there, Mr. Mondell, because that is touching right on the proposition which has occurred to me in reading this bill, and one that Mr. Ferris has touched on once or twice here? The provisions are that the Government will lend to the soldier as high as $1,200 for the erection and improvement of buildings, but not more than 75 per cent of his investment for im- provement. That would contemplate a minimum for improvements, upon which the Government would lend 75 per cent. Now, in the West, where many of these projects will be carried on, and I pre- sume the same conditions exist in the East to a more or less extent, $1,600 is not going to give a man a whole lot of improvements; but on his improvements alone he must have $400 before the Govern- ment will lend him the $1,200. Now, on his live stock and equipment the Government will lend him up to $800; that is the maximum that the Government will lend him, and that is 60 per cent, and if he uses his maximum he must have somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,350 for live stock and equipment, which is not a large amount for live stock and equipment. In other words, before he can borrow up to $800, he must have $500 of his own money. Now, I understood Secretary Lane to say yesterday that the land value of each of these allotments would be about $6,000. He must also have 5 per cent of that amount, which would be $300. If he goes in and erects $1,600 worth of im- provements, which is not a large amount for this purpose, and if he also buys $1,350 worth of live stock and equipment and pays his initial 5 per cent payment, he must have in the neighborhood of $1 .250 to make his start. Mr. Ferris touched on that subject yester- day when Secretary Lane was here, and Secretary Lane said that if the soldier worked on this project for a year, and had any gump- tion I believe that was the word he used he would have saved enough money to make his initial payment. Now, assuming that the soldier is paid $4 a day for his labor, which I believe would be a liberal payment, and he works 300 working days in the year, he would only have made during that year in all $1.200 ; whereas, in order to make his entry on this land he must have $1,250. Now, does not that go to the very workability of this project? Is it not requiring a little bit too much of the soldier; and I would also like to ask, in connection with that, how that compares in liberality with the pro- visions which the Canadian Government is making for its soldiers? Of course, I am asking these questions simply for information. Mr. MONDELL. The question raised by the interrogatory of the gentleman from California is primary. What is it that we are pro- posing to do? Are Ave proposing a bounty; are we proposing a gift; are we proposing a gratuity, or are we proposing helpful aid? The thought underlying this bill was that of helpful aid, and in granting that helpful aid there must be certain safeguards provided. The matter must be considered by starting out with the proposition that we are going to give real and effective helpful aid to the sol- dier; that we are going to do it in a very practical way; that we are not going to lead him up any blind alleys ; that we are not going to 58 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. promise him gratuities or make him presents. We hope to offer &. plan which will appeal to those who really desire a home and who are willing to make the effort that is required and always will be required anywhere on earth to get one. We have not overlooked the soldier, John Smith, who enters upon one of these enterprises without a penny. The average time required for the construction of one of these enterprises before the farms are ready or opened will not be less than two years. I think that in the majority of cases, where the work to be done is so extensive that the price will be con- siderable, it will be nearer three years than two years before the farms will be ready. Where the farms are ready more quickly than that, they will be in regions where the work to be done is of such a character that the cost will not be high. The Secretary has fixed $6,000 as the average cost of a farm, but in my thought on the bill I have had $5,000 in mind as the average, although it may run to $6,000. Let us bear in mind that there is also a provision under which a man can get a home on a small tract which will cost very much less than that, but we are speaking now of farms. John Smith begins at the beginning of the project, and, as suggested, at a wage of perhaps $4 per day. That will certainly be a very good wage, because we must remember that whatever the wage is, it must be eventually paid by these farmers, and therefore the wage should be fixed in view of the going wage, in view of the cost of living, and in view also of the fact that the man who receives it is the man who eventually must pay it. Within two years a man can certainly save on $4 per day, or even less, $250 or $300 if he has in prospect a home. If he is not inclined to do it, I doubt if he has the stuff in him to make a home. If a man is really in earnest about this thing, certainly he can save $1 per day out of a fair wage and in two years would amount to $600. Now, the initial payment of 5 per cent, which must be made in cash, would amount to" $250 on the average, or to $300 at the outside. So that John Smith, starting without a cent, working on that project, and having no friends from whom he can make a small loan, and having no property anywhere on which he can realize a penny and that is the unusual case, because almost every man has some little resources but, assuming that he has nothing, and that he works 18 months to 2 years and saves reasonably and he would not have to sacrifice to do that he would have at the end of 18 months or 2 years more than enough money to make the initial payment of 5 per cent on one of these tracts, which would amount to from $200 to $300, de- pending upon the size of the tract. It would not be more than $25 or $30 on one of the small farm worker's tracts. We then come to the buildings, which mean the house, a shed barn, and fencing. John Jones has bought his farm and is upon it ; if John is the right kind of a fellow, he can contribute labor in the digging of the postholes, in the setting of the fence posts, and the stringing of the wire. If he has even average skill, he can help to build the shed barn and help to construct, at least, the foundation of his house. If he is fairly skillful, he can help in the building of his house to meet his 20 per cent of the improvement payments. I think that it will be entirely possible in many localities to make the initial improvements for less than $1,600. Many a farmer has started and been very sue- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 59 cessful with buildings that cost less than that at the beginning. If this man and his wife have a house of two rooms, that will do for a few months at the start. We are not expecting these soldiers to go through with what most American pioneers have gone through in the beginning, but they can start modestly. Mi'. SMITH. I would like to suggest something that might be help- ful to you : On the Twin Falls project, which is the most prosperous irrigation project in the West, there are hundreds of those farmers who are living with their wives in one room, and they have been doing that for more than a year. Mr. MOXDELL. I began as a pioneer on a homestead in northwestern Iowa, and I have seen homesteaders in every western State and Ter- ritory in the Union. I have seen hundreds and thousands of home- steaderc in one-room sod houses that did not cost over ten or twenty dollars beyond what the man put in by his own labor. We are not expecting that these men shall start life in that way. We do not want them to. But I remember very well starting as a preemption settler on a tract in northwestern Nebraska in a house that was part sod and part frame house, and, I think, cost about $50 besides labor. And it was a comfortable house. In the first place, it will not nec- essarily cost $1,600 for the average man who has anything to start with. If he is a man with a family, he probably can borrow a few dollars from his wife's folks : or if he has the right kind of wife, she will help greatly. They do not have to have a fashionable bungalow at the start. I assume plans will be prepared by the service, a variety of plans covering all sorts of houses and barns, from a one or two room emergency home to the very fair bungalow farm homes. The men will have the benefit of these plans and of the specifications as to the lumber required, and they will have the benefit of wholesale buying of the material. Xow. a man wants a house and barn that will cost, perhaps, $1,000 or $1,200. He does not want to borrow more than six, seven, or eight hundred dollars, but he contracts himself to build that house according to those specifications for the sum that the Government advances, and the balance of the cost he pays in his own labor. Speaking about houses, I spent a night about a year ago in one of the temporary structures that the Reclamation Service builds for its engineers in charge of projects. The man and his wife and two small children were living in three rooms. Of course, they were not so big, but there were three rooms, a kitchen, dining room, sitting room, parlor, and bedroom combination. It was a perfectly comfortable place for that little family for the time. He was an engineer and expected to occupy it for two or three years while they were developing that project, and they told me that by buying the stuff wholesale the house cost $500. Xow, I do not claim, and no one who has had to do with the drafting of this bill claims, that there is anything sacred in these figures or in these percentages. It would be foolish to have any such idea as that, because that is only the opinion of a few men who had to do with these things, and I have taken their judgment very largely to work out a practical scheme that was within the reach of any man who was ambitious to have a home and who was willing to work for it. We were careful not to hold out hopes to the man who 60 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. simply wanted to realize on increasing values and who had no- thought of establishing himself on the soil and working for a home. Therefore, you may modify those provisions as you see fit, but those were the percentages and those were the sums that we arrived at after consultation with Mr. Mead and representatives of the Recla- mation Service who have some knowledge of the cost of temporary buildings, and gentlemen who have had to do with that sort of settlement improvements. Now. let us come to the third proposition. During the time that John Smith is purchasing his buildings or putting up his buildings there will be more or less trading in calves, chickens, and horses that are serviceable for farm work, but possibly not of the highest price in the country. There will be a bit of trading about among the folks and that sort of thing. Out of savings they will gather in a few chickens, a pig or two, a calf, or an old horse. I do not think that any fellow who is going to make a success of it will haA T e any difficulty in matching the Government's advance to him for live stock and machinery on the basis of f>0 per cent to 40 per cent. However, there is nothing sacred about those percentages. The thought was that when we got beyond the Hue where we gave the man an opportunity to buy a farm on very long-time payments and a low rate of interest, and then provided a plan for the erection of his building under which his own work would contribute in one way or another his share of that improvement, if he was the right sort of a man he would be able when he came forward for the live- stock and machinery loan to show a certain amount of stock which would make up his percentage of the aggregate value of the prop- erty on which the Government could be secured for its loan. Mr. ELSTON. Some of the projects would be on the cooperative basis, would they not, Mr. Mondell? The community or project might have so much live stock to do the heavy work. Is it contem- plated under this measure that they may do work in common on these projects? Mr. MONDELL. Undoubtedly the community could arrange for co- operative work in that direction. Remember, where it is essential the department can go forward under this law, not only to prepare a part of the farm for cultivation, but they may even plant the crop on a small acreage if the seeding season comes along just before the sale, and it seems advisable to have the seeding done in April or May for the man who is going to buy in June or July. That has been the practice frequently. While this bill does not specifically provide for that it undoubtedly would authorize its being done. Now, if the committee feels that the bill is not sufficiently liberal, of course it must exercise its best judgment in that regard. We have done the best we could. Mr. NICHOLS. Following up the thought presented and the figures offered by Mr. Barbour, are many of these farms to be located in the Middle West or East? Mr. MONDELL. Would you allow me in answering that question to say, first, that Mr. Barbour's question was based upon the assump- tion that the man in every case was going to demand the maximum and was going to get it, but, of course, Mr. Barbour did not assume in asking this question that every man in every case would have to HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 61 meet his percentages of that maximum in cash. He was asking the question, as it will be presented by men who want to know how it will work out. What I have been trying to point out is the fact that other than the original 5 per cent, which must be in cash, there is not another obligation that the man must meet that can not be met wholly through his own labor or through the means that he can accumulate at odd times or odd hours by his own labor. Mr. NICHOLS. I understand you to say that a man in the South would be able to save $1 per day for 300 days in the year. I want to ask you whether in the Middle West and in the East, where some of these projects will be located, a man will be able to work 300 days in the year? Would not the weather conditions in winter make a difference there? Mr. MONDELL. Of course there will be the winter season, and in some cases men will not be able to work all the year. Men who have a home ahead of them, who have the hope of a home, and the expectation or determination of getting one, will not have any trouble in meeting the conditions of this bill. Mr. BARBOUR. I did not ask my question with an idea of criti- cizing this bill. Mr. MONDELL. I understand that. You wanted to bring up that feature of it. Mr. BARBOUR. I wanted your view upon it, because I knew you had gone into the matter fully, and because that would be one of the first questions asked by anyone interested in one of these proj- ects. One of the first questions that he would ask would be what financial ability would be required, and I would like to be in a po- sition to answer that question. Mr. MONDELL. I do not know that I have answered it adequately. Mr. ELSTON. With regard to section 7 of the bill, in that section you provide against assignments, but you have made no provision here in case of the death of the settler or his disability. How would that be cared for? Would it pass to his heirs without any particular action, or, in case of permanent disability during the time he was performing the obligations of the contract, what would happen to him. Mr. MONDELL. The question that arises in my mind in reference to qualifying this discretion on the part of the Secretary is that it would be difficult to find an end to suggested qualifications of his discretion. I assumed, and, of course, we must all assume, that in carrying out a law of this kind, good judgment, a humanitarian view, and kindly purposes will rule. I should not think it conceiv- able that the Secretary would withhold the right of transfer in the case of death or permanent disability, or in other case where there were like hard conditions. Mr. ELSTON. There might be conditions under which the prop- erty might have to be sold at a sacrifice. I do not know whether the language giving the authority to sell is inclusive enough to permit him to act in a case of that kind. Mr. MONDELL. As a matter of fact, under language of this kind, the Secretary can say to everybody, "You can sell when you get ready or whenever you desire to sell." He can not sell without the authority of the Secretary, but the Secretary can grant that authority 62 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. just as broadly as lie wants to. There is no question about the Secre- tary's authority. There may be some question as to whether the Secretary would in all cases exercise his discretion wisely, and would allow a man to transfer in a case where he had presented considera- tions and conditions that would justify a transfer. It. might be in some cases difficult to persuade the Secretary as to the propriety or wisdom or necessity of making a transfer. Now, there is one more thought on that point: This very thing would be quite helpful to the man who wanted to sell in guarding him against people who might Avant to take advantage of his necessities by buying him out at a very small advance over what he had paid. The man who will primarily pass upon a question of this kind will be the man in charge of the project. The CHAIRMAN. Right there I want to call your attention to what Mr. Mead said on that same point in his summary. He gives a summary of the various laws in the English-speaking countries, and he states that in nearly all the acts, while the soldier is not legally required to maintain a residence, he can not lease his land or trans- fer it within a stated period. That is in line with the provisions of this bill. Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Now, just to finish the thought I had in mind : A man might be approached when he was in a condition de- manding the possession of some cash and be tempted to sell. Not being inclined to disclose that condition to his curious neighbors, he might be disposed to sell. I can readily understand how under those circumstances the right kind of man in charge of a project might be of some assistance to him in pointing out ways of relief or in sug- gesting that if he must sell and if the conditions were such as to Avar- rant his selling, he ought to get a better price than the offer that is made to him. He might assist the settler in that way very materially. Mr. SMITH. What Avould you think of the proposition of limiting these transfers to soldiers, so as to carry out your suggestion that only soldiers should be on these projects? Mr. MONDELL. That, of course, is a thought that is worthy of con- sideration. That is the situation in the reclamation projects ; that is, before a man has secured a limited patent by completing his term of residence, he can only transfer it to a man who is eligible under the law, or, in other words, to one AA T !IO is himself eligible as a home- steader. I think that thought is worthy of consideration. I think it is tremendously important that you should so guard this as to protect the men. It is for the protection of the men in the first place, and it is for the protection of the community in the second place, in order to prevent men who are not entitled to the benefits of this development from securing them, and to prevent the consoli- dation of lands into large areas. That is tremendously important. The CM AII; MAX. I Avant to ask you a question in reference to the language in section 7, at the bottom of page 4, beginning with the language, " No transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease made during that period shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary, and no transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease of any right, title, or in- terest held under a contract of sale shall be valid at any time without the approval of the Secretary." Now, that is absolute, and it seems to me that it is covered by the first part of the section. Why is it necessary to haA-e both of those clauses? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 63 Mr. MONDE!!,. Because the first prohibits the transfer even after the issuance of a deed. The second is that no transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease of any right, title, or interest held under a contract of sale shall be valid at any time without the approval of the Secre- tary. They are two entirely different things. First, we are prevent- ing the transfer of these lands without approval, even though all of the Government obligations shall be met, and the patent or deed shall be issued within 10 years. That first provision would have to be written in the patent or deed in order to make it effective ; the second applies to the contract of sale, and, of course, it would be a part of the contract -of sale. You can not very well combine those two things in the same statement. Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to ask whether this bill makes provi- sion for a shortage of crops or a failure of crops, which might easily occur and occasion loss to the soldiers, thus threatening them with a shortage of funds with which to go ahead with the next years' crops, all through no fault of their own, but because of a real shortage of crops in that section of the country? It seems to me that a man who was working on one of these schemes and who had gotten Gov- ernment advances, should be provided for in case there was a shortage of crops and he needed money for the continuation of the next year's crops, or, possibly, there might be a shortage in two crops. Mr. MONDELL. Your thought is that there should be some provision under which certain conditions a man might not be required to meet his payments? Mr. HERSMAN. And have further advances that it seems are pro- vided for in this bill. Mr. MONDELL. Of course, as we go along with the development of an enterprise like this we will see things that perhaps we ought to do; but meeting your last suggestion first there is a provision in the bill under which the Secretary, under regulations, fixes the con- ditions of payment. I do not think it is wise to attempt to outline or to limit the Secretary's discretion in that regard. You could easily say that upon the failure of crops the man would not have to pay, etc."; and then you would immediately have the question raised ten thousand times as to what constituted a failure of crops. I think that is a field which you must leave to the discretion of the Secretary. Let me say this with regard to the Reclamation Service. We have had some experience there. There is a very drastic pro- vision under the reclamation law under which a man can be abso- lutely closed out, receiving nothing for his payments. There is no such provision in this bill, and even under that drastic provision the discretion is such that there has been no complaint up to this time which has reached my ears of a man having been closed out on a reclamation project, and we have 24 of them in 17 different States. Now, that being true, under a provision which gives the Secretary the clear authority, and in a way makes it his duty to compel pay- ments, the matter of security and the matter of discretion under certain circumstances is left to the Secretary. I do not believe it would be wise to attempt to write into the law any language that would have the purpose of guiding that discretion, 'because writing in one condition under which the Secretary is advised, or it is sug- gested that he shall grant extensions, excludes other conditions which might arise that we did not happen to think of. 13331919 5 64 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HERSMAN. My idea or thought was to give the Secretary a larger discretion in advancing the money or to give him a further discretion. Mr. MONDELL. All the limit we have placed on him is that he can not advance over $800. He does not have to advance that all at one time. He can advance it at several times, and that has been one criticism of the bill criticizing it from the other direction. Mr. HERSMAN. Does he not have to take a mortgage on live stock for the $800? Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Mr. HERSMAN. Suppose the man has live stock but has not facili- ties for going ahead in other ways ? He may not have enough money to buy his food. Mr. MONDELL. We have tried to be businesslike, and yet not im- pose a condition that energetic, well-intentioned men can not meet. Of course, in the carrying out of a project of this kind, there will be innumerable questions of discretion, and the discretion is here lodged with the Secretary. Mr. BARBOUR. The question Mr. Hersman asked relative to a provision of that sort is one which is usually covered by a provision in contracts for the sale of land in California, but as you stated a moment ago, what constitutes a total failure of crop is always open to construction. Mr. MONDELL. The man might need a little time where there was only a partial failure of his crop much more than another man would need it where there was a total failure of his crop, because the other man might have some resources to fall back upon, whereas the man who has the partial failure might have none other than those he had to meet with what crops he had. I will say again that anything you gentlemen conclude is wise in detail in this matter I shall be very glad to give my assent to, possibly with reservations: but I doubt if it is wise to attempt to make suggestions with regard to that exercise of discretion which remains with the Secretary under the bill. Mr. HERSMAN. Of course, I am simply asking these questions in order to clarify the matter in my own mind. Mr. MONDELL. Yes. Of course, there may be many other condi- tions. There may be a fire and a man may have all his buildings burned down, or floods may destroy his buildings and stock. Many things may occur which will render it practically impossible for a man to meet his obligations on the dates fixed, and there must be a little leeway and there must be some discretion to give the man an opportunity to pull out. Now, that rests with the Secretary within reasonable limits. Mr. HERSEMAN. Is that discretion provided for in this bill? Mr. MONDELL. Unquestionably, there is a discretion because of the obligation of payment. Mr. HERSEMAN. No; but for further advances, in case these condi- tions do arise. That is what I was referring to. Mr. MONDELL. Of course, that is another matter entirely. Mr. HERSEMAN. How would we get at that, Mr. Mondell? Mr. MONDELL. Under this bill, there are certain things definitely fixed. First, the man must pay 5 per cent in cash on the cost of his HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 65 land. Second, the maximum which he can borrow for improvements is $1,200. Now, he may borrow it at one time or two times or three times, but lie can only borrow $1,200. He can borrow $800 for live stock and implements. He need not borrow it all at once but can borrow it when he needs it. Now, whether that is enough is a matter for you gentlemen to determine. The men who have had to do with these things believe that there should be a maximum, and most of them were of opinion that that maximum fixed was perhaps as high as we could safely go at the beginning, in starting upon this work. Mr. HERSEMAN. I would like to ask you one question right there, Mr. Mondell, and that is, would it not be wise to put in a provision here whereby the man carries insurance against accidents, so that in case an accident happened Mr. MONDELL, (interposing). That is another matter of discretion. i am assuming that the instrument under which the Government is protected will carry with it the usual provisions with regard to in- surance and all that sort of thing, but no man can insure his prop- erty for all that it is worth, and a total loss is never met by insurance, so that when I suggested as one of the things that might happen, a fire, that might burn his property, of course, I assumed the property would have to be insured, but no insurance covers total losses and it takes some time to collect insurance, and a man might be in position, by reason of a fire, whereby he would be unable to meet his obliga- tions in the immediate future. I am assuming that all those things that are ordinarily required in contracts of that sort and in taking se- curity for loans, all reasonable things, will be provided for under the administration of the Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Are you through, Mr. Mondell? Mr. MONDELL. I have just been discussing these matters because gentlemen wanted me to. Mr. SUMMERS. There is one question I would like to ask in refer- ence to the provision for short-time loans not to exceed $300 at any one time. Do the words " at any one time " mean until that loan has been repaid. Mr. MONDELL. I am inclined to think it does. That, in a way, of course, would meet the suggestion made by Mr. Hersman. I am in- clined to think that under the language as it stands, there might be successive loans, and of course you gentlemen want to determine whether that ought to be a provision of the law. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Mondell. Mr. MOM DELL. I thank you very much for having so patiently li.-tcned to me. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we ought to come to .some conclusion as to how long these hearings shall last. I have here a list of witnesses who desire to be heard, and perhaps some are only tentative. We have Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, and Gen. Cole, whom the Secretary of the Interior would like to have make a statement; Mr. Henry' Sterling, representing the American Federation of Labor, and Mr. Hernandez has a friend, and Mr. Smith has a friend who want to be heard. Mr. Atkeson, representing the National Grange, and Mr. Chamberlain, representing the Civic Betterments League, also desire to be heard. Mr. Chamberlain de- sires 15 minutes. Mr. Atkeson, would 15 minutes satisfy 3-011 ? bb HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. Mr. ATKESON. Less than 15 minutes. Mr. FERRIS. May I add a couple of names ? Mr. Hastings, a mem- ber of the House from my State, expressed a desire to come up here and say a few words on this bill, and also the governor of my State will be here next Monday afternoon on the Pennsylvania," and I would be glad if you would put him down to be heard. I was going to make another suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and it may require more time than you would want to take, and if it does, I will withdraw it. This legislation is naturally going to interest every one of the States, and they have already been consulted on the subject more or less through Secretary Lane's office, and they all have an interest in it. How much trouble would we get into, or would it not be in the interest of justice, if the chairman issued an invitation to each State delegation to pick out one member of the delegation, and have him come here and present the views of the delegation, where they are in harmony, in a statement not to exceed 15 minutes apiece. I make that suggestion for the reason that the Government is to appoint one of these commissioners to appraise the land, the Farm Loan Board is to appoint one of them, if this bill prevails, and the Secretary of the Interior one of them. It is to be allied with the States right from the start, and it must be. Your project is to be in the State and the governor helps to select the lands to be used for this purpose, and I was wondering if that might not be a tactful suggestion, in order to get the members of the different States to confer with their governors and confer with their delegations and at least give them an opportunity to come in and make a statement of 15 minutes. That would take, of course, perhaps two or three days. Mr. VAILE. That would probably save us some time on the floor of the House. Mr. FERRIS. I had that in mind. There are many members who have come to me and said, " What is this land bill for the soldiers that we have had so many letters about from down home," and I think if the chairman would issue an invitation to them by dele- gations and ask them to at once call their delegations together and select some one to present the views of the delegation, you would cement the interests of all the States and it would probably be help- ful on the floor of the House. The CHAIRMAN. It might enlist a good deal of active support, Mr. FERRIS. I think it would. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask Mr. Ferris if his suggestion is meant to apply to the States that have members on this committee I Mr. FERRIS. I think it should. The CHAIRMAN. It should apply to all States. Mr. FERRIS. I think it should. For instance, I could advise my State and you could advise Kansas, and Mr. Barbour could advise "his State, and we would confer with a view to allowing each State to have " its nose in the pot," so to speak, and I think you would enlist a lot of interest, and I think you would educate them up on the matter, or at least cause them to educate themselves, and we might get some very helpful suggestions. The CHAIKMAN. Would you think it necessary to invite the States already represented upon the committee? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 67 Mr. FERRIS. I would make it uniform, and if the members on the committee can be the judge on how he wants it handled from his State. If he wants to present it himself, all right, or he can have some one else do it. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, do you know whether this bill has been submitted by the (Secretary to the various governors or not, and whether he has conferred with them? The CHAIRMAN. He has conferred with them on the general propo- sition quite extensively, and I have a great many communications which the Secretary has transmitted to the committee from different governors indorsing the project. Mr. FERRIS. He has presented a lot of those things in connection with his report to the committee on the matter. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to hear from Mr. Cory on that. Mr. Cory is here representing the Secretary's office. Mr. CORY. I am the engineer in charge of the southern district of 16 Southern States. Every State, except Mr. Ferris's State, has appointed a committee, and I have sent copies of the bill to each of the committee members and to each committee, and have asked for .suggestions. I have heard from all of them, and they all have said that they are willing to come, but most of them say they have no appropriation, and if they come it will be money out of their own pockets, and it is a pretty far cry from here to Texas. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ferris does not propose to invite representa- tives from the States but Representatives from the House. Mr. CORY. Oh, that is another matter. These men are officially appointed by the governors to act officially in representing the States in this matter, and those men have all considered the bill and sent in their suggestions, and they have all said they would be very glad to come, but they have also added that unless it is necessary they would rather not come, because in most cases there" is no money available to pay their expenses. Mr. FERRIS. I did not suggest that we should bring them here be- cause I know that would mean a delay and an expense which the com- mittee would not want to have, but I think we could get these Con- gressmen here. Mr. CORY. That is entirely different, of course. Mr. FERRIS. Let me interrupt further to say that in reference to my own State, after I talked with you the other day and sent the telegram which you saw, I immediately got a telegram back from the governor saying that he would appoint anybody we wanted ap- pointed, and would cooperate to the fullest extent, and he is coming here himself. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask you about the situation in Missis- sippi. For a while the governor was very much opposed to this measure. Mr. CORY. I beg your pardon ; I should have explained that. The governor of Mississippi has not appointed a committee. A State- wide committee has been appointed by a State-wide meeting, and the chairman of that is the commissioner of agriculure, Mr. P. P. Garner, and I am in touch with him, and he is the one who wrote back. Mr. JOHNSON. I wanted to bring that to the knowledge of this committee because he is very antagonistic to it. 68 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. CORY. That is true. Mr. JOHNSON. And I have some amendments to offer to this bill in order to protect Mississippi's interests on that account. He is to name the appraisers under this bill and he declines to have anything to do with it. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, unless the chairman would prefer me not to dp it. I would move that it is the sense of the committee that our chairman, speaking for the committee, invite the several con- gressional delegations to select one member of their delegation to come here and make a statement not exceeding 15 minutes as to their viewpoint. Mr. GRAHAM. Will the gentleman withhold that motion for a mo- ment? I want to ask Mr. Cory a question. Mr. Cory, what associa- tion was it you spoke of that had been notified the Southern States Association? Mr. CORY. No; I said I am simply the engineer in charge of the 16 Southern States. Mr. GRAHAM. This is the question I asked the chairman and I do not think you covered it : Have the governors of all the States been communicated with in reference to this legislation ? Mr. CORY. I think the governors of all the States have been com- municated with about this legislation, but not directly with respect to this bill. Mr. CORY. I think the governors of all States have been commu- nicated with about this legislation not directly with respect to this bill, because, with the exception of Mississippi and Oklahoma, the governors have named delegates and commissions, and I have com- municated that bill to the chairman of the commission and not to the governors direct. Mr. GRAHAM. I wanted to know whether the governors of the various States knew the tenor and purport of this particular bill. If not, I think it would be highly advisable to confer with the gov- ernors of the various States about this particular bill. I know that so far as my own State is concerned there would be no opposition to it, but I have felt that I would like to communicate with the gover- nor of my State about this bill before it is reported out. Mr. FERRIS. I think this is the situation: Of course, bills covering this same subject were introduced in the last session of Congress by Mr. Taylor and others. Mr. Taylor's bill went before the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands at that time, and they had some hearings upon it. There was very Avide publicity given to it. Now. that was not this identical bill, but it was this identical subject. A hearing was had upon this same subject. I think the subject was sufficiently before them to give them a good idea of what we are doing here now, because this is almost the same bill. It is a modification of details rather than of substance. Mr. CORY. And right at the close of the last session of Congress there was a conference of the governors. Mr. FERRIS. It represents more a modification of details than of substance. Mr. CORY. Yes ; it is practically the same thing. Mr. FERRIS. The amounts may be different and some of (lie limita- tions are different, but it is in other respects practically the same bill. HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 69 Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to state, that while I have not done so before, I would like to have an opportunity to be heard upon the bill. This subject had considerable consideration by myself be- fore it came before the Committee on Irrigation, it is here in various forms, and while I dp not desire personally to take the time of the committee, I. would like to have the opportunity of being heard. I have never asked that before, although I introduced one of these bills. I would like to present my views on this legislation before the com- mittee, and to that end I would like to have about 30 minutes time before the committee gets through. The CHAIRMAN. I think you will have that opportunity, Judge Eaker. Mr. RAKER. Instead of talking on the amendments when they come up. there are some concrete ideas that have been discussed in various ways that might or might not assist the committee. I have been living in a part of the country where this work has been done for 40 years, and I have been working here in Congress for eight years. I have made it my business to investigate some of the features'of it. If I am not imposing upon the committee, I would like to have the opportunity to present those ideas to them. The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee will be glad to hear you. There is a motion before the committee, put by Mr. Ferris. (The motion being put, it was unanimously adopted.) STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS C. ATKESON, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY. The CHAIRMAN. Will you state whom you represent, Mr. Atkeson? Mr. ATKESON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, unfortunately I am rather at a disadvantage in not being very well this morning, and so less than 15 minutes will satisfy me. I represent officially the organization in this country known as the Patrons of Husbandry. Some of you, perhaps, have heard of it by the name " The Grange." This organization is 53 years old, and it is made up entirely of pro- ducing farmers and their families. It has lived long enough to have learned some things by experience and by age. If it has not learned anything in these 53 years, it ought to have been chloroformed a good many years ago. Now, this organization has throughout the country a membership of nearly 1,000,000. It is not making much noise; it is not socialistic; it is not bolshevistic; but it represents the solid, conservative, producing, every-day working farmers of the country from Maine to California, with less strength in the cotton-growing States than in any other section of the country, and with its largest membership in the State of New York, there being something like 140.000 members in that State. Xow, this organization or this national body, I might say is made up of subordinate organizations or neighborhood organizations, and they constitute county organizations through their representa- tives; and then they have State organizations and a national or- ganization. The national organization is made up by delegates from the various States. At its meeting in the city of Syracuse, N. Y., last November there were present about 3,000 representative farm- ers. They were not making much noise in the world, but they were the real thing the men who earned their bread by the sweat of their 70 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. brow; the men who represent a conservative, dependable part of America's citizenship. Now, in that annual meeting at Syracuse last November the question of Secretary Lane's plan for taking care of the soldiers came up, and it was discussed deliberately and dispas- sionately, with the deepest sort of patriotism, and with a desire to do all things that human ingenuity could suggest that were reason- able and defensible in the interest of the American soldiers who had saved civilization on the battle front in France. It was de- veloped that practically all the cities of the country and practically all the urban population were favorable to this proposition. I am not going into the details of Mr. Mondell's bill or any other specific proposition, but the country people or, the people on the farms, re- gard this plan in general as communistic, and we are not communists. Therefore they passed this brief resolution in reference to this proposition : Farms for soldiers: We oppose the proposed plan of reclaiming swamp and arid lands for returning soldiers as unsound, impracticable, and detrimental to the interests of the Nation and agriculture. There is an abundance of unteiwntee the effect of that. When you got west of the Mississippi it did not have that effect; but it practically paralyzed agriculture for nearly half a century. Mr. GRAHAM. What I am trying to get at is The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the homestead laws? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. What I am trying to get at is whether you think it was wrong to do that? Mr. ATKESON. I think it was wrong to break up one class of citizenship by the Government setting up competition. 76 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. GRAHAM. Then, if your association had been passing upon that, you would have opposed the homestead laws of 1863? Mr. ATKESON. We are opposed to wholesale homestead laws. Mr. GRAHAM. Well, would you have been opposed to the laws that were passed? Mr. ATKESON. It is just a question of whether you are going to set up competition at Government expense with any important ele- ment of its citizenship. Mr. GRAHAM. Of course, you appreciate that that was done largely on account of the services" that those men had rendered to their Government. Mr. ATKESON. Well, it was open to anybody. Mr. GRAHAM. And that element also enters into this legislation. Mr. ATKESON. All a man had to do was to be able to get out there, and, as somebody said. " while he was getting, get a plenty/' Mr. FERRIS. There were special courtesies accorded to soldiers that the ordinary citizen did not have. Mr. GRAHAM. I understand so. Mr. ATKESON. With three-fourths of the voters of this country living in the cities, the man on the farm don't have very much show. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atkeson, let 11:3 call your attention to this. The resolutions to which you have called our attention is preceded by this resolution passed at the meeting to which you have referred : Land tenantry: Land tenantry is increasing; farm ownership is concentrat- ing in the hands of wealthy land holders and abandoned farms are becoming too common. Legislation should be ('evised to encourage farm-home owning mid to discourage land speculation and tenantry. Mr. ATKESON. Isn't that sound? Mr. VAII.E. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Atkeson, let me ask you this question. You ap- pear to be opposed to this legislation which is intended to benefit the soldiers, and incidentally, to reduce the high cost of living to people who work for daily wages. What is your solution of the problem confronting the country when you have to pay 50 or CO cents for beefsteak and $12 and $15 a barrel for flour? What is your solution of that problem? Mr. ATKESON. I have not any solution, and no one else seems to have any, but this is a fact, and it covers more than half a century, the average farmer in this country, in order to make ends meet and make a living has worked from 12 to 15 hours a day and his chil- dren from 2 years of age to old age have worked about that many hours. Now, that has come to a sudden stop in this country. Farm hands are quitting on an eight-hour day and the farmers are now advocating the discontinuance of any labor on the part of their children under 16 years of age. and tliey will make an effort to stop every man's plow in the furrow at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. BARBOTJR. Have the farmers in your country tried the eight- hour day ? Mr. ATKESON. Oh, yes; we are doing that now on my farm down in West Virginia. Mr. BARBOUR. Is it working successfully? Mr. ATKESON. We are absolutely working on an eight-hour day. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 77 Mr. SUMMERS. Is it not a fact that the sons of those very farmers would very largely be the beneficiaries of this act? Mr. ATKESON. I do not think anybody 1 would be a beneficiary. I am here presenting this matter only in a representative capacity. My personal belief is that it would not hurt anybody very much, because the opportunity to get on a farm to the people' who V ant to get there is wide open, and we are inviting them to come in, and we are trying to prevent tenantry, and the safest part of our citi- zenship is the land-owning farmer citizenship, but we do not believe it should be brought about by direct Government donation. (Thereupon the committee adjourned until Saturday, May 31, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ox THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., Saturday, May 31, 1919. The committee this day met, Hon. N. J. Sinnott (chairman) pre- siding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will be in order. Mr. Chamberlain, the committee would be pleased to hear your statement. Tell the committee who you are and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF ME. HOYT CHAMBERLAIN, SECRETARY NATIONAL CIVIC BETTERMENT LEAGUE. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I represent the National Civic Betterment League, with an organization in 45 States, an organization whi ?h. as its name indicates, is working along broad lines of civic better- ment. I have been sent here by this organization to try to present one or two phases of this soldier's and sailor's settler act which, from the reflex of our members, appears to our organization to be extremely important. First, I wish to state that the attitude of this committee, the per- sonnel of this committee, has been one of great gratification. The interest shown, the desire to get at the facts, at the purposes of this bill, are to my mind an index of a searching, careful, broad act which \vill protect the interests of the Government as well as the proposed beneficiaries under the act. I will digress for one moment to express the surprise I experi- enced in this committee room on Thursday that the representative of a great national organization like the National Grange should put himself in an attitude so unfortunate, and I feel reflecting a misrep- resentation of what would be the attitude of most of the members of the grange if they had been knowing of the true import of this bill. Mr. Atkinson's statements might be taken seriously were they not, so manifestly absurd and contradictory. The attitude of Mr. Atkinson and the grange brings to mind a bunch of our men in Jack- hon County, Mo., who, after the coming of the local option law, started to form a cooperative bar. Everything went lovely until the question came up as to who should be barkeeper, and on that point there de- veloped some di'fference of opinion, so to keep peace in the organiza- tion they concluded to take a ballot as to who should be barkeeper, 78 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. and when the ballots were looked over each man had one vote. I can not help thinking if Mr. Atkinson had been a member of that cooperative association he would have gotten one vote, inasmuch as he was voting for himself, talking for himself from a narrow stand- point before this committee. One of the points which I wish to put stress on, and really it is hardly necessary before this committee, is the need, the urgency of the enactment of this legislation. These men are home again after an experience which has tried their souls. As quickly as the great harvests are over these men, a great many of them, probably more than 50 per cent of them, from the experience I have had and the personal contact with them in different parts of the country, are going to find themselves without employment in what has previously been their chosen vocations. Granting for the sake of argument that many of them will find temporary employment in the harvests, as quickly as that work is over they will find their way back to the larger places, where there is not the place for them. Doctors, lawyers, professional men find their practices dissipated, and they are unable to pick up where they left off. Clerks, various mechanics find themselves, and will find them- selves, out of employment, away from the conditions that they have been working under, and will look to this Congress, to this committee, to enact something which will give them the same kind of oppor- tunities which were given to the veterans of the Civil War, only we hope on broader and more comprehensive lines; by all means legis- lation which will give them employment away from the centers of population. And by personal conversation with hundreds of these men I find that they are desirous of getting back to the land in a practical way. The urgency of this legislation, whatever it shall be, is of the utmost importance, that these men may be put to work as quickly as possible. The other thing that I wish to speak to this committee about is the question of human interest. The civic conditions in the larger cities of this country are deplorable. The status in the larger cities is one of a political oligarchy which is dominated by a few men who use the men in the lower wards, in the wards of the cities where the population has not the opportunity, the advantages, to make its way ; for all practical purposes these political agencies prostitute them. From every standpoint and from the viewpoint of our league in par- ticular, which seeks to alleviate and better these civic conditions, these men should keep away from those places these population centers. It does not require any statement from me to emphasize the im- portance, and particularly for men who have come from the country, of urging and encouraging them in a practical way to get back to the environment of the country, where they can make their way under conditions which they have been raised in, just as fast as possible. I earnestly hope, and on behalf of the league I desire to express the confidence I feel, after having attended these hearings, that this committee of Congress will be fully equal to the responsibilities which are before them in this act, and put into force promptly, with- out delay, action which will permit very largely the solving of the unemployment in this country through the return of a large nuniluM- of men overseas. Gentlemen, I thank you. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 79 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chamberlain, will you give the committee some further information about your league its organization and membership ? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Our organization is one which works quietly. We avoid publicity and brass-band methods. Our members are largely made up of merchants, quite a sprinkling of professional men, clerical men and women, people who are thoughtful, who see the trend of events with reference to trouble which may ensue when enough people are unemployed. It has been aptly written that the idle brain is the devil's workshop. To keep a man busy is his salva- tion. The league has had, and is to-day having, cases dealing with abuses not only in cities but in large institutions which produce in an agricultural way on a large scale. For instance, we have not long ago had to deal with a situation with reference to the sugar-beet culture in Nebraska. There seemed to exist there a condition where, owing to there being but one market for the beets, the producers were almost required to sell for whatever was offered them for their prod- uct. The realization was entirely different from the promises held out to them. The conditions under which they were working and paid were represented to us to be very unsatisfactory. I am bound to state that when the conditions were brought to the attention of those in charge I think there was an honest effort made to relieve them. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chamberlain may have stated it, but I did not get it. What is your home? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. My home is at Kansas City. Mr. RAKER. What is your business? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Financial broker. Mr. RAKER. How long have you been in that business? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have been in that immediate line, so far as war conditions would permit, since 1905. Mr. RAKER. Before that were you ever a farmer? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have been a farmer, a practical farmer. Mr. TAYLOR. How old an organization is that and how extensive are its numbers? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It is altogether a voluntary organization, vol- untary, too, as to maintenance, money contributions. We have been working since 1897. Our organization to-day is more than 23 years old. I would state that judging from the total of our roll and we judge that by a review every three years of our lists and the check- ing up of correspondence which we have from members we have at this time in the neighborhood of 185,000 members. Mr. RAKER. Your business is to better conditions for laboring men in cities and city conditions generally? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. More especially in the cities and in the larger towns. Mr. RAKER. Its work has not been to go out into the country and make conditions for the country boy and girl better? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; that is also our business. Mr. RAKER. But you have not devoted much time to that? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not so much as to urban conditions. Mr. RAKER. Your idea I just took a little memorandum here was that legislation should be enacted for the purpose of giving the unemployed employment ; is that your theory of this bill ? 13331919 6 80 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Well, that is only the first thing. Our con- ception I do not know whether it is correct or not is that the bill is designed first to give employment to our returning service men and women, and then those men and women, being able, as I under- stand they will be under the terms of this act, to take their choice, their pick, of the different sites on which they may engage in the preparartory work, will be able to determine, when they are through with the preparatory labor, whether that particular district where they have been working, they are satisfied with. A great many peo- ple go to places, and after being there a short time do not like them. That is only natural, and we have felt I am speaking now for the organization, as their ideal has been reflected to me as its secre- tary that if the workers on the preparatory work proposed by the various projects under this bill should not be satisfied where they have been working, that they may go to some other project and be- come settlers, rather than the one with which they may have become dissatisfied for one reason or another. Mr. RAKER. It is not your theory that we are trying to enact legis- lation for the unemployed in this bill, is it? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. For the unemployed? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Soldiers and sailors. Mr. RAKER. Is it your purpose, is it your theory that we are trying to enact legislation to give all the soldiers, whether employed or not, a home? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Certainly, if they wish a home. Mr. RAKER. You would not have any objection to giving a man one of these places, one of these homes, and let him go and file on it and improve it, whether he worked on the project or notj would you? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not at all ; but we speak, first, of the problem of employment. Mr. RAKER. But I thought this bill was for the purpose of giving to the soldiers, those who participated in this war, some recogni- tion because of their service as American soldiers. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is also my understanding. Mr. TILLMAN. Incidentally, it would be employment, too? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. My understanding of the purpose of the act is to give employment to the unemployed service men, preferably. Mr. RAKER. Will you tell the committee how and what legisla- tion can be enacted whereby we can go into these cities and get these boys and girls out of the cities and get them out on the farm, when they have no inclination for farming; get them out on the farm and get them to work and make a home for themselves? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I will state this, that from the experience and contact I have had by correspondence and personally with thousands of our members, I find that there is abroad in this country a feeling of unrest. People are not satisfied. I am speaking now of working people, thoughtful, conservative working people. There is a feeling of dissatisfaction among them. This feeling, as regards existence at home during the absence of the heads of these families abroad, lias been greatly augmented, largely by reason of the high cost of livin.tr. Thousands of our correspondents our members believe that the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 81 time has come when, if they can with reasonable Government aid locate in a place or places climatically congenial, with a proper de- gree of care and instruction in farming and practical agriculture, they can find a greater measure of satisfaction under rural conditions than they can possibly do under the conditions existent to-day where, owing to the high cost of living, the average man working for a wage, by the time he has settled his living for a month, has done little more than swap dollars. Mr. BENHAM. You speak of the conditions from the standpoint of the laborer on the farm. Are you acquainted at the present time with labor conditions on the farm, that is as to the demand for it on the farm? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes ; I have been pretty close to that in the last two months especially in the last two months. Mr. BEXHAM. I have been for several years, and still am, and my observations are not in harmony with yours. Do you mean to leave the impression with this committee that men desiring to labor on the farm can not get employment 12 months in the year on the farm ? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I certainly do, for the most part. In the periods of great harvests in the West there is always a hue and cry raised a fear of loss of crops by reason of insufficient labor in the fields. It necessarily follows that to protect these crops a great in- flux of temporary labor is necessary. It naturally follows that when the harvests are made, there is no longer any need for that unusual influx of labor. Mr. BEXHAM. Is that a theory or a practical fact? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is a practical fact, to my knowledge, and I think that the Western Members, more especially, also I think that Illinois Members will perhaps bear this out, that there is always a great demand for extra labor at harvest periods. The CHARMAX. Gentlemen of the committee, if there are no fur- there questions to ask, we have with us Mr. Sterling, of the American Federation of Labor, who has to make a statement before another committee at a quarter past 11. STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY STERLING, LEGISLATIVE AGENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D C. The CHAIRMAN. State your name and tell the committee whom you represent. Mr. STERLING. My name is Henry Sterling. I am legislative agent for the American Federation of Labor. I am living just now in Washington. My original home is Boston. Mr. TAYLOR. How long have you occupied this position? Mr. STERLING. Since last August. I desire, Mr. Chairman, to read to you. first, the official declaration of the organization on this par- ticular point. In its reconstruction program it states : Legislation also should be enacted which will give the Nation's defenders the opportunity for easy and ready access to the land. Favorable inducements should be provided for them to enter agriculture an fl husbandry. The Govern- ment should assume responsibility for the allotment of such lands, and supply the necessary capital for its development and cultivation, with such safeguards as will protect both the Government and the discharged soldier and sailor. 82 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. You will note there, Mr. Chairman, that our point of view is, first of all, the soldier and his opportunity. Of course, we have also in view the matter of unemployment, which probably has been thrashed to death before your committee although I do not know whether it has or not. I assume it has to quite a degree. We are not deceived, Mr. Chairman, or carried away by any de- lusion that one hundred of very hundred soldiers desire to" become a farmer, or desire a country life, or anything of that kind, nor are we deceived into the idea that all of those in the cities, aside from soldiers and sailors, are enamored with country life. We believe they are in the cities because they want to be in the cities, because they en- joy its bright lights, its movies, and its close contact with humanity. Many of them came from the farm and do not want to go back. People in the cities are there because they want to be there and we are not deluded into the idea that all these returning soldiers are going to rush to the farm, or anything of that kind, but a careful study and investigation in the tenements in Boston, and the experi- ence of other nations, shows, Mr. Chairman, that out of those who are in cities, about 10 per cent of the workers whether they be soldiers or not 10 per cent of the workers do desire to take ad- vantage of some such opportunity as will afford them a foothold in the country districts and a chance to live a newer and a different and a better life. Xow, if to that 10 per cent among the soldiers Mr. Secretary Lane figures it might possibly be 50 per cent; I remember hearing him state those figures the other day when I was in here a few moments it might possibly reach a much higher per cent than 10 per cent, but, Mr. Chairman, the offer of that opportunity to all returning soldiers is what would give credit to the Union, to the (lovernment, to the people of this Xation. the bare offer of it, and, in so far as it is taken advantage of, we have a solution to that extent of the matter of employment for soldiers. It is not my belief that this is a solution for unemployment, this proposition. It is a relief for unemployment, Mr. Chairman. It is a relief to the general ranks of labor, because if only 10 per cent, the minimum number of soldiers, takes advantage of it, then there is the relief to the extent of at least 300,000 workers. Night before last, I think it was, I read in the evening papers the statement from the, Labor Department that in so many cities, and it stated the number of cities it occurs to me it was 30 cities there were 327,000 unem- ployed looking for work now. I am not going to stay on that point. Mr. SMELL. Did not that same statement say that the conditions were fast adjusting themselves and reaching a nearer level than they had in some time '. Mr. STERLING. They have been saying that since last Christmas. Mr. SNELL. I saw that statement, and if I remember correctly it said that the conditions were growing for the betterment of em- ployment all the time. Mr. STEELING. It said the conditions were much better than they were the week before. I remember that statement. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sterling, you have assumed that we have had considerable information on the matter of unemployment. The com- mittee lias had very little so far from anyone claiming to speak with absolute knowledge or precision on the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 83 Mr. STERLING. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to address myself to it, then, for a little while, merely only on this small excuse, that if we pass this bill and a certain number of soldiers go out there, it makes no difference whether it is a large number or whether it is a small number, the tendency is to relieve unemployment to a certain degree. This particular proposition or this method of dealing with the land question and the labor question, Mr. Chairman, is no new thing. You probably know that it has been more or less dealt with all over the world, but in New Zealand and small colonies it has been more thoroughly dealt with than in any other nation in the world, and I think that the facts of that situation that I can give you will be new to the committee. In 1892 and 1893, , in commenting on New Zealand, spoke of it as a country infested with tramps, with soup kitchens, and shelter sheds along the highways and byways, where he unemployed might sleep for a night. That is something we never heard of in this country, Mr. Chairman, that is a condition a little worse than we have ever known here. We have known of soup kitchens and mid- night bread lines, and things like that, but to erect shelter sheds along the highways where the unemployed might spend the night is a little further than we have ever gone. In 1893 the Government inaugurated a policy similar to this here, and followed it extensively and is doing it up to the present day. The Government bought lands, subdivided them, prepared and made roads and bridge and things like that, and offered the lands at cost price to the Government and easy terms to whoever desired to take them. After the man was given his allotment of land, he was given loans with which to till it. The CHAIRMAN. This is in New Zealand that you are speaking of? Mr. STERLING. This is in New Zealand, Mr. Chairman, in the be- ginning of 1893, and I want to tell the result of that policy. Mr. SNELL. How did they get title to this land? Did the govern- ment give them to them outright? Mr. STERLING. No, some of the titles were short-term leases, and some long-term leases, for 99 years, and soni3 were in fee simple. Mr. SMELL. How did these tramps and these fellows get the first initial start to buy these lai.ds? Mr. STERLING. It is not quite to be supposed that it was the actual tramps that took those places; it was other workers, and possibly the tramps took their jobs, but I am not sure about that. But it was simply a general bill, and the communities and those who wanted that kind of thing and could qualify had to have a few dollars to begin with in order to acquire title to the land. Mr. SXKLL. Were not the original land laws in that country en- tirely different from this country? Were not the lands, as a whole, owned by large estates, and they had to be divided, and there was no way of doing it unless the government did it? Mr. STERLING. That is largely true. Mr. SXELL. Is not that the absolute fact ? Mr. STERLING. It is largely true, but it was also true Mr. SNELL. Largely true? Is it not a fact ? Mr. STERLING. There was also a very large tract of wild land that never had been touched, that had not been acquired by any estates. 84 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. It is true that, following the English custom, English families were acquiring large blocks of territory and holding it together and using it for patrimony for the family later on. Mr. SNELL. But if you had the money to buy it you could not have gone in at that time and bought 100 acres of land, could you ? Mr. STERLING. You could not do it. Mr. SNELL. So the laws are entirely different in that country than they are here, under the conditions you are speaking about ? Mr. STERLING. The land there was more fully absorbed by such processes than it is here. Mr. SNELL. Was it not absolutely? Mr. STERLING. The conditions here, though, are just the same. Every piece of land that might be at all available to a returning soldier is absorbed and covered. No; it was not absolutely, but it was almost entirely so. Mr. SNELL, Mr. Sterling, perhaps you and I think differently. As 1 understood the conditions in New Zealand, the land was largely held in large tracts, and if you or I went over there and had the ir oney to buy it, we could not get title to 100 acres of land, and il was necessary to have some government action before a small landowner could ever get any land. In this country, if a man has the money, or had $5,000, he could buy 5 acres, 10 acres, 100 acres. It is all divided up into small holdings" now, but those were the land conditions existing in New Zealand in 1893. Mr. STERLING. Your statement is mainly true, but in the extreme way in which you put it it is not true. Mr. SNELL. In just what way is it not true? I would like to get information, if I am wrong. Mr. STERLING. There was an enormous number of these large estates. There was also considerable land to be bought in small com- munities at high prices. Now, as I was proceeding to state, Mr. Chairman, the government, through the right of eminent domain, took some of the estates. Some of them were purchased under ordi- nary negotiations. The first of them that was taken were called the escheated estate and was not taken under this particular clause or this particular method, but it consisted of about seventy or eighty thousand acres of land, and was operated by seventy or eighty servants, and had about seventy or eighty thousand head of cattle and sheep. The government bought it for a million and a quarter and divided it, and three years afterwards there was a population of 1.500 on the place, with churches and schools and stores and the usual amenities of life in a small community. Carrying out that policy, Mr. Chairman, for 20 years, with a country in the condition in which I have cited, in 1911, when the census was taken as they do there, they took a census of the un- employed, and the exact figure, as it lies in my mind, of all classes of unemployed in 1911 was 1.97 per cent of the workers, less than 2 per cent. In Massachusetts, where I was living at the time, Mr. Chairman, the percentage of employment appeared to be 10.4 per cent. When New Zealand had practically no unemployment this country had between three and four million of workers able to work and willing to work, eager to work, and needing to work, that could not find a job. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 85 Mr. SNELL. Let me ask you a question right here. Do you claim that all the people that are unemployed, classed as unemployed throughout this country, as the unemployed element, are eager, will- ing, and want to work? Mr. STERLING. Mr. Chairman, the condition of unemployment is the most demoralizing condition to the workers that we have in our civilization, not excepting even, I think, the drinking. It demoralizes them and makes them subservient to the habit of going without work, and soon grows into a reluctance to go to work, and that reluctance grows into a distaste for work. And this manner of unemployment, Mr. Chairman, out of some of the finest workmen that America has ever produced, has bred tramps that have infested the highways and railways. That is one of the indictments against unemployment, and that, I think, Mr. Congressman, should answer your question, should it not ? Mr. SNELL. Well, partly, but, of course, a large amount of the un- employment in this country has been caused by the people not want- ing work. I know that in various small villages, and in the village that I live in, there is always 15, 20, or 30 men standing on the street corner that you could not hire to work for more than one or two days in a week to save your life. Mr. STERLING. That statement, again, is so extreme that it is not accurate. Mr. SNELL. That applies to every small village in the country, and they are all listed as unemployed, and when you take that statement of 10 per cent and apply it to the whole country, that is a fairly ex- treme statement, I think. Mr. STERLING. The statement that unemployment is caused to any great extent by people who will not work is an extreme statement. Mr. SNELL. I would not say to a great extent, but to a considerable extent I claim it is so. Mr. STERLING. During the war, Mr. Chairman, when opportunities for work were very common in this country, in the State of Massa- chusetts the percentage of unemployment dropped to 1, 1.1, and 3. Now, Mr. Chairman, those are very significant figures. It means that in Massachusetts it was almost impossible to find a man who was not at work. The CHAIRMAN. That was during the war? Mr. STERLING. That was during the war, when the opportunities for work were so good, and it contradicts the Congressman's state- ment there. Mr. SNELL. We had a special law at that time that a man must work or fight, so a lot of these fellows went to work Mr. STERLING. There was some thought of passing a law, Mr. Chairman, at the behest of employers who desired to underpay men and put other conditions on them which they did not wish to' submit to, and if they refused to work, then the employers could notify the military and send them into the Army. That measure did not go through. Mr. Congressman ; so when you state that we had a law Mr. SNELL. Did they not have a society for general employment in this country ? Mr. STERLING. We had a law of that kind, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SNELL. I admit that statement is correct, but it was advertised all over the country that you must work or fight. 86 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. That was put into effect in a great many communities by State law. Mr. RAKER. Was not this the real, true situation, as resulted in my State ? % For many years, in 1896 and 1897, and many years along there, when the roads were infested with tramps, that during the war every community had a commission or board, a voluntary board, and no man could stay in the town two days but what they found a job for him, and if he did not take the job he had to get out. Is not that the true situation? Mr. STERLING. It is absolutely the fact that they had these things. Mr. RAKER. Not only these things, but did it not put these men to work, and is it not a fact that where before 15 or 20 would be around a little town of 1,500 inhabitants, that during the war you did not find a man that was not at work? From the time he landed in the town the people were after him and found a job for him, and if he did not go to work he had to go to some other place ? Mr. STERLING. They did that, and we know that in 1896 and 1897, along there, during those years when there were 4,000,000 of them that is to say, during the war there were opportunities of work, and if the man himself would not go to work the community would crowd him to go to work, and they all went to work ? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Sterling, what are the conditions now? Mr. STERLING. The conditions now are that in the country dis- tricts there are not enough men to fill the jobs on the farms; is that true ? Mr. SNELL. Absolutely, so far as I am able to find out. Mr. STERLING. In some city districts there are more workers than there are jobs, to the extent that the figures I gave to the Congress- man confirm. Mr. SNELL. In about 30 cities they claim there is a slight excess of labor. Mr. STERLING. In about 30 cities there were 300,000 men out of work. Mr. SNELL. How does that compare with the average year, the number of cities having an excess of labor ? Mr. STERLING. I have the unemployment statement, Mr. Chairman, here, since March 31, 1909, and rather than read all those figures in percentages, for the information of the committee, if you desire I will leave the pamphlet with you. The CHAIRMAN. On what page is that data? Mr. STERLING. It is on page 10. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be printed in the record. Mr. STERLING. The following comparative statement shows the number at the close of each quarter since 1908. (The matter referred to is as follows:) [Employment Dec. 31, 1918 ; p. 10.] III. UNEMPLOYMENT OF ORGANIZED WAGE EARNERS. The following comparative statement shows the number and membership of the organizations reporting at the close of each quarter since 1!X)S. also the. number of members unemployed and the corresponding percentages. For the purpose of emphasizing the comparisons the data for the close of the fourth nnarter in each year are printed in full-face tj'pe. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 87 TABLE 3. Unemployment of organized wage earners. Quarters ending Number reporting. Unemployed, all causes. Unemployed owing to lack or work or ma- terial. Unions. Member- ship. Members. Percent- ages. Members. Percent- ages. Mar 31 1909 777 780 797 830 837 841 845 862 889 897 975 905 942 974 972 994 1,022 1,037 1,059 1,081 1,082 1,095 1,010 1,024 1,076 1,092 1,052 1,026 1.029 1,017 1,021 1,039 1,042 979 1,077 1,093 1,226 1,093 1,133 1,112 105,059 105,944 113,464 107, 689 117,082 121,849 118,781 122,621 122,002 135,202 133,540 125,484 161,825 134, 940 14o,673 174,359 170, 970 172,343 177,267 178, 182 173,327 183,202 166,816 165, 762 171,997 162,315 175,754 168, 122 178,434 173, 179 180,557 171,877 194,211 165,529 195,309 201,404 228,867 212,181 227,286 221,005 11,997 6,736 5,451 10,084 8,262 8,518 6,624 12,517 12,738 8,927 7,527 12,167 22,738 7,088 6,952 15,914 19, 329 11,116 12,010 18,574 22,347 18,122 18,302 30,258 . 28,486 17,262 12,328 14,389 15,484 7,358 7,046 10,313 14,271 13,846 10,866 14,900 13,843 6,324 13,637 20,981 11.4 6.4 4.8 9.4 7.1 7.0 5.6 10.2 10.4 6.6 5.6 . 9.7 '14.1 5.3 4.7 9.1 11.3 6.4 6.8 10.4 12.9 9.9 11.0 18.3 16.6 10.6 7.0 8.6 8.6 4.2 3.9 6.0 7.3 8.4 5.6 7.4 6.0 3.0 '6.0 9.5 9,980 4,913 3,873 5,248 6,186 6,570 4,687 8,938 9,120 5,669 4,904 7,568 8,185 4,540 4,407 11,164 12,493 7,473 7,537 13,069 15,917 12,576 14,140 24,629 21,951 12,241 6,325 6,709 7,010 2,323 3,358 4,708 7,193 5,849 5237 7,131 6,970 2,094 2,486 11,629 9.5 4.6 3.4 4.9 5.3 5.4 4.0 7.3 7.5 4.2 3.7 6.0 5.1 3.4 3.0 6.4 7.3 4.3 4,3 7.3 9.2 6.9 8.5 14.9 12.8 7.6 3.6 4.0 3.9 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.7 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.0 1.0 1.1 5.3 June 30 1909 Sept. 30, 1909 Dec 31 1909 Mar 31 1910 June 30. 1910 Sept 39 1910 . . Dec 31 1910 Mar.31,1911 June 30 1911 Sept 30 1911 Dec 30 1911 l Mar 30 1912 l ... . June 29 1912 l Sept 30 1912 Dec 31 1912 Mar 31 1913 June 30 1913 Sept. 30. 1913 Dec 31 1913 Mar 31 1914 June 30 1914 Scpi :j') 1914 .... Dec 31 1914 Mar 31 1915 June 30 1915 Sept 3'J 1915 Dec 31 1915 Mar 31 1916 June 30 1916 Sept :S' 1916 Dee. so'wie 1 Mar 31 1917 Sept. 29, 19171 Dec.31,1917 Mar 30 1918 ' June 29 191S ' Sept. 30 1918 Dec.31,1918 i As the last day of this quarter fell on Sunday, the previous day was taken as the date for whijh infor- mation was requested. 1 The percentage (14.1) was unusually high because the number reported as unemployed included over 9,000 organized textile workers in Lowell who were involved in a strike pending on Mar. 30, 1912. Exclusive of members who were ill with influenza, the percentage unemployed for all causes would have been less than 3. According to returns received from 1,112 labor organizations in Massa- chusetts at the close of December, 1918. representing 221.005 members, 9.5 per cent of the total membership were unemployed for all causes, as compared with G.O per cent at the close of September, 1918, and with 7.4 per cent at the close of December. 1917. A large number of those who were reported as un- employed at the close of the quarter were absent from work because of Influenza, but the number absent for this cause was far less than at the close of September when the epidemic was at its height in Massachusetts. Mr. RAKER. Might I just ask a question right there? You have made the statement to the committee, and you have given this matter a, lot of thought, and it will be of value to' the committee, that in the country districts all over the Nation there is a scarcity of labor and 88 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. in the cities there is a surplus. Now, as the conditions exist now, what is your remedy for getting those fellows out of the city on to the farms, and in the country? Mr. STERLING. Mr. Chairman, that is substantially the question which the Congressman asked of the previous speaker. It is to-day an exceedingly large problem in civilization. The population is tending toward the cities all over the world, and the cities are be- coming congested all over the world, and the country districts are becoming more or less depopulated all over the world. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in coming here was to urge that you pass this bill so as to give every soldier the opportunity, as a recogni- tion of his service, and incidentally I desire to say that it would be of some value to the community as a whole, it would be of some value, though not a great deal, in' solving this problem which the gentle- man propounded. I have a theory, Mr. Congressman, as to the ultimate solution, the ultimate answer to the question which you have put, but such a theory involves sharp points and corners and angles, and would raise a lot of discussion on the floor the same as I have been in this morning on disputed points, and I do not want to get away from the better thing and the urgency and the desire that I have that you pass the bill in order to give the soldier and sailor this opportunity, utterly regardless of whether it is going to be of benefit to anybody else or not. It is true at the same time that they will not all take advantage of it, but they will all have the opportunity if you pass the bill, Mr. Chairman, and maybe in later years many who would perhaps reject with some contempt the proposition to-day, perhaps in many years to come, when harder times come to them, if they do come, they will be glad then to take the opportunity. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Sterling, can you say that you represent the American Federation of Labor, and that the American Federation of Labor, from one end of this country to the other, is in favor of this measure ? Mr. STERLING. Mr. Chairman, there is a question that I was asked day before yesterday before a committee. I was there officially, rep- ' resenting the American Federation of Labor. In its annual conven- tion and in many other meetings it had taken specific action and had resolved in favor of the proposition, in favor of our daylight saving. Yet there were Congressmen there present who had from their dis- tricts certain resolutions passed by certain labor organizations in their districts. Now, our organization consists of 3,500,000 men. It is entirely a voluntary organization, the most democratic organi- zation on the face of the earth. They meet in official session, and they adopt these resolutions, perhaps one resolution or another reso- lution on the matter, and sometimes they express the absolutely unan- imous opinion of practically every member in the organization, and sometimes, as on the daylight-saving proposition and ,on women suf- frage, they express the majority feeling, where there is a vast differ- ence of opinion, both individual and in the organization. Mr. TAYLOR. What do you want this committee to understand, that you do represent the organization, or that you do not ; that you repre-, sent the Federation or what? Mr. STERLING. I represent the organization, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of the questions on which. <-'0 far as wo know, ilioro is a 1 )- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 89 solutely no division of opinion whatsoever. So far as we can state at this moment, it has been properly and officially adopted, and so far as we can tell or we have had any notice of, from one end of the country to the other the three and a half million members are unani- mously in favor of it. That is the strongest indorsement I can give you from the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Chairman, I came to win the good will of the committee in behalf of the measure. I want to make as pleasing and strong an im- pression as I can in behalf of that particular measure. You will bear me out when I state that I used my utmost endeavor to avoid con- troverted points, especially when they did not bear on this particular measure. I tried to present the facts in regard to unemployment, in so far as it may be of interest in this measure. I have given the official declaration of the American Federation of Labor. I have in- dicated to you that another country has tried this out thoroughly since 1893 and has made an enormous success of it, Mr. Chairman, keeping unemployment down to the lowest possible limit. Mr. SMITH. Has your organization taken any steps to ascertain the probable proportion of the soldiers who would want to take advan- tage of the law ? Mr. STERLING. We have not, Mr. Chairman. We felt that it was the proper thing to do to offer the opportunity to all. We felt that they were entitled to it for their service. You know probably, Mr. Chairman, or if you do not know, you had better ask Mr. Lane to give you the facts, as to how much better opportunities Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and England are giving to their returning soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. We have that in the record. Mr. STERLING. I thought possibly you would have, so I did not allude to it before. Mr. BARBOUR. The question has been raised here as to the extent to which the American Federation of Labor has indorsed this propo- sition. Mr. STERLING. I have read you the indorsement. Mr. BARBOUR. That is from the legislative program of reconstruc- tion adopted by the American Federation of Labor. Was that in- dorsed by the general convention, or by different resolutions? Mr. STERLING. This proposition, Mr. (Chairman, as perhaps you will remember and as your committee knows, was brought in first in 1915 and applied to the soldiers when they returned, by the Department of Labor, and the suggestion in the bill at that time was that that project be handled by three Secretaries of the Department of Labor, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. Within the past year Secretary Lane, with his exuberant vigor, has assumed it all to his department, and as it came from the Labor De- partment originally it was a labor proposition, a labor suggestion, indorsed by the convention and urged for passage, before Mr. Lane and his bill were heard of. I came here to urge the passage of Mr. Lane's bill, because we de- sire the thing, no matter who gets it through, or no matter who han- dles it after it is through. So I came to this committee to urge the passage of this present bill. Mr. FERRIS. Have they taken action other than the paragraph read from the report? 90 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. STERLING. I was trying to answer almost that identical ques- tion to the gentleman. I said to the gentleman that this proposition as it is embodied in Mr. Lane's bill, with small variations, was em- bodied in a bill that was brought in at the suggestion of the Depart- ment of Labor in 1915, and at that time it was officially indorsed by the convention itself. Mr. FERRIS. A concrete bill, was it, at that time ? Mr. STERLING. A concrete bill. Mr. FERRIS. Tracking this scheme verly closely? Mr. STERLING. With this identical proposition worked out, with small differences in detail only. Mr. TILLMAN. We had not gotten in the war until 1917. Mr. STERLING. Nevertheless that problem was brought in in that way. If the committee desires, Mr. Chairman, I can get you the number of the bill later on. It has passed out of my mind at the present time. Mr. FERRIS. Was a written resolution passed at that time regarding the plan similar to this one ? Mr. STERLING. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Are those written resolutions available? Mr. STERLING. Yes, sir; I have no c'ciibt they are available. Mr. FERRIS. Would you mind getting them and supplying them for the record as a part of your statement, so we will see just what action was taken ? Mr. STERLING. Governing that bill, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SMITH. The bill at that time was general in its character and did not apply to returning soldiers exclusively, because we had not at that time entered the war and did not have any returning soldier*. Mr. STERLING. I think the gentleman is correct. Mr. FERRIS. Then, other than the paragraph read, other than the recommendation in behalf of this general bill in 1915. you have taken no action that has been reduced to writing in a formal resolution? Mr. STERLING. Not so far as I know. It could not very well come up at the last year's convention in June. Mr. FERRIS: Was any action taken on the bill introduced by Mr. Taylor in the last session of Congress, covering Secretary Lane's plan ? Mr. STERLING. I was just saying I did not think it was possible to do so. Mr. TAYLOR. I think I have letters on that, which I have turned over to my successor, I think, from the American Federation of Labor, indorsing that bill I mean, indorsing the policy. I was chairman of that committee. I think there is a world of that mate- rial there indorsing this measure, by not only the Federation itself, but by a great many subordinate labor organizations. Mr. STERLING. There is an ocean of it. I understood his question to refer categorically to just what the convention itself had done. Am I right? Mr. FERRIS. That is what I want to get at. Mr. STERLING. I do not think the convention last year did anything at all about it, because in this present form it had just been intro- duced and had not been discussed, and did not come to their knowl- edge. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 91 The CHAIRMAN. Is that the bill that represents the view of the Department of Labor, known as the Grosser bill? Mr. STERLING. That is one of them, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. That is the bill representing the ideas of the De- partment of Labor? Mr. STERLING. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. That was not confined to soldiers, at all. Mr. STERLING. Last year Clyde Kelly brought in a bill which was supposed to represent the ideas of the Department of Labor at that time, and I was instructed to appear in favor of that bill, which I did. Mr. FERRIS. Neither of those bills was confined to soldiers at that time? Mr. STERLING. Xo ; they were not. Mr. FERRIS. Is it your opinion, now, Mr. Sterling, in the face of the large number of soldiers returning, that this bill should be a bill for soldiers, or a general bill? Mr. STERLING. That is another embarrassing question. Mr. Chair- man, in the ultimate, in the finality, this opportunity should apply to all the workers in the land at this moment. I am urging your committee to pass a bill through, having it apply only to returning soldiers. AVhat the future will develop on that, Mr. Chairman, I have no idea whatsoever, and I would rather not complicate it with the advocacy of this bill at this time. Mr. FERRIS. But would not the soldiers, by reason of their recent services, and such distinguished services, be entitled to a preference at this time ? Mr. STERLING. More than a preference, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FERRIS. Are we not proceeding along the right lines to have this bill confined at this time to the soldiers and sailors ? Mr. STERLING. I would not want to say it quite so strongly as that. Mr. FERRIS. How would you put it ? Mr. STERLING. I would put it as I did before, that I am here urg- ing the passage of this bill, knowing that it applies only to the sol- diers, and I am trying to avoid any discussion as to whether in the future it should be broadened out to apply to all workers. Mr. MATS. You would not tie up the land indefinitely if there were not soldiers enough to take it all ? Mr. STERLING. I do not quite see the bearing of your question. Mr. MAYS. If you had the project and not enough soldiers applied for the land, would you then open it to other people? Mr. STERLING. I should then come back to Congress and ask for further legislation, remembering this, Mr. Chairman, that its appli- cation as to all workers has been already construed by the various courts in the country, not only to State constitutions, but to the Fed- eral Constitution. Mr. FERRIS. You said a moment ago that your organization had made no effort to ascertain or take any sounding of opinion of the soldiers as to what percentage would take advantage of this? Mr. STERLING. No. Mr. FERRIS. Have you any opinion on the subject at all? Mr. STERLING. My opinion is expressed in my remarks, that a minimum of 10 per cent would take advantage of it. 92 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. That would be how many soldiers ? Mr. STERLING. I understand that in the service, including sol- diers, sailors, and, all, there were over 4,000,000, so that you would have 400,000. Now, I say a minimum of 10 per cent. Secretary Lam* gave you other figures the other day. Mr. FERRIS. He gave 16 per cent. Has your organization made any estimate of what they think the Government ought to expend on each one of these proposed homesteads? Mr. STERLING. No. Mr. FERRIS. Did you hear Secretary Lane's statement the other day about $6,000 ? Mr. STERLING. $6,000 on each farm ? Mr. FERRIS. That was Secretary Lane's statement in regard to the amount that would be necessary to buy it and make it habitable. Mr. STERLING. That sounds to me pretty high; but it is interesting to know that in Massachusetts and I do not know about other States but in Massachusetts the average value of each farm is al- most exactly $6,000. Those are the official figures. Mr. FERRIS. Does that include the live stock and improvements, too? Mr. STERLING. That is simply the farm as it stood. I judge it included the live stock also. I was astonished to learn that fact, and Avent over the figures, and went to the tax commissioner's office and also to the Secretary of Agriculture, and I was astonished to find that the value of each farm was $6,000. I would have thought about $3,500 or $4,500. Mr. RAKER. Are you familiar with the land-settlement act of Australia and its workings? Mr. STERLING. I can not say that I am now, Mr. Congressman. I made a careful and exhaustive study of that question, but it has been about six years ago since I went over it, and because New Zea- land was so striking it stayed in my mind. Mr. RAKER. And the same would be true with reference to the California land settlement act that you are not familiar with its provisions and workings? Mr. STERLING. That was only a few years ago, and my only in- formation is in listening to in regard to that matter. That is the only source of information I have in regard to that matter. I have tried to keep track of it to that extent. Mr. FERRIS. In regard to the state of mind of the ordinary soldier who has been employed at inside positions and has been employed in large cities, accustomed to city life, do you anticipate any dangers regarding the practicability of getting those men out on these farms *. Mr. STERLING. I anticipate that a few of them desire to get out of doors and get out of the shops. I know a great number of skilled mechanics who are getting high wages, who are longing, pining for the opportunity to get out of doors and live out of doors instead of living in shops between four walls. Mr. FERRIS. Is it your thought that a large per cent of men who have been engaged in that sort of work and who even have longing to ffo on the farm would actually make a success of it? Mr. STERLING. I should expect that some of them would get sick and tired after two or three years, but if that farm was so established and the man got sick and tired of it and went back to the city some- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 93 body else would take his place, and so the relief would be just the same whether he stayed or did not stay. Mr. FERRIS. It would at least result in the improvement of that particular area; it would increase the production at least, would it not? Mr. STERLING. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. It could not result in a total failure, even though the man who now thought in his mind that he would like to get away from the crowded centers and go out there, became homesick, and went back ; it would not be a total loss. Mr. STERLING. That is the idea. The comment of the gentleman reminds me of another thing in regard to New Zealand that I would like to have in the record. In 1911, when that low unemployment percentage was made, they had a commission to examine into the increasing cost of living if you believe me they had a commission to examine into the increasing cost of living when the increase was only 8 per cent, and at that same moment our increase was from 45 to 55 per cent, and since that it has gone up over 100 per cent, and it is a further fact that these people going out to these small places like that will keep down the increasing cost of living. Mr. FERRIS. Did you hear Mr. Atkinson's statement here? Mr. STERLING. I did not hear it ; I read about it in the newspapers. I had a little comment to make on that subject, but I want to keep away from those things if I can ?nd be just as good as I possibly can before the committee. I want the bill, Mr. Chairman, that is the idea. The CHAIRMAN. For the benefit of the committee I want to state that the town in which I was born in Oregon had large railroad shops when they started to homestead that section of the country, and a great number of the homesteads were taken by the boiler makers, machinists, blacksmiths, and carpenters, and others working there in the shops. Mr. STERLING. My belief is, speaking by and large, that those who will take advantage of this will be close to 10 per cent. Mr. RAKER. Is it not a fact that those men made a success on the farm ? The CHAIRMAN. They were successful farmers, and their sons are to-day. Mr. RAKER. I want to get that in the record so there will be no misunderstanding, that men of this kind can go on farms and make successful farmers. Mr. STERLING. I think with the aid of the Government of the United States and the aid of books and experience they will some- times make more successful farmers than some one who has been generations on the soil, who has only his experience. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement. Mr. STERLING. I beg leave to thank the committee for their kind attention and courtesy, and I ask you for the bill. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. TIMBERLAKE. A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I regret very much that it has not been possible for me to be in 94 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. attendance upon the hearings so that I might have heard the argu- ments that have been made. The CHAIRMAN. That is a mutual regret with all the members of the committee and yourself. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I did not think it would be necessary for me to appear before this committee to present views, as I understood them to be, from Colorado with reference to this measure. I felt that we were ably represented by two members on this committee, Mr. Vaile, representing the Denver district, and l^r. Taylor, one of the other districts of Colorado, but I was very glad of the invitation to appear before you and simply voice my sentiment with reference to the general provisions of this bill. I have been so very busy that I have not had time to take up the bill and analyze all its provisions, but I want to say that, in the general terms, I am in hearty sympathy with the general purposes of the bill. It has been my privilege to hear on two occasions this matter very fully discussed by the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane. I was deeply impressed by what he said of the necessity for some- thing of thi's kind. I have long thought that the General Govern- ment, even before it was thought to be necessary to be taken up on account of furnishing homes to our returning soldiers, should take up some plan of this kind for the development of undeveloped portions of this country, as evidenced in certain States, from lands that could be reclaimed and made valuable by a system of drainage, other lands that could be reclaimed among the best lands that we have in this country by the induction of water drains. I have not had personal acquaintance with reference to the conditions that exist in the eastern part of the country, in the stump lands that have been cut over and the same kind of lands in the South, but I have always felt that the Government would be absolutely justified in loaning money to have these lands developed, which would come back to it finally in the full payment of the principal and the interest and the additional benefit of having brought under cultiva- tion and improvement widely extended areas of our country that to-day are undeveloped. I do not presume that this is any time that you want to consider special projects. I w r ant to ask if the committee has information as to how many States have made appropriations through their legislatures, to supplement any action the Federal Government has taken? Do you know, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. We are having that prepared for the benefit of the committee, a statement of that, Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I think Colorado appropriated $100,000, or more than that. Mr. TAYLOR. I think it is a sliding amount and that our legisla- ture gave quite a large discretion to the governor or some com- mission to cooperate with the Government of the United States in whatever we did or wanted to do. Mr. VAILE. I do not know the amount. The CHAIRMAN. It is in Secretary Lane's report. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I understood there had been an appropriation made by a great many of the States, and recently in Colorado I took the time to discuss this question with a great many people. I discussed it with the chambers of commerce and the boards of HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 95 trade in seven or eight different cities there and I found the general sentiment very much in favor of some method of this kind to provide homes for our returning soldiers. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Timberlake, is there any sentiment in Colorado among the farmers that would be hostile to this legislation? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I did not find any. Mr. ELSTON. You are a farmer yourself, Mr. Timberlake. are you not. or you are partly employed in farming? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. All of my interests in life are in agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Timberlake. there was some reference made the other day to the failure of irrigation in Colorado, and while this is not an irrigation bill, strictly speaking, you have had ex- perience in irrigation in Colorado and know something about the success or failure of irrigation in that State. Can you briefly refer to that ? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. "Well, irrigation in Colorado is a decided success. Simv I have been residing there, which has been since 1885. I have seen it irrigated and reduced to a very successful agricultural State. I could best illustrate that possibly by recounting one project. In company with 20 others in my home town of Sterling, realizing that we had a stretch of country there which w r as table-land, as rich as any lands in any country, but which were uncertain for agriculture without water, we determined to bring water to them. There was no way to do this except by a ditch, taking the water from the South Platte ditch, 65 miles above, where these lands were located, and that, water had to be brought through a ditch 65 miles long, as \ said, running almost entirely through- the sand hill country. These men made their survey. The General Government, as possi- bty some of you gentlemen know, had sent their engineers into that territory to determine the feasibility of a Federal reclamation proj- ect. They spent a good deal of money and they spent a year's time with their engineers in surveying. They reported not feasible on account of the fact that this ditch was so long and had to be taken through the sand hill territory, and recommended against it, and the Government turned the project down. We had confidence that it was entirely feasible and were willing to spend our money in mak- ing surveys and getting the project started and it was taken up as a State proposition, plans formulated, and steps taken for its develop- ment. We sold -2- bonds and built our reservoir and ditch. To-day it is one of the brightest spots in Colorado. There are 80,000 acres that when brought under irrigation will be lands that will bring from $150 to $350 per acre. To-day, as for six years, there are 45,000 acres under irrigation, fully irrigated, producing the finest crops you ever >a\v alfalfa and of grains and within four years more all of this 80,000 acres will have been reclaimed. The project is an entire success. Mr. YAILE. In reference to the failure of irrigation in Colorado, in Mr. Taylor's district, I think as he is here at the present time, possibly he can later tell us about abandoned farms there. Mr. TAYLOR. Who said anything about abandoned farms? Mr. VAILE. Mr. Atkeson. I tried to defend that valley. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I know you are busy with this thing and have a great many here you want to hear. I 'did not propose to take the 133319 19 7 96 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. time of the committee in going over the separate provisions of the bill. Mr. VAILE. There are some I have noticed that ought to be consid- ered, it seems to me, very carefully. Mr. TAYLOR. Is it your opinion that this bill will be accepted by the soldiers? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I saw a statement by a former Representative here that the soldiers do not care for any of this land or swamp land or some other land, and they were not looking for gratuities: they want to have an even chance. My understanding is that this bill is acceptable. Mr. RAKER. Who made the statement ; where did it come from ? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Mr Lundeen. out at Arlington yesterday. Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't catch that. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. He said the soldiers in Minnesota didn't want any special privileges or gratuities: that he did not think any of them would avail themselves of the opportunity to get swamp lands or cut-over lands. Mr. TAYLOR. The position of Colorado is that this great develop- ment is not only for the country, but it is proper also for the return- ing soldiers; it can be combined together. It is a great constructive measure, a humane measure, and beneficial to the returning soldier especially. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I can say that that is the view that I found. Mr. TAYLOR. You were one of the Colorado homesteaders your>elf '. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I homesteaded in Colorado in 1885. Mr. FERRIS. Do you not know anything about the farmers' views on this? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Wherever I went they favor it. Mr. FERRIS. The American Federation of Labor do you know what their attitude is in Colorado? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I have heard that it was not very favorable, but personally I do not. Mr. FERRIS. Their secretary came here to-day before you appeared, Mr. Sterling, and he thought they were pretty generally for it. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. He did. I understand the National Grange offi- cers, the Grange, had appeared here and expressed opposition. Mr. FERRIS. They did, but there have been others here who have expressed themselves favorably. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I have a great many members of the Grange in my district. I talked with not only the officials, but I talked with many members, and I found no opposition, and so I questioned quite strongly the statement I heard here that the Grange organizations of the country opposed it. Mr. FERRIS. Did you make any effort to sound the opinion of th& returning soldiers on this particular project as to whether they favored it? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I haven't had much opportunity in that direc- tion, but I was receiver of the Land Office of Sterling for 17 years. and by reason of that I have had a very voluminous correspondence from soldiers in Colorado with reference to what arrangements were going to be made that would make it possible for soldiers to get homesteads. I do not know how many, but I presume I have had HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 97 fortv or fifty letters, to state it conservatively, from returning soldiers f roiii my district that they have written with reference to this matter. Mr. FEKRIS. Is it favorable 9 Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Entirely favorable, and very anxious to avail themselves of some propostion of that kind. Mr. FERRIS. Then, so far as you know, the American Federation of La I tor. the farmers' organizations, and the farmers themselves, and the returning soldiers, so far as they were from the State of Colorado, were all favorable? Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And if there is any opposition to it, you know nothing about it ( Mr. TIMBKKLAKE. That is the fact. Now, gentlemen, that is all, unless there is some other question that anyone wants to ask. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. Timberlake. We thank you very- much for your statement. We have Judge Richards, of Idaho, who will favor' us wirh a statement at this time. STATEMENT OF MR. J. H. RICHARDS, OF BOISE, IDAHO. The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name, address, and occupation. Mr. RICHARDS. J. H. Richards, Boise, Idaho; lawyer. I left Colo- rado in 1890. going there in 1871). the time that there was a great mining activity there, and from that time T have had quite a large part in the reclamation of such valleys as the Snake River in the Slate of Idaho. When the reclamation act was passed, Mr. Xewell and Mr. Bien, counsel for the bureau, came to me and said: "We have power to reclaim the West : we have neither money nor plans. We want your help." My practice along the line of reclamation had been quite exten.-ive. because we had no defined law on irrigation when I went there, and we had to anticipate what the law should be. I have had quite an active part in estaolishing the irrigation laws as they stand in Idaho to-day. I said : " I will give you whatever time is necessary and pay my own expenses until you get organized, and then I will re>ii>T.." I g'.ive them six months and two weeks in preparing a form or plan of organization in the reclaiming -of this valley now covered by this great Arrow Rock Dam 400,000 acres and I went to every s^hoolhouse in that section over that whole project and ar- ranged with the farmers and landowners to sign up and tie them- selves to the Government of this Nation in helping to reclaim that great body of land. I, with their assistance, prepared plans and sub- mitted them to Secretary Hitchcock, who was Secretary at that time, the plan- that are still in vogue there. I tell you this to show my knowledge of the situation. About a year after. Mr. Bien came to my office and said : " I have good news for you. We have had plans submitted by every arid Statt. and the Secretary has adopted your plans without change. It will be the basis of the reclamation of the West." I said: "That is sufficient, and I will resign." Xo: we wain you to go down to the Secretary, to come Ku-t. to get $300.000 to start the surveys:" and so I came on with Gov. Steunenberg. The result is that the great Snake River Valley i> filled now largely with homes. 98 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. I talked with Mr. Calvin, the head of the Union Pacific, the day before yesterday, and he stated to me that the Short Line brought out of the Twin Falls project products of over $40,000,000 in value last year. It was 14 years ago that this was started. The CHAIRMAN. HOAV does that compare with what Avas taken out prior ? Mr. RICHARDS. There was not a thing before but jack rabbits and coyotes. They took their pelts out and that was all there was. That whole Snake 'River project largelv was sagebrush. My wife wept when she saw it to think I had taken her to such a desert. To-day it is one of the garden spots of this Xation. There is nothing more beautiful. I have seen wheat produced in the Twin Falls project last year SO bushels to the acre. That is extreme. I have seen the farmers get for alfalfa $15 a ton and 11 tons to the acre in one year. This is scientific farming. What I like about this bill is thLs: When the Government passed an act to give pensions to our former soldiers of the rebellion, it seemed to me it was most depressing, because they went to our sol- diers' homes and other places to wait to die. They were not living a life of activity. This bill gives to our soldiers something to live for. Remember that irrigation is scientific farming, absolutely. I do not care- how rich the soldier is, the richer the better, because he can make a better farmer out of himself and a better stock grower by reason of that. If he is poor the Government can help him, and if he has any pluck, such as our soldiers indicate that they have, they will be successful, because every acre out there is capable of producing large quantities, and our fanners are prosperous. I do not find any Atti- tude of the farmers that they do not want this act passed, but quite to the contrary. Our farmers in Twin Falls project, and yon ought to see it, have got the best courthouse and best public-school build- ing in the whole State of Idaho, and it is only 14 years old: paved streets and great business blocks. These men came from the Central West and have made successful farmers. The land to-day is selling* from $150 to $350 per acre and it pays 10 per cent on that value. A man will study and learn how to scientifically farm, because the soil and sunshine are there, and water at the time and in the quantity needed makes farming scientific. The CHAIRMAN. Were these men all experienced farmers? Mr. RICHARDS. None of them. I should not say none, but a very large percentage of them were not. But they are experienced fanners now, and it would be worth your effort to come out and see what wonderful things they are doing. Our soldiers, as I watched them, are largely a class of men that have got energy and ambi- tion, and out in that country if you give them the opportunity, rich or poor, they will make a success of it in a large percentage of cases, because they can not help it. We want to put the water and the land and the sunshine together with an intelligent man with them on these projects to show these beginners how to farm, and they can not fail if they have any energy at all. That great project under the Arrow Rock Dam 400.000 acres just blossoms there to-day. It is becoming a great dairy and fruit country. It is remarkable- that dairying. The Carnation people there have special cars that go around the loop of interurban lailroads and bring in milk to the con- densing factory. It is making a dairy of that whole section. These HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 99 men are successful, and I say a large percentage, if you give them the opportunity, will be successful, because they could not nelp it. The spirit of it is to give the soldier something to live for rather than waiting to die. I do not like the pension system, but help a man to live, and don't encourage him to wait to die; and that is the kind of man we want in the western country. It will not take long to build that work and get them to working and in successful homes. ] am down here now with men who are expecting in the near future to spend from fifty to one hundred million dollars on projects there, and I am here hoping that we can cooperate with the Government. We have so much water in the Snake River Valley we have so much land and with irrigation and water power, if you coordinate these things with the transportation companies, it will make that valley one of the most productive valleys in this Nation to-day. The increase in valuation and taxation in that valley is simply enor- mous beyond anything I have ever seen before. Talk about the value being $6,000 a farm that is not a circumstance. You take a man with a farm of 80 acres or 100 acres, which is selling to-day for $350 an acre; you can see what that means, and it pays the in- tcn-vt on that value. But it is scientific farming absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any opposition among the farmers there to the enlargement of these plans ? Mr. RICHARDS. Certainly not. We could bring them here unani- mous. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any fear of added competition ? Mr. RICHARDS. Xot in the slightest. Mr. RAKER. I take it from your statement and your experience that it would be your view that in legislation of this character as applied to the soldiers, being that we are attempting legislation for them, that we treat the soldiers practically all the same and give every man who has a good character, which I assume they all have, the opportunity to get one of these places whether he has been a farmer or not. Mr. RICHARDS. That is what I mean. This principle underlies our whole Government system, and that is the more men you place on homes of their own I do not care how small it is if it is his home he is an element of safety in this Government. [Applause.] Mr. RAKER. That is right. Mr. RICHARDS. We find it true in the home-life building of these great reclaimed deserts : they are the healthiest, most wholesome, and most prosperous individuals we have, merchants not excepted. And the merchants and bankers have to succeed because these farmers are depositing money there to such an extent you would be astounded. They have beautiful automobiles, and have beautiful bungalows built on these farms. You would be surprised to go up there and see them. The farmers have beautiful lawns and flowers, such things as I did not see very often as I traveled here. The CHAIRMAN. What is the average size of the farm unit there? Mr. RICHARDS. They vary, depending entirely upon the man's capacity financially, from 'JO acre's up to 1.200. The CHAIRMAN. They make a living for a farmer on :JO acres? Mr. RICHARDS. Certainly they do: and schoolhouses churches and schoolhouses are the first things they build: right out on the desert 100 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. ii magnificent schoolhouse will come up right on the desert, and I think it is most wholesome, this legislation to give this thing to the soldiers who have offered a sacrifice on their part. If a man does not avail himself of it, it is his own fault. Mr. RAKER. From your own experience of this and your observa- tion, it would not be wise to fix a hard and fast rule whereby anyone could select these men? In other words, should not they be given some opportunity to use their own selection? Mr. RICHARDS. I would simply offer the opportunity, giving them all the light you can. They will be sure to avail themselves of it as far as possible, and they will be furnished men to guide them how to be successful. We learned that i : rom the Mormon people out in that country. Their bishops had charge. For instance, I used to wonder that they said they all voted one way: if you had the Mormon vote, you had everything. This is the situation in campaigning through- out that State that I found: A young couple from Sweden would be brought over. They would all get together and procure for them ICO acres. They would get a piece of land and select it for them. The neighbors would join and build a log hut or dig a hole in a bank for a home and give them a wagon, a couple of horses, and a milk cow, and the bishop would show them how to succeed. They paid their 10 per cent, and have succeeded in that way. The CHAIRMAN. Pay 10 per cent in tithes? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. I have campaigned throughout all this country and have watched them succeed, and while they have paid that extra 10 per cent, or 100 per cent every 10 years, they have been prosperous, because they had business men to guide them: and we have taken advantage of that system in the reclamation district. I am not a Mormon, a long ways from it, but I had learned that lesson from that organization. They are successful people because they put business men over them to show them how, and that is what the reclamation is doing. We have skilled men. They have experi- mental farms and lectures by men who know what 'they are doing and how to do it- Mr. TAYLOR. Is it safe to say that this committee and Congress, rverv one from the arid States, would be practically unanimous for this bill? Mr. RICHARDS. I have no doubt about it. Mr. TAYLOR. There would not be a dissenting vote from the irri- gating States, would there? Mr. RICHARDS. Colorado is my first adopted State. I went there in 1879, and most of these men I knew are not any more. I begin to feel I am one of the ancients when I get back to Denver. That whole western country can not be otherwise than in favor of it. It is its salvation. It puts the man on the farm for a home, and that is the best thing you can do for this country anywhere. Mi 1 . TAYLOR of Idaho. What is your native Slate? Mi-. RICHARDS. Ohio. I have had an active part in studying this <|iiestion on (lie bench and with lawyers on both sides, and have had a large part in laying the foundation of the reclamation in Idaho. Everybody knows me from one end of the State to the other. I never wanted anything politically. I have worked for such men as Mr. Smith and Senator Borah to represent us. I want to help (he Stale HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 101 into a proper home life, and everybody knows it from one end of the State to the other, and I am so glad that I happened to be here. I didn't think of talking to you any more than going to the moon until Mr. Smith asked me to clo it. I am absolutely infatuated with this idea of giving these soldiers the chance, if he wants it, to avail him- self, and we will make him succeed, if he comes out and takes the chance. Mr. RAKER. If he gets discouraged, he can not help it. Mr. RICHARDS. We will put him there with the machinery. Mr. FERRIS. Is it your thought that a very large percentage of soldiers can be made to realize this? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Your returning soldiers, have you conversed with them ? Mr. RICHARDS. Lots of them. Mr. FERRIS. Do they all like this? Mr. RICHARDS. Practically all I have talked with. Mr. I. B. Per- rine, here, is the father of the Twin Falls country. He knows that the soldier goes there and takes 100 acres of land, and in 14 years is rich, and has enough to take care of himself on that 100 acres of land, worth $350 an acre, and it is there producing crops to-day. This soldier can not help but do it, and that is the reason we are here to get laws and see how we can cooperate in our undertaking. I mean coordinate transportation, power, and reclamation of that country and we will place men out there to guide these soldiers how to make themselves successful, if you will plant that there. That is what we want. They are good men, and we will make better men. If the Government does not do it, we are going to do it anyhow, because we can do it. Mr. FERRIS. Could you take this condition : Take 10 men that have been raised in New York City or in Chicago up to the age of 40 years and lived there, living on a day's wages or salary, living under city conditions all their lives, and carry that proposition out ; would it be sufficiently attractive to make them happy and contented and settle down ? Mr. RICHARDS. Any man who desires to better his condition and has this opportunity to come out there and do it and let us show him around there will be no difficulty. Mr. TAYLOR. If you make your question, aged 30 years, it would be better. Mr. FERRIS. Make it 25 or 30 years. I am for this legislation. Some very good people in Congress and others are of the opinion that this is a sort of Utopia that could never come true, and it will be very valuable to this record here and for the committee and the proponents of this legislation to have a man who knows what he is talking about touch upon these points, because these are points that require con- sideration. Mr. RICHARDS. I have been in that kind of work ever since I went to Idaho. There is scarcely a place in the whole 400,000 acres that I have not been over and seeii how they have progressed in the last 10, 15, or 20 years. They w r ill come there and learn, and I presume some w T ill fail -don't know hov>", haven't energy, and know too much but if they will come there and learn, for instance, that too much water is worse than not' enough, they can not fail to succeed. 102 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. Is it not true that probably 50 per cent of the settlers on our reclamation projects, especially in the Twin Falls country, were formerly business or professional men or clerks from cities? Mr. RICHARDS. In stores; druggists and merchants: everybody all over the Middle West. Mr. FERRIS. What you said has application, of course; it is true that there are not arable lauds enough to go very far for these 4,000,000 soldiers ( Mr. RICHARDS. We have a lot of cut-over laud. Mr. FERRIS. What can be done along that line ( Mr. RICHARDS. I have had figures on what it would cost to clear the stumpage. Mr. FERRIS. Of course the unit of area would have to be much larger for the dry land>? Mr. RICHARDS. You go up by Moscow and iu that country and see what they can produce on cut-over land after it has been cleared. Mr. FERRIS. You are speaking of Idaho conditions now, not any other State? You could not say that with reference to Colorado and California ? Mr. RICHARDS. When I went out to Mount Vernon and saw how your country here, between here and Mount Yernon, needed reclama- tion, I wondered you don't do something to reclaim the Kast. Mr. FERRIS. There is not enough soil there to reclaim. They could get it all but the soil. Mr. RICHARDS. That valley is beautiful. But it was like Colorado in the early days with no water; they told Gen. Sherman all they lacked was shade and water and he said that is all hell lacks. It i- a good place to live in now. and I toil you that the Snake River Yalley is a wonder for water power. Mr. FERRIS. How man}' soldiers could you take care of in that vallev ( Mr. RICHARDS. There are 2.000,000 acres. Mr. FERRIS. Two million acres subject to reclamation? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. That is. that would take care of how many returning soldiers? Mr. RICHARDS. I think you ought to average eighty to one hundred acres per man, possibly ; I think a man can take care of 80 acres. It would be better if it was 40. I think 40 would be a better unit. He can make a fine living on 40. Mr. FERRIS. That would take care of a comparatively small num- ber. Are there very extensive areas that could take care of them at an equal cost? Mr. RICHARDS. Not extensive, no. Our timberlands are largely at Boise and near there, where they are cutting about 800.000 feet a day. The land that they cut over is not subject to reclamation at all. In North Idaho it is subject to it. Mr. FERRIS. In that section there is no water \ Mr. RICHARDS. They don't need water there: it rains there. Still in southern Idaho we have no rain to speak of from this time until Christmas. Mr. FERRIS. It is irrigation or nothing at all. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 103 Mr. RICHARDS. There are some dry farmers in American Falls there, but it is so uncertain. This plan that we are here upon now i the reclamation of dry farming country. Mr. FERRIS. Is there water available for that? Mr. RICHARDS. It will take dams to cover that. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think, Judge, you have considered or examined into the possibility of projects here in the East and North ? Mr. RICHARDS. No; I am not qualified to present anything worth while. I have seen your country from one end of the train and I am disappointed to see how these farms fail to produce. As a boy I thought Ohio was the greatest country in the world, but as I go back to the place where I lived as a youth, when I thought it raised great crops, I am disappointed. Mr. BENHAM. Don't you recognize the difference between virgin soil and old soil? The CHAIRMAN. It has been suggested to me that the putting of fertilizer on the soil in the East is logically the same as putting water on the lands in the West. Mr. RICHARDS. If they would put $50 of fertilizer to an acre in their lands you would have something. We pay $100 an acre for water rights out there; we who put water on our land have got some- tiling. If you put fertilizer on here you would have something here. We have a billion tons of phosphate out in that State; that ought to be utilized by the Government and spread it over these farms in the East and West. It is lying there doing nobody any good. The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary's investigation has disclosed in- numerable projects in the South and also in the North and North- east. Mr. RICHARDS. We want them reclaimed also. The West will be with you in the way of reclaiming and placing homes, either swamp or cut over lands or desert lands. We know what it means to this country. We are with you on the whole proposition all the time. I have given a large part of my life unselfishly to this matter and I think likely I know what I "am talking about; outside of that I do not pretend to know. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further questioning of the Judge? We thank you very much. It is now 12 o'clock, gentlemen, and we will stand adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m.. Mondav, June 2, 1919.) HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, June 0, 1919. The -committee this day met. Hon. X. J. Sinnott (chairman) pre- si ding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. Mr. Vaile and Mr. Taylor had departmental calls this morning 1 and they will be in later. We have with us this morning Gen. Cole, of Massa- chusetts, who will address the committee. Gentlemen. I will intro- duce to you Gen. Cole. I understand the general was in the first division to go over with the Regular Army. However, the genera 1 can explain his own biography better than I can in that connection. We will be pleased to hear from you. General. Will* you state to the committee your name, address, and occupation ? STATEMENT OF GEN. CHARLES H. COLE, BOSTON, MASS. Gen. COLE. My name is Charles H. Cole, and I was formerlj 7 brig- adier general of the Twenty-sixth Division, not with the Regular Army, but the First National Guard Division to go over, not the regular service, and was formerly police commissioner and fire com- missioner of the city of Boston,* and adjutant general of the State of Massachusetts. The CHAIRMAN. Were you an enlisted man, General? Gen. COLE. I enlisted at the beginning of the war, because I was over age to get a commission that I might have been able to obtain. I spent a year and a half in France with my division, 16 months with the combat division, the Twenty-sixth, and seven months of that time on the firing line. My brigade was on the firing line, and I believe I was longer in command of troops actually on the firing line than any general officer in the Army. I simply state that, gen- tlemen, for the purpose of showing that perhaps I am as familiar with what the soldiers may need as any other officer of my rank. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed in your own way, General, to take up this matter. Gen. COLE. Gentlemen, I have read this bill. H. R. 487, and have talked it over with men in Massachusetts and men who are familiar with it. I am in favor of the bill. First, I speak as a citizen. I believe it is in line with the progressive legislation of the age; that it will tend to make the Nation a stronger Nation. The more we encourage agriculture and independent farming, the stronger the Nation will be in my opinion. I have just come back from France, and. in my opinion, the farmers of France were what saved France. France is highly cul- 105 106 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. tivated agriculturally, and almost every foot of ground is taken, and during all my time and travel through France I have never seen but one field where there were weeds, to show you what scientific cultivation it has for a nation. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I was not in here when the general started. Whom does he represent or speak for? The CHAIRMAN. This is Gen. Cole, who is representing the senti- ment among the soldiers and the sentiment in Massachusetts. Gen. COLE. From the soldiers' standpoint, I believe this bill will be a splendid thing for them. They have come back from France. nfter having been there a year and"a half. During that time they have matured 20 years mentally. They have come back here and many of them are not now receiving their old jobs back again, and many of them have outgrown their old jobs.- I realize that the State and cities of Massachusetts, and I speak particularly of Massa- chusetts, and the business men of Massachusetts are using all their agencies possible to place them back at work, but the fact still re- mains that they are not back and that there are many of them who are still out of work. They went to war with a spirit of intense patriotism. We have to be very careful that that spirit of intense patriotism is not turned into a spirit of intense pessimism. I know my own feeling as I came back here. I went, for in- stance, the other day to call upon one of the richest men in Boston to ask him for a subscription to the Salvation Army fund. I was chairman of the committee for raising that fund. He said he was familiar with the work, but he could not give us any money. I said, " I ask you to give us a subscription simply to show your ap- preciation and your gratitude for what the Salvation Army did for the soldier over there." He then told me he thought he had made sacrifices enough; that with the income tax and what he had bought in Victory bonds, etc., he had made sacrifices enough. He was a man worth $10,000,000, and I am a fairly conservative man : but I left that man with the feeling inside of me that perhaps it would have been better if none of us had ever gone over to fight for a man like that. Mr. HERSMAN. Why did you not tell him something? Gen. COLE. I ought to ; I should have told him that, but I was in- terested in the Salvation Army fund, and I wanted to get money. When he talked about making' sacrifices, if it had not been for the soldiers he would not have had any of his $10,000,000. That was the feeling that I had. I was on the end of a tram car a few days ago where there were two young men. One of them was a soldier, although I did not know he was a soldier until afterwards, as both of them were in civilian clothes. The young man who had stayed at home, through no fault of his own, perhaps, as he may not have been able to go, said to the soldier, " What are you doing now? " And the soldier had to reply that he was not doing anything; he did not have a job. 1 was in a Pullman car the other day and a man got in who I thought was a profiteer, as he got in at one of those ammunition places along there in Connecticut. I was busy reading, but there was a young ensign opposite me who was asleep on the arm of his chair/ The other man brushed into him, not even excusing himself, and sat down HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 107 and woke up the ensign without offering any excuse of any kind. That aroused the same feeling in me. I thought to myself, " Here you have stayed at home, you have been making all this money and you have not even got the courtesy to sit down carefully without waking up a soldier who has been "over there fighting for you. We do not want that kind of spirit in these men who come back. They are a splendid lot of fellows, and if the United States gives them the opportunity, they will be the finest citizens it has ever had. I do not believe in giving them a mere job. I do not want them to have political jobs, but this bill will give them a chance to became independent citizens, it will give them a chance and an opportunity to do something, and. in my opinion, it will be one of the very best possible things to keep these men from becoming dis- satisfied and continual agitators, as they may be, and it is only human nature, and I believe we can avoid that if they are given ail opportunity like this to go out and get places of their own and be- come independent citizens and move ahead and progress along the lines that they have seen over there. These men have grown tre- mendously in that time, they have really outgrown little jobs, and have been outdoors, and they do not want to go back into mills. They have been living out of doors for over a year and a half, and they want to be out of doors, they want to be out in the open air, they do not like to go back in the mills. In Massachusetts we had many men from the mills, and every time that they had the pref- erence they would take an outdoor job, and this bill will give those men an ideal opportunity to take advantage of, and it is not giving them anything for nothing, but thej T are going ahead and getting a return for their energy and their intelligence and their ability. I do not like to mention the word " Bolshevism," but there is the feeling among the soldiers, and it is only human nature, that they went over there and gave up their jobs, and have come back here, and many of them do not get them back again. Men who did not go over have been making high wages, have been making perhaps more than they did. and it is only human that they feel dissatisfied, they feel that their work and their sacrifices were not appreciated, and this bill, I think, is the only thing that I know of that will give them the opportunity that they need. Mr. JOHNSON. General, have you heard many express the desire to go on farms? Gen. COLE. In France almost all the officers I have talked with, and, of course, I did not talk with the men, as I did not have the opportunity over there, have said that after the war was over they wanted to get back and go on a farm and live. I have said so my- self. French officers would say so almost universally. Now, how seriously they meant it at that' time I do not know, but that is the generarfeeling, to get away and rest quietly, away from the turmoil. Mr. SNELL. General, what is your experience, that these men are without jobs because they have developed so in the year and a half that they have been over in France that they want better jobs, or because people are not willing to take them back? Gen. COLE. Partly that their places are filled. Mr. SNELL. Right there, what I am especially interested in is whether you believe there are a good many places which are filled, and they are not willing to make some effort to take them back? 108 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Gen. COLE. Yes, sir. Mr. SNELL. You do? Gen. COLE. Yes, sir. I did not think that was so, until I found out it was so. Mr. SNELL. I am quite surprised to find that is so. I notice a great many advertisements in Xew York of large firms claiming that their jobs are ready for the soldiers on their return. Gen. COLE. That is why I hesitated to say that, because so many firms have done that, but some of them have not. I know of a case of an officer in my command, who was a major in my machine gun battalion, who was in charge of the department store of the town he came from, and they told him when he went away that he would get his position back again, but when he came back, without any word or any chance or any time or question, he was not given his position back, but was thrown out and left on his uppers, so to speak. Mr. SNELL. Would you not say that was the exception rather than the rule, General ? Gen. COLE. In that case I think it would be. I think they have done very well, but there are cases where they have not taken them back. I am not saying it with any idea of getting after the people, because financial conditions and different things enter into it, so it is very nearly impossible to give the man his job back. I am not say- ing it with any idea of getting after the employers, because sometimes- they can not afford to do it themselves. Mr. SNELL. On account of the conditions as they exist ? Gen. COLE. Yes. Mr. SNELL. I presume the statement you made is true, that a large number of these boys have grown into manhood during these IS months, and they really want and are capable of occupying better position than when they went over? Gen. COLE. Take the boy who went over as a private, and then on account of his gallantry and courage is promoted. For instance, I know of one who was 24 years old last December, who enlisted as a private in this war. and was promoted and came back as a lieutenant colonel. His last three promotions were for gallantry and courage in action on the field of battle. I have several general field officers who are less than 24 or 25 years old. They have grown tremendously in that experience of a year and a half, and you do not want those boys to go back into 19, 20, and 21-year old boys' places. They ought to be given an opportunity, because it is going to help the country in the end to have men like that. Mr. SNELL. Are those individual boys you speak of going on these farms, do you think? Gen. COLE. Well. I can not say. One of them was a college student when he started. One of them that I know of is a farmer already. I do not know what the business of the other two is. Mr. SMITH. We have a great many college students in the irrigated areas of Idaho who are making better farmers thai, some men who did not have a college education. Gen. COLE. I do not know, because I did not happen to talk with them individually about this thing. That is the exceptional example, but there are many of them that went as privates and came back as sergeants, first sergeants, and lieutenants, who have handled from HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 109 25 to 100 or 200 men, and handled them through the acid test of war, and those men need bigger jobs than merely working in a mill. The CHAIRMAN. General, could this plan be put in practical op- eration in the State of Massachusetts? Have you made any in- vestigation of that? Gen. COLE. I have made a thorough investigation, Mr. Chairman, and I am firmly of the opinion that it could be. I have for years, or for the last few years, been a very strong advocate of the revival of agriculture in Massachusetts, and I believe there are great oppor- tunities there, because agriculture has declined tremendously in Massachusetts for the last 50 or 75 years. Farms to-day are not worth nearly as much as they were 50 or 75 or 100 years ago. and there are, I believe, many excellent opportunities in Massachusetts to develop a project such as is outlined here. Mr. SNELL. Are there many abandoned farms in Massachusetts? Gen. COLE. I will not say they are abandoned. There are aban- doned farms there, but they are farms worth very little money, and might just as well be abandoned because they are not worked, and need money to be spent upon them, need something done in the way of roads, or in the way of putting the land in shape, or in the way of building the community. Some of them are so far away from any- thing that the people do not want to go there. Mr. BARBOUR. What will have to be done, General, to put those lands in shape? I am asking that question for information. Gen. COLE. I think there are several things. I would make it a community, for one thing; I would revive the land, for a second thing; and I would make roads. Of course, the markets in Massa- chusetts are very handy, very near. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask you if, to your knowledge, there are enough of those abandoned farms contiguous to justify the organization of a community project in that State ? Gen. COLE. In Massachusetts? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Gen. COLE. I believe there are. Mr. HERSMAN. How many soldiers have you talked with, Gen- eral, along this line, and heard thorn express themselves indicating a desire and a willingness to go on farms along a scheme like this? Just in a general way, about how many have you heard express themselves ( (Jen. COLE. I could not say. I never talked specifically on this th i no-. Mr. HEKSMAN. Quite a number? Gen. COLE. I would say quite a number. Mi-. HEIISMAN. Do they realize what it is to develop a farm under these conditions to go in there and work for a number of years at day labor until they get money enough to pay on their farm, and then develop a farm as a farm lias to l>e developed? Do they know what they have to t;o through the courage and endurance that it will take to make a success of that and the number of year? it will take? Do you think they realize that ( Gen. COLE. Of course, that is a question I can not answer, whether they realize it or not: but in Massachusetts I do not think it will be so long a time. We could obtain some of this money from Massachusetts. 110 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BENHAM. I would like to ask if you have had farm experience in your early life? Gen. COLE. Slightly, when I was a boy, simply from choice. Mr. GANDY. Did I understand you to say that some of these tracts that are not occupied in Massachusetts, are back off the railroad ? Gen. COLE. Yes; some of them are away from the railroad. Mr. GANDY. How far? Gen. COLE. Well, 10 or 15 miles. Some of them are not so far away from the railroad. Mr. HERNANDEZ. Could large bodies of land be secured in Massa- chusetts at reasonable prices for this project ( Gen. COLE. Yes, sir; I think they could. Mr. HERNANDEZ. As large a body as half a township, a township. 25,000 acres, or 100,000 acres ? Gen. COLE. Some of our towns are larger than others, but I think it would be a very simple proposition to find land enough to estab- lish one of these projects in Massachusetts, so that the cost of the land reclaim 1 (1 would be no more in Massachusetts than it would be in the West, where they wanted water, or in the swamp lands, uhere they wanted drains. Mr. HERNANDEZ. My thought was could they secure a large enough body of land in one body, I mean? Gen. COLE. I think you could, sir. There is much more wild land in Massachusetts than you have any idea of. Nobody knew until they bought Camp Devens, which is one of the Army encampments there, that there was so much land there, and they have got a tremendous lot of land right there within 35 miles of the city of Boston. Down on the railroad, from Boston to Providence, there is a tremendous tract of land down there that is undeveloped. In the old days I think King Phillip had an Indian fight down there. There is a tremendous tract down there that could be reclaimed. Mr. SNELL. How many acres are there in Camp Devins? Do you know, General ? Gen. COLE. I am not familiar with that. I was not there when it started. Mr. SNELL. That is going to be kept as one of our permanent camps? Gen. COLE. So the Chief of Staff told me ; yes, sir. Mr. SNELL. Is there not land enough in the vicinity of that if they do not need so- many acres to be procured for one of these de- velopments? Gen. COLE. The Government is not going to buy a certain part of that land. It had a tremendous amount under option. It is not going to buy the part it leased for artillery purposes; that is the surrounding land, and that is a tremendous tract in itself, the sur- rounding land, but they are not going to take that. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, has anyone here brought out the fact about the number of acres which would be necessary to make one of these community settlements? The CHAIRMAN. We are going to go into that with Director Davis. Mr. SNELL. That has not been brought out yet? The CHAIRMAN. Not specifically. Mi-. WHITE. Is this land you are speaking of covered by a growth of timber? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Ill (Jen. COLE. Partly so, and partly not covered. Mr. WHITE. If it was made available for cultivation what would be required? Would not the timber have to be removed, and is it not stony to some extent? Gen. COLE. This land that I speak of between Boston and Provi- dence is more or less swampy and would have to be drained. The land that I speak of in the western part of the State is at present farming land, but poor farming land. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you lived in the State of Massa- chusetts i Gen. COLE. Forty-six years. The CHAIRMAN. "Have you traveled extensively through the rural sections of the State? Gen. COLE. I was once a candidate for governor and as such trav- eled to pretty nearly all the cities and towns of the State. Mr. SMITH. Did you have time when you were a candidate for governor to talk to the farmers, or to look at the farms? Gen. COLE. I had to talk with farmers. Mr. SNELL. That is the best way in the world to get acquainted in the rural sections. Gen. COLE. I have been over the State in a horse and buggy when other people were running for governor, and have been over it an automobile when running for myself. The CHAIRMAN. General, you went in the Army as a private, and you were promoted to a brigadier general. You may have some modesty about telling your story, but I think the committee would be interested in hearing the story of your promotion. Gen. COLE. There was not anything particular to that, Mr. Chair- man, excepting that I was promoted. I realize, of course, that I had been in the National Guard of Massachusetts for 25 years and had risen in there from a private up to adjutant general, so that it was probably my past experience, as much as anything else, that brought about the promotion. At the time that the war broke out I was a private citizen and was out of the National Guard, and the only way T could get back was to enlist as a private. The CHAIRMAN. As a private did you not have an opportunity to hear the views of privates? Gen. COLE. Well, I was a private over here in Massachusetts, and not over there. Mr. SNELL. They were not discussing land matters very much then, were they ? (ion. COLE. I was not a private very long. Mr. SNELL. I say they were not discussing land matters, either, at that time? (Jen. COLE. No, sir: not at that time. Mr. SMITH. Your general impression, General, from your contact with the soldiers, is that a large proportion of them would like to nvail themselves of the opportunity of getting land under this pro- posed legislation ? Gen. COLE. Yes. sir: those who are fit for such work and have an inclination for such work. Mr. SMITH. Personally, while coming over on the boat recently, where there were about 12,000 soldiers, it seemed to be a subject for 13331919 8 112 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. discussion a great deal, and frequently they would come in groups up to my room and talk over the possibilities in the West. I thought the sentiment was pretty general among them that they wanted to take advantage of any law of this kind. Gen. COLE. I believe that if this bill and its benefits were known publicry I mean were given such publicity that all the soldiers would know about it as I know about it that you would be surprised at the response that you would get from the soldiers, but there has been no publicity of this bill in our section of the country to speak of at all. Mr. SNELL. Has there not been publicity to the general scheme of Secretary Lane? Gen. COLE. Very little that reaches down to the soldiers. Of course, most of the soldiers were away when the publicity, if there was any, took place. Mr. SXELL. There has been a lot of publicity work on this bill somewhere, an enormous amount. Mr. Lane says he sent out ques- tionnaires and received 52,000 or a great many replies, so there has been an enormous amount of publicity work. I know. Gen. COLE. It probably took place when most of the men were away in France. Mr. SMITH. The boys in France seemed to know about it. I spoke with a number of them over there and they wanted to get a home under the proposed law. Gen. COLE. In regard to publicity, the bill appeals to me so strongly that it seems to me that every man in public life, in our local legis- latures, whether Democrat or Republican, would be advocating this bill at every opportunity he had. Well, I do not believe that they know about the bill, because anything in favor of the soldiers the)' advocate, and here is something that really gives an opportunity to the soldier, not giving him a $100 bonus because he was in the war six months, but gives him a chance to be an independent citizen and to be of great service to his country, and a chance for himself to move along. The CHAIRMAN. General, what effect do you think this bill will have on agricultural labor? Gen. COLE. I can only speak for my section. I believe it will have a beneficial effect, because the more experience and more brains and more ability you get into the agricultural phase, the agricultural business, the better they will all be, and especially if you are going to have the Government help these men along, and going to have the Government back them to start with, and back them in the way of telling them what the latest things are. I believe in Massachu- setts we need that. I am a believer in the agricultural possibilities of Massachusetts and of New England. The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe this will have the effect of reduc- ing the present supply of agricultural labor in your State, or in- creasing it? Gen. COLE. I do not think so; I think it will increase it. I do not think those men would want to go to work at agricultural labor without a future, unless they had to, because agricultural labor will be, perhaps, more poorly paid in years to come than it is now. and I do not believe they would want to work at it unless they are forced to it, but they are willing to go in and do agricultural labor HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 113 at fair wages, provided they can see something ahead of them, a home ahead of them, and that is human nature. It is no different with soldiers than it is with anyone else, and I believe it will develop agriculture and modern, scientific agriculture in Massachusetts. We have been sending money out for years, investing in the apple or- chards of Washington and Oregon, and I believe that the same amount of money spent in Massachusetts would have brought about as good a return, and we would have just as good apples as they have out in Washington and Oregon, and they have pretty good ones out there too. Mr. ELSTON. In California, also? Gen. COLE. This money has gone more to Washington and Oregon, I think, than to California, but out there they do business scientif- ically, and with modern methods, and they do it on a large scale. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to add anything more. General ? Gen. COLE. Except the last thing that I wish strongly to bring to your attention again. Mr. Chairman, that if we do not want these soldiers to become bitter, we want to steer their present patriotism into the right channels, and this bill gives them that opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement. General; Gentlemen, Mr. Wilson of Louisiana is here, and I understand has been selected by his State to make a statement before the committee. We will be pleased to hear you, Mr. Wilson. STATEMENT OF HON. RILEY J. WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my delegation, on re- quest of the chairman of the committee, requested me to appear be- fore the committee and make a statement in relation to the plans un- der consideration for farm loans for our returning soldiers, with the understanding, of course, that they were not committed to a bill which I had introduced, or to any other bill pending before the com- mittee. I have thought a great deal about this question, and have read, I believe, and studied every bill and every plan that I could find dealing with it. There is, in my judgment, no difference of opinion as to the advisability and desirability of some legislation that would enable those of our returning soldiers who desire to do so to acquire and own farms and to engage in agricultural pursuit, and any plan that will enable them to do that and at the same time preserve the independent character of our citizenship, and not place any unneces- sary burden upon the taxpayers of the country, I do not believe would meet with a dissenting voice. I would like, if the committee wishes, to submit a bill which I have introduced, and the explanation of it that I have prepared and written. Mr. RAKER. What is the number of your bill, do you know ? Mr. WILSON. H. R. 1254. The CHAIRMAN. Before what committee? Mr. WILSON. This is pending before the Banking and Currenc}' Committee. Mr. ELSTON. It is your idea to put this in the record? 114 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WILSOX. Yes ; to put it in the hearing with the statement that I have attached to it. It might take some little time to read and dis- cuss it. I will just say in connection with it, of course, that if the committee likes, I can read the explanation I have prepared and put that in, instead of the statement I might make. The CHAIRMAN. You might give a brief resume of it, and without objection, if you desire, it may be incorporated in the record. Mr. WILSOX. I have written that resume of the bill. I will say this, that after studying over all these plans, the impression that I Avound up with was that the plan of Secretary Lane, which is em- bodied in the Mondell bill and a number of other bills and I under- stand these hearings are primarily on the Mondell bill Mr. RAKER. It is covering all of them, is it not, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Covering all of them. Mr. WILSOX (continuing). Would not enable all the returning sol- diers who might desire to do so to engage in agricultural pursuits, for the reason, as I understand it, that the only men who could re- ceive the benefits of this measure would be those who would be will- ing to go into the soldier settlement or reservation or colony, what- ever you might wish to call it. I believe it is true in my State as in all other States, that there are a great many who could not do this; who have attachments in the communities where they have been reared, from which they went into the war; left farms which they owned when they went "into the war, or left lands which they might desire to go back and improve as a farm, and which they already own. There is nothing in this plan that would take care of that class of our soldiers, as I understand the measure, and I have studied it over pretty carefully. I would like to leave the idea with the committee that if there is some way of doing that, in my judg- ment it would improve this legislation. Mr. JOHNSON. I introduced a bill that tends to take care of that, in this, that there is a stipulation in the bill I introduced I do not know whether it is in the room now 7 or not that where a soldier owns a farm valued at no more than a thousand dollars, this law- will apply to him just the same as the one who did not own a farm at all. Mr. WILSON. The Mondell bill? Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; we are considering all the bills. Mr. Chair- man, am I correct in that? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we might take up all the bills. Mr. WILSON. It might finally lead to some amendment to this bill. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have any suggestions, outside of the Mondell bill, or the other bills. Mr. WILSON. I think I shall just submit this statement and let it. go in, because the bill is simply an enlargement of the powers of the Farm Loan Board, and follows very much the idea of the Canadian plan, which makes an appropriation and places the administration of it under a board created by the act. The CHAIRMAN. Your idea, Mr. Wilson, is to furnish some assis- tance to the soldier who wants a farm in a segregated community, apart from the Government community? Mr. WILSON. Yes; in such place as he may choose for his home. May I read this, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 115 Mr. WILSON (reading) : The bill if (Mulcted into law will be administered by the Farm Loan Board through its present organization and machinery. The act therefore will not create any new offices or necessitate the employment of any additional agencies nor will it incur any additional expense for administrative purposes. Under the farm loan act the amount loaned is limited to 50 per cent of the value of the land and 20 per cent of the value of the permanent insured im- provements. This, of course, makes it necessary that those acquiring loan* under this act must already have a substantial amount of capital either in land ownership or otherwise. Now. under this bill a concession is made in favor of soldiers, sailors, and marines who have served in the war against Germany, by which loans may be made to them up to the amount of $5,000 in any one case for the full valuation of the land or the land and permanent-insured improvements. This loan may be used either to purchase the land or to provide buildings and other improvements thereon, or to purchase live stock or other equipments necessary to carry on the farming operations or to liquidate existing indebted- ness. The loan may run for 40 years at 4 per cent interest. For the first two years the payments may be deferred. This would give addi- tional opportunity to plac the land in productive shape. These loans to returned soldiers will not depend upon securing funds by the sale of bonds issued against these mortgages but the appropriation will be made direct. In fact it is not contemplated or intended that there shall be any bonds issued against the mortgages given by the soldiers who take advantage of this act if the bill is passed. Now. as to the number of returning soldiers who may desire to engage in farming and who will actually do so, except those who were already engaged in that pursuit before entering the military service, it is a very uncertain proposition. .My own experience has been that since the war was declared to be ended each soldier is anxious to return to his former business or occupation ; the merchant to his store, the banker to his bank, the professional man to his call- ing, and the boy who went from the farm seeks to return to either lands owned by him or to assist his parents in caring for and developing the farm from which he went into the military service at the call of his country. It is true, however, that many a returning soldier will be anxious to settle and improve a farm for his own home, and in many instances there will be those who have in view the lands they would like to purchase for the purpose of making a home and under the provisions of this bill the opportunity will be given and in such a way that the soldier may select his own land in the com- munity and among the neighbors where he desires to live and improve and develop it in his own way, and have a home and farm according to his own plan. One difficulty about the proposed Government farm settlement proposition is that after the Government takes charge of a tract of land, ditches and drains it, and divides it into farms from 20 to 40 acres, and then sells it to the soldier for the original land price, including the cost of reclamation and improvements. only those soldiers who can secure the benelit of this land are those who desire to go to the Government reservation wherever that may be. But it occurs to me that if we are going to give the soldiers a preference and some substantial assistance in becoming a home owner and a farmer, we ought to have a law that will enable each soldier to take advantage of its provisions at the place and in the community in which he desires to live. Besides the soldier when he returns and enters civilian life is going to be just like the usual run of normal American citizens. He will desire to have his own way about the land he owns to bring into play his own initiative, industry, and enterprise in improving it and become somewhat an independent factor in the community where he chooses to live. Under this proposed law no money will be used except that which goes to the benefit of the soldier upon his own application, and I believe all admit that nt this time we should take some precautions to know that money is not going to be appropriated and expended except for necessary purposes. Under the provisions of this bill, the Government will be taking practically no chances for loss, but may in a practical way add in a large degree to the number of independent-home owners, and be of material assistance to her patri- otic and most deserving men who served in the military and naval forces of the present war. 116 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. I would like to add hero the chief provisions of the Canadian act and an article which is published in the Literary Digest showing how that has worked out. The Canadian act. in substance, reads this way : (1) The hoard may loan t<> a settler an amount not exceeding SH. ."ioo for any of the following purposes : () The acquiring of land for agricultural purposes. (ft) The payment of inoumbranres on lands used for agricultural purposes. (c) The improvement of agricultural land. (d) The erection of farm buildings. (c) The purchase of stock, machinery, and equipment. (f) Such other purposes as the board may approve. (2) The money loaned shall he expended \inder the supervision of the hoard. Reading this it occurred to me that $2,500 is what they might loan, but I see the board has concluded that they might loan $7,500. Of course, they have an advantage in Canada that we have not here; they have a large area of public agricultural land, and I understand that our public-land area that might be suitable to homestead is limited to about 16,000,000 acres. I do not know myself whether it is good for that purpose, but I would like to add to this a statement as to how this worked out in Canada. This will set forth all that I desire to say to the committee, except that my delegation are favor- able to some plan for the assistance of the returning soldiers. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wilson, have you in your own mind figured out a plan whereby, under your scheme, it would be workable in loaning this money and taking care of it and taking care of the payment of the interest, and, supposing there are failures, taking back the land or selling it so the Government would not lose anything? Have you devised a system whereby you could work that out ? Mr. WILSON* Yes; I have talked this bill over with the members of the Farm Loan Board, and they say it is entirely practical of administration under their present machinery, and that if Congress should see fit to enact it they would want to make it very definite that the Farm Loan Board was acting as the agency of the Gov- ernment in administering the fund, so as to preclude any idea that any bonds were issued upon this, because when you loan up to 100 per cent of the value of the property, of course, that might affect the bond market. The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is to extend through the farm-loan bank more liberal loans and terms to the soldier upon the segregated unit? Mr. WILSON. Yes; to loan him up to 100 per cent. For instance, here are 80 acres of land that the soldier wants to buy, and it is worth $3,000 or $4,000. My idea is that this shall be appraised by the organization which the Farm Loan Board has in every com- munity, and the 'money loaned the soldier through this fund to purchase this property, or if he already owns his home and returns to his farm from the Army, he could make this loan up to the full value of his property, for the purpose of supplying it with live stock or improvements. Mr. RAKER. Is it your theory that we would get more on the farms and more improvements of the farms to allow this separate, indi- vidual selection than to take :i large tract of land that is not being use-l at all but is valuable, if not more so than that which has been used, and develop it so that these men might get good home- '. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 117 Mr. WILSON. Do I think we would get more? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. WILSON. I am inclined to think so, Mr. Raker, and I am in- clined to think more strongly this, that if you do the one thing, that is, take the reclamation project, that in addition to that you ought to provide some way for the/man who wants to select his own home in the community where he desires to live, and to give him some opportunity or make some provision in his favor, as well as the man who might want to go onto this reclaimed project. Mr. RAKER. Is it not your idea in regard to this legislation at least it is mine that the smaller tracts partly improved could be better left to individual effort and individual enterprise to subdivide and work out. and the man buy his place and improve it, and to leave these large tracts where they are practically unused and unde- veloped to the larger development which could be done by the Gov- ernment, whereby it would put the land under cultivation and at the same time give good homes to our returning soldiers? We would do a double benefit this way. We would improve these waste tracts and make them valuable, more so than if the person improved the land. Mr. WILSON. Well, in my section of the country the large waste tracts are owned by former timber operators or concerns that are more able to go in and make these experiments for themselves and develop this land than the individual settler might be to take his segregated tract and improve it and make it a good farm. Mr. RAKER. The purpose of this legislation is to take this kind of a tract and develop it. Supposing here are 100,000 or 200,000 acres of land that have not been used at all, that has the climate and good soil, and all it wants it to be drained or irrigated, as the case might be, and developed so that it will make improved farms. Mr. WILSON. Take my section of the country. There is a vast I will not say vast area in any one place, but there is a vast acreage of land that is highly fertile and needs no drainage, but all it needs to make a good farm is for a good farmer to go on it and develop it. It does not need any reclamation expenditure at all, and when these boys return to these communities and they want a farm, they would no doubt be willing to become farmers if they can acquire and improve this land. Mr. RAKER. Is there a large quantity of that land that could be ob- tained at a reasonable price for a man to go on and improve it? Mr. WILSON. Yes: but you would not find it probably in large bodies, but there is a large acreage uncultivated of very fine land. I saw an instance of just what happened down in south Louisiana the other day. where two plantations amounting to 1.700 acres were taken up. and through the assistance of the Farm Loan Board, on a ~>0 per cent value, about 20 people who did not have any money, al- though, of course, they were already trained farmers, acquired liomes there by cutting those plantations up and selling them out in tracts to these individual owners. Of course, that is very fine and verv fertile land. Xow, it is a very serious proposition as to just how it is best to ex- pend the money that you are going to give in order to assist the soldier to become a farmer. Under this Canadian act the soldier se- lects his own land, and it is shown there that about I think it is 118 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 44 per cent of the returning soldiers desired to be fanners, which was rather astonishing to me, and when it was traced down it was found that 74 per cent of that 44 per cent had originally at some time been on a farm. He might have gone from the farm to be a clerk in a store before he went in the army, but that was rather astonishing^ because I did not believe so many of them would seek to return to- agricultural pursuits. Mr. SMITH. Your bill, Mr. Wilson, is simply an amendment to the farm loan act, to extend the privileges to the soldiers, without re- quiring them to offer the same amount of security that would apply to an ordinary civilian ? Mr. WILSON. It does enlarge the powers of the Farm Loan Board. Mr. SMITH. You are not antagonistic to this plan; you simply want to supplement this bill? Mr. WILSON. I do not know. That would be with the committee, as to whether they could supplement this plan, but I would like to have that idea carried into the legislation somewhere. Mr. RAKER. It is not true, Mr. Wilson, in so many instance, and will it not be true also of the soldier, that whore he makes his indi- vidual purchase, or tries to make his individual purchase, he will generally have to do it through a real estate agent, and he will make the price so high and desire to make such a profit that he will not be able to get hold if the land at a reasonable price by himself and handle it and farm it and make a profit out of it? Mr. WILSON. This is an individual proposition, you know. He does not have to go to any real estate agent. I do not know whether you can just appreciate that in certain sections of the country an in- dividual can go out and find land. They are continually coming into my district, and., for instance, from over in Mr. Johnson's State, in Mississippi. I do not know whether they come from his district or not, but I think I could probably go and locate a thousand within two or three parishes, a- we call them in Louisiana, that have come over there and purchased land 80 or 100 acre tracts and converted them into homes and farms, and there is plenty of that kind of property. Then, of course, I realize that in Louisiana, and probably in Mississippi, the time is coining, and has now arrived, when many large planting operations ought to be sub- divided and sold to independent home owners. Mr. GANDY. If both of these plans should be enacted into law they are not in anyway antagonistic? Mr. WILSON. Absolutely not: but I do not believe a great manv people will ever be satisfied, or that the soldiers will be satisfied with legislation that only furnishes an opportunity to those who desire to be colonized and placed in some Government reservation, probably far distant from their homes. Mr. ELSTON. It will be in his own State probably. Mr. WILSON. There are certain sections of the same State that there is absolutely as much difference between as there is between territories that are thousands of miles apart. Mr. HKKSM MAN. These two plans seem to be based on different theories, in > far as the Mondell bill provided there shall be a pay- ment not only on the land of ."> pel- cent, but all advances of 40 per cent. Your proposition provides that the Government will advance 100 per cent on the land. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 119 Mr. WILSON. Of the value of the security that he offers; yes. Mr. HERSHMAN. Which do you think is wiser? Do you think it is wiser to advance 100 per cent ? Mr. WILSON. They exact 10 per cent in Canada, but if the soldier has not the 10 per cent, the} 7 arrange in some way to get him on the land anyway. Mr. HERSHMAN. Do you not think a soldier that really is capable of making a success of a proposition like this, and especially one that is capable of making a success as a farmer, could secure on the maxi- mum of $5,000 which you suggest, $250, or 5 per cent of it, so he could make that payment? Mr. WILSON. If you thought it wiser to have him make a certain payment in advance, that would not be objectionable at all. Mr. HERSHMAN. Don't you think that the soldier in the past year and a half has come to know how to take chances? Mr. WILSON. My judgment is that they are going to come back here with a new spirit and feeling of self-reliance, and instead of becoming wards of the Government, the rest of us are going to have to take a new step to keep up with the soldier when he gets started. 1 have no idea about me boys being in anyway unable to take care of themselves, and the 10 per cent payment or 5 per cent payment on the land in advance, which is being considered before this com- mittee, might help it. I imagine, though, usually it is 10 per cent. I know that is the advance they get up in Canada. Mr. HERSHMAN. It seems to me it would be a very-wise provision, because the man who can make a success of one of these enterprises can get that amount of money together in a reasonable length of time. Mr. WILSON. This bill has had a good deal of publicity since I in- troduced it, and I have had a great many letters from prominent citizens indorsing the idea of it, and they would like to retain the soldier settler in the settlement or community in which he now lives. I know I would like to retain all those in my district that want to go into a farming operation, and I know we all feel that way about it. I will publish in connection with my remarks the experience they have had in Canada, as it will not take very much space. (The matter referred to is as follows:) TRANSFORMING VIUIITKKS INTO FAK.MKIIS. Almost 44 i>er cent of the < ';in!iortunity to make good. Of the 44 per cent of Canadian soldiers who expressed a desire to be farmers, we learn from the London Graphic. 74 per cent had had previous agricultural experience, although only about 40 per cent of these were actively engaged in farming at the time of enlistment. That the Canadian Government has gone about this enterprise thoroughly is evidenced by the fact that a number of train- ing farms have been established in Great Britain, where the men receive in- structions iu farming under Canadian conditions. The courses here are de- signed to teach inexperienced men the everyday operations of the farm rather than the scientific principles underlying agriculture. In the Canadian prov- inces, moreover, classes have been opened at the convalescent homes to teach farming, and the Graphic tells us that the fields are the classrooms, and "to see a big thrasher or tractor halted midfield surrounded by an intent body of soldier students is a familiar sight in such localities." While the soldier has the right to select his own land, he has the advice of the best land experts in the Dominion in making his selection. The price is subject to the supervision of the soldier settlement hoard, and it is to be noted that in all cases, before the assistance of the board in the purchase can be obtained, the soldier must pass a qualification council which determines whether the applicant is reasonably certain to succeed as a farmer. We read then : "The soldier is asked to pay 10 per cent of the purchase price in cash, this being a stake to keep him at his enterprise. Not more than $4.500 must be left owing to the board at the time of the sale. Provision has been made, however, to rover the case of men who may not be able to pay the 10 per cent but who have had already successful farming experience in Canada. In these cases, either part or the whole of the 10 per cent may be dispensed with. The in- terest on the balance, repayable on the amortization plan by 25 annual install- ments, is 5 per cent. "The Soldiers' Settlement Board is also given authority to provide the soldier with stock and implements up to the maximum value of $'-!.."> per cent, hogs by more than 20 per cent, and sheep by more than in per cent. " Careful provision for the settlement on land of men who have served in the Canadian and Allied armies has been arranged by legislative enactment. The assistance proposed is of a liberal character, and the success which has attended the proposals in their early operation gives promise of excellent permanent results." STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF THE RECLAMATION SERVICE. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I will introduce to you Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, who will make a statement. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Con- gress placed in the last sundry civil bill, which was approved on the 1st day of July. 1918, a paragraph providing for the appropria- tion of $100,000 for the investigation by the Reclamation Service of the feasibility and cost of reclaiming lands needing drainage, and cut-over lands. In addition to that there was an appropriation in the regular reclamation appropriation of $100,000 for the investiga- tion of irrigation projects in the IT western States. The latter is a part of the regular appropriation which has been made in small or similar amounts for some years, and the two together constituted a fund of $200,000, available for expenditure in the country at large, one-half available for only 17 western States, and the other half of it available all over the country. The investigation was organized in August with three districts. The IT States enumerated in the reclamation law constituting one district was placed under the charge of the Chief of Construction, who had already charge of the reclamation work in the west, and the rest of the counrty was" divided into two parts which you will readily recognize when I denominate them the north and the south, so that the north, south, and the west constitute the three districts known as such to every American. The western district was inves- tigated by F. W. Hanna, and the southern by H. T. Cory. Those appropriations are practically all expended. The irriga- tion work applying to the IT western States has been in progress, as you know, for IT years nearly, and the investigations have gone along somewhat ahead of the construction work, so that we now have the knowledge by which we can readily and quickly begin a 122 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. number of projects in that part of the country upon the availability of funds under House resolution 487, known as the Mondell bill. In the north and the south the area to be covered and the small amount of the appropriation enabled us only to do reconnaissance work and find out where opportunities are, and some of the solutions concerning those opportunities. It was not feasible to carry on detailed investigation in all the States. We got into most of them, and of the States that we did enter we find possibilities in most of them, very attractive possibilities. I can verify the statement made by Gen. Cole this morning regard- ing possibilities in Massachusetts. We there investigated only super- ficially, but sufficient to know there are several projects that under this bill would be attractive and feasible for colonization under thu provisions of the bill. One of those projects is somewhere about 15,000 acres now in one ownership, that has been acquired by the purchase of small tracts by a company intending to carry out a colonization project, but they have been unable to finance it prop- erly, and are willing to sell at about cost, which I understand aver- ages about $8 an acre. That is excellent land. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that project? Mr. DAVIS. It is about 25 miles south of Boston, if I remember the distance, near Buzzards Bay. It is partially covered with brush, with practically no merchantable timber on it, and only a small part of it has been under cultivation. The merchantable timber has been cut away. A part of it, but not a large part, is swampy, but it will lend itself well to drainage. The topography is almost ideal. It is not perfectly smooth, but slightly rolling, and can be reduced to cul- tivation. Mr. FERRIS. What would be the initial cost of a tract located as that is? Mr. DAVIS. The initial cost, as I understand it, would be about $8 an acre. Mr. FERRIS. You say it is about 25 miles from Boston? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. SMITH. What would be the cost of reclaiming it? Mr. DAVIS. I believe it can be reclaimed at an average of probably $50 per acre. It will require, as I say, some drainage and some level- ing. Nearly all of it will require clearing, because there are old stumps, and the small stumps of the growing brush. The timber that is there would be valuable only for fuel and fences; it is not what is known as merchantable timber. There is another tract nearer Boston. The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of that tract you just refer- red to? Mr. DAVIS. I know of no name for it. They may have given it some colony name that I dp not know of. There is another tract within about 12 miles of Boston containing between eight and nine thousand acres, that is swampy, but from reconnaissance examination I believe it feasible of reclamation, and will make an excellent trucking farm to be carried on by intensive cultivation for supplying the Boston market. We saw an attractive looking tract in New Hampshire. There aro others in western Massachusetts that we know less about, but re- ported favorably. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 123 We know of an attractive tract in Pennsylvania, and quite a num- >)er in the State of New York: In Greene County, N. Y.. there is a tract that I had better describe as being typical of others that can probably be found in other parts of the northeast, where the settlement is supposed to be rather dense. Xot far from Albany, in the Hudson Valley, is an area of eighteen or twenty thousand acres, already in farms, and with farm buildings. The farms are usually from 154 to 400 acres, and most of them are under cultivation but the majority are farmed by tenants. The great majority of the farms in the group I speak of are listed for sale, and I should say that the majority of the farms that are offered for sale could, at the time 1 look, last December, be purchased at less than the present value of the improvements. Mr. SMITH. Where are these lands? Mr. DAMS. Greene County, N. Y. There are some farms in the group that are not for sale, and some of those that are listed for sale on which I think the price is higher than I would care to pay for this pui-pose, but a sufficient number could be obtained at a very low price to justify the establishment of a colony, in my opinion, unless they have been sold since I saw them. Mr. FERRIS. What is the reason for the excessive low price, that the land has been worn out and has to be revived by clover? Mr. DAVIS. To some extent that is the cause, but I think the proba- bilities arc that to a greater extent the explanation given me is the correct one, and it looks like an anomaly when first stated, that is, that the region fell into practical neglect on account of its extreme prosperity. The farmers there with their families were so prosperous that they sent their children practically all to college, and in the col- lege training they got they achieved a liking for city life, professional life, and qualified therefor, and went into such callings, leaving the old folks on the place, and some of them have followed the children to the city, and some of them have died, and others are still on the place and are homesick, but in the majority of cases the place drifted into the hands of tenants. If anybody knows what it is to live in the city and try to farm 100 miles away through a tenant, he knows it is not a paying proposition. The tenants neglect the farms. Mr. WHITE. What period in the past did those conditions obtain ihat you speak of? Mr. DAVIS. I do not know the exact period. I was told by a State official that that was the chief explanation, and occurred from 10 to 15 years ago, I take it, from the account I have. It is, however, an excellent farming region, as shown by the success of the farms there that are still farmed, and those that have been neglected, or need some building up. I think too, with some exceptions, there is some drainage needed, some of the natural drains should be opened up, but only a small per cent needs drainage. Some needs clearing, which has been neglected to some extent, and a portion of it has grown up to brush. Mr. FERRIS. How far is that from Albany? Mr. DAVIS. I think it will average about 25 miles. It stretches up and down the river valley for 8 or 10 miles. Mr. FERRIS. Is it bottom land ? Mr. DAVIS. It is not the lowest land next to the river. It is back a short distance. There is a little ridge that runs between the river 124 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. y are all alike and I say: " Xow. Bill, I want so much money on this so much on build- ings and improvements," and they usually pay me from $500 to $1,000 on the farm. They pay that right down. Then, I make an additional agreement that he is to farm a certain part of the farm under my direction and bring so much a year: and I put in the contract that I am to place so much buildings on the property ; I ship the lumber there, he puts up the buildings and gets them for cost. Mr. RAKER. Now, how many farmers could you locate in this way in the country that you know, if 3-011 had the money means to do it? Mr. HUNTER. It is unlimited. Mr. RAKER. Just give a rough guess 500,000? Mr. HUNTER. Oh,' no: not 500,000. I would not say that. That would be taking an awfully big leap. Mr. RAKER. Well, how many farmers could you locate under the conditions you have described to the committee? Mr. HUNTER. Well, with capital enough behind it, I could put 10.000 farmers in South Dakota. Mr. RAKKR. Anywhere else than South Dakota? Mr. HUNTER. Well, 40,000 in Montana. Mr. RAKI.U. That is 00,000. How many more? Mr. Ih.viT.i;. If you carry out the irrigation projects yon have in NYashington. you could put 100,000 people there. Mr. RAKER. That makes 160,000 people. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 143 Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Now, how long would it take to put them on that land in those States? Mr. HUNTER. That would be an engineering proposition. I do not know how long it would take to put the water in Montana. In Da- kota we have the water and you could put them on as fast as they came. Mr. BAKER. If you had the water, then, you could provide imme- diately for 160,000 people? Mr. HUNTER. I think so. I know I could take care of 10,000 farmers in the year in South Dakota if I had the capital and if the Government would open up Indian reservations and put cheaper land on the market. Mr. SMITH. Do you have any difficulty in finding men willing to take advantage of these oportunities? Mr. HUNTER. No, sir; when you get one colony started, they will keep coming. Mr. SMITH. And you do not have to do any advertising? Mr. HUNTER. No,' sir. Mr. RAKER. Why can not this scheme be carried on more ex- tensively ? Mr. HUNTER. Because men of money have got into the habit of putting their money into stocks and bonds and things of that kind that they can turn into cash at any time ; they are speculators. If a man buys a piece of land he can not put it on the board of trade and get his money back on it when he wants it. The rural credit system of North and South Dakota is a great help to the farmer, as well as the Federal loan banks. They have helped a wonderful lot of people get cheap money. Mr. RAKER. Is it your belief now that there should be a provision in the proposed legislation that the Secretary of the Interior should have the powder to go out and select tracts of land wherever he could find it and put soldiers on it? Mr. HUNTER. I think he should have that power. I think there should be a commission in each State, under the direction of the Sec- retary of the Interior, to -go out and investigate inquiries that come to it," and take the people out and put them on the farms. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would give us the other items of im- provements. You have given us about $800 for the house. What about the other items ? Mr. HUNTER. The barn and chicken house will cost about $800 more. The well will cost him, properly fixed up, with windmill and tank, $200. Where he does the work himself the fence will cost him about $100 a mile a three-wire fence. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more ? Mr. HUNTER. That is all in the way of improvements. Then there is the cattle to be furnished. I never furnish a man less than four cows if he has 160 acres, and if he has 320 acres I give him 10 cows, charge him 7 per cent interest, and he gives a mortgage on the in- crease. Altogether, it will run from $3,000 to $3,500 for buildings, improvements, and cattle. Mr. ELSTON. That would not apply to a 40-acre tract in an irriga- tion district where they were growing alfalfa? 13331919 10 144 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. HUNTER. Well, 40 acres of land is too small to handle unless you are raising vegetables ; you would be making hand farmers and peasants. That was the trouble on the Huntley project in Montana ; they had to increase the acreage before they could make a percentage. Mr. ELSTON. But you are speaking of rough land and not irri- gated land in Idaho and California? Mr. HUNTER. Oh, yes : of course, for what they raise in those States 40 acres would be plenty. Mr. ELSTOX. I think it is well known that in the far West 40- acres will support a family very well. Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. But what the Government ought to do is to get the soldiers out where they raise corn and grain and alfalfa,, because if you put too many on small farms you will not get enough for your produce. Mr. ELSTON. I was not speaking of produce; I was speaking of alfalfa where they have several crops a year. Mr. HUNTER. Alfalfa is all right for 40 acres. The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with certain resolutions passed by the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, last November r against this plan? Mr. HUNTER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to read them to you and get your opinion on them. This is headed : " Farms for Soldiers " and reads : We oppose the proposed plan of reclaiming swamp mid arid lands for return- ing soldiers, as unsound, impractical, and detrimental to the interest of the/ Nation and agriculture. That part is directed against the reclamation of swamp land and the irrigation of arid land. The next sentence reads: There is an abundance of untenanted farms near market centers to supply all soldiers who may wish farm land. The Government should meet this need in this way, so that they may become self-supporting and useful without waste- and delay. I would like to get your views upon that resolution. Mr. HUNTER. That was passed by the National Grange? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HUNTER. I think the idea they had in their head was that they did not want to increase production and lower prices. That is the only reason for passing such a resolution. The CHAIRMAN. You think that theory is Avell founded, then that it will increase production and decrease prices? Mr. HUNTER. No, I do not think it will increase production be- yond consumption, because I believe increased consumption will absorb increased production. In 10 years I do not think this country will be exporting a bushel of wheat or a pound of beef. The CHAIRMAN. This resolution which I have read says: "There is an abundance of untenated farms near market centers to supply all soldiers who may wish farm lands." As a matter of fact, there is an abundance of untenanted farms. That is true, is it not? Mr. HUNTER. Well, there may be, but I do not think so. I think that is more theory than fact. You talk about the abandoned farms in the State of New York. I do not think there are as many there as the general public believes. Most of it is land that is too rocky HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 145 for cultivation and should never have been attempted as farm land. The CHAIRMAN. Then the grange passed this resolution : Land tenantry is increasing; farm ownership is concentrating in the hands of wealthy land holders, and abandoned farms are becoming too common. Legis- lation should be devised to encourage farm-home owning and to discourage land siteculation and tenantry. Mr. HUNTER. That is just what I am advocating: Put these people on the land and let them own their homes. The CHAIRMAN. The resolution preceding that says this: r.ctter farm credit. Every possible means should be provided to assist men of character and naming to secure farm homes and establish a system of per- sonal credit for the purpose of increasing farm ownership. To this end we favor sm-li amendment of the land-bank law as will extend its benefits more widely. Mr. H INTER. Well, the land bank law refers to the Federal loan bank, does it not? The CHAIRMAN. I assume so. Mr. HUNTER. That is working out fine in the Northwest. A man can get a loan on his property maturing in 30 years. The CHAIRMAN. Well, our object, really, is to carry out the pur- poses of these two last resolutions I have read to increase farm-home ownership. Mr. HUNTER. That is the way I understand it. .Mr. TILLMAN. I wish you would go into more detail about what you do for the settler. You say you build him a house, and barn, and chicken house, and then he has trees and a garden ? Mr. HUNTER. After we get the land broken and under cultivation they have nice gardens. The Russians have very nice gardens. .Mr. T i LI. MAX. You believe in encouraging that? Mr. HUNTER. Oh, yes. Mr. TILLMAN. Your theory is that he is going to remain there, as a fixture on the land? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir; when he goes there he expects to stay there, and he does. I know some people who own the same farm they owned 30 years ago and they spend their winters in California ; their farm is paying about 20 per cent dividend. I have seen an Ameri- can come into Dakota with his family, take a preemption and home- stead, build up a good farm, and when his boys grew up they went into town to work in the bank or in a store, and a foreigner would come along and buy the old man out. Now, these boys are living from hand to mouth, hanging on by their eyebrows, while the old man who held on to the farm is rich. I have a lot of American boys on my farms and they are all making good, bringing up their fami- lies and showing themselves to be good citizens. There is no better fanner in the world than the American farmer. Mr. TILLMAN. Have you had any experience with the fellows who come from town with no knowledge of farming, who have never been on a farm \ Mr. HUNTER. Xo: I never had. But with the county agent to in- struct him in the farm business, there is no reason why he should not make good if he wants to stick there. I think, though, you will find there are very few people who want to leave the cities now. The majority of the men } T OII get on those new farms are the farmer boy. 146 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. For instance, there is a man in Illinois who has a farm worth $300 an acre. He has five boys and he can not buy all of them farms ; he can not break up his farm for them and at the present prices those boys can not buy farms, and if they want to stay on a farm they have got to go West and take up one of these projects. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say a while ago that you could make a success with the inexperienced man, the man who had no experience in farming? Mr. HUNTER. I think you can, because it is only a question of being willing to work. It is a simple matter in my country. It might not be so in the irrigated districts in the West, because lie might have to have more instruction. But in my section of the West any man who is willing and can work intelligently can make a success of it. Mr. RAKER. I want to ask you about this man that you sell this land to. About how much do you get in advance when he takes it? Mr. HUNTER. Where 1 buy Indian land I pay $15 an acre and I make a quarter payment down, 25 per cent, and the balance continues over four years. If I get a fellow who will come down and occupy that land 1 sell it at an advance of from $2.50 to $5 an acre. Mr. BAKER. You think that is fair, considering that you are han- dling the land ? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir; I do. Mr. RAKER. Will you give your experience to the committee on this subject? In most all these lands only about one-third or one- fourth of it is under cultivation when you sell it ? Mr. HUNTER. Well, practically none of it is under cultivation when I sell it, but it grows up. Mr. RAKER. I want you to state whether it is better to have the farm all cultivated, with fences, buildings, and roads, before you put the man on, or do you think it is advisable to put up a house and barn and other buildings, and furnish the machinery, and then let the man work out his own destiny, taking 10 acres this year and 10 acres next year, bringing his family there and developing it himself, as against developing it all at once and putting him on a highly developed farm? What is your theory? Mr. HUNTER. My theory is just what my practice is. I make that fellow go to work the minute I sell the farm to him. Of course. I would not break a farm and put it all under cultivation before I turned it over to him. Mr. RAKER. That is what I want to know. Before a man goes on a farm with his wife and family, do you believe it is better husbandry to build the farm and have it ready for occupation. so that there will be no grubbing of stumps or plowing, or would you have it de- veloped gradually? Mr. HUNTER. I would make him develop it himself. I would gi re him a start and let him work out his own salvation. Mr. RAKER. You think that is the better plan ? Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. Mr. RAKER. Now, as to the location of the land; would you make a center of the community, say 10 miles square, and have a renter where he would live and work his farm from that renter, or would you put him on the farm like we work farms in this country? Mr. HUNTER. I would put him on a separate farm and keep him as far away from the town as you can get him. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 147 Mr. RAKER. I want to know why Mr. ELSTON (interposing). Mr. Raker, that has been gone into very thoroughly this morning. Mr. RAKER. Not by this man. Mr. ELSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Well, let his answer my question. Mr. ELSTON. I think he has answered it. Mr. RAKER. No, he has not. Mr. VAILE. That was gone into when you were not in the room, Judge. Mr. Hunter developed that before you came in. Mr. HUNTER. I think it would be better to put him out by himself and let him develop his own farm, because otherwise I do not believe you will have a success. Mr. SMITH. How long on the average does it take these men to complete the payment of their obligations three or four years ? Mr. HUNTER. Oh, yes; more than that. Mr. SMITH. About how long? Mr. HUNTER. With ordinary crops an average man will pay out in from 6 to 10 years. Now, gentlemen, I have no ax to grind in this matter in any way at all. I just want to tell you what has been done. I thank you very much for this opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is obliged to you. We will now hear from Mr. Gibson who, I understand, represents the Michigan Land Settlement Commission. Mr. Gibson, will you state your name, occupation, and just what that commission is? STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN I. GIBSON, REPRESENTING THE MICHIGAN LAND SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. Mr. GIBSON. My name is John I. Gibson. I am a member of the commission appointed by the governor of Michigan to study the question of soldier land settlement as proposed by Secretary of Interior Lane, and to outline a general land settlement policy ap- flicable to returning soldiers, sailors, marines, and others. Besides, am secretary of the Western Michigan Development Bureau, a Michigan corporation not for pecuniary profit which has been in the colonization business for about 10 years in the cut-over land region of northwestern Michigan. I will not take the time of the committee to make any lengthy statement because I think the ground has been covered quite thoroughly already. I wish, though, in the first place, to take issue with the last speaker with reference to what he said about community settlements. As far as the cut-over lands of the northern part of Michigan are concerned, I do not think his views would hold good. I favor community settlement as against the segregated unit plan. There are in the United States 200,000,000 acres of < ut-over land that are suitable for agricultural develop- ment, and this great area of land is increasing at the rate of 15,000.000 acres a year. It will perhaps convey to you some idea of this vastness of the area when I tell you that in order to go over this 200,000,000- acre tract and cross each of the 312,500 sections once and walking 20 miles every day for 365 days every year would require 43 years. If one shoulct go in a Ford and cover 100 sections a. dav instead of 148 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 20 it would take 8 years and 7 months to get back home, barring tire trouble. We have in northern Michigan 11,686,000 acres of cut- over land and 2,947,4;39 acres of swamp land. The utilization of this land is a matter which vitally concerns not only the State and the Nation but also the entire world. The State land commission appointed by our governor made a report on March 12, 1919, which was printed. I am under the im- pression that copies of this report were mailed to the members of this Public Lands Committee. I will be glad to furnish a copy to any member who hasn't got one. Our State land commission and the western Michigan Development Bureau are heartily in favor of the Mondell bill. We have been trying to get settlers on our cut- over lands for about 10 years and it is our experience that segregated settlement is a slow and unsatisfactory method. To put a man out in the wilderness and leave him there to clear the stumps and make a farm home without the help and cooperation of neighbors is hardly fair and is one of the prime reasons why we have so many failures. The plan of the bill under discussion is more feasible and likely to succeed, besides it will be an object lesson showing the value of cooperation and teamwork in clearing the land and making partially prepared farms with the aid of suitable machinery. In Wisconsin they are sending out land-clearing trains to show the farmers how to clear the land in a large way. at a greatly reduced cost. With our present method of settling the cut-over land of Michigan we would not finish the job until the crack of doom. The CHAIKMAX. What does it cost to clear the land? Mr. GIBSON. Approximately, from $15 to $35 an acre. The CHAIRMAN. What is the stumpage per ucre? Mr. GIBSON. It varies greatly, but taking good, bad. and indiffer- ent, the pine would run from fen to twelve thousand, and the hard- wood nine to ten thousand. The land can be bought for from $5 an acre up. Mr. Jonxsox. Do you utilize the pine stumps you pull from the land? . Mr. GIBSOX. Xot now. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to extract turpentine from the pine stumps, but it couldn't be made to pay. Mr. Jonxsox. They are doing it very successfully in my State. Mr. GIBSOX. Yes; I know you are, but for some reason or other we have not been able to produce the turpentine as cheaply as you can in the South. Mr. JOHNSON. They are making rosin and turpentine. Mr. GIBSOX. Yes; and I know that some by-products made from the pine stumps earned large profits during the war. Mr. TAYLOR. What percentage of the cut-over land in your state will make good farm land? Mi\ GIBSOX. I should figure approximately 20 per cent is light soil jack pinelaud and about 75 per cent will grow successfully the crops that are suited to the climate. Mr. TAYLOR. Would you have to make that good by fertili/er or would you consider it workable land? Mr. GIBSON. Ye--: commercial fertilizer is a valuable help, but there are thousands of acres of viririn soil in northern Michigan HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 149 that will produce crops at a profit without the application of ferti- lizer or manure. It is not generally known that some of our pine- land- which were considered worthless is where we now have some of our best orchards. The light-soil land in most cases needs either marl or lime applied to sweeten the soil. After the acidity has been re- moved from the soil the best method is to plant some of the legumes, such as sweet clover, hairy vetch, alfalfa, or cowpeas, which, as you know, have colonies of bacteria on their roots which feed on nitrogen and have the power to take the free nitrogen that is so abundant in the air and fix it in the soil. Xitrogen is what this kind of soil needs, and in order to get humus into the soil enabling it to better retain moisture these leguminous crops are plowed under green. I think the time is coming soon, as stated by the witness who preceded me, when we will have all we can do to feed our own people. The last census showed that the population increased at the rate of one mil- lion a year, so that by the year 1930 we will have a population of about 125.000,000 and' unless we increase the area of cultivated land faster than we are doing now we will require a Hoover to ration us and white bread will disappear from the table of the ordinary man. The population of this country is increasing nearly twice as fast as the cultivated land area, according to recent statistics. Mr. TAYLOR. How is your Michigan delegation in Congress? Are they in favor of this measure ? Mr. GIBSON. I believe most of them are, but some of them have not expressed themselves to me. I wish to call attention to some of the objections that have been raised to putting soldiers and sailors on the land, particularly the one of overproduction, which the chair- man called attention to in reading the resolutions of the National Grange. By the way. I might say here that the Michigan Business Farmer, which is the official organ of the " Gleaners" had an editorial in the last issue in favor of the national soldier settlement act. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the State grange paper? Mr. GIBSON. No : it is the organ of the State Gleaners. The grange paper, the Michigan Farmer, is also in favor of the bill. The over- production objection is something of a bugaboo, because, as I have said, the population is rapidly increasing and production is not keep- ing pace. The statement was made not long since by Wallace's Farmer that if the amount of nitrogen potassium and phosphorus actually used in growing eight of the leading crops of Iowa last year were figured at the regular prices at which they were sold dur- ing 1918. it would be found that these eight principal crops had re- moved from the soil of that State these elements to the value of $216,- 000.000 or. to put it another way, it cost Iowa the equivalent of $216-, 000.000 worth of fertilizer to produce eight of its leading crops last year. When, in addition to this, the increase in tenant farming and the exodus from the country to the city is taken into consideration, it seems to me the danger of overproduction of farm crops is a remote contingency. Mr. XICHOI.S. Referring to Mr. Taylor's question about Michigan. I will inform Mr. Taylor that most of the Michigan delegation in Con- gress are in favor of some such proposition as this. Mi-. TATLOR. I am glad to hear it. because they are a very strong delegation. I hope they are all in favor of it. 150 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. You did not complete your answer about the land being sold for $150 an acre. You say you grew fruit on it ? Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir; I grew peaches, cherries, apples, and some small fruits. It would be hard to make a living on 20 acres of light soil land even after it had been brought to a proper condition of tilth, unless one practiced intensive farming and grew garden truck or fruit. You may not be aware that our western Michigan " Sunny- ripe " apples are the best in the world. Mr. EI^STON. You were about to express an opinion with regard to the community plan of farming as against the isolated plan. What is your idea ? Mr. GIBSON. My experience during the past 10 years with the in- dividual method has convinced me that the community plan is the best for cut-over land, and I am in favor of it, and so is our State land commission and the Western Michigan Development Bureau, both of which I represent. Mr. VAILE. In favor of what ? Mr. GIBSON. Of the community plan, as applied to cut-over land. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the community plan? Mr. GIBSON. I mean the plan outlined in the Mondell bill. I would like to suggest, though, that in some cases the unit be reduced to 50 families with 80 acres each, instead of 100 families. It is rather a difficult matter to get 10,000 acres of good land in a single unit. Mr. VAILE. When you say you are in favor of the community plan, do you mean that you are in favor of a common enterprise in clearing stumpage, or, in the case of the West, irrigation, or would you go further than that and advocate living together in some com- munity center? Mi-. GIBSON. Yes. I favor a common enterprise, but not the col- lecting the soldier farmers in villages as is done on the continent of Europe. Mr. TAYLOR. Then tell us how and why and in what way. Mr. GIBSON. The idea has been expressed that farm life nowa- days is not isolated, but notwithstanding the telephone, rural free delivery, good roads, and the Ford car there is still a good deal of lonesomeness on the farm, especially in sparsely settled localities. I believe the neighbors and the community life would be a great help in holding people on the farms, especially the returned soldiers and sailors. The CHAIRMAN. You do not understand the community settlement as holding the people in a town, but simply having a public hall where they can meet and hold Mr. GIBSON (interposing). Moving pictures, say, and a place where they could hold meetings. The CHAIRMAN. But I do not understand you to say that the Gov- ernment should supply moving pictures to these farmers. Mr. GIBSON. Oh, no; just a place where they could hold community meetings. The CHAIRMAN. Simply a common meeting place? Mr. GIBSON. Yes; I think so. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is all right to have a community hull, but I would not think of moving pictures. How long have you lived in Michigan? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 151 Mr. GIBSON. Off and on since 1889. The CHAIRMAN. Have you observed whether or not these in- dividual farmers live on separate farms or in settlements out there do they live in town and go out to their lot and farm it ? Mr. 'GIBSON. None that I know of. The CHAIRMAN. There are none of that kind of community settle- ments ? Mr. GIBSON. None that I know of. The CHAIRMAN. Now, are you familiar with the French, the Italian, and the Belgium community settlements? Mr. GIBSON. No ; but I am familial' with the New Zealand settle- ment plan, because I lived there. The CHAIRMAN. Let us talk about the ones we know about. I do not care to go into the New Zealand proposition at this particular time. Mr. GIBSON. Although I have been on the European Continent, I am not familiar with the present farming practiced there. The CHAIRMAN. You are not? Mr. GIBSON. No. The CHAIRMAN. But you do not want the community settlement and development of the farming lands in this country on a line like that in France or Italy, do you 1 Mr. GIBSON. No ; not that kind of peasantry plan. The CHAIRMAN. You mean you want the farmers to live inde- pendently on their individual tracts, is that right? Mr. GIBSON. Yes ; but have a community center to which they can come if they desire. That is what I had in mind. The CHAIRMAN. And the cooperative work you are speaking of is development where they all get together and get a large outfit and equipment to clear land? Mr. GIBSON. Build the roads and get things to going, so that they can get their products to market, and all that kind of thing. The CHAIRMAN. But you do not mean to put them all in the town and let them live there and have their homes there and then farm their land from that town? Mr. GIBSON. No. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gibson, you said you desired to reply to some objections. Mr. GIBSON. Yes. I have answered one, with regard to the over production. Another objection raised was this. I said to one Mem- ber of Congress that I thought it was our job to feed the world, and he replied that he was through with that charity business; we had done enough of it. I did not mean that we are to feed the world and not get any pay for it. I believe in feeding the world and being paid for it, either in money or exchange of Mr. NELSON. This is a suggestion made by the Soldier Settlement Boa I'd at a regular meeting. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 169 Mr. VAILE. Is that based on their experience in cases of soldiers that suggestion outlined there ? Mr. NELSON. We have never had any soldiers' settlements. It is just based on the experience of knowing what it costs to buy live stock in Tennessee and what it costs to make improvements, in the way of building farm dwellings, barns, and fences. Mr. VAILE. Have you any provision did you have any provision for the settlement of ex-Confederate soldiers on the land in Ten- nessee ? Mr. NELSOX. I don't think so. I am not positive about that. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Nelson, did I understand you to say that your board estimated that the maximum amount there provided for build- ings and live stock would be necessary to properly equip the sol- diers ? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. We did. We consider it would take $1,600 to equip in buildings any soldier farm, and that it would take at least $1,200 to equip in live stock. Mr. BARBOUR. I just wanted to be certain that I understood you correctly. Mr. TAYLOR. You have given this matter quite extensive considera- tion, and you appeared before our committee in the last Congress. Will you state briefly to the committee the position of the State of Tennessee upon this matter and what you are doing down there ? Mr. NELSON. Well, Tennessee, I think, has taken the lead in the Southern States. When the matter was first mentioned by Secretary Lane last year, Tennessee immediately took an active interest, and an unofficial committee was appointed by the Nashville Commercial Club. This committee was composed of men from every section of the State, and they immediately made a survey of the State and con- sidered the type of soil, the price of land, and after going into each section, decided that the Cumberland Plateau was the most desirable place for a soldier's settlement. So they had one of their members, Mr. Welch, appointed trustee, and options were taken in his name on about 150,000 acres of land, ranging in price from $5 to $15 an acre, and these lands were surveyed and complete maps were made of the whole project, We sent committees to Washington last February, and they ap- peared before your committee and assisted in every way we could in recommending* for passage the Taylor bill, as it was then known. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the State is enthusiastically in favor of it, is it ? Mr. NELSON. The State, as a whole, is very enthusiastically in favor of it, and the legislature last January passed a bill giving the governor authority to appoint a committee and appropriating a small amount of money to finish up the work of this committee and to see that everj'thing possible was done to further this plan. Mr. TAYLOR. There is no question but what the State of Tennessee will heartily cooperate with the Government in legislation of this kind ? Mr. NELSON. Yes; we want to cooperate to the fullest extent, an$ the suggestions are not made in the way of criticizing the bill, but in the hope that more soldiers will be able to avail themselves of the plan, and that it will be to the benefit of the soldier to make these changes. 170 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. Mr. MAYS. What character of land do you find in Tennessee will be available? Mr. NELSON. I am not a soil expert. I am a geologist, so I think it would be better for a soil expert to answer that. But the land is a clay land with, I suppose it would be called, a sandy clay soil. Mr. TAYLOR. Is it cut-over land, swamp land, or what? Mr. NELSON. Cut-over land, gently undulating. The elevation is about 1,800 feet, fine water, fine living conditions, good railroad facilities, and close to market. Mr. MAYS. Did you find comparatively large tracts? Mr. NELSON. We found tracts from probably 20,000 acres "down to two or three hundred acres all mixed up. There are some large holdings by lumber companies, some small holdings by people that have bought land and cultivated part of it, and by people who have bought more than they could cultivate. I would be glad to road a letter from one or two of the men that are in that vicinity, if you would like to have it. Mr. TAYLOR. You are confident, are you, that the Government, through the cooperation of the States, will get these lands at what they are worth, or at least not any more than they are worth, and that there will be no real estate imposition of any kind? Mr. NELSON. We had that trouble when we started. We found there were some real estate men trying to make something out of it, and we did away with that immediately by taking options in the name of the trustee and refusing to have anything to do with people who had optioned their lands to real estate men. We went into other sections and got land directly from the owners. Mr. TAYLOR. It is a State matter, then ? Mr. NELSON. It is a State matter through the official State com- mittee, and there will be no profiteering of any kind in the lands that have been submitted. Mr. MAYS. Mr. Nelson, I would like to ask about what acreage you think would be proper for these farms in Tennessee. Mr. NELSON. Well, that is a question for an agricultural man again. Mr. MAYS. Well, you have given a figure here of about $2,000 for cost of the land. I believe. Mr. NELSON. Well, that would be a basis, I suppose, of a 30 or 40 acre farm. Now, I don't know what size farms they intend to give the soldiers. I had to use some basis in making a figure, and I just took a $2,000 basis as about the smallest basis that could be taken. Mr. MAYS. I wanted to know what acreage would be necessary for them to properly support themselves and families on a Tennessee farm. Mr. NELSON. It would be better for them to have a larger acreage. Mr. MAYS. About what acreage? Mr. NELSON. I should say from 80 to 100 acres. Mr. MAYS. Mr. Mondell' brought out the fact that these applicants were presumed would be presumed to help in the improvement of their farms and make their first payment in that way, and the same in regard to the buildings. Would that modify your views in regard to the percentage to be paid in the beginning by the soldier, the fact that he would be allowed to work part of this out instead of paying cash? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 171 Mr. NELSON. Well, if he did work it out, in order to get the maxi- mum loan from the Government in every case, he has got to put up, as I understand it, the cash payment, and that would be $533 on his live stock and $600 on his improvements. Mr. MAYS. On the live stock that is true, but when it would come to buildings Mr. Mondell pointed out that he would be permitted to help in the construction of buildings, and in hauling material and things of that kind, and make his payments on the buildings largely in that way, and in fencing the land he could also help pay it. Mr. NELSON. The Government is going to lend him $1,200 for his improvements, if that does not exceed three-quarters of the cost of the improvements. In other words, he would have to put up $400. Mr. MAYS. In labor it might be. Mr. NELSON. Well, I don't know whether he could put it up in labor. As I understood it, that would have to be a cash payment. Now, if the Government would accept preferred payments in labor, in lieu of the $400, that might make a difference in the improvements. Mr. MAYS. That is what I wanted to know, if that would change your percentage. Mr. NELSON. It might change it, but all the Government wants is protection from the soldier, and 10 per cent will protect the Gov- ernment on any improvements, and 20 per cent of the total cost of any live stock bought will protect the Government on live stock. Mr. B ARBOUR. Mr. Nelson, Mr. Mondell was also of the opinion that the amount stated, $1,600, as a maximum for buildings, and $1,300, I believe, and something $1,333 for equipment of live stock, was excessive; that they would not require that much; that the buildings, satisfactory buildings, might be constructed for six or seven or eight hundred dollars, and three or four hundred dollars might cover their equipment do you think that would give a soldier a good start in the way of buildings and equipment, that amount of investment ? Mr. NELSON. In Tennessee I am only speaking from the Tennes- see standpoint Mr. BARBOUR (interposing). I realize that. Mr. NELSON. In the section where this project is located, in order to build a satisfactory barn, a farm residence, fences, it would take that $1,600. I don't see how he could possibly buy the necessary live stock for less than $1,200. If he gets a span of mules, a cow, and a brood sow. he wouldn't have much money left. Mr. BARBOUR. He would need certain implements, too. Mr. NELSON. Yes; he would have to get his implements, too. Mr. BARBOUR. That same thought occurred to me during the course of these arguments. Mr. NELSON. We studied the matter very thoroughly and did not make the suggestion until we had gone over the cost and talked with people in that section. We had one member on our committee that used to live in that very section. Before we finally decided to make these recommendations, we went over the situation with people that were living in that section at the present time. Mr. BARBOUR. My opinion is that the first question a soldier is going to ask us when he starts to consider this proposition is how much money he will have to put up. 172 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. Mr. NELSON. Well, now, of course under the present plan, he can put up $1,033, and it is most probable that in order to get a good start, a satisfactory start, he would have to put that amount of money up. Under the suggested plan, in order to get the same amount of money from the Government he would put up $500 and the Government would have adequate protection. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Nelson, isn't this the idea : We don't expect the boys to come around with $1,000 in their pockets, but we do expect them to come around with their muscle and ready to go to work, and if the Government, for instance, enters in a contract with them that they shall do a certain amount of work for a certain amount of money, or even a day's pay, or whatever the arrangement is, they will be allowed to earn the money or do enough work to give them this advance? Isn't that the idea? We don't want to fix it so that it will shut them out. Mr. NELSON. No, that is my very idea in making the suggestions that it would not shut out the soldier, and the Government would still be protected. The Government doesn't want to shut out any soldier, and doesn't want to do anything but receive protection, as I gather it, from the soldier. Mr. BARBOUR. As I understand Mr. Taylor's question, if the Gov- ernment is willing to accept the soldier's labor at a certain value in lieu of coin, that would answer your objection, wouldn't it? Mr. NELSON. How is the soldier going to live and support his family ? Mr. BARBOUR, Well, I don't know how he would support his family. Mr. TAYLOR. Those that haven't got families, of course, some of them have, but there are two or three ways of looking at it. For instance, if you would start the boys at working at $4 per day, they might, as has been suggested by Brother Kent they might have their land paid for, and not have very much turned in on the whole business at that rate. We have got to get some results, you know, in clearing and work, and I don't think that the amount is so important as it is that we make some arrangement whereby they can go ahead and do the work and be given an allowance for it, and guarantee the Government, and yet get results. That is what we want. We want them to do some work there. Mr. NELSON. Yes, but if it goes put that a soldier had to pay, either in wages on deferred payment, or in cash, $1,000, roughly, in order to avail himself of this plan, I think it woul'd hurt the plan. Mr. TAYLOR. We don't want to make it prohibitive. Mr. BARBOUR. Suppose the Secretary of the Interior, who, I understand, will be given wide discretionary powers in this matter, lays down a rule that a soldier working on one of these projects shall receive a certain wage, and that if he has a famliy there would be allotted to that family at least as much as was allotted to the soldier's family during his service in the Army, or even more, out of his wages; wouldn't that be satisfactory? Mr. NELSON. Well, from the soldiers that I have talked to that have been over in France and have been in the country here, that have had allotments sent home, and when they paid Government insurance, that these soldiers have not any money. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 173 Mr. BARBOUR. That is true; but they will be saving a certain amount of their wages, which will be applied on their land. That will be a direct saving. Mr. NELSON. Why do you feel they will do that, when they haven't done it in the last two or three years ? Mr. BARBOUR. The Government will do it for them, maybe. The Secretary of the Interior will evolve a plan by which that can be done. Mr. NELSON. Of course, I don't know anything about that. Mr. BARBOUR. No; I don't either: but I am just trying to get in- formation. Mr. NELSON. If such a plan as that could be worked out, I think it would be very satisfactory. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Nelson, you have had some experience in han- dling land and seeing that men purchased this land for the purpose of farming in your part of the State ? Mr. NELSON. My experience in land has been confined to this settle- ment work, and the settlement work has been confined to the last 8 or 12 months since this matter came up. I am the State geologist of Tennessee, and my work is mining work in developing the min- eral resources but I took an interest in this matter because I felt it was one of the important matters coming after the war. Mr. BENHAM. Have you lived any considerable part of your life on a farm? Mr. NELSON. I have lived in the mountains and I have lived on the Cumberland Plateau several years, in the section that is under con- sideration not continuously, "but for several months at a time. Mr. BENHAM. I mean in connection with the farming industry or mineral industry? Mr. NELSON. In connection with the mineral industry. The sug- gestions that I am making are made by the board, and I was re- quested to present them. One of the members of the board, Dr. F. M. McRee, is commissioner of agriculture of Tennessee, a man who is about 70 years old and has been a farmer all his life; and another member, Dr. H. A. Morgan, one of the foremost agricultural ex- perts in the South, in charge of the Tennessee Experimental Station, Bureau of Extension. The other two members on the committee are Mr. Welch, who has been a timberman, a lumberman, in the past, and Mr. Will Manier, a business man, and myself, a mining man. That is the personnel of ^the committee, and the committee as a whole has made these suggestions. Mr. RAKER. From your observations, now, you find that the South- ern States are practically in favor of this kind of legislation ? Mr. NELSON. I think they are; yes. I think that practically, with one or two minor exceptions, the whole South is very greatly in favor of this legislation. Mr. RAKER. From what you have observed in regard to this ques- tion, would you provide a completed farm I use the word " com- pleted " to generally describe it and turn it over to the soldier, or sell it to him call it his homestead or would you provide them a home to live in, a housse, a few of the necessary buildings, a barn, a chicken house, and a few other necessary outbuildings upon part of his land, cleared where it can be done with cooperation or other- wise individually, and then allow him to work out the balance him- 174 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. self in degrees, so that he would have, in addition to his cultivation, something to work on for the next eight or ten years ? Mr. NELSON. Well, I don't think that I am competent to answer that question. Mr. RAKER. All right, then; I thought maybe you had given it some consideration. Mr. NELSON. I will say that the committee had given this con- sideration. The members of the committee in discussion seemed to think that it would be better to turn a practically completed farm over to the soldier, probably with a very small percentage of the farm to be cleared after it is turned over. Mr. RAKER. You don't know upon what theory they base that, do you? Mr. NELSON. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. That is really a change of thought from all our ex- perience for the last 50 years in this country. Mr. NELSON. That was just the individual opinion of the members of the committee the agricultural members of the Tennessee com- mittee. Of course, they suggested this, that it might not be neces- sary for a man to have all of his improvements on the farm when it was turned over to him; that those could be built in the next year or two. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask if you have made any investiga- tion as to the segregated proposition ? Mr. NELSON. As to the what ? Mr. WHITE. The segregated unit. That is, as it has been discussed here, giving the soldier an opportunity to buy a farm, the Govern- ment cooperating with him, outside of what has been designated as a community project. Mr. NELSON. You mean buying an individual farm? Mr. WHITE. Buy him an individual farm ; yes. Mr. NELSON. Well, I have read something of such plans. I think that was tried in Australia. In places where the plan has been tried it has not been a success. They have not been able to keep up with the settlers that they have placed. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask you if you think there are numer- ous opportunities, or would there be frequent opportunities, where the proposition could be successfully carried out in your State ? Mr. NELSON. By taking individual farms not connected? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. NELSON. I don't think it could, because the farmers in many sections are using methods that are not improved. They are farm- ing like they did 50 years ago, and if you would place a new man in such a community he might try to use improved methods for a short time, but he would very probably fall back into the rut that is being followed by everyone surrounding him. Mr. WHITE. Well, aren't there many localities in your State where they are using the improved progressive methods? Mr. NELSON. Where they are being used, the lands, I think, are too high to be procured under this act. The cost of the land is too high. Mr. RAKER. There is always on the part of the Government sort of a paterfamilias of this soldier, watching his farm ing, isn't there? Mr. NELSON. No; but the committee thought that in a large project that it would certainly need an agricultural expert there at all times HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 175 for consultation on any point that might come up, just like the Ten- nessee University has agricultural experimental stations in every section of the State. They would have an agricultural agent for that section that could be called upon whenever he was needed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelson, you may have stated it, but I did not get it if you did what is the average price at which you can secure these lands that you contemplate securing? Mr. NELSON. The options that we have taken ranged from $5 to $15 an acre. The CHAIRMAN. And what will it cost to clear those lands? I un- derstand that some of them are in stumps. Mr. NELSON. Yes; I can't tell you what the cost would be now. I can state that the N., C. & St. L. Railway several years ago cleared up a 40-acre farm on the Plateau, and their figures for clearing that were about, I think, $40 an acre. The CHAIRMAN. Was that very heavily timbered? Mr. NELSON. Well, all of that land on the Plateau is about the same. The CHAIRMAN. What is the character of the timber ? Mr. NELSON. Mainly oak; different varieties of oak. They are hardwoods. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many feet it runs to the acre? Mr. NELSON. I couldn't say. Mr. TAYLOR. If it is cut-over land, it hasn't got very many feet to the acre, has it? Mr. NELSON. Most all of the large timber has practically been cut off. There is small timber there. Mr. WHITE. Would the land require fertilizing before it could be successfully available ? Mr. NELSON. It would require liming. , It may require other things. I could not stand that, but I know they use lime in that section. The CHAIRMAN. What process did the railroad use to remove the stumps, do you know? Mr. NELSON. I could not say. I think they pulled one tree against the other. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of Mr. Nelson? If not, we thank you very much. Now, I should like to get some idea as to how many more witnesses we will have, in order to see whether we can not close these hearings by Friday at the latest. We have Mr. Davis, of the Reclamation Service, and the Governor of Oklahoma was to be here to-day, as I understood it. Mr. VAILE. And Mr. Atkeson again, if he desires to appear. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And Gov. Gooding, of Idaho, and sev- eral members from the State have signified their desire to appear before the committee. I think it might be well to assign Friday to the Members of Congress. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Kent, a former member of this committee, is here. Do you wish to make a statement, Mr. Kent? Mr. KENT. I will make one if you wish me to. The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to hear you now. then. You might tell the committee just whom you represent and give your 133319 19 12 176 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM KENT, OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION. Mr. KENT. I was formerly a Member of Congress, from 1911 to 1917. Since then I have been a member of the United States Tariff Commission. I was a member of this committee for four years, and I have been deeply interested in land and land problems all my life, and I have had the benefit of sitting in with Dr. Meade, Avho is the main author of this bill, who is undoubtedly the greatest land-settle- ment expert in this country, and probably in any country. He is a man who had for nine years worked out the land-settlement policy of Australia and is now just finishing allotments in a plan in Cali- fornia along these lines, and I am sorry that the committee can not avail themselves of his presence. If you have time, I should think it would be the best thing to do to send for him and let him make a statement. Xow, this bill, I am going to criticize certain features of it. al- though I am very much in favor of the legislation the general idea. In the first place, the question of land settlement is so much bigger than any soldier proposition that I am sorry you put the cart before the horse. I am sorry that the legislation did not boar the caption of "A bill for land settlement or redistribution of population with preference to those who have served in the war," instead of starting out with it as an aid to soldiers. The worst economic feature of our country, to my mind and a bad social feature is the overgrowth of the cities, which are a burden on production. The same thing is true of even the smaller towns. We are getting away from produc- tion, and we are putting too many people into the cities and into the towns we are paying too much for distribution. There must be a redistribution of population. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kent, before going further, it might be well for you to tell the committee what experience you have had in farm- ing and in raising live stock and kindred subjects. Mr. KENT. For over 30 years I was engaged in cattle feeding and farming in Nebraska on a large scale. For the same length of time, and up to two years ago I owned a big ranch in Nevada. Both were considerable institutions. Although I don't believe in it, I have played the game of land speculation in about 14 States, and I am free to confess that I have reaped where I have not sown and have had pretty good luck. So I am more or less familiar with farm con- ditions all over the country and with the land problem. If you start toward the redistribution of population, you are starting on the right and permanent track; 3*011 are doing what you want to do for the soldier when you give him full preference, but you don't bar other people. If the soldier can do this work that you think he is fit to do, that is all right; on the other hand, if you start out only with soldier relief, the time is going to come when the soliders will be very apt to think that they are a privileged class as against other people. You have seen some of that spirit in the past, this soldier privilege, and while we want to do the gracious and grateful thing for the soldier, we don't want to have the soldier to get the idea that he is to inherit the earth as against other people that could prop- erly use it. He should be given preference rather than to have tli<> HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 177 tiling back to the land assistance entirely confined to him. After all the soldier is a citizen and every citizen 'is a potential soldier. A very important part of this bill is the section which provides that these lands can not be alienated from the settler for 10 years. Ten. years is better than nothing, but a million years would be still better. I can not see how you are going to hold settlers on land and continue to be certain of continuing work on land, and production on land, if you put this land under an absolute title that a man can part with. This is just ordinary sense if you try to figure out how 3-011 are going to avoid farm tenancy and how you are going to have the land fully and permanently worked. You will find that parting with full title, throwing it into the speculative class of investment, where a man can. go off and leave it untilled, or run up the price on the next fellow, is iiot going to accomplish your result. Take the reclamation in the West Mr. Davis will, no doubt, bear me out there of course, the idea there was to provide for the settler. I don't think the method by which the settler was cared for was en- tirely judicious. I don't think there was nearly enough done to put the land in shape so that the man could go ahead and begin produc- ing, and thereby make himself solid. There were a tremendous lot of miserable failures, or unnecessary suffering, that came from not staking the man, as he is staked under the terms of this bill. But I want to call your attention to another fact, and that is while Congress was legislating for the settler, providing an opportunity for him to a measurable extent, at the same time there went along the buying out of settlers, cultivated areas by large owners, especially large cattle men. In the Truckee-Carson project, which certainly was established for settlers, and to give people of moderate means a better chance, I am informed that the largest cattle people in Nevada have purchased considerable tracts of the best land. The CHAIRMAN. That is on a Government reclamation project? Mr. KENT. Yes, sir. The Truckee-Carson project. That land has been purchased by Humphrey & Moffitt, the cattlemen. I under- stand they have considerable areas of the very best land in that pro- ject, and that project certainty never was created for that purpose. Humphrey & Moffitt had plenty of land to go out on and do their own reclaiming and not use Government money without interest, which is. in effect, what happened on these projects. Mr. CHAIRMAN. They purchased it from the settlers? Mr. KENT. They purchased it from the settlers. The settlers were allowed to sell, and in some cases they did sell, and we have a re- sumption of large holdings in there, which is not what we wanted. If any place in the world needs self-sustaining families, it is the State of Nevada. There is a comparatively small area available for such purposes, and I am informed that this process is going on. Now, I am informed that in Idaho one of the projects there Mr. Meade told me this I can't give you the name of the project in detail that in one of the projects there, there have been very large purchases by wealthy interests of the best lands in the projects. And again your settler gets out; your State is impoverished in the quality of its population. Mr/SMir-H of Idaho. Will you be a little more explicit with refer- ence to your statement concerning Idaho? 178 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. KENT. I can't be any more explicit. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I know of no such condition as that referred prevailing on Government reclamation projects i niny State. Mr. KENT. There is none? Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Not to my knowledge. Mr. KENT. Well, Dr. Meade told me so. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The farms are really being divided, instead of falling into the hands of corporations or large holders. Mr. RAKER. How is that? Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The irrigated lands are being divided up because it has been discovered that 160 acres of irrigated land is oftentimes too large to farm advantageously. Mr. KENT. Well, I wish you would inquire of Mr. Davis on that specific question. I only roughly quote what Dr. Mead told me, that there had been this tendency, and I am definitely informed that Humphrey & Moffit have large amounts of the Truckee-Carson project. Mr. RAKER. Right there, Mr. Kent the only reason that they got it, if they got any, during this last year under this legislation, irrigated land, was that they owned it before. That is the trouble under these projects, that the people owned the land before the proj- est was inaugurated, but under the law you can only have 160 acres. I agree with you on that, and I am going to offer an amend- ment to this legislation that a man can only have one homestead under the project. Mr. KENT. The serious feature is that this homestead once acquired falls into the speculative class. You have no certainty that the land is going to be worked. New South Wales adopted the limited title scheme, and it worked successfully there, and I think it should be embodied in this legislation. I have no idea that it will be, and in- deed I could not expect to see such a great question taken up in this particular emergency. I wish you would lengthen the time from 10 years to 20 years, if you can, in which that land can not be alienated, and wait for the people hereafter to work out the general scheme of land tenure. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Kent, may I ask you a question? Do you not think it would be wise to amend the bill, providing that the transfer should only be made to a soldier? Because there are many circumstances that arise which make it impossible for a man to go ahead with his farming activities. Mr. KENT. As I started out to say, Mr. Smith, I think the mis- take is made in making the soldier the sole beneficiary here. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What will you do with the man who loses his health and is unable to keep on with his payments? Mr. KENT. Under the plan I propose, I would credit him with everything that he has put on the land, and if you have a limited tenure I am talking now about the scheme that 1 am figuring on if you have a limited tenure and the time came when a man had to get off, owing to ill health, or for other reason, he would have for sale everything that he had contributed to the land, less what he owed on the land. The idea would be for him to have only for sale that which he had contributed, and I would either guarantee thai tln> Government would take the property off his hands, or permit him to sell to some other qualified farmer. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. To some soldier? Mr. KENT. Well, you are confining this to soldiers. I think it is unfortunate. I would give the soldier the preference, but I would aim the bill to the end of a general redistribution of population. There are thousands of men being wasted in the cities, who would make the best of agriculturalists, men that love the land and could make a great success on it, but under our system they get into the cities and stay there, and there is no means of getting them out. If you do get people out on the land, the only way to hold them on the land, to keep them from selling speculating, and getting off the land is to retain part of the title in the State or the Federal Gov- ernment. Then you have an assurance that the land will be occupied. This sort of title would carry with it the right of inheritance, with a reasonable length of time for the heirs to show that they would work, the land. If they could not work the land, they ought to have to^ sell it. The land ought to be kept busy by some one or other. The only way I can see to keeping it busy is to keep it out of the specu- lative class of investment. You are only adding another limit to> the terms of tenure anyway, because you have got tax laws respect- ing title to all lands. In the State of Maine they tell a man how he can cut timber on his own property. You have countless limitations on this so-called fee simple title, and you can call this another limi- tation on the same thing, or you can call it a partial title. But to. me this question of title is the most important thing of the lot. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Kent, doesn't the plan that you are now suggest- ing virtually make the Government a landlord and the settler a tenant instead of a home owner? Mr. KENT. Well, that of course in a sense, the State or the Gov- ernment, whichever retains part of the title, is the landlord. I don't see any hardship about that. A man knows what the terms are going; to be for a long period ahead. He can be taxed out of existence any- way, and his tenure can be curtailed in many ways. The mere fact that he has something to sell doesn't make him more or less a home: owner than he would be if he knew that he could stay there and his children after him, as long as the land is worked. Mr. MAYS. Would you make this partial title subject to taxation? Mr. KENT. That is a matter of adjustment of rental of land and ownership of improvements. Mr. MAYS. And in case he should not pay the taxes, what would you do then with the title ? Mr. KENT. Well, that question of taxation would go directly up to the State. My idea would be that the State should retain this title and take a certain amount of rental for a period of 10 years, subject to readjustment at the end of 10 years. That would be in lieu of taxes and out of that the Government would have to get its portion or there would have to be separate payments made to the Govern- ment in addition to that rental. That would be the idea. I only make that suggestion, and, as I say, the only thing that I could hope or ask of you gentlemen would be to extend the period in which the land could not be alienated, and, as Mr. Eaker suggests, provide against large holdings. 180 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. TAYLOR. You think we ought to revert to the policy that ^e originally had a year ago, making it open to everybody instead of to soldiers only ? Mr. KENT. I think you ought to make it open to everybody, but give the soldier the preference. There Avould be lots of cases where no soldier would want to avail himself of it. Mr. TAYLOR. I think Secretary Lane's thought was to pass this bill primarily to give the soldier the right to come in and take advantage of this law, and then at the expiration of a year or so, if there were not sufficient soldiers to take up all that the Government had pro- vided for, that the appropriation authorized the Interior Depart- ment then to take care of other people. I think that was has idea, but to start off by letting the soldiers feel that we were doing some- thing for them. Mr. KENT. I think you are heading in the wrong direction. Mr. RAKER. The trouble right now is the legislative and the prac- tical proposition that if we made this general, Mr. Kent, and said that even in a year we are going to open it up, I am wondering whether or not we could get if through the two Houses. Mr. KENT. The point is that you get exactly the same practical result if you say this is a bill for general redistribution of popula- tion and in aid of settlement, with full preference for soldiers. You are giving the soldier all he will get anyway, but you would then be starting in the right way, whereas if you start and say, " This is a soldier bill, and the soldier is the only fellow who will have a chance under this legislation," you are creating a privileged class out of the soldiers. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you not think, Mr. Kent, the soldier is entitled to be placed in a privileged class? Mr. KENT. Yes ; and he is, in fact, with it the other wa}% but you would not start another lot of people in this country to thinking they are different from other people, and are entitled to things that other people are not entitled to. Give them the first chance, certainly. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What do you think of the suggestion to provide that for three years soldiers should have a preference right, and at the end of that time any land that is left unapplied for should l>e opened up to the civilian population? Mr. KENT. I think that would be better than the way you have it. I don't think it makes any practical difference, but I fear that you are lieading the wrong way, creating, perhaps 20 years from now, a demand on the part of the soldier: " I must be recognized as against (everybody else," and I don't think we ought to be doing that. This is for immediate care of the soldier, and at the end of 20 years he ought not to be able to say, " I am the only man that can be assisted by the Government under this policy as it was started." The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kent, do you think this plan could be made feasible in the Eastern and Northern States as well as the West and South? Mr. KENT. I think my talks with Dr. Mead and my looking around the country has satisfied me that Massachusetts is probably one of the best fields. I have seen some of the work there myself. Mr. Charles R. Crane bought a very large tract and has had rivut success there in clearing and cultivating and renting, and he is will- HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 181 ing to turn his big investment, after proving it successful, over to the Government practically at cost. I think that New Jersey has im- mense tracts of land. Virginia has lots of land that is well adapted to this purpose. There is a vast area of land lying outdoors in North and South Carolina and Georgia, where there is adequate rainfall, good drainage, and everything but soil fertility. The land is easily broken and worked, but the whole thing there is lack of soil fertility, and that can be supplied by right cropping and live stock. I think, looking at the country as a whole, that the greatest benefit that can come from this policy will be in cooperation in these Eastern States where you are right next to a great hungry market, instead of putting the emphasis where you have these immensely long freight hauls. The big benefit will come from State and private cooperation right down here in this part of the country, in my opinion. The CHAIRMAN. Just another question, Mr. Kent. Referring to your idea that this legislation should be more comprehensive and that the beneficiary should not be limited to soldiers, have you given any thought to the legal question as to whether or not we could predicate such legislation as this on anything else but the war power? Mr. KENT. It never occurred to me that you could not. Irrigation settlements, by analogy, have had absolutely nothing to do with war power. Then there is the California settlement, which certainly had no connection with the war power. The CHAIRMAN. That was State settlement. I recall, Mr. Kent it may refresh your mind some question was raised as to whether or not the Government could ented upon any reclamation projects except where the public lands were concerned. Mr. KENT. Well, you mean in cooperation with the States? Of course, if the Government buys land of private individuals it be- comes Government land no question about that but the immediate idea was that the greater amount of State cooperation you would have the better the management of the whole thing would be, and the better it would fit into local conditions. Dr. Mead placed great em- phasis on the need of State cooperation in handling these things. Now, you have, then, the question as to whether the Government could expend money in cooperation with the States on land owned by the States. Well, I have never heard anybody discuss the question as to whether the Government could spend money in the State of Tennessee in improving the Mississippi River, have you? It seems to me that I have not heard of any constitutional or legal objection being made to the Government spending money in the States. Does that answer your question? The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to get your ideas on it. I did not want to go into it at length. Mr. KENT. Now, Mr. Chairman. I have gone into this matter very carefully and have here copies of pamphlets entitled, one of them, " Getting Men Back on the Land " ; also another, " Discussion of Land Tenure and Public Policy." They may or maj- not interest the mem- bers of the committee. Mr. ELSTON. Are there enough there for distribution to the mem- bers of the committee? Mr. KENT. Yes. If not, anybody that wants one may have it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you ask to have them inserted in 'the record? 182 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. I would suggest, if agreeable to the committee, that the land-set- tlement pamphlet, being complete and closely reasoned, might be printed in your record. (Following is Mr. Kent's essay delivered at the labor reconstruc- tion conference, Academy of Political Sciences, New York, December 7, 1918:) GETTING MEN BACK ON THE LAND. The war and its consequent disturbance of our industry has brought before us in accentuated form a problem that has long been growing the proper dis- tribution of our people. As compared with rural communities, the cities have had a tremendous relative increase. Few of us have appreciated the bane of their overgrowth. The chief functions of the cities are dual to assemble labor for manufacturing production, and to serve the purposes of distribution. The labor-saving device of propinquity is carried to such an extreme as to rescatter the assembled people throughout suburban areas. Traffic congestion necessitates surface, overhead, and underground communication, until the expense of the Panama Canal sinks into insignificance when compared with that of the intramural transportation of New York ; while inflated property values and rents in accordance, are a perpetual burden. No one could have conceived such an aggregation of waste as they afford, and yet their social attractions cause the moths to seek the candJe, their sheer mass seems to create a power like that of gravitation. They defy all principles of supply and demand. Men needed elsewhere, and superfluous in the cities, find means for forcing a livelihood in the excess population. Somehow or other they create a place for themselves and become a burden upon necessary production. A census of urban population ministering to the useless and ex- travagant e'ements of city life would comprise a large portion of city dwellers. Even the mechanics engaged in enlarging the overgrown cities are wasting time and material. The waste is largely of human material. During years of vast immigration influx, the cities have absorbed and misapplied the services of millions of people who left rural employment in Europe and found here no outlet for their trained capacity. To the cities and towns have gone many of the most vigorous and energetic of our native rural population. Country life has been dull and lonely, and latterly only those with con- siderable means need apply with expectation of reasonable independence. Every undeserved accretion of urban population means advancing land values, and wasteful employment in serving the needs of ill-placed and unpro- ductive people, who are either doing the wrong thing, or doing the right thing in the wrong place. On this account our per capita food supplies have steadily diminished, de- spite our vast land areas, and upon the food supply must rest our national permanence and prosperity. The spread between prices received by the farmer and paid by the consumer has not boen reduced by our boasted methods of distribution and intermediate handling, but instead has increased. Simpler forms of packing have been superseded by the costly can and carton. Monopoly has taken a large mouthful, and neither public nor private agencies have sufficiently sought to save waste, or to fill void areas from areas of surplus. The tide of population must be turned. It can not be turned except to lands now uncultivated. Our coming farmers must be assured of adequate reward for well directed effort, and must find in the farmer's life, from day to day, such social conditions as afford a satisfactory answer to the great riddle: "What are we here for?" We have been moving West in our agricultural operations. The theory of the " margin of cultivation " has been at work, but the tendency to abandon farms near to great markets has been due to other factors to bad farming, bad marketing, lack of credit and capital, and to unnecessary soil depletion. Parallel with this abandonment we find sporadic patches producing profitable yields under intensive truck gardening and small fruit culture, showing how far the abandoned areas are really above the " margin." The pioneer conditions under which our Northern Atlantic States were set- tled were hard, but the settlers' demands for many things that are now con- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 183 sidered necessities were small. Food and clothing and a small surplus foj barter were secured under primitive agricultural methods, with little capital and much labor. In the South the institution of slavery and the heedless depletion of soil fertility due to farming methods and to the soil strain of the staple crops, cotton and tobacco, caused a continuing migration to virgin or more fertile lands, as insistent demand for fresh slave territory which finally caused the Civil War. The utter impoverishment of the South and the unfamiliarity of the white man with manual labor were supplemented by the backwardness of the negro. Throughout the expanse of the abandoned and undeveloped portions of the South Atlantic States are examples of the wonderful production to be obtained on lands, which, though often initially infertile, possess the advantage of long seasons, adequate rainfall, and good drainage. The cut-over areas of the North-Central and Northwestern States often possess soil fertility, but the problem of digging out stumps and clearing by the unaided toil of the individual, offers an appalling vista of unproductive years. We have never taken sufficiently into account the loss incident to the time taken by manual labor to clear and subdue farm lands. It is simple to show the slowly increasing production that goes on with acre by acre clearing and with the soul-destroying irritation of plowing amidst stumps. The irrigation areas vary in productivity. However rosy may be the prospect of crops insured against drought and often climatically exempt from frost damage, there is little that is cheering to the settler without capital. Often- times lu- 1ms invested his all in his initial payment. Without adequate housing, without horses, he faces the unbroken sagebrush and the unleveled land. His pitiful efforts with hand tools are interspersed with working for wages, till often broken in pocket and spirit, he abandons fertile soil with water at hand because he can not make the connection of natural resources where capital or credit is lacking. Grubbing sagebrush with a mattock is a criminal waste of life when a tractor will tear out and break eight acres a day. While many successes have been recorded there is throughout the West the remembrance of countless tragic and unnecessary failures, with the prospect of many more, until the time comes that settlement means application of labor directly to production and not the mere placing of a human body on a fenced piece of land. It is trite to state that agricultural production calls for land, labor, and capital, but to nfost of us it has not been so clear that the necessary ingredients are needed in widely divergent ratios. Prairie farming has called for much land and comparatively little labor or capital. It has been subject to extreme costs between production and consumption. These costs may be largely remedied, but there will always be required comparatively long hauls and expensive freight charges to reach foreign markets or the largest centers of American population. Truck gardening near the market requires little land, small capital, and immense labor, with no inherently heavy charge for selling, but a considerable risk on account of the perishable nature of the produce. Fruit growing calls for varying amounts of land and labor, but for consider- able capital to await production and great risk from natural causes and often from the uncertainties of market conditions. The prairie lands yielding cheaply staple grains and live stock are practically all taken up. Future development must be found in reclamation of various sorts. There still remain portions of the arid public domain were irrigation may be promoted. This involves large capital investment. There are areas that can be reclaimed from swamps, with varying costs, which must be met wholesale. But chiefly to be relied on for extent are the aban- doned lands and the unused lands of the East and the cut-over lands of the South and of the Northwest. The problem in each case is to secure and' economically to apply the large capital fund necessary to make land immediately productive. In some cases water must be supplied ; in some cases drainage must be obtained. Here we must clear off stumps and brush, and there we must supply and develop soil fertility. The problems of settlement involve doing these things with machinery, doing them rapidly, and on an immense scale. 184 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The lands of greatest fertility, where the least capital and labor are required for production, have increased tremendously in selling value. Under our fee simple tenure there is in some places a continuing tendency to aggregate into large holdings farmed by hired labor or by tenants. Other- wise we find a breaking up of large speculative holdings, but everywhere an increase of private tenancy, which is an admitted menace to our social and economic welfare. Whatever may be the abstract ethics of rent or interest charge, it is not well for people to live in idleness on the product of others. No restrictions of leases in private-tenant contracts can prevent wasteful, careless farming, with the natural tendency and temptation to soil depletion and heedlessness of upkeep that go with temporary and shifting occupation. The policy of land settlement is far bigger than the immediate provision for soldiers and sailors. It should not be confined to war displacement. If oppor- tunities are to be offered, there is justice in showing first preference for those who have risked their lives for the Republic, and then next to those whose occupations and employment have been overturned or destroyed by war emergency or its ending. But there must be a redistribution and a procession " buck to the land " whether soldiers and sailors wish to lead it or whether others shall avail themselves of the chances. Somewhere we must find those who by inclination and qualification are willing under favoring circumstances to undertake 1 the task of increasing our food supply. First, let iis consider the question of inclination. It has long been recognized that farm life is hard and lonesome. Our prairies, largely held in quarter sec- tions, placed people half a mile apart. The natural requirements of social life were denied them, and the town and city had an irresistible fascination. We have but to consider how wide a departure this is from the village rural life of Europe to see where the remedy must lie. We must more and more work toward community life, such as is now possible Tinder the intensive farming of irrigation districts. Land holdings will normally tend to become smaller, wilh equal output, due to better methods, and community life must be given a proper development. The parcel post, the telephone, the cheap automobile, are all working toward closer association. Cooperative use of tractors, abandonment of useless fences with their waste patches and weed beds, and the use of the latest farming machinery will also urge this tendency in days to come. Scien- tific agriculture and technical education that makes it possible will, when coupled with community life, tend to stabilize farm life as a satisfactory and permanent career. No settlement policy can be solvent unless it carefully discriminates in the selection of those who are to be given opportunity. They must be interested. able-bodied, capable, and qualified. Agriculture, no more than school teaching, is a proper recourse for tag-enders and failures. Settlers must be aided by the careful selection and preparation of land, and by advances of capital to bring such land into production, when supplemented by the settler's labor, and any policy not inherently solvent would be an intolerable burden and an element of evil to any country that tried it. Settlers must be taught what to do and how to do it, not out of books of theory, but from pages of actual local experience. A careful study of the situation, of the large capital needed, and the narrow margin that should be charged for rendering the service of land settlement, leads to the view that it should not be left to private initiative. It is essentially a public service. There should be intimate cooperation between the States and the Nation in any land-settlement policy. It is true that such settlement might be carried through, as in the past, through irrigation and reclamation projects on portions of the public domain and entirely by the Federal Government, but these are necessarily subject to State taxation and to a measure of State control, without any definite cooperative 1 agree- ment with the Nation. The States could pel-form the service independently of (he Federal Govern- ment, as California is now doing on a small scale. But the problem is one of national importance, to which the national credit should be lent, and a greater degree of uniformity could be assured through national supervision and assistance. The State, with its well-defined taxing power, can best handle such ques- tions as road building, where benefits should be assessed against the land profiting by improvements. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 185 Funds expended in the States by the Federal Government are as a general matter spent mid gone without possibility of recovery, as is evidenced in our river :md liarbor appropriations. Uncle Sam can pay damages, but can not assess benefits. In the case of reclamation projcts. Government expenditures are added to the per acre price of lands reclaimed, but there are often general benefits outside the reclaimed area which should be paid for by others than the specific settlers. Any State with a self-respecting sense of its responsibilities and a desire for orderly progress would naturally better comprehend its immediate needs and conditions and better meet them than a centralized authority in distant Washington. Let us turn for a moment to consider the question of farm credits. That question, as furnishing a productive agency, is not reached and hardly even approached in the United States, by any means, private or public. Benefit lias accrued to farmers and investors by the creation of our land-credit system, which supplements the private agencies that have heretofore lent funds on mortgages. But lending money on mortgages bears the same relation to production in the agricultural field as does pawnbroking or collateral loans by banks in commercial transactions. The owner of the most available standard land, worth, perhaps, $200 per acre, can easily borrow from private investors up to $100 an acre. The funds may be used to buy more land, or for any other purpose, productive or otherwise. But consider the case of a borrower who would subdue a piece of brush land, worth $5 an acre, or one who would plant to orchard land of small value, with the need of waiting years for returns that eventually would be large. Consider the case of one who, by years of cultivation and the use of expensive fertilizer, would make barren sand permanently productive. There are innumerable cases where advance amounting to 10 times the value of the raw land involved would be paid out of but few intensive and valuable crops. It is as necessary to furnish a credit system to meet such requirements as it is that banks should furnish credit for mercantile and manufacturing operations. Mortgage loans at reasonable rates are a benefit, but in a sense offer an example of "To him that hath shall be given," and the tenant is hopelessly barred. The machinery that will safeguard such productive credit has been created in other countries, and differs in no essential particular from the security obtained for mercantile advances. It is a question of organization of local units under a general system, so that eventually a comparatively small number of neighbors guarantee and watch each other, with the penalty of loss of future credit for delinquency. Under an adequate plan of settlement these credit needs would be recognized at the outset. It is necessary to consider them to make the question of the needed element of capital clear. As we enter the field of concrete illustration I urge as one of the most important factors in any system of settlement the question of the form of tenure upon which settlement should be based. We take for granted the evils of tenancy. We also take for granted the wrong that arises from with- holding land from production, also unearned profits derived through land speculation. We also recognize dearly that society should demand not only full use of land, but undiminished and even increased productivity. We recognize that Government should prevent destruction as found *in the millions of acres hopelessly eroded, most notably in some of the Southern States, and deliberately destroyed by gold dredging, as practiced in some of the most fertile and productive areas of California. In accordance with the free and easy verbiage of royal tradition, 've bestow land in fee simple, to " Richard Hoe and to his heirs and assigns forever." This is indeed a full grant for a considerable period, if we take note of the formula. We next inform Richard that we propose to levy whatever taxes we see tit upon his property. We then inform him that as far as his heirs are con- cerned, they can. at his death, dispose of it at forced sale, and pay a part of the resultant proceeds to the State and another to the Nation. Some States compel him to cultivate and to eliminate weeds; others tell him how he shall cur his wood lot. Poor Richard is everywhere met with a denial of the high-sounding words of his title deed. 186 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The limitations are neither coherent, uniform, or rational nor do they tour], the evils of tenancy or speculation. Why should we not in our future planning avoid this process of givintr :iml subsequently taking awsiy, hy providing for ix-rmanent tenure under such con- ditions that make unnecessary this subsequent remedial control. There is one way in which it can be done, a way recognized in other countries, most notably in the Australian commonwealth and in New Zealand, and thai is i, v triving a limited title at the be.irinnin.tr, subject to resumption by the State on violation of specific regulations. Now let us see how our plan might work out. Let us sny, that there can ho found in the State of New Jersey a tract of 10,000 acres now lying waste, which. by the application of adequate capital, can in two or three years be made pro- ductive for qualified and selected settlers. Let the State of New .lers >\ buy that land at the lowest possible price. Thereafter the State should imit . the Federal Government to look it over, and see whether it is of such a nature that the Nation will cooperate in its settlement. Once the Federal Government has accepted the project, then men and machinery should be put at work- to clear. level, and to apply such elements to the soil as are needed for production. There would be no long drawn out misery of grubbing and clearing by band. but less eventual cost per acre, and less time consumed in the process. The land being cleared and prepared, the Federal Government should provide funds for necessary buildings, with domicile either on the property itself or in a central village. The Federal Government should furthermore advance through co- operative local credit centers sufficient funds for needed ]>orsona] property in farm implements and live stock. Before the settler goes on, it should be in such condition as to produce crops in the next growing season. The settler, carefully selected and required to make at least a small payment for his holding, should thereafter be subject to pay to the Stale 1 for a set period of not less than 20 years a fixed sum. as interest on the original purchase price this to the State in lieu of land tax. That such interest payment might cover insurance for delinquencies and expenses, the rate should probably be per cent. The settler would also be liable to the Government for amortization payments on personal property in not more than 10 annual installments, to- gether with interest at 4 or 5 per cent. He should furthermore be liable to the Government for amortization payments on the cost of permanent improvements and clearing and putting the land in condition, which payments might run over a period of 30 to 40 years, at 4 to 5 per cent. Permanency of tenure could be assured, subject to proper cultivation, although the fee simple title would not pass out of the State. The right of inheritance would be respected, subjecting the successor to the same as the devisee. A man could give his property, to anyone satisfactory to a local board composed of State and Federal representatives, but no one could secure this limited title without assurance that the individual who took it proposed to work the land iinder the restrictions set forth. Every safeguard should be placed around his tenure, as against the accidents of life, so that the occupant would feel secure, even through crop failure or other destructive hardship. If the settler desired for any cause to move from his land, he should be permitted to sell his con- tributions to the property to a person satisfactory to the board. In addition, this board should stand ready to repurchase the property in the event of no purchaser being immediately available, paying him all that he had contributed by amortization and by his own work. He should be paid the then value of improvements added by him. and the then value of improvements supplied by the Government, less the unpaid debt against them. He should be credited with added soil fertility and value of orchard at the time of removal. His allotment could then be again turned over at the sum ascertained to some one willing to carry out the conditions of his contract. Here is a plan that eliminates a large part of the element of pioneer hard- ship and risk a plan that makes land speculation impossible, and one that destroys private tenancy. It can be developed along lines that make rural life more attractive, and if carefully administered, it is above all a solvent plan that, while paying itself off out of product, is a permanent enrichment of the State and the country. The speculation privilege, with the unconscionable profit derived from the needs and the breeding capacity of other people, is eliminated, but there is also eliminated at the other end the struggle and misery accompanied by tre- mendous percet.iage of failure, in cases where an individual tries to dig out a livelihood, under conditions unnecessary and even misunderstood, and wher* HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 187 he usually lacks the capital needed to make his effort count at the critical time Avhich is at the beginning. As a final general idea, I wish to state that in my opinion the greatest need .and the greatest possibility for such a settlement is near the Atlantic coast, where population is worst distributed, where millions of acres of available land is lying waste, and where the demands of a hungry market are close at hand. The difference between corn and wheat values between Omaha and New York are upward of 25 cents a bushel. It is an unmitigated absurdity, that with the eastern States preeminently qualified to raise the best of apples, we should be forced to secure our supplies by freight from distant < >regon. Almost any land will raise potatoes, which have been selling at prices unconscionably high. The needed application of credit and labor can best be made by the cooper- ative effort of the States and Nation. Again, let me say that nothing excepting the retention of title by the State or the Nation can fend against the reaccuniu- lation of developed areas into large holdings, with the recurrence of the evils of speculation and tenancy. We are, after all, but tenants of the world and oi the State. We may be deprived of life and liberty at ihe will oil the Government of which we are a part. Are we wronged if in future agricultural settlement, where much of the element of risk is eliminated, and where immediate means of livelihood are sup- plied if with such opportunity conferred we are denied the privilege of profit- ing by the effort of others, and prevented from proiiiecring out of the common need for land? Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, a distinguished gentleman from Texas is here, and I think we have got time to hear him this morning Mr. Garner. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear him. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN N. GARNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. Mr. GARNER. Mr. Chairman, if there are any gentlemen here from a distance who want to be heard, of course I do not care to take their time. The Texas delegation took seriously your suggestion that each delegation send some one down here to express their views, and that is why I am here. The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to hear you. Mr. GARNER. I came around yesterday morning, and I saw some gentlemen from the West, and when there are gentlemen from out of town here who want to be heard, I think it is the duty of the Member of the House, that is here all the time, to stand aside until they are through. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Texas delega- tion had a conference at which all, I believe, except one, possibly, were there he could not be there and they asked me to come over and make suggestions as to the views of the Texas delegation as to giving assistance or relief, or whatever you may term it, to sol- diers. If the purpose of this bill is to give relief to the soldiers, we don't believe that it will give the relief that has been suggested by the Interior Department or by those proponents of the bill ; and we want to make I, rather, want to make a suggestion with reference to arranging so they can purchase homes. If it is a conservation proposition, of course I don't desire to be heard at this time, but if it is purely for the purpose of taking care of the soldiers and if I understand it, it is in his name that this legislation is being promul- gated we desire to suggest what we think is a better remedy for the soldier. 188 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. It was admitted by, I think, all of the proponents of this measure- that it will take from 18 months to 3 years in order to prepare the soldier's home in which he and his family might live. We \vant to suggest that you pass a bill here that will give him an opportunity to buy him a home at once and to buy it where he pleases. If you are going to giv.e relief to the soldier, you ought not to undertake to tell him that he must move from the community from whence he enlisted in the Army, or was drafted into the Army, to some other domicile in order to get a home, if you really mean what you say. Of course, if you have got a conservation proposition, or you have got an irrigation proposition, or you have got stump land, cut-over land that ycfu want to sell to the Government, or if you have got some arid, dry land that can't be used like I have in my country that you want to unload on the Government, that is a different propo- sition; but if you really mean what you say, that you desire to sell the soldier a home upon which he and his family can make a living, you ought to sell it to him at once and in the community where he desires to live; and I make this suggestion to the committee: That we loan, out of the Treasury, to the soldiers of the United States who served in the recent war who desire to purchase a farm, not exceed- ing $5,000 for the purpose of purchasing himself a homo in any por- tion of the United States that he desires. If it is adjoining his father's or mother's home, so much the better, if he can find that place. If it is improved land, so much the better ; if it is unimproved land and if he desires to improve it, that is his business; but give him an opportunity to get himself a home and to get it where he wants it. I undertake to say that speaking as much, I believe, for the soldier as any gentleman of the committee or the proponents of this bill have a right to do, I will say that I can take any 200 or 200,000 soldiers and stand them before me and say : " W r e want to do some- thing for you. You have saved the flag; you have saved liberty; you won this war and we want to arrange it so you can have a coun- try home, a farm to live on. How do you want us to do it ? " And the answer would be : " Well, let us have the money and go and buy it Avhere we want it." I think that would appeal to more men than this proposition will. So, I refer again back to the proposition, that if it is your desire if it is your real purpose to help the soldier, and not a conservation purpose, some scheme that somebody has fixed up to conserve arid lands or cut-over lands, or swamp lands but if your real purpose is to help the soldier, let us do it and do it more economically and in a better, businesslike way than this is, where the soldier will get a greater worth for his money that he pays for and the Government will stand a less loss. Now, my honest judgment about this bill is that we usually get about 60 to 70 per cent worth of our money, of the appropriations made by Congress. I don't believe that you will get 10 per cent out of this bill. I know you won't applying it in my own district, my own country. You have in the fifteenth district options. I think, on more land than all the rest of Texas put together. By this prop- osition you have Mr. RAKER (interposing). What do you mean by that? I do not quite get your meaning. Mr. GARNER. They have gone down there and gotten a groat many people hunted them up and said : " We will take your land. What HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 189 will you take for it? " " Well, we will take $20 an acre," or ".$10 an acre." They say, " All right," and make a memorandum of that and take it back, and they are now surveying in my district the greatest irrigation project in the world. And the department should be commended for spending that money. It is probably the best spent money out of the $200,000. The people put up $15,000 and the In- terior Department put up $15,000, $30,000 for the survey. It is in the Rio Grande Valley, where they can irrigate by gravity more than a million acres of land, the richest land in the world, and it is all with this particular scheme in view. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is that project in your district? Mr. GARNER. Yes. Mr. RAKER. Is that to buy out the farmer or let him have part of his land? Mr. GARNER. Now, Mr. Raker, you will have to work that out your- self. I think, as far as my territory is concerned, that the people down there, so far as I know, are overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. The Texas Legislature passed a resolution, the senate and house almost unanimously favoring the Lane proposition. Of course they had never read the Lane proposition; they didn't know what it was, but they were getting Government funds spent in Texas to produce farms for somebody to live on, and they wanted that. That is the way the Texas Legislature looks at it. They sent a delegation here, the governor did, three State senators, and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce in order to tell the 18 members of the Texas delegation how they should vote on this pro- posed Lane bill at the last session. I have read this bill and there isn't a material difference between this proposition and theirs some difference in detail. Mr. SMITH. Have you estimated, Mr. Garner, how much it would take to furnish $5,000 to every soldier that would like to have it to buy a farm? Mr. GARNER. I have figured it out enough to know that it will cost less than the proposition that you have got now to furnish the same number of soldiers with homes. I am going to take care of as many soldiers as you do. Under your proposition, you propose to take care of a certain number of soldiers, and you take that number and mul- tiply it by 5,000 I say not exceeding $5,000 some may want $2,000, some $2,500, or $3,000 but I will take care of more soldiers under my plan than you will under your bill and do it at less expense, and I Avill have land, gentlemen, that the soldier can take and utilize, he and his family, in the country that he wants to live in. For in- stance, there are a little over 8,000 troops from my district in this war. You say you are going to get 25 per cent of those troops. All ri^ht. that is 2,000. What are you going to do with them? You are going to take them two or three hundred miles out of my district and put them in some other district, and you are going to confine that particular territory to occupancy by those troops alone, not allow anybody else to live there. Mr. SMITH. How many troops from Texas, 8,000? Mr. GARNER. No; from my district. I was just illustrating my district. You are going to put it on one of these projects in Texas. You are going to put it in Sam Rayburn's district, or on the cut-over 190 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. lands in east Texas, or up in the prairie country. What are you go- ing to do, take 2,000 soldiers out of my district and put them in one particular place where nobody else can live except a soldier? I don't believe it is feasible. Mr. MAYS. You plan would not increase the total number of farmers or the number of homes? Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir; I am just simply trying to eliminate the conservation feature. You can throw around this scheme all the safeguards you want to I have some in mind myself. I would pro- vide that in case he sold this land, at the option of the Government, the debt should become due and payable. I would also provide that in purchasing this land an agent of the Farm Loan Bank or if you want to make a new independent bureau, I will do that, but I 'am somewhat opposed to creating additional bureaus; I think the Farm Loan Bank can do it, and go with him and see that he neither cheated the Government nor the individual cheated him. In other words, I would not permit a man to buy for $5,000, a piece of land worth $1,000, and to divide $4,000 with somebody el.-^e and immediately abandon it. So, therefore, I would have a Government agent there to see that the land was reasonably worth the amount of money that he paid for it. Mr. SMITH. Under your plan, there would not be any more land under cultivation than there is now. Mr. GARNER. Oh, now you are coming back to just exactly what I stated. You are not going to help the soldier ; you are going to force more land into cultivation. That is not my purpose at all. My pur- pose what I am trying to get now is to draw your attention and to confine you to one thing: You want to help the soldier; you don't want to put any more land in cultivation. If you want to enact legislation for conservation, to force more land into cultivation, I v* ill be glad to consider that question, but you say that you want to help the soldier. That is what you state. I want to help the soldier, and I challenge you to produce the method better than I suggest and that will appeal more to the soldiers in this country than the one I suggest. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Garner, how about the soldier that wants to go onto a new project where it is reclaimed by the Government or being irrigated by the Government? Mr. GARNER. I say, " Go right along, Mr. Soldier. Go out there." Let him have $2,000, or $3,000, or $4,000, or $5,000, and buy a place there. Mr. BARBOUR. But the Government has got to spend a lot of money putting it in shape and reclaming it. Mr. GARNER. You mean to say that there isn't enough land in cul- tivation in this country now to supply the needs for those men, a comfortable place to live in? Mr. BARBOUR. He might prefer that kind of a place. Mr. GARNER. There are lots of irrigation systems in the West now. Mr. BARBOUR. But most of them are pretty well taken up. Mr. GARNER. Pretty well taken up? My dear sir, if you will ob- serve, for instance, the Roosevelt Dam proposition you know somet- thing about that? Mr. BARBOUR. A little; not much. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 191 Mr. GARNER. How many more families could settle there? Mr. BARBOTJR. A good many. Mr. GARNER. I should say so. Mr. BARBOUR. That is only one proposition. Mr. GARNER. Now, I think you will settle more there than you will have soldiers apply for irrigated projects. Mr. BARBOUR. Now, let me ask this question I am asking this for information : Are you opposed to developing new farming lands in the country? Mr. GARNER. Indeed, not. I want to encourage it all I can, but I don't want you to do a thing for the soldier that is impracticable and then tell him it is all done for his sake. You tell him : " Mr. Soldier, we are going to take advantage of the conditions of the country and the fact that we want to help you, in order to put through a scheme that we have had in our brains all these years." I say that is not the fair thing to the soldier, because the soldier is going to say to me.: " I don't want to leave here, Garner. I wish you would try and ar- range it to get me down here with my father and mother, where I have always lived. They don't want me to leave." He comes back to Uvalde, my home town, where he has got a wife and one child. I go back down there and say: "Well, we appropriated $500,- 000,000, Bill, for you to make a home for you and your wife and baby to go to." "Well, how did you do it, Mr. Garner?" " Well, we ap- propriated this $500,000,000 and we have gone over here in East Texas, where there is a lot of cut-over land, and we are going to send you over there with your wife and child, and give you $100 a month while you dig up the stumps and build the house and the dairy and the other things, and after you get it all built, we are going to sell it to you at what it cost us to produce it through your labor." He is going to turn to me and say, " Well, I won't have it. I don't want any business of that kind."~ Mr. SMITH. He is being paid for his labor. Mr. GARNER. Through the value of his labor. Mr. SMITH. But he is being paid for it. Mr. GARNER. I agree with you. I said $100 a month. Then the Government is going to sell him that land at what it cost the Govern- ment, through the value of his labor, to produce it. Now let me tell you what would happen in my own country I don't know what it would be in yours, but you take the 100,000' acres that they have got options on I say "options," I haven't seen them, but anyhow, they got men to price land to them and you can take a soldier down there at $100 a month and let him grub that land and put a house on it and improvements, and when you get through, he can go over here 10 miles away, the same kind of land, the same improvements and every- thing, and he can buy it for 20 cents on the dollar of what he will pay for that that he has worked on and developed. Now do you think the soldier wants to buy that kind of land? Mr. BARBOUR. They are doing it in other places, Mr. Garner. Mr. GARNER. How do you mean? Mr. BARBOUR. The settlement propositions. We had a gentlemau before us yesterday, who was connected with the Chicago. Milwau- kee & St. Paul Railroad, and he told us about the big tracts that they are developing up there, and he said he could put thousands I i:319 19 13 192 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. have forgotten the exact number of thousands on there in a year if they had the land available. And, if I remember his testimony cor- rectly, he advises strongly against the very proposition which you now make, which, ho said, in his opinion, could not be worked out successfully. Now, I don't know. I am not enough of a land ex- pert or colonization expert to know whether it would work sucess- fully or not. Mr. GARNER. I am going to ask you if you were a soldier in this Army and you came back home, you are between 20 and 30 years of age, a single man or a married man you have come back to your home and you really want a farm to live on, wouldn't you rather that the Government would permit you to buy a farm where you wanted it rather than to to say : " We are going to set you off in a plate that will be exclusively for soldiers: nobody can live there but soldiers." Mr. BARBOUR. Now, we have not finally decided that, about whether anybody shall live there but soldiers or not. I don't know what I would do now if I was a soldier, 21 or 25 years of age, but I will say this, that I did pull out from my home and preferred to go to another State when I was 25 years of age not onto a farm. however. Some of them want to get away from their homes. Mr. GARNER. The soldiers will still have the right, under my suggestion, to go from one State to another. We say to John : " Here, you come back to Kentucky." And he replies, "I don't eaiv to re- main in Kentucky. I have had a little of life of seeing the world. I want to move to Texas." All right, come on down, we will loan you money to buy a home down there. He hasn't got a thing now. He is going to leave father and mother and the old place and is going away going to Texas. All right come down and buy a farm. We will loan yon $5.000, at 5 per cent interest on 40 years' time. Go down into Texas and buy yourself a farm and get started. Can you think of a better scheme than that toward helping the soldier at the present time ( Mr. SMITH. Then, you are in favor of supplementing this legis- lation with the plan of loaning to individual soldiers who prefer to buy in some settled community? Mr. GARNER. I will tell you what I prefer. I have been in public life ever since I was 21 years old; I don't know whether I have made a success of it or not; but, anyhow, I have 1 been hanging on to the public tit. as they say in Texas, ever since I came of age, and I don't know whether I have made a success of it, but I have made it a rule all my life never to deceive anybody, and never to deceive my.-elf. and I undertake to say that there is not a man living that takes that bill and works it out practically and can conclude that it is for the purpose of helping the soldier. The same amount of money with the opportunity to get himself a farm where he wants to, to locat where he wants to, will give him some relief. Now. I will join you in this: I am willing to experiment with yon. I believe that the waste places in this country ought to be reclaimed just as intensely as you do: but I think it ought to be done by experi- mental stages. I am not willing to iro and involve this conntrv in from $2,000,000,000 to $10,000,(K)().ui)i). as the Secretary of the Inf- rior says, on an experiment. I would rather experini"rt with their HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 193 scheme awhile. I would rather try the conservation, that you speak of, with $100,000,000 first. That^is a good big sum to experiment with. Take $100,000,000 for the purpose of experimenting and let anybody go out there that wants to: then you will be able to try it: out fairly and ses whether that will do the work that you say it will with reference to reclaiming arid lands and cut-over lands and swamp lands. If it does, I will go with you to the fullest extent. Mr. SMITH. There is no experiment with the arid lands of the West, Mr. Garner. Mr. GARNER. I know they are not experimenting in my country. For instance, I live in a country where the land was selling when I came to Congress at $1 an acre that you can't buy for $300 an acre now. So I know as much about that property as any man can know from observation without having cultivated the soil myself. My district has the largest irrigation system of any district in the United States. You will be surprised when I tell you that my dis- trict produces more sugar than any other district in the United States. It did not produce a pound 10 } 7 ears ago. And it is that way with nearly everything else. The fifteenth district, that I represent, raises more onions than any State in the Union. So I know some- thing about it, but I don't want to deceive the soldier; that is all there is about it. I will join you in this conservation, reclamation and all that, but let us not deceive the soldier. Mr. RAKER. It is safe to say, then, Mr. Garner, that not only your constituents but yourself in the last 20 years, have made a success by reason of your being in public life and treating the public fairly. Mr. GARNER. Well, that is a joke on me. [Laughter.] Mr. XICHOLS. I will agree with Mr. Garner that the title of this bill is misleading. I would like to ask you as to the cost of your proposition, following up Mr. Smith's suggestion. The Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Lane, made the statement that 16 per cent, about, of the soldiers had expressed the desire to take this proposi- tion up as it is indicated in this bill. Now, then, under your sug- gestion, wouldn't the percentage of soldiers w r ho would care to ask Uncle Sam for a $5,000 loan to buy a home any place they pleased, in a town or in a city, wouldn't the percentage "be greatly increased, of those soldiers who would like to take advantage of that? Mr. GARNER. If 3-011 will admit that premise, then I will admit the conclusion too, that my scheme is the best and the most attrac- tive. If you come here to help the soldier; you didn't come here to make conservations ; you didn't come here to buy land ; you come here to help the soldier. Don't get away from that proposition, so if you admit that my scheme will attract more soldiers for the purpose of buying farms than your method will, then my scheme is the best for the soldier. Mr. XICHOLS. I agree with you, Mr. Garner, but it is going to cost a great deal more money. Mr. GARNER. We are not considering cost here; we are considering the soldier. We are considering his welfare; we want to do some- thing for him. Now. the President has recommended this in two messages, the Democratic President, He recommended this in his annual message of December and again in this session. The majority party has ap- 194 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. peared at this table and they have all said : " In the name of the soldier, we ask this." Now, in the name of the soldier, I ask you to do something really for his interest and not for the purpose of some other scheme, be it political or conservation or otherwise. Mr. MAYS. Why not just give him $5,000 and let him do what he pleases with it? Mr. GARNER. I don't think that is good public policy. I don't think the soldier asks for that. M,r. MAYS. Wouldn't there be a larger percentage that would ask for that? Mr. GARNER. There probably would. But if you want to fool the soldier don't you think that a larger number would ask for $10,000 ? Mr. MAYS. But if a larger number asks for that, then it shows that. it is a better scheme. Mr. GARNER. It is a better scheme if you are going to give him something, but you don't propose to give him something. Mr. MAYS. But isn't, after all, the test of it that that induces them to help themselves? .Mr. GARNER. Yes; and I believe that my inducement is the best method. Mr. MAYS. Will you permit him to sell that farm after he bought it? Mr. GARNER. Yes ; and mature the obligation to the Government. Mr. MAYS. And take the money and do whatever he pleases with it ? Mr. GARNER. Yes; but the Government has still got the $5,000 that he owes on it. The Government don't lose a cent. If I owned 10,000,000 acres of land myself I would be willing to take the place of the Government and say to each soldier in the United States: " Come along, boys ; I will sell you this land to the extent of $5,000. every one of you. Make your home where you want to. If you want to buy 10 acres at $5,000, the highest land, all right ; or if you want to buy 640 acres of the poorest land, all right; just so you don't purchase more than $5,000 w r orth. I will sell you this land and give you 40 years' time at 5 per cent interest, but when you leave that land the debt becomes due." I don't lose a cent. Mr. MAYS. Would you send this man that you bought out back to the city? Mr. GARNER. I don't know about that, Mr. Mays. You know we are creatures of environment. When you buy a fellow out, who was born and raised in the country, he don't usually want to go to the city : but it is pretty hard to get the city boys out into the country. Mr. VAILE. After each of our wars, after the war of 1812, 1 believe also after the Revolutionary War and after the Civil War, we had some form of soldier settlement projects. Those were really in es- sence, not only helping the soldiers, but the policies of conservation, and the country was developed largely on account of it. Now, is there any essential fallacy in the combination of the two ideas, con- servation and helping the soldier? Mr. GARNER. I say there is some reason for it. I a.irree with yon there is, but what I suggest is this, that it is wholly impracticable. It is wholly impractical to say to a man living in Kentucky, that you are going to move him away over here 100 or 200 miles and let him HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 165 work at $100 a month to produce a farm out of the worst land in Kentucky, swamp land and cut-over land that nobody else wants, or arid land in my section of the country. You are going to take up the worst lands in the country and you are going to use his high- priced labor to produce a farm there, and after you produce it you are going to sell it to that poor devil, at what it costs to produce it. Mr. VAILE. He is not obliged to produce it. Mr. GARNER. No, but if he don't, you have that much land left idle; and the remark of the gentleman a while ago showed really Avhat the purpose of it was, that in Mr. Lane's mind there was the thought that if in the course of three years this land was not occu- pied by soldiers they would let somebody else in it. Mr. TILLMAN. You have turned a lot of that land into onion land and sugar land, which is now very valuable. Mr. GARNER. Yes, a great deal of it very fine land. Mr. WHITE. Don't you think there are many opportunities in your State where it would not require a $5,000 loan in order to establish a man in a segregated proposition ? Mr. GARNER. Well, of course I think $5,000 will buy a man a home. Mr. MAYS. It wouldn't buy much $300-an-acre land. Mr. GARNER. No, but he don't need but 5 acres of $300-an-acre land. Mr. BARBOUR. I will conccede that your plan is more liberal toward the soldiers than the plan outlined in the Mondell bill, but our ad- vice here from experts on these matters has been practically all against the scheme which you propose. They say it would not be practical. I don't know whether it will or not. Have you made any investigation into these matters to find out ? Have you any data that you could submit to the committee? Mi-. GARNER. No, except I put myself in the place of the soldier. That is the only way I know how to do. I don't know how to do any other way, but to put myself in the place of the soldier. I have got a boy who served in this war, 22 years of age ; he is a poor boy. He has come back from the war and has got his $60 and a uniform that he don't know what to do with. He comes to me and talks to me and his mother about what he can do. Suppose I would say to him, " Now, son, you know the Government has got a farm up here in this cut-over land in east Texas, full of stumps, sandy land, but it is good land if you once get it under cultivation. A man can make a living over there. Now you go over there and dig out the stumps, and they will give you $100 a month over there while you dig those stumps, and help to build a dairy, and help to build all the other things that go to make that community a center there a success, and when you get through, son, then you can buy a farm there at what it costs to produce that farm." Now, he will say: u Well, I don't know about that. Mother wants me to stay here and I don't know about going over there." Then I might say : " But I will tell you another scheme, son. You can go right over across here and yon can buy this land, a hundred acres of land, at $50 an acre that is already in cultivation and has got a little house on it and everything of th'at kind," and he will say: " Father, I think I will do that." Now, I just ask you, as a matter of fact, if you were a soldier, which one of these schemes would you take? 196 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH. Why not give him his choice of either plan? Mr. GARNER. Well, Mr. Mays asked this question, why not give him the $5,000 and all that? But you don't propose and I don't propose to give him anything. I ain simply trying to arrange for him to own a farm, and that is all you are trying to do to-day. Is there anything in this bill except to give a soldier a chance to own a farm? That is all there is in my suggestion give him a chance to own a farm. The CHAIRMAN. Have you an amendment embodying your ideas? Mr. GARNER. I will have one, sir, as sure as you are living, if you get it before Congress. That is one thing certain. And I think I know parliamentary law enough to get it voted on. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment along that same line? Would you favor legislation embodying your ideas of the purchase of a segre- gated unit? Mr. GARNER. I don't know just what you mean. I would not favor legislation along experimental lines, along conservation lines, in this bill. I want to reclaim the lands in this country. I am intensely interested in it ; but I tell you I don't believe it is fair to the soldiers. I just can't get it into my heart that it is treating the men fair to say, " On account of your patriotic service and the love of the country, for you we are going to classify you and give you a preference," and then offer them a thing like this. The CHAIRMAN. Would you favor legislation permitting the ?ol- dier to buy a segregated tract in his own community ? Mr. GARNER. Indeed I would. If I was going into this experimen- tation scheme that you have here with, say, $100,000,000, that you are going to turn over to Mr. Lane to experiment with, I would give it to Mr. Lane and tell him to " Go and experiment with it where you want to." I would take the three classes of land that you speak of, cut-over land, swamp land, and arid land. I would say : " Here is $100,000,000, Mr. Secretary of the Interior; take this $100,000.000 and go and experiment as you have outlined in your propaganda, and see if you can make it work. See if you can put that land into the form of community settlements and sell it for what it cost you. If you can, go to it; we will furnish you plenty more money to do the same thing." The CHAIRMAN. We have already developed that that we can do that successfully. Mr. GARNER. Well. I will join you in that, and let anybody in the world settle on it that wants to: let the soldier go there or any- body else, but you don't have to provide that in a special bill for soldiers, but just provide enough money to open up all of these places, if you have settled the fact that you can do that, and then let every- body and anybody go in there that wants to. I think that is a good plan, because I will favor any legislation that will induce people to leave the cities and go to the country, but when you say you are going to do this in the name of the soldier, in order that you may benefit him. now and last year it was urged right then because they were coming back I don't believe it is the right way to do it. Mr. MAYS. You would be satisfied to amend'the title of this bill, wouldn't you? Mr. GARNER. And make it a conservation bill : yes. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 197 The CHAIRMAN. Another thing. Mr. Garner, your State has passed some legislation on this matter, has it not? Are you familiar with that? Mr. GARNER. Xo. sir. The CHAIRMAN. They voted on May 24, did they not, for a meas- ure of this kind? Mr. GARNER. That was an amendment to the constitution not on this line. That was to lend the credit of the State in order to assist people who did not own farms to purchase them, but they will not be compelled to purchase them in a certain community. Mr. VAILE. That was in order that woman's suffrage might be granted to the people of Texas, was it not? Mr. GARNER. You see, we have a homestead law in Texas, and if you got a homestead worth $25.000 or $100,000, you can't borrow a cent on it. You are absolutely insolvent so far as the law of Texas is concerned if you haven't got additional property. The CHAIRMAN. What was the legislation the people voted on down there on May 24, permitting the State to lend its credit for land-development purposes? Mr. GARNER. That is the proposed amendment to the constitution of Texas in order that Texas might lend its credit for the purpose of assisting the people in buying farms. Now, that is just exactly on the line of what I am talking about, but yon won't find Texas now, mark my prediction you won't find Texas appropriating millions of dollars and going down into my district, into the arid country, and saying. "We are going to take 100.000 acres and we are. going to segregate it there and spend all this money developing it." while in the balance of the State you can not buy a farm anywhere. The CHAIRMAN. You are a little wiser, Mr. Garner, in Texas than the other States have been. You did not surrender any public lands to the Federal Government. Mr. GARNER. Well, the Federal Government did not surrender anything to us. We were an independent republic and we came in on equal terms. Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question for practical demonstra- tion : From your experience in this district, supposing now there are a thousand soldiers who have returned ; some are married and some are not; thev have no homes: but their parents live in and about that community. Supposing they were given $5,000 apiece, are there places and lands enough there now that those boys could go and buy and establish their homes on from those that do own land, and go right on with additional improvements and improve the land more than it has been ? ; t . Mr. GARNER. Yes. Xow. Mr. Raker, undoubtedly if you had this law that I suggest, and a boy comes down there, he would go and in- ve>t that $5.000 under the advice of his father, of his friends. He would say, " Xow. where is the best land? I believe I will go down here and buy some raw land. I will get more of it. and I will put this land in cultivation. I will have a stock farm and put part of it in cultivation and part of it I will raise stock on." That is the most prosperous business in our country. Xeither one is so pros- perous that excludes the other. And instead of that, you are going to arrange here for one particular class of farmers. 198 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. What I wanted to know, right in addition, is there the quantity of land that you described where the boy can do that, now, even in the settled community where you live ? Mr. GARNER. Well, I don't know you speak of 1,0001 doubt whether there would be. You would have to cover more territory than that. But, Mr. Raker, I do say that you will find that each community will be able to take care of its own people in the propo- sition of a soldier finding: a home, and as I remarked a minute ago. a man from Kentucky or Tennessee that has been to France and has been over here in the east, the eastern part of the United States, has got a roaming disposition and he wants to see more of the world very naturally. What does he say to his father and mother? "I would like to go down to Texas," or " I would like to go down to Arizona," or up into Mr. May's country, up into Utah. "All right, John, go ahead ; God bless you ; our blessings are upon you. Go out there, select a farm. You can borrow $5,000 to help you start on that farm from Uncle Sam." Now, if you don't have that scheme, if you have your scheme, you say : " No, John, there isn't but one place in the world that you can go. That is a certain place out there where they are going to put in irrigation, cut-over land, and drain the swamps " or the other. Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Garner, this bill, of course, contemplates set- tlement, as nearly as possible, in each of the 48 States, which does not necessarily mean arid lands, swamp lands, or cut-over lands. It has been brought out repeatedly in these hearings, and it is contem- plated, as I figure it out, taking Secretary Lane's estimate at about $6,000, which would probably be the total amount primarily loaned to the soldier; this will take care of 83,000 soldiers. Now. if we were to divide that between 48 States, then we are only providing an opportunity for 1,700 soldiers in each State. This, as I understand. would not necessarily have to be all in one State or one locality, or anything of the kind. One hundred families, for instance, would make a very nice little unit, and the fact that this might be divided up into 10 "or 15 or 17 different localities in the States, would that modify your views? Mr. GARNER. Well, I got the impression that probably with the amount of money you got you would not hardly, have over 48 projects in the United States. The money would hardly pay for more than 48 projects of the kind Mr. Lane has outlined in the state- ments I saw, because he proposed to cut out a certain block of land here and do certain things, and the amount of money you have got here would not provide for more than 48 projects. Mr. .SUMMERS. It has been brought out here that projects of 4,000 to 8.000 acres would be quite respectable projects. Mr. GARNER. Well, gentlemen, I did not want to press my views on you. You wrote a letter to the various delegations, and, as I say, the^Texas delegation took you too seriously, and supposing that you really wanted to know what our views were we got in there and hob- nobbed around for about two hours, and I think I speak the senti- ment of the delegation. They want to do something for the soldiers. Mr. SMITH. Could not your plan be followed out under the pro- visions of this law if it 'is enacted? There is nothing in here to prohibit the plan you suggest. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 199 Mr. GARNER. Well, probably not. I read your bill, but I don't think I see any provision in it for that. Mr. RAKER. What would you think of this proposition? The record shows that there are about 1,500,000 acres of available land under established projects, projects uncompleted but that can be com- pleted in all the way from 6 months to a year and a half. If we appropriated enough money to get enough of these soldiers right onto these projects now, these million and a half acres would be available at once. Mr. GARNER. That would be all right so far as the employment scheme is concerned; yes. Another thing, Mr. Raker, I will go with you to the full length of this bill toward appropriating money to re- claim the desert lands of the West. I have always been in favor of that, I will go with you to the fullest length after you first demon- strate I refer now to cut-over land. I want to get an experiment in that line. When I get an experiment in cut-over lands I am willing to go to the full length of reclaiming every acre in this country. The same with swamp land, but I don't want to go in and do this ex- perimenting and then go and tell the soldiers : " Gentlemen, you have been patriotic and we want to do something for you." There is nothing in this bill for the soldier except to give him possible emploj^- ment, so far as benefiting him by giving him a home and a home- stead is concerned. I don't want to be harsh in my language, but I think it is an insult to him to talk to him about going to produce a farm like this and buying it from the Government for what it cost. Mr. VAILE. It has occurred to me that the individual buying of land by the soldier was simply lending him money to buy land with, and that doing that, allowing him to buy wherever he wants to, is bound to bring in a large amount of real estate speculation. Could that be effected satisfactorily without the intervention of the real estate speculator? Mr. GARNER. I will say to you that that is the principal objection that I have to the suggestion I made. I will be very frank with you, that is the principal objection that I see to it. But whatever you do, if you are going to really help the soldier I mean if you are going to really help him, not pretend to help him and hold up a gauze here that he can see through you are going to increase the circulating medium of this country. That is what you are going to do. There isn't any use of talking about going out and helping a great class of people without increasing or boosting up something. You can't do it. Mr. BENHAM. That would be true, Mr. Garner, that at home he would in most cases have the chance of advising with his father and mother and friends, I believe, to as great degree as he would have on one of these projects. Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Suppose he lived in the city. Mr. GARNER. I will answer, if he lives in the city, all right. My boy lives in Washington now and he has served in the war and wants to buy a home in Texas. Now, what do I do with him ? I say to him : "All right, here is a letter. Go from here to Houston and see the farm loan bank and get hold of the agent and tell him to go and help you buy a good farm." The Government is indirectly loaning money on land now through the farm loan bank and loaning money to the 200 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. extent of 60 per cent of the value of the land, and this is just carrying that plan one step further and loaning them 100 per cent. It is the farm loan bank plan exactly with the modification that instead of loaning 60 per cent they loan them 100 per cent. That is what I tell my boy, if he lives in Washington, go down to Houston and see the farm loan agent and get him to take you out and help you to buy a good farm. We will have a Government agent for the purpose of ad- vising that boy in getting a good farm, and he is not going to be cheated. Mr. RAKER. The farm loan bank is doing one thing, Mr. Garner, that where men are trying to get loans on their lands the agents have gone in and appraised the property and have got it down to its real, actual value, and the people that are buying and investing are getting land for one-third to one-fifth of what they got it for a year ago by the farm loan agents really appraising the land at what it is worth. Mr. GARNER. Now, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, I will join with this committee and join with anybody in the conservation of the resources of the country. You have seen enough Mr. Taylor has especially since I have been in Congress. He has been here long enough to know that I will join with the West in their reclamation service and join with the East or the Middle West in the cut-over land and swamp- land reclamation. I want to reclaim these things, but gentlemen, let us experiment with the two latter propositions we have nlrojuly ex- perimented with the first and let us not tell the soldier that we are going to do all this for him, because it will not help him ; we are doing it for the whole people of the United States ; and if we are going to help these soldiers, induce them to leave the city and produce more in the country on the farm, let us sell the soldier a farm where he wants it and where he will be socially congenial and have happy surround- ings and not force him to go to some other place where he may not want to live. Mr. TAYLOR. Would the State of Texas, in your judgment, approve of extending the present reclamation law so that it will apply to cut- over land and swamp land, and then also add your provision to this bill, so as to make it possible that we might carry out both ? Mr. GARNER. I believe they would, Mr. Taylor. I have never talked to an audience in Texas, even in middle Texas, where I was born and raised. I have never talked to one of them that was not in favor of the Government activities in the direction of reclaiming hrid lands. And I have heard them talk about swamp lands I iwver heard so much about cut-over lands never had a great deal of discussion over that, but the swamp lands and arid lands in our country, they are in favor of the Government activities there, and I am in favor of it, and I believe you will find the whole United States is in favor of it. But, gentlemen, when you come to say: " We are going to do this in the name of the soldier and for the benefit of the soldier," it is not so, and you ought not to try to fool the soldiers. Mr. MAYS. Well, we loan him money at a low rate of interest and long-time payments. Mr. (lAitNKi;. Yes; and the land will cost him so much more at 4 per cent that he could go right out there and rent land right next to it at a better price. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 201 Mr. SMITH. It is not the intention of the Interior Department to reclaim tracts of land that would not be worth what they cost. Mr. GARNER. Down in our country when we reclaim this land we do it with Mexican labor by contract. I mean by contract that they grub an acre of land for $6 to $8. There isn't a soldier in the United States, I will say, that hasn't had any experience, that could grub one of those acres of land in a month to save his life, and the cost would be $100 in place of $6 or $8. That is the point exactly. The same way with digging those ditches, and the same way with every- thing else. When you pay $100 a month to the soldier and he is going to work eight hours a day, and that is what you are going to pay. and you are going to put the eight-hour clause in it. The cost of production is too great. Mr. RAKER. Just carrying your thought one step further, suppos- ing we amend the irrigation law just as it stands, letting it apply to all the States, including swamp and cut-over land, and then appro- priate a sufficient amount of money to carry it out. Mr. GARNER. I will help you. Mr. RAKER. Then we will have the machinery to go right in. Mr. GARNER. You do that in the name of conservation. Mr. RAKER. Yes; in the name of making this country produce all it possibly can. Mr. GARNER. I am in favor of it, but, Mr. Raker, don't do that in the name of trying to immediately help the soldiers. Mr. MAYS. There would be no objection to giving a soldier pref- erence, would there? Mr. GARNER. Oh, no: certainly not. That will help him some. I believe in giving him all the preference possible, but, Mr. Mays, don't go and undertake to do something the purpose of which is something else, and say : " Now boys, this is all to help you." That is not true. We don't want to fool these soldiers, and you won't fool them long either. They will have enough live people among them to tell them " Xo don't be fooled ; here is the practical effect of this." Mr. MAYS. If they profit by it they wouldn't care whether they are fooled or not. would they ? Mr. GARNER. Well, I suppose not. But I think you will find some patriotic men, Mr. Mays, among the soldiers. I think you are going to find some of them that are going to put the welfare of this country above selfish interests. Mr. RAKER. Just carrying this thought one step further, if you do that and give the soldier the preference right to get one of these homes where he can come in in six months or a year and put himself on the land, would it not really be giving the soldier some recogni- tion? Mr. GARNER. Yes; that would give him some recognition, certainly, and I will join in that, and I think you will find everyone else will join you in an effort to do that. But when you come along and say, ' Wi> are going to make this a fine thing for the soldier, and this is what we are going to do for the soldier," it is not going to work out, as well you know. The CHAIRMAN. W T e thank you very much, Mr. Garner. Gentle- men, it is now 12 o'clock and the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m.. Thursday, June 5, 1919.) 202 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, June 5, 1919. The committee met at 10.15 a. m., Hon. Nichols J. Sinnott (chair- man) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. RAKER. ^Before you proceed, Mr. Chairman, I received yester- day and I suppose all the other Members of the House did five pages of typewritten matter relative to this bill from the Farmers' Alliance the National Grange. It is sent out for circulation and evidently to pre prejudice the public mind with the idea that this committee is not fair and is not giving parties like this an oppor- tunity to be heard, which, of course, is absolutely unfounded and contrary to the facts. To the end that these people may have a hearing and that we may cross-examine them, I move you that the president and the secretary of this association they say they are in Washington be invited to appear before the committee and be requested to come in order that we may have an opportunity to hear them. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, before you go into that, will you got the letter, Mr. Baldwin, that you wrote to Mr. Atkeson yesterday? Were you here yesterday, Judge, when we had up the matter of the change in Mr. Atkeson's testimony ? Mr. RAKER. I am always here, Mr. Chairman, but the last w T eek I have been bothered with my ears, and I can hardly hear what goes on in the committee. The CHAIRMAN. He asked to have certain editorials incorporated in the record, and the motion was made by Mr. Elston and the clerk of the committee sent to him this letter : The Public Lands Committee, at a meeting this morning, discussed the mat- ter of allowing you to insert the newspaper clippings attached to your testi- mony, when I returned the same to you for correction; also the mutter of material change in the answer to a question asked of you at the time you made your statement. The following motion was made and carried : "That Mr. Atkeson be permitted to appear before the committee later and submit his special request that tlie newspaper articles be inserted, and to give such further testimony as he wishes in connection with the matter under consideration. In the meantime the testimony should remain as taken by the stenographer." The chairman directs me to inform you of this and to invite you to appear before the committee, if you desire, for this purpose. Mr. RAKER. What I wanted is to have the direct action of the com- mittee, so that we may have this president and secretary, or some one else, appear before the committee in order that we may examine them. I want to find out who is paying this money for this propa- ganda; who is behind the theory of it, instead of allowing them to rritiri/e the committee and saying that we did not give them a chance, which is not a fact. This man was given an opportunity to make a statement and every member of the committee was given an opportunity to examine him, and we might just as well investigate here as any other plan-. \Yo have started out on the right founda- tion; and, if we give everybody a fair opportunity, wo have got something then that they won't attempt to attack. The CIIAIKMAN. Will you state your motion? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 203 Mr. RAKER. My motion is that they be directed to appear before the committee. Mr. MAYS. Invited to appear. Mr. RAKER. Well, invited. Mr. TAYLOR. Suppose you have the clerk, Mr. Chairman, write to this man that the committee has officially taken this formal action, in addition to the action of the chairman the committee asks him to come here and speak up before the committee. The CHAIRMAN. They have a legislative committee and an execu- tive committee in the city. We might invite their representatives to appear. Mr. RAKER. Yes ; that is the purpose of it. The CHAIRMAN. Without ob]ection, that will be done. That in- vitation is issued in view of these circulars that are being sent around. Mr. RAKER. The purpose is, in addition to that, when the man is right here in the city this committee has adjourned its hearings for a month at a time in order to give people a chance to come across the continent and be heard ; and when we start out on an important matter like this, and men right here in Washington assume that a things is so, when it is not a fact, I think it is our duty to bring them right up to the snubbing post. The CHAIRMAN. The fact is that Mr. Atkeson stated he would need less than 15 minutes, and two or three times in the record it was stated that certain questions would not be taken out of his time. He stated twice that he was through, as far as he was concerned. Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to have your invitation go into the record, Mr. Chairman. Put it in there, so that it will go along with his statement. Mr. SMITH. Has Mr. Atkeson had an opportunity of replying to this letter from the chairman or the clerk If not, there is no occa- sion for the committee taking any further action now. Mr. RAKER. The action of the committee, as indicated by my mo- tion, was taken by reason of a nine-page press notice in which it is stated that this is a packed committee. Mr. SMITH. Who is the letter from? Mr. RAKER. I don't know. Mr. SMITH. Who is it addressed to? Mr. RAKER. It is not addressed to anybody, but it purports to come from the people represented by Mr. Atkeson. Mr. SMITH. I do not think it is safe to assume that he wrote that letter. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Raker, did you say the communication is un- signed ? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. WHITE. Then, why should this committee pay any attention to it whatever? Mr. JOHNSON. I don't think this committee ought to notice an anonymous matter like that, Mr. MAYS. Well, it is going to all the papers in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. There are charges in there that should not be ignored. Mr. B ARBOUR. Couldn't we have copies of it, Mr. Chairman? I have never seen this letter. Couldn't we get copies of it? 204 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. ( The CHAIRMAN. It has been sent generally to members of the House, I believe. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, we should wait a day or two to see whether Mr. Atkeson responds personally or by letter to the request of the committee to appear. Mr. RAKER. No ; I am in favor of nipping this thing right in the bud. They did the same thing two years ago on the oil business, and the record showed that they were spending two or three hundred thousand dollars for this propaganda, and when we brought the men before the committee they tried to get out of it and showed that there wasn't anything in the statement made, and we proceeded with proper legislation instead of having the money expended to try to besmirch the committee and the House and taking no action on it. I believe in hitting the thing right on the head and bringing them right up here now while this matter is under consideration. Mr. BKN HAM. Who will we reply to in the matter, if it is an anony- mous letter? To whom will we direct our reply ( Mr. RAKER. I will answer that [reading]: "Press notice. For Washington correspondents and press associations. For release upon receipt." Xow, it goes on to state that this organization will fight this matter anld that their representatives did not have a hearing, and evidently it must come from them. If it did not come from them, then they can come before the committee and say it did not. Some faker lias started this thing, and I want to know who he is. That is all. But the motion is carried. The CIIAIRMAX. Gentlemen, we have witnesses here that desire to be heard. Do you desire to be heard, Mr. Starr '. Will you state your name and whom you represent ? STATEMENT OF MR. WESTERN STARR, OF BALTIMORE, MD., REP- RESENTING THE FARMERS' NATIONAL SINGLE TAX LEAGUE. Mr. STARR. Mr. Chairman, my name is Western Starr, and I am a resident of Baltimore. I am a farmer. I represent the Farmers' National Single Tax League, and I am here on their behalf as well as on my own to oppose this bill on several grounds. As a preliminary I would like to state that the activities of the departments of the Government and the great interest that has been shown by different Congressmen, as evidenced by the number of bills that have been introduced covering this broad question in part, and including in part other questions, indicate a state of the public mind that is entirely worthy of the most serious attention of this com- mittee, and I believe it has in hand at this time one of the most important questions, one of the most important general subjects that can come before the Congress at any time. Mr. Kent indicated it probably as well in his remarks yesterday when he said the bill should properly be described as a bill to dis- tribute or redistribute population. Now, the very title of the bill, in my mind, condemns it. It purports to provide employment and rural homes for those who have served in the military and naval force-, through the reclamation of lands, etc. Now. just let us take, a minute on that. Assume that there were 1.000,000 men in the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 205 uniformed service of the United States during the late unpleasant- ness. If we estimate the number of those who came from farms in proportion to those who came from cities by the absolute fact of the relative proportions of the population, about one-third of them r*ame from farms and the balance came from the cities. In addition to the 4,000,000 in the uniformed service, there were about 7.000.000 or 8,000,000 in the ununiformed service this side of the water whose services were equally important with those in uniform. The CHAIRMAX. If it will not interrupt you. could you give the figures how you arrive at that one-third ? Mr. STAI;R. Because the population of this country lives one-third in the country and two-thirds in the city. About 33 to 35 per. cent of the population of the Republic lives in the rural districts, farmers that live upon farms. Fifty years ago TO per cent were living in the, country. Xow there is only about 30 to 35 per cent that are living in the country, and if the conscription measures were propor- tionately and fairly administered, as I have a right to assume they were and as the record seems to show, two-thirds of the soldiers that were put across and put into uniforms came from the cities, the urban districts, and only one-third came from the country. Now, in addition to that, it took four the least estimate that I have ever seen was that it took four men out of uniform to support one man in uniform. There are those that claim that it takes five men in civilian clothes to support one man in uniform. Xow, the men who were not in uniform, but who were just as seriously engaged in this war, and who made every sacrifice, except the peril of death and maiming, wounding, permanent crippling, are just as much en- titled to consideration in any bill which this committee has to consider for the distributing of public lands and providing homes and employ- ment as the men who are in uniform. Mr. FERRIS. Don't you make any distinction between the man who goes out and makes the last offering for his country, who offers his life, and the man who stays at home and enjoys the comforts of peace ? Mr. STARR. Certainly I do. I make a big distinction. I make a great distinction. Mr. FERRIS. Your statement would imply that you did not. Mr. STARR. No, sir; I will not allow you to assume that, if you please. I remember what I said. Mr. FERRIS. The record will remember better than you or I either can. Mr. STARR. I don't wish to antagonize the gentleman at all Mr. FERRIS (interposing). Now just wait a minute. You are a witness before this committee. You just hold on. Mr. STARR. I will answer any question. Mr. FERRIS. You are here at the pleasure of the committee. Just wait a minute. Read that statement back there that the gentleman made. The reporter read the record, as follows : Now. the men who wore not in uniform but who were just n^ seriously en- gaged in this war. and who made every sacrifice, except the peril of deal 1 ! and maiming, wounding, permanent crippling, are just as much entitled to cnnsHera- tion in any hill which this committee lias to consider for the distrihutin.tr of public lands and providing homes and employment as the men who are in uniform. 206 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. STARR. I think that is what I said. Mr. FERRIS. Then that is the statement of fact that you want the committee to have? Mr. STARR. I am willing the committee should have it in just that way. Mr. FERRIS. You don't desire to change it, and that is your view ? Mr. STARR. I have not finished my remarks yet, and I propose to extend them to cover that point, if you will allow me to continue long enough to do so. I am making the criticism here that the bill is confined strictly to uniformed service the men who served in uniform. Now, I am making this point, that if you propose to have a bill that is practical, a workable bill, and which will produce the results that the committee desires to have accomplished, you have got to extend it and make no distinction in allowing men, whether they were in uniform or not in uniform, to take advantage of the bounty of the Government in pro- viding homes for themselves. That is the point I want to make. Mr. TAYLOR. Where do you make the limit, or do you make any limit at all ? Mr. STARR. No limit at all. Mr. TAYLOR. Make it apply to everybody in the United States? Mr. STARR. Everybody in the United States who wants to take advantage of the provision of Congress to get a home and add to the productive power of the country should have the same right that every other man has. Mr. FERRIS. Let me understand you. Then in what way would you favor the soldier over the man who was not a soldier ? Mr. STARR. When I reach that point I will tell you. Mr. FERRIS. But you have reached it twice three times. You have stated that you would put this bill and all other bills that you would have it apply to nonsoldiers the same as to soldiers. Mr. STARR. I think if the gentleman will permit me T haven't gotten ten words beyond the point that you are raising. I will anti- cipate my remarks. Mr. FERRIS. Well, go ahead. Mr. STARR. I will anticipate what I intended to say in the order in which I intended to say it, and now I would give the uniformed men a preference over anybody else as to a particular site or lo^a- tion. The time is not so long ago less than 30 years ago when Oklahoma belonged to the United States Government, and when the time was announced that they were going to open it up, they camped on the borders of Oklahoma for weeks, to make a rush to the place that they had picked out. Now there would be no possibility of that in the proposition that I wish to make. Let every man Mr. FERRIS (interposing). That was not a soldier proposition at all. Mr. STARR. That was not a soldier proposition, but you are going to make a uniform tiling to everybody, and it will be practically the same tiling here unless you make a distinction. Mr. FERRIS. There is no disposition to make this uniform. This applies to the man who served his country alone. Mr. STARR. You are providing for the uniformed soldier solely: I maintain, and I think I can show, that unless yon make it apply HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 20 7 to everybody, with such distinctions in favor of the uniformed nmn as gives them a preference, your bill will amount to nothing in re- sults. That is what I am trying to tell you. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. Mr. Starr, do you not think it would be well to let the soldiers have the preference for two or three years, and then bring in the civilians if the soldiers do not want the land ? Mr. STARR. If you care to do that ; 3'es. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. I think that would meet your position, would it not? Mr. STARR. What I am trying to get at is here you will pardon me, and I hope the committee will not misunderstand me when I make this statement it has already been stated by men who are close students of affairs and of social philosophy and of political activity, that this bill, is not intended as a genuine bill to help any- body except a few politicians who wish to capitalize the soldier vote. Mr. KAKER. Just a moment, now, gentlemen Mr. WHITE (interposing). Is that your statement? Mr. STARR. That is not my opinion. Mr. RAKER. Now, "will you state in the record who those people are? Mr. STARR. I can't give you the names. Mr. RAKER. Now, you have made a very broad statement. Can you give the names of any of them of anybody ? Mr. STARR. Why, I don't know that I can. I have heard it dis- cussed in conversations. Mr. RAKER. Who have you heard discuss it along the line that you suggest now? Mr. STARR. I have heard different people discuss it. Mr. RAKER. Name a few of them. Mr. STARR. I am not going to name any of them. Mr. RAKER. You can't name a single one? Mr. STARR. I don't want to name them. I am not going to name them. Mr. RAKER. Why not? Mr. STARR. Simply because I haven't their consent to name them. Mr. RAKER. You can't withhold just a moment now I am going to have something to say on this committee myself. A man comes here and makes a charge of this kind, and we are entitled to get the names of the men that make the statements, and I demand of you now that you give their names. Mr. STARR. Well, I want to make this statement now. I have not stated this as my opinion at all; I have expressly said that it was not my opinion. Mr. RAKER. I don't care whether you stated it as your opinion or not ; you stated that certain men are making this kind of statements. Now. kindly to the end that we may find out the truth about this matter give the names of some of these people. Mr. STARR. I can't do it; I won't do it. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Starr, were any of them soldiers? Mr. STARR. No ; none of them were soldiers. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is your interest in the bill political or economical ? Mr. STARR. Purely economic. I have no party and I belong to no party. 13331919 14 208 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Your aspersion would apply, then, to the members of this committee, who are supposed to be in politics? Mr. STARR. No ; it does not apply to the members of this committee. You are a Congressman, of course, and I stated that I would not be misunderstood in making the suggestion. What I say is that the bill is unworkable and impractical in its present form. The CHAIRMAN. Well, do you include the President of the United States in your insinuation upon politicians? Mr. STARR. Certainly not. I didn't know the President of the United States had anything to do with it. The CHAIRMAN. Would you include Theodore Roosevelt, now de- ceased, in your aspersions upon the politicians who were back of this idea for political purposes? Mr. STARR. Well, I don't know that it will be possible to say that any public character or politician, a man who holds a public office as the result of popular choice, election, considers anything except from a political point of view, or that that point of view is included in the general sum of the basis of his actions. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that point of view is a sinister point of view, and solely for mercenary and selfish purposes? Mr. STARR. Not at all. That a thing is political does not make it sinister or mercenary. The CHAIRMAN. You mean political, then, in the favorable sense and not in the unfavorable sense? Mr. STARR. I am using the term as a definition, as an attempt to determine what is public policy. The CHAIRMAN. Then you mean political in the favorable sense, not the unfavorable sense? Mr. STARR. Not the sinister or unfavorable sense at all. I under- stand politics to be in its essence nothing more or less than an effort to determine what public opinion is and the giving of effect to it. That is my understanding of the word " politics." A successful politician anticipates public opinion and expresses it. Mr. FERRIS. I am afraid that the gentleman's statement was so broad that it took in a good deal more than that. Will you just read what he said regarding the political side of this matter \ The reporter read the record, as follows : * * * It has already been staled by men who are close students of affairs and of social philosophy and of political activity that this bill is not intended as a genuine bill to help anybody except a few politicians who wish to capitalize the soldier vote. Mr. FERRIS. Do you think that Secretary Franklin K. Lane, who originated this plan, did it for no good purpose for the soldier, but simply to capitalize the soldier vote? Mr. STARR. Certainly not. No one in the world would ever say that. Mr. FERRIS. Do you think President Wilson, when he issued his message at the opening of this Congress, advocating this legislation in the strongest terms do you think he was doing that simply to get tin- soldier vote? Mr. STARR. I have said all the way through that was not my opinion. I don't think anything of the kind. Mr. FERRIS. But the gentleman states in this record hero, in terms loud and clear, that men who are students of government, students of HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 209 > philosophy, have stated that those who were behind this bill were trying to capitalize the soldier vote. Mr. STARR. I have heard those statements made. Mr. FERRIS. Then, in response to the question by Judge Raker, who asked you the name of one man who had said that, to name one person to whom you referred, you said you would not state his name, and you refused to. Mr. STARR. I have so stated. Mr. FERRIS. Xow you are satisfied to make a record like that be- fore this committee? Mr. STARR. I am willing to let it go just as I have stated it. Mr. FERRIS. Well, is that the truth? Mr. STARR. It is the truth that I have heard tliose discussions. Mr. FERRIS. And it is the truth that you refuse to name a single one who ever stated that? Mr. STARR. It is. Mi-. FERRIS. And it is the truth that you think that the men who really got up this bill you now state that you think they have no such purpose as that? Mr. STARR. If I can make myself understood there is an unex- pressed imputation in your question that I will not admit. I will say to you that I have heard those statements made in general dis- cussion by groups of men who have considered all of these questions. Mr. FERRIS. Do you or do you not adopt their statement ? Mr. STARR. I have expressly repudiated that; but that is not my opinion. Mr. FERRIS. It is not your opinion ? Mr. STARR. No. I have repudiated that idea. I did it before I said anything about it. Mr. FERRIS. Then why cumber this record with statements of men whose names you refuse to give and whose theories you refuse to stand for? Mr. STARR. Simply because I wish to emphasize the fact that the very title of the bill its provisions shows to a thinking man that it is unworkable. Mr. FERRIS. Well, that is a matter you are arguing there, of course. Mr. STARR. It is unworkable for various reasons. Mr. RAKER. May I ask you one question ? Then I will not trouble you any further. Do you remember these men who made this state- ment, these philosophers? Mr. STARR. I have some of them in mind. Mr. RAKER. Let me finish my question who advocated the theory that you put in the record there as to the purpose of this legisla- tion and the intent of those advocating it, and you come before the committee to assist the committee in getting proper legislation, and while remembering their names now, knowing them, you refuse to give their names to the committee? Is that correct? Mr. STARR. Before I would undertake to give any of those names to the committee I would have to see those men themselves and get their permission to do it. They are men occupying fairly good posi- tions in the world. They occupy responsible positions, some of them, and I am not going to put their names in here to be the target of this committee without their consent. 210 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MATS. What was your exact purpose in quoting this opinion? Mr. STARR. In quoting the opinion? The object of my making the statement was to show that there is a fear that the bill is unworkable ; that the very title of it and its provisions, as I stated a moment ago, on close analogy in comparison with the history of past legislation in connection with the same general subject, shows that the bill is unworkable. Mr. MAYS. You agree, then with that theory that it is unwork- able? Mr. STARR. I agree that it is unworkable, and I am here to say so. Mr. MAYS. Do you agree with these opinions you have just ex- pressed ? Mr. STARR. I am not here to agree, and I do not agree with the opinion that it is intended as a political camouflage; I do not be- lieve that for a minute. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Starr, all those men that you refer to, do you know whether they will appear before the committee or not? Mr. STARR. I don't know. That contingency has never developed. I don't know what their view would be about coming before the com- mittee and making their statement. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you think those gentlemen to whom you make reference, were posted on the subject? Mr. STARR. By the process of elimination carried far enough, that question would, perhaps, identify some of the men. I will say thnt some of them are men who have been personally engaged in con- sidering and examining this very subject for two years. There have been a number of bills introduced. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that the plan should be more extensive and take in everyone? Mr. STARR. My opinion is that the plan should be more compre- hensive and take in everyone. At the close of the Civil War, at the close of the Mexican War, the Government issued land warrants to its soldiers. And in 1862, I think it was, Galusha A. Grow of- fered the homestead and preemption bill. After every Avar, even in the times of the Csesars, there were attempts made to gratify the soldiers who had served the country in the field by giving them grants of public land, which was the available, accessible, ready means of rewarding the men who had undertaken the services to pro- tect the country and to extend its power. That was true when we had those enormous areas of land that are now all gone. That was true after the Mexican War. I don't know what you would have to pay for a piece of Valentine Scrip now. I don't' belieA^e you could find one. except perhaps in a museum. The CHAIRMAN. That was an absolute gift to the soldiers? Mr. STARR. That was absolute gift to the soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. A voluntary gift on the part of the Government without any requirements on the part of the soldier other than the past service ( Mr. STARK. Certainly. And the natural result of that was that I doubt that if to-day 10 per cent of the families of the men who re- ceived Government warrants for land as soldier claims still have any interest in the land that the soldier took. I lived on the fron- tier mvself for a number of years, and 1 know cases, manv of them. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 211 where men who had been soldiers, who had taken homesteads and taken preemptions and sold them the minute they got their title disposed of them for what they could get. They made land specu- lators of those men, rather than settlers farmers. The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the time prior to the passage of the homestead act ? Mr. STARR. I am referring to the time prior to the passage of the homestead act, and then subsequent to the homestead act. Of course there were a great many, absolutely a great many of those men that settled in good faith on that land, but relatively there were a very small number of them. The CHAIRMAN. You want to keep the line of demarcation between what was done prior to the passage of the homestead act and after- wards. Before the passage of the homestead act there was a volun- tary gift made to these soldiers. Mr. STARR. Yes, sir; soldier scrip. The CHAIRMAN. Without any requirements on the part of the Gov- ernment ? Mr. STARR. Absolutely. But the same general principle, develop- ment of the speculative instinct, followed in all that granting that was made. Xow, the second point that I want to cover is this: That in order to well, before I go on with that, in my own experience as a farmer. I have had some light thrown on the probabilities of taking advantage of this measure by soldiers in my own county. Between 1914 and 1917. in July, they took over 2,000 men out of my county and put them into the war machine in one way or another. Many of them went in uniform, but boys that could not earn 75 cents a day stripping corn or bugging potatoes, or hoeing weeds went up to Bridgeport and Newcastle and other places and got $5 and $6 a'day for eight hours' work. Xow, they have not come back yet. They went up there and lived in the atmosphere of the moving pict.urp<* and the bright lights and the joy rides, and they haven't gonp baolr !-l;m aimed to the depression of this price or the corrcci ion of the terms upon which hind is jienerally sold to settlers in the States. The board, it is true, obtained favorable terms and no doubt a re- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 223 duction in price on the land which it bought, but it is notorious that any con- cession made in this matter has been prompted by the expectation of a rise in land values in the vicinity of the settlement. In response to the board's proposal to purchase lands many large landholders, not less than 40 in 17 counties, hurried forward with offers of tracts aggregating 200,000 acres, and this eagerness was manifested in spite of the fact that the terms stated by the board were exceptionally unattractive in the eyes of the average California land merchant. Thus, for any modification of current terms and prices ob- tained by the board for its own settlers there will be a corresponding increase in prices and a stiffening of terms for settlers elsewhere. The crying evil of high prices and short terms of payment throughout the State remains the same. Then in the third paragraph it discusses this land colonization system as follows: It offers small encouragement to the poor man. A late statement is to the effect that the applicant for a farm must have at least $1,500 capital, and he is advised that an amount of from $2,000 to $2,500 would be still better. If the social purpose is to' open the lands of California to those who most need it, this plan surely does not meet the final test. I think that this is pertinent to the discussion of this bill because of the fact that, as I understand it, a prospective settler, under the plan before this committee, would have to put up a certain amount, and it has been stated that it will possibly be about $1,500. I don't know whether that is the right estimate or not, but if it is the experience of the California commission with a plan calling for a similar initial payment should be considered. Mr. RAKER. Who issued this publication? Mr. BRANOTN. It is issued by the California Commission of Immi- gration and Housing. This has the date mark 1919, and is published at the California State printing office, Sacramento. Now, the constructive suggestion of this commission is right in line with the position of the Farmers' Single Tax League, and the position that Mr. Starr has taken for some form of land-value tax. The commission proposes a graduated land tax as the best agency to break up land speculation in California. I simply bring that in not to go into the argument but as a suggestion. That is the attitude of those people who have made quite a deep study of it. Mr. MAYS. Mr. Chairman, can we properly take up the question of taxation here? The CHAIRMAN. Well, we don't want to go into the question of single tax. Mr. BRANOTN-. Well, gentlemen, my idea is not to introduce an academic subject, but to emphasize the importance of a consideration of the power of taxation to do the thing which was mentioned yes- terday to prevent land speculation in the working out of this project. Now, some one mentioned the fact, or spoke of it as being a theoretical question. That may be true in a way, and yet I could quote you and would like to have the time, if the committee will not object. I w r ould like to bring in here some of the practical ex- periences Mr. RAKER (interposing). Before you pass the California matter, that theory was defeated by the people of California at the last election ? Mr. BRANNIN. Yes; it has been voted on two or three times in California. Mr. RAKER. And defeated quite heavily, wasn't it? 13331919 15 224 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BRANNIX. Yes. Mr. BARBOUR. It will be voted on again, won't it? Mr. BRANNIN. It will be voted on again, yes; and increasingly as time goes on. Now, I would like to bring in here the experience of an irrigation district in California, of several irrigation districts, totaling some- thing like a million acres. This was a report issued in 1914, and I have seen nothing to indicate that there has been any change in the feeling of the people in these districts since. This is a statement issued in 1914 by the city trustees of Oakdale, Calif., about 8,000 acres in the district, signed by all the directors of the district, the board of trade, women s improvement club, bankers, etc., giving their experience with the single-tax idea in doing away with land specu- lation, and in encouraging the small home owner in making use of the land and discouraging the building up of large estates. The Oakdale irrigation district was organized as a single-tax irrigation dis- trict under the laws of the State of California in 1909. The chief argument in favor of organization under the single-tax system for raising revenue for the operation of the system was that the farmers would not be penalized for their industry; that when our farmers improve their land by plant ing alfalfa, setting out trees and vines, building dwellings and barns, and other improvements, their taxes will not be increased, and that they would pay the same taxes as their neighbors with the same area and policy of land who made no improve- ments. Even in the short space of less than a year many of the promises made for the single tax have been fulfilled. The large ranch, so common under the old system of taxation, is fast disappearing from our district. Speculators do not buy land here. Each sale is made to an actual settler, who brings his family among us, builds a decent home, betters the social conditions of his neighbor- hood, and adds to the prosperity of the community. Our experience has taught us that the more you relieve improvements from taxation, the quicker the coun- try will improve. Single taxation is the best system of taxation for our farmers. We know that it is making our district a success. All of our farmers favor it, because of the exemption of improvements, and no one in the district wants to go back to the old system. The single-tax system is right because it improves the country. Our farmers put the land to its highest use, the use that is most beneficial to the community. Our system of taxation compels them to do this, and they thus reap a greater profit for themselves. Many say that they can now afford to borrow money to make improvements which they could not do under the old system. That is the statement. And the tax rate, it says there, is $6.20 on the $100. Mr. BARBOUR. Can I interrupt there a minute? Do I understand that this tax rate you refer to is the tax rate applied by the county assessor to the land in the Oakdale district ? Mr. BRANXIN. That is my understanding of it. Mr. BARBOUR. The county assessor assesses the land in the Oakdale district differently from what he does land in other parts of Stanis- laus County? Mr. BRANXIX. I understand there was an act passed through the legislature which gave a degree of home rule in taxation in that par- ticular district. Mr. BARBOUR. And that theory is applied only to land in the Oak- dale district, and not to the other land in Stanislaus County? Mr. BRANNIN. As I undersand this statement, there are several irrigation districts, the Modesto district, the Oakdale district, the Turlock district and several others, involving about 1,000,000 acre-:. Mr. BARBOUR. And (lie Tatterson district ( Mr. BRAXXIX. I don't remember that name. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 225 Mr. HERSMAN. That is a private scheme. Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, sir. That is a private scheme. Mr. BRANNIN. Now, I want to bring in here, gentlemen it will take just a minute the recommendation for the taxing of land values adopted by the Ohio State Federation of Labor at its recent recon- struction convention, simply to show that the single tax, or the land value tax idea, is not in a theoretical state. It is receiving the attention of organized workers all over the country and is being made an integral part of their demands. This is a convention of the Ohio State Federation of Labor : We maintain that the existence of idle land and idle labor constitute a travesty on the intelligence and common sense Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). Mr. Chairman, in order that I may set myself right, I want to enter my protest just as one member of this committee against taking up the time of the people and spending their money here to hear the single tax theory discussed. Now, I don't ask that it 'be adopted, but I enter my protest against it in order that it may be on record here. Mr. MAYS. I don't think it has any place here. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has three minutes, and of course the committee is not going to take up the matter of single tax, but I think we would get through quicker by letting him complete his statement. Mr. MAYS. How many minutes ? The CHAIRMAN. Three minutes. Mr. BRANNIN. To continue: We maintain that the existence of idle laud and idle labor constitute a travesty on intelligence and common sense, and in order that such a paradox shall no longer exist, we insist that it is the duty of our Government, National and State, to take immediate steps to democratize land distribution and reduce the speculative value of land. The Chicago Labor Party's position is this : The payment of the current expenses of Government by a system of taxation of land values, which will stimulate rather than retard production. And the position of the American Labor Party of Greater New York is as follows : To provide sufficient revenue, we favor the use of a taxation system which will derive the revenues from laud values in such a way as to stimulate rather than retard production. The Washington State Grange has gone on record in its thirtieth annual convention as follows: The convention of the Washington State Grange reaffirms the historic tax platform of this organization for a straight land value tax. The American Society of Equity is on record in favor of a gradu- ated land tax. In same way the Farmers' National Council has declared for the taxation of land values in such a way as to discourage land specula- tion. The CHAIRMAN. Your time is up, Mr. Brannin. Mr. BRANNIN. If I might have just a minute to kind of put a cracker on a few things I have said, I would appreciate it. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's time will be extended one minute. 226 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BRANNIN. My hope was that the committee would forget the attitude held by many with regard to reform in taxation, especially with regard to the single tax classing it as a theory, dismissing it because it had a name that had come to be unpopular and would con- sider it on its merits. In view of the experience of other countries, in view of the experience in a limited way in this country, I had hoped the committee would see that if you want to do away with land speculation in any plan for bringing the land to the soldier, or get- ting the soldier on the land, you must use the power of taxation or you must fix on some scheme that will discourage speculation and en- courage the use and development of land. Now, it seems to me that in this colony idea this could be done if the title to the land remained in the Government, as Mr. Starr and Mr. Kent have suggested, and if you would follow the general practice for the development of irri- gation and drainage projects, based on the benefit district idea, and establish a benefit district around these farm colonies so that the land- owner who happens to live adjacent to such colonies will not get the benefit of the industry and progress of the members of that com- munity, through the increase in the value of his land. The CHAIRMAN. Your time is up. Mr. RAKER. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the gentleman who has just spoken whether he has anything further to say on the bill that is now pending before the committee, or upon the question of the legislation in regard to soldiers' settlements, or the homestead bill ? Mr. BRANMN. Why, I could take I would be glad to have more time here. Mr. RAKER. Have you anything further to say on this bill, or this proposed legislation ? Mr. BRANNIN. Before the committee? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. BRANNIN. No, sir; I have nothing more, since my time has expired. Mr. RAKER. No; that isn't the question. I am asking you now whether the time has expired or not whether you have anything further to say that would be of interest and assist the committee and is pertinent to this bill? Mr. BRA NX IN. Why, I have a number of things that I would like to have said. Mr.. RAKER. That relates especially to this legislation? Mr. BRANNIN. Emphasizing the idea I spoke of there of this bene- fit district plan. Mr. RAKER. But I don't want you to leave, and I don't want your association to say that you didn't have an opportunity to be heard before this committee. Mr. BpANNiN. I won't say that. I will answer your question in that way. Mr. RAKER. If you will say that you have anything to say pertinent on this bill and would like to present the matter further that would assist the committee in getting proper legislation, then I am going to make a motion that you be given further time. Mr. BRANMN. Well, I thank the committee for the time, and am glad to say we are satisfied. Mr. RAKER. All right. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 227 Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. Brannin, before you go, one question just for my own satisfaction. You speak about compelling the soldier to pay a larger tax on these lands that he gets. Do you believe it is not proper to tax personal property at all \ Mr. BRANNIN. No, sir; we don't believe in the taxation of personal property. Mr. TILLMAN. I just wanted to know. Then if a lawyer earns $100,000 a year, you are not in favor of taxing that income of $100,000? Mr. BRANNIN. I will say this, as an individual, that there is a dif- ference between the attitude of the single taxer and the single-tax philosophy. As an individual, under the present system of society, I believe in a drastic income and inheritance tax. I don't know as I would make it over $100,000, but the single-tax philosophy doesn't contemplate any other tax except the tax upon land values. It exempts improvements because it is based upon the idea that what a man has represents what he has earned; that he is not taking ad- vantage of some special privilege, nor taking advantage of some other individual. Mr. TILLMAN. You don't think that these vast industries that have been built up by reason of the war should pay for that benefit? Mr. BRANNIN. I do. Mr. TILLMAN. But you would do away with the $60,000,000 that we get by reason of our income from personal property, and the land should bear all this taxation? Mr. BRANNIN. Under the present situation, I believe in a drastic income and inheritance and land value tax, to take care of the war debt, and with no other taxes on industries, or improvements, or business, or any thing else. Mr. TILLMAN. Then you think \i would be doing the soldier a kind- ness to give him 100 acres of land and tax him to death to pay the war tax on it? Mr. BRANNIN. Not tax him to death; only tax the land according to its value. If the soldier has very valuable lands, he should pay taxes in proportion, because the idea would be that he would be get- ting a certain benefit from the use of that very valuable land which would more than compensate him. Mr. TILLMAN. That is all. Mr. FERRIS. Just a word, on the bill. You are the secretary of the Farmers' Single Tax League? Mr. BRANNIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FKIIHLS. And Mr. Starr, who preceded you, is President of it? Mr. BRANNIN. He is chairman of the league. Mr. FERRIS. You heard his statements wherein he said he was in favor of having the bill made applicable to everybody? Mr. BRANNIN. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Do you share that same view ? Mr. BRANNIN. I take this position that the bill should be made applicable to everybody, with preference given to the soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. What sort of preference? Mr. BRANNIN. Well, some one suggested three years. I don't remember just the details, but anything that is reasonable, that will insure that the soldier gets first, chance. 228 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. The other thought was that title to the land should not pass from the Federal Government at all, and that the soldier should have a leasehold or something of the sort. You are of the same opinion about that? Mr. BRANNIN. I am, and let me say this, that under our present system of land tenure the tendency is all toward farm tenancy. Everjr year sees an increase, according to the census figures, of the farms operated by tenants, and fewer farms operated by owners. Now, if the present system discloses that condition, why should we be fearful of trying the other idea of letting the title remain in the Government, with the provision that a man shall pay ground rent each year, be given absolute security in the possession and use of that land, and not be exploited as he is under the present system ? Mr. HERSMAN. May I ask one question ? You heard the statement of the gentleman over here that this bill that is before the House would only take care of 2 per cent of pur soldiers first. Now, evi- dently you must be in favor of this bill, because you say that the soldiers should be taken care of first. This bill only takes care of 2 per cent of them, and evidently you can have no objection, if, under this bill, it only takes care of 2 per cent through the bill. Mr. BRANNIN. Well, I favor the bill with the objections I have made as regards to leasehold title and making its general provisions open to all, and giving the soldiers preference. Mr. HERSMAN. You can't make the provisions open to all, bemuse it will only take care of 2 per cent of the soldiers. Then you would have to have another appropriation to take care of more. Mr. BRANNIN. If the bill is drawn so that it applies that way, I don't see why there is any particular point there. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Brannin, I understood you to say that this sys- tem of taxation that is being applied in the Oakdale reclamation dis- trict has been very successful ? Mr. BRANNIN. I am taking this statement here for it. Mr. BARBOUR. I didn't know there was any distinction made as to land situated in the Oakdale district, but isn't it a fact that the people of Stanislaus County have voted down this single tax proposition by a big majority every time it was submitted? Mr. BRANNIN. I admit I am not familiar with the vote in Cali- fornia by counties. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, I wish to introduce to you ex-Gov. Gooding, of Idaho. STATEMENT OF HON. F. R. GOODING, OF GOODING, IDAHO. Mr. GOODING. I might say. Mr. Chairman, that I am representing an association that was formed about GO days a<> - o for the purpose of encouraging legislation recognizing the soldier. The Cir.vntMAX. For the records, you were governor of the State of Idaho for how many years? Mr. GOODING. For two terms. That association at the present time has about 20,000 members and is growing all the time. My State appropriated $100,000 to work in cooperation with the Government, doing those things that it may find to do, not in the way of construction, because all of our projects out there are big and will be expensive. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 229 The first object of our organization is to encourage the passage of some legislation along the line that you have in the bill before you. Then again the hope that Idaho *is going to share with the other States in the Union in this great development. I have been impressed, Mr. Chairman, as I have been sitting here for two days listening to the arguments, that this committee is intensely interested in this bill : that you feel it is the most important legislation that has ever been before 'Congress on land matters. You want it right, and you want the spirit of it right all the way through. Mr. Chairman, it might be well for me to qualify as a witness by giving you some of my life's -work. My early boyhood days were spent upon a farm in Michigan. Later in life, but still in my boy- hood days, I went to California and worked on great wheat ranches in the Sacramento valley. Judge Raker, in those days 40 years ago, it was the custom on some of those ranches to eat two meals by candle- light the year round, and when the harvest was on we ate our dinner in the shade of the header wagon. Then in 1881 I went to Idaho, when it was still a territory. In 1889 Mrs. Gooding and I homesteaded near the town of Gooding. Tt wa> during my two terms as governor that the great development in irrigation took place in my State under the Carey Act. During that time the Government was doing a great work out there, and I like the bill that is before you at least, I like the administration part of the bill, because a great deal of it is going to be left to the Secretary of the Interior, and through him and under him the Reclamation Service. The people of my State, and I believe the people of the West, have confidence in Mr. Lane. They like him, and the people have confidence in the Reclamation Service, for in my State they have constructed the highest masonary dam in the world. Associated with the Government at the present time are engineers who were associated with the State when it constructed under the Carey Act the biggest irrigation canal in the world, with the excep- tion "of those built by the British Government in Egypt, All the work, so far as Idaho is concerned, that has been done* by the Gov- ernment, has inspired confidence, so that the people of Idaho feel that you are starting out in this great work with an organization that knows just exactly what to do. We have had much to dp with the human part of this great development which, to my mind, is the most important part of it all. and that is what I want to discuss with you very largely. I don't like altogether the spirit of the bill under discussion. I think its lines are rather too hard. I feel that you make the initial payment too much. I am afraid you are going to make it impossible for some of the boys who have answered their country's call in this great war to make homes upon these new projects. I believe that 90 per cent of the people of this country are asking that you shall recognize the soldier very fully in this bill. I do not think there is any question about that. I have never heard any ob- jection, Mr. Chairman, until I heard it stated before this committee. I have made it my business to feel the pulse of the people on every occasion that I find an opportunity. I have found them practically unanimously in favor of recognizing the soldier in our land laws in the future. 230 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. There are three provisions in this bill that I want to discuss with you and offer suggestions. I want to be constructive, and I know the committee wants something to go out to the people that has the right spirit in it toward the soldiers. You are making him a party to the greatest development this country has ever known, and you want him to have the feeling that he is a party with the Government in the biggest work that it has ever undertaken in increasing the productiveness of the soil. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, these young men have given up considerable time, at a dollar a day, to save their country. Some of them may have had some savings before the war, but the chances are that it is all gone. They are starting to-day, many of these young men, with practically nothing but their two hands. They may be married. I hope they are, for I should like to see this bill provide that the soldier who has a family shall be given the first chance, for I want to tell you that the young man can not succeed on the farm without a wife. It is a work for two, and not for one. I think this Government should do those things on all occa- sions, so far as it can, to encourage the young man to get married, and if this provision were in the bill it would be an encouragement. This bill provides that the young soldier who is the owner of a farm shall not participate in this bill, and in this provision I agree with you thoroughly. As I understand the bill, you want to give the young soldier who has very little in this life a chance to make a home on these new projects. For a soldier to take advantage of this bill when he enters into a contract with the Government, if he is to make a home in the West, that will cost the Government $100 an acre to put water on it, and the unit is 80 acres, which I believe it should be in most cases, he will need $400 for his initial payment. This bill provides that the Government may loan him not more than $1,200 for building a home and other improvements, of which he shall furnish 25 per cent; it also provides, as I understand it, that the Government will loan the applicant $800 for the purchase of live stock, of which he must fur- nish 40 per cent. This means that a soldier must have practically $1,000 or more to qualify as an entryman. If he has a family, he is not going to be able to save much working on your reclamation projects, wherever they may be, in the East or in the West, at $4 a day. You are asking him to pay 5 per cent of the selling price of his farm when he enters into a contract with the Government, I think that part should be changed. I believe the first initial payment on the land should be deferred for five years, for the Government is not taking any chances with the young soldier who is trying to build a home on these new projects. Every day's work that he puts upon the farm he is making this a bigger and a better country. There is no chance for the Government to lose. He can not save this amount of money while working on any project in this country unless his work is to extend over a number of years. There will be seed to buy, and he must establish a home. There i? furniture and a hundred different things to purchase when you stnrr a new home. And then there may be a baby coming along about that time, and there will be a doctor bill to pay. All these things, Mr. Chairman, should be taken into consideration in f ram ing (h:- bill. If the young soldier is to succeed there should be an init'nl HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 231 payment, but it should not be more than $250, and that $250 should be put into live stock, into the home and the barn; then with the advance the Government should make, he could make a fair start. I want to see the provisions of this bill made as easy as possible so that the young fellow who is without a dollar to-day in his pocket may take advantage of it. I should regret, and I am sure that this committee would regret, to find that some fellow was not able to get married because he did not have a dollar to start in housekeeping with, and that he was forced to pay this Government every penny in his possession before he could commence to try and make a home. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that it is true that any citizen of this country can go to Canada and may get just as reasonable terms from that Government as is offered in this bill. It is my understanding that that Government is offering great inducements for new settlers. I have seen land sold out West without any payment down, and no one was the loser, and we must not forget the soldier who goes on these projects is going to make this a bigger and better country, and we must give him a chance to succeed. I do not know whether I have made myself clear on this matter, but I am sure that I am right. I have lived on an irrigation project for a number of years, Mr. Chairman, and I have seen the human side with its privations and hardships that always comes to a pioneer. The provisions of this bill should be made as easy as possible, and at the same time safeguard the interest of the Government. The CHAIRMAN. You think there should be some initial payment? Mr. GOODING. I think likely $250 would be enough, Mr. Chairman. If he wants to have buildings and equipment that will cost $2,000, then I would say $500. But I would keep that entirely within his means, and I would make a provision, if he has not even that much, if I could in the bill, that the Secretary of the Interior might recog- nize him if he is worthy, for a young man might work two years or more on the project and then have sickness in his family. I should like to see this bill give the Secretary of the Interior authority to take all such matters as this into consideration, so that no young soldier will be left without a home after he has made an .honest effort. The CHAIRMAN. Initial payment is required at the present time under the Government reclamation law. Mr. GOODING. That should be changed. I know one of the greatest hardships to our people in the West has been the first payment. That has been the hardest payment of all to make. It has been a mistake, in my mind, as I have seen the development of that great country out there. It is then he needs the help. That money the Government takes from him he will need in many cases while he is working to make this a bigger and a better country. Mr. BAER. Mr. Chairman, right there, is it not your experience, Governor, with the young men, that those that have*$2,000 or $1,000, or a good position, would not want to go on a farm? The fact is, a fellow would be down and out before he would go out and work on a farm now days. So that carries out your theory that a small pay- ment is the only way we can get at it? Mr. GOODING. Yes ; you are wanting to take care and help the fel- low who needs help. That is the spirit you should want to get in this 232 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. bill all the way through. The making of the man, the making of the home, the opportunity, and that is all you are giving him an oppor- tunity, and I would not be for the bill, Mr. Chairman, if it did more than give him an opportunity. I do not think the soldier is asking for any more than an opportunity. I hope this Congress, or some Congress, will recognize all the soldiers not the man who wants to go on the farm alone, but when you come to give something more than an opportunity, I think you should give it to all the soldiers, all alike, all the way down the line. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the "soldiers," Governor ? Mr. GOODING. Well, I hope sometime that there will be some act of Congress that will recognize all possibly by some gift. The CHAIRMAN. All the soldiers of this war? Mr. GOODWIN. Of this w r ar, yes. Mr. BAER. You think by six months' pay like England has done, or Australia and Canada ? Mr. GOODING. Yes ; something like that. I think this country could afford to be mighty generous in these matters for, after all, we have grown rich out of this war. There is no question about that. We have occupied an advantage that has given to us the trade of the whole world. The products of other countries have been piled up waiting for transportation; ours have been carried to Europe at big prices. Those young men who have made it possible to look the whole world in the face and say : " I am proud that I am an Ameri- can citizen," should not be forgotten. I have always been proud of being an American citizen, but there have been times in the past when I have not made much noise about it. Mr. FERRIS. Are you in favor of taking in everybody, nonsoldiers as well as soldiers ? Mr. GOODING. No; I am not in favor of that at all. I want this bill to recognize the soldiers first of all. That is the spirit of it; that is what the people want. Mr. FERRIS. You are a Western man ; you have been a homesteader and a governor of a great State ; you know the country ; what do you think of that suggestion made by these single-tax fellows to retain' all the title in the Government? Mr. GOODING. I want to see it tried out over in Russia first. Mr. FERRIS. You are not in favor of that? Mr. GOODING. No; it is impracticable and impossible in this coun- Mr. FERRIS. Could the West ever be settled under such a plan as that? Mr. GOODING. It could not. I really haven't much patience with that idea. Mr. FERRIS. Don't you recognize that the ownership of an Ameri- can home is about as high an ideal as a man can have? Mr. GOODING. It is the highest ideal in the world. It is that which has made this cpuntiy the grandest country in the world, with the best citizenship in the world. Mr. FERRIS. Any scheme or theory or plan to the contrary not- withstanding ? Mr. (jooi)iNG. Absolutely. Anything that would destroy that ideal would break down the citizenship of this country. That is what it means. That is the urpose of it. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 233 Mr. TAYLOR. Governor, what do you think about the suggestion made by these Spanish War representatives and the Civil War rep- resentatives? Mr (ioooixG. I think there is some argument in that. I do not think you need to be alarmed that there are many Spanish-Ameri- can veterans who would take advantage of it. Most of these men are settled in life. I listened to the argument here the other day, and I was very much impressed and I think it is true that after all. our Spanish- American boys have not been considered as fully as they should have been; that they really did suffer through cli- matic conditions. They were forced to endure medical conditions that science has improved so much in the last few years. I believe they should be provided for in this bill. Mr. YAILE. They were ready to do all they could. They showed the right spirit. Mr. GOODING. Yes; they answered their country's call all right enough, and that is the spirit we should encounrage. Mr. BARBOUR. Do you think, Governor, that there would be any objection on the part of the soldiers of our last war if they were included ? Mr. GOODING. I believe they would like to see them included. That is the spirit of the American soldier to-day. He has shown it on every occasion. They were good citizens before they went to war, but they have come back home bigger and better men. Mr. TAYLOR. What do you say about the suggestion made by Con- gressman Garner of Texas yesterday, concerning the donation of $5.000 to each man to buy a farm with? Mr. GOODING. No. that is impractical. I don't believe it could be worked put. I don't think it is workable. I think it would destroy the spirit of all this work that you are trying to do if you should do that. That is why I say that I hope this Congress will recognize the soldier in a substantial way, the same as other countries are doing, and recognize them all. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Governor, have you found any opposition to this bill among the farmers that you have met, on account of the possi- ble competition it might bring about? Mr. GOODING. No ; the first proposition of that kind that I heard of was after I had reached Washington, Mr. Chairman. I under- stand that the head of the Grange objected to the homestead law and practically all other land laws that have done so much for the development of the West. It was not our homestead laws that brought about the development of the West. It was the building of the great transcontinental railroads, and the building of their branch lines that brought into productiveness the greatest country the world has ever known, all within a few years. I think it can be said that the farmers of the East did suffer from this mighty development, but that can not be helped. Nothing could have held back the development of that great country. Mr. BAER. Isn't it true, though. Governor, that the men who left these lands were not the actual owners, but rather the tenants ; that the actual owners were living in the cities and not on the farms ? Mr. GOODING. What is that? 234 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BAER. Where that emigration went from ; that the emigration west was caused by farmers who did not oAvn homes in the East and who wanted to own homes in the West. Mr. GOODING. I think that the emigration west has been largely made up of young men, as a rule. I think that the western spirit has been more pronounced among the younger men. Mr. WHITE. I want to make an observation. I have seen it many times, and I think the suggestion is only partially true. I think the men that went west were the sons of those farmers in the East, largely; and while incidentally it works out some injurious competi- tion, the homestead law has worked out the greatest development of any single act that has ever been promulgated and passed by the Government. Mr. GOODING. There isn't any doubt about it at all. There is another provision of this bill that I want to discuss. Mr. TAYLOR. What is that? Mr. GOODING. Just a word on the development of the West. Let me finish that subject by saying that there is no longer any danger of any great development in the West as compared to what we have seen in the last half century. Of the lands left they are only garden spots as compared to what I have seen settled within my lifetime; and within the memory of men in this Congress what is now Chicago was only an Indian trading post, and all that won- derful country out there west of the Mississippi has been settled and. I might say, developed. You are dealing with the future in this legislation that you have before you, and there isn't any question about the needs of this country being developed along the lines of increased production so that we may be able to feed our own people. The most serious questions that come to every Government only come after all its public lands are gone and there is no longer an oppor- tunity to relieve the congested condition of its great cities. We are close to that line at the present time, and our great cities are already congested. The one great effort of this Government should be to make new homes upon the land. Mr. TAYLOR. You said there were three matters that you wanted to speak of especially. Will you just give them to us in order? Mr. GOODING. Yes; I want to discuss the cost of construction. I want to call your attention to the cost of administration, and then I want to take up that spirit in this bill that I don't like, in which you practically take the soldier and tie him down and say : " You are going to sta}^ there ten years," if I read the bill aright, " before you will have a right to mortgage it, or have a right to lease it, or before you will have a right to sell it, or do anything else with it. unless you get the consent of the Secretary of the Interior." Mr. Lane may not always be Secretary of the Interior, and those who have had to deal with the red tape of the Government who are thousands of miles awaj 7 know that it is mighty slow sometimes. I want to get that spirit out of the bill, but I want to first discuss with you the cost of con- struction. Our Eeclamation Service, all the cost of that department is charged up to the homesteader. The co-t of maintaining the office here in Washington. Mr. Davis"- salary, all of his consulting engineers, all of the work of putting the projects on paper are all charged up against the man who goes out to make a home on a Government project. I know of no other HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 235 department of the Government in this country that charges to the individual the expense of its administration. I believe that all the expense of the Reclamation Service should be met by a direct ap- propriation. We spend millions of dollars for improving our rivers and harbors; for building great levees to keep the water off the land, but if anyone who receives the direct benefit of this expenditure ever pay- a dollar into the Government Treasury for it I have not been advised of it. I believe that the homesteader should properly pay for the cost of construction, but that the administration of the Reclamation Service should be as free to the homesteader as is the service of a hundred other departments of the Government to every citizen that it benefits and many receiving direct benefits. This Government maintains a Bureau of Animal Industry. It has an army of employees at high salaries. They inspect live stock and prevent the spreading of many contagious diseases all over the roimtrq. Those receiving the direct benefit of it never pay a dollar for this protection. I am not unmindful that the whole country receives the benefit of this service of the Government but this is true also as far as the work of the Reclamation Service is concerned, and {he whole country should be taxed to maintain that department. When you come to this great question of bringing back the fer- tility of the soil on worn out farms there is going to be a tremendous overhead expense. Xo farmer, no young man, can accept that ex- pen>c- and make a success upon that farm. The expense will be too great. Mr. Chairman, I take it for granted that this bill provides a complete control over the land to the extent of crop rotation as long as the title is in the Government. We have reached that period in the history of our country in which no man should be allowed to mine the soil and take out all of the fertility. This supervision would be especially necessary on the worn out farms in the East. I know of no other department of the Government where there is a direct charge to the citizens who are benefited by Government super- vision. Then. Mr. Chairman, there is another provision in the bill that I don't like. You seem to want to fasten that soldier down and say to him : " You can't get away ; you have got to stay here." This bill provides he shall not be permitted to make any transfers as long as the title is in the Government without consulting some one here in Washington. I believe that the bill should provide that after a man has worked three years on a farm he ought to be given the right to sell his equity in his holdings without consulting anyone. Three years is a long time and it would and there would be no danger of speculation. I would like to see the soldier given this much inde- pendence and encouragement. The title to everything he possesses is in the Government. If he has an equity in this three years' work let him sell it. If he wants to let him lease it. The young wife that he may bring from the city to the farm may find it impossible to live upon the farm. Her health might fail. A hundred complications may come up that can only be known to those who have home- steaded or pioneered in this country, so why tie him down and de- stroy all his independence, and leave him without that feeling that he i- a party with the Government in the development that this bill proposes. 236 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. May I ask the governor a question ? If that policy should be applied, would it not be possible in a short time for this land to get into the hands of those who have never been soldiers, yet they would get the benefit of the long-time payments, and the soldier whose applications are pending would be out ? Mr. GOODING. Well, you have helped the soldier who has first taken the land. Now, I would not want to destroy any of his rights in the matter, or take anything from him by saying that only an- other soldier should follow him. I think you have got to get more independence in it than that. Don't be alarmed about great land holdings in the West. I mean to say about land-holdings all getting into the hands of a few men. That is not true in my country, where we have had irrigation projects now for the last 30 years. If any- thing, the units are growing smaller. Occasionally, some fellow, however, is able to farm more than his neighbor, and he buys him out. That is progression, and I want that spirit left with the Ameri- can people. If you only give him 40 acres and he finds after a while that he can farm 80 or 120 or 160, let him have it if he has the money to buy the other fellow out. Let us continue the American spirit as long as we can. It is that spirit that has made this the best country in the world and given us the greatest citizenship in the world. Mr. TAYLOR. Governor, the single-tax representatives said they wanted to prevent the alienation of the land for the purpose of pre- venting speculation. Is there any speculation to-day in any Govern- ment projects? Mr. GOODING. I don't know of one. Mr. TAYLOR. There absolutely isn't any speculation. Land may bring high prices, from $200 or $300 an acre, but when he sells out, another family comes in and takes his place, and there is nobody trafficking in these things or speculating in these lands now, is there ? Mr. GOODING. No. Mr. MAYS. Do you have in mind that project in Idaho, Governor, that Mr. Kent referred to as having largely fallen into the hands of speculators? * Mr. GOODING. No; I know of no such projects. There are a few holdings, four or five hundred acres of land there may be some larger. The large holdings are passing away as a rule in the West as far as cultivated land is concerned. Mr. FERRIS. Governor, you laid down two propositions -that are attractive on the surface, and probably right, but I think you 1m vc given this committee a pretty hard task by proposing to take away all the overhead taxes. Mr. GOODING. Just for administration. Mr. RAKER. But I am speaking of the present proposition. The second proposition is giving them an absolute foe simple title at the end of three years whether they have paid for it or not. Mr. GOODING. No; he must pay for the land in full. I am only asking that he be given the right to dispose of his equity. Mr. RAKER. I don't want to give him anything more than an op- portunity, that is all. Mr. FERRIS. Well, perhaps I misunderstand you. Yon have been sitting licrc for a day or two yourself; some of us have been silling here for 12 years and we have 'had people come before us of all kinds HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 237 and characters, with all sorts of views, and what I wanted to im- press upon you was the difficulty of not alone converting this com- mittee, but of converting 434 Congressmen and 96 Senators to get through what you want, so you must make our task as easy as you can. Mr. GOODING. I believe this committee is going to put the right spirit into this bill, because you are, in a way, responsible to the people. You are going to give the people a fair hearing, but when you get through with it you are going to do what the title of the bill asks you to do. You are going to recognize the soldier. Mr. FERRIS. Precisely. But let us get right back to that proposi- tion, because I thought you laid down two things there that I am in sympathy with. I have been a homesteader; I know conditions out there; but I also know what you have got to do to get any sort of legislation through Congress here. Now, you don't propose to let them out of paying for this, do you ? Mr. GOODIXG. No; I thought I made myself clear. All I want to do is to give the soldier a chance to dispose of his equity. The holder of the contract must carry out the provisions to the end with the Government. Mr. FERRIS. What was the criticism you have of the overhead charges against the men ? Mr. GOODING. I may say it is not the policy of the Government in the administration of any of its affairs anywhere to make a direct charge to the citizen who is benefited from that service. The cost of administration of our Government and all of its branches, as I under- stand it, should be borne by all of the people. Mr. BAER. I think I can make this a little more clear. I have been on reclamation projects, and have been a civil engineer myself, and I have seen fellows playing lawn tennis and monkeying around when there wasn't anything to do, and the farmers go along by these engi- neering camps and they really haven't anything to do at certain times and these farmers see them out there and they get discour- aged and disheartened. They think that cost is being added all the time to their bill. Now, the point is that in the surveys and the pre- liminary work, and up to the time the farm is turned over, you think the Government ought to pay for the administrative work, the engi- neering, and all that work? Mr. GOODING. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Now, let me make an inquiry here. Of course, I know that Mr. Davis, as director, would not willingly allow his employees to go out and resolve themselves into lawn-tennis parties while they are carrying on the work, but that will occur undoubtedly at times : but if you don't make the fellow who is benefited by it pay for it, where will the Government have as good a check on it as it will to have these homesteaders, some of these reclamation fellows, protest to Director Davis and say : " Here we are paying the bill, and your man, John Jones, who is an engineer, is out here playing lawn tennis." Mr. GOODING. I haven't heard of anything of that kind. Mr. FERRIS. You heard it just now. Mr. Baer just now has told us about it. Mr. GOODING. Well, possibly, it might be somewhere outside of our section. But there is this impression, however, that there is so much 238 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. red tape connected with all these affairs of the Government that it makes it very expensive. Now, the point I am making is that in the administration of any other department of Government you have not charged direct to the individual for it. Now, I am merely asking you to give the soldier the same treatment that you give in every other line of industry in this country. Mr. FERRIS. Then the point you make is that the administration of the law after the initial expenditure has been made, you think that ought to be borne by the Government rather than by the home- steader? Mr. GOODING. The cost of administration up to the time the proj- ect is turned over, should be borne by the Government. What I call administration is Mr. Davis's work, and his corps of engineers, his consulting engineers and the cost that it takes to put the project on paper before actual construction is commenced. Mr. FERRIS. You mean after the project is turned over? Mr. GOODING. I mean before. After that I think properly they should pay the maintenance of the project; yes. You understand what I mean, Mr. Davis ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. You mean the Washington end of it ? Mr. GOODING. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Director Davis and his Washington City force is not paid by reclamation projects. Mr. GOODING. Yes, they are; every dollar of it. Mr. BAER. And the engineers are paid by them? Mr. FERRIS. The engineer and the inspector, of course, that is par- ticularly associated with the project. I don't see how you can sepa- rate that from part of the cost. I shouldn't think this administra- tion could be paid from any such fund. Mr. GOODING. It always has been. That is the policy that I am bringing up, because it is an exception to the rule. This is the only case in which it applies. I will let Mr. Davis take care of that when he comes before you. He can show it better than I can. I want to make myself clear, however, and show you that I have only one thought and that is to help in getting the right kind of legislation. Mr. RAKER. Committeeman Baer, has made, I think, an unfortu- nate remark. I am hoping that he will correct it before we get through, and that is that, under the Reclamation Service, men are employed as engineers and other Government officials on the reclama- tion projects, and that they have used part of the Government time for tennis, and so forth. But I have been on this committee for sev- eral years and I have always understood that never existed, that the Government Reclamation Service gets full value from the men they employ; that if they have any fun, a ball game, or tennis, and so forth, they take it out of their own time just like anybody else does, and that they are not soldiering on the Government. Isn't that your experience? Mr. GOODING. We have a very high regard for them in my State. They have built monuments that will endure to the end of time. Mr. FERRIS. Do they play lawn tennis at times? Mr. GOODING. I have seen them play lawn tennis. Mr. FERRIS. During working hours. Mr. GOODING. No. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 239 Mr. FERRIS. Well, they have a right to play then. Mr. GOODING. I think they are human, just like the rest of us. Mr. BAER. I will withdraw the statement, as far as the general proposition goes, but there are times and I said it rightfully when I made the statement that they have nothing to do and they might play tennis. Mr. RAKER. In other words, you don't mean now to state before this committee that is the regular practice, and I think you will agree wtih me that the Reclamation Service is one of the most efficient services in this country, and that the men perform their work and give to the Government a day's labor, a day's service, when they are paid for it ; they give a full return, and that they are not idling their time away. Mr. BAER. I think myself I have been unfamiliar with the work of this committee, and I think it is a little strong statement to make, but I know the engineers, and I can name the places on the Yellow- stone project, for instance, 10 or 12 years ago I don't know whether Mr. Davis was connected with the administration of the Reclamation Service then, but the point is that there were times when they would have to go out and give a few levels to a contractor and a few grades, and then we would get off and we didn't have anything to do. We were being paid ; but, nevertheless, we did it. Now, I am not criticiz- ing that. We were doing our duty, and we didn't have anything to do, but the trouble is that when the farmer pays directly for this, he goes along and sees men, even after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, playing lawn tennis, and he thinks he is paying for all that ; and if the Gov- ernment is paying for it directly, he never seems to realize that he has to eventually pay it himself anyway. Mr. FERRIS. You think it is perfectly all right for the Government to pay for lawn tennis parties. Mr. BAER. There are hundreds of positions here in your depart- ment any morning, 10 or 11 o'clock, where stenographers are not busy, but that isn't their fault, if they haven't anything to do. Mr. BAER. I have heard that statement made against the Reclama- tion Service now for the first time, and individually I have never heard yet where the officials, those under the employ of the Govern- ment, were soldiering on the Government and getting paid for doing things that they did in the way of pleasure, and trying to get the Government in other words, grafting on the Government. The CHAIRMAN. Why not let the governor conclude, gentlemen? Mr. GOODING. The last suggestion that I want to make comes, as I believe I said from the fact that you take the young soldier and tie him up to the Secretary of the Interior for 10 years. I think pos- sibly I have made myself clear on that, that he ought to be given the right, after he has spent three years on that project, to sell out and leave. I don't want the boy that goes out to make this country a bigger and a better country to feel that he is tied up with the Gov- ernment for 10 years, or anyone else, without any right to dispose of his equity, unless it is approved by some Government official. Mr. FERRIS. But he is doing something with more than his labor. He is doing something with about $5,000 that the Government has contributed. 13331919 16 240 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. GOODING. The Government has not given him a dollar ; oh, no I Mr. FERRIS. Under this bill it is provided that the Government shall give him something in the Avay of land and houses, farms and improvements. Mr. GOODING. But he is paying for it. Mr. FERRIS. But under your plan he hasn't paid for it when he sells it. Mr. GOODING. But his contract with the Government holds good. Somebody must fulfill that contract. He is only selling his equity at the end of three years. I want to give him that right to dispose of it as he sees fit after three years. Mr. FERRIS. We are not passing bills that will cost the Government $10.000,000,000 or $20,000,000,000 for the benefit of some one other than the soldier. Mr. GOODING. The soldier has benefited, but some of them may find it impossible to continue upon the farm. I want to give that fellow a chance to dispose of his equity. Mr. FERRIS. He may have benefited by selling a couple of years of his own time and gotten a profit on the improvements. We want to avoid that speculative feature. Mr. GOODING. But no man is going to take up the speculative end of it if you make it three years. I don't want to see you pass a bill here at all unless the soldier accepts it in the right spirit. I think it would be an unfortunate thing for the whole country if you do. The CHAIRMAN. The objection that would be urged to the early transfer on the floor would be that it would be only a bill to permit the sale of a homestead. Mr. GOODING. You haven't seen it in practical operation, because in my State that does not hold good. Many people that pioneered that country are still living upon their homesteads. Mr. FERRIS. Don't you recognize, Governor, a little difference be- tween a project where the Government is proposing to spend four or five thousand dollars on it and the project where the homesteader hoes his own row and pays it all himself? Mr. GOODING. You are not giving the soldier anything. Let's get away from that idea. You are charging him the full rate of interest for everything. You are only extending him credit ; that is all. Mr. FERRIS. Do you know of any place in Idaho where men can buy an improved farm on 40 years' time at 4 per cent interest ? Mr. GOODING. No. Mr. FERRIS. And have a job while he is improving it? Mr. GOODING. No. Mr. FERRIS. Then we are giving him something. Mr. GOODING. Yes; you are giving him an opportunity; of course I agree with that, Mr. SUMMERS. Gov. Gooding, this might not be so serious an objection, it would seem to me, so far as the land itself is concerned, but you are advancing $1,200 for improvements and $800 for stock and 'implements. Now, if this man is to be permitted to sell indis- criminately to any man, how do you know, how does the Government know what sort of care these things are going to have after they pass out of his hands? That is one objection, it seems to me. Mr. GOODING. They would have the SIUMP supervision that they have had before. They might get a better tenant. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 241 Mr. SUMMERS. They have passed on the man in the first place, but if he sells indiscriminately, they could not pass on his successors. Mr. GOODIXG. A provision in the bill by which the Secretary would pass upon this change might be all right. Mr. BAER. I think that is already in there. Mr. GOODING. He ought to have the right to sell, the right to lease, and all those things. Mr. BAER. As I understand it, Governor, there is a provision of that kind in the bill. The objection to that, as I understand it, is the red tape here in Washington. If we could have some kind of quick action on those applications, would that answer the objection? Mr. GOODING. Yes; that is the objection. And I still want to hold to my thought, if you are going to compel him, after he has put in 3 years there, if he* has still got to ask this Government just what he can do after his three years of hard work, there isn't much of a spirit of independence in it, Mr. HERSMAX. In my understanding, you want to make it as easy as possible on the soldier so that he can succeed on this proposition ? Mr. GOODING. Yes. Mr. HERSMAN. The easier you make it for the soldier, the more likely he is to succeed ? Mr. GOODING. Yes. Mr. HERSMAN. Now, I can see, as I glance over this bill, from my experience in the West, that we occasionally have failures in crops, and it is very likely to be so on some of these projects. Now, if the soldier has all of his money invested in machinery and in stock, and there should come a failure of his crops, and the Government doesn't provide for taking care of the soldier, making it easy on the soldier, the soldier will either have to give up what he has already done three or four years of work or he will have to sell out. Now, I understand that your contention is that you want to make it as easy as possible for that soldier to succeed on that proposition. Mr. GOODING. I want to give him a chance. I want to give him 3 years' trial on the farm. Now, I think he is going to stick; 75 per cent of them will, possibly more. But if there are any who can't stick. I want to give him a chance so he can dispose of his farm to advantage and sell it. I don't want to see those years wasted. Mr. HERSMAX. My experience has been that the original one that takes up a proposition of this kind that 90 per cent of them give up their proposition, 90 per cent of them at least in California, and it goes into the hands of a second class of people, and then afterwards part of them give it up and it goes at last into the hands of a third class; and the reason these people have to give up their lands is be- cause they can't make the payments that are imposed by private parties on these new settlers. Mr. GOODIXG. That doesn't hold good in my State. Mr. HERSMAN. But I believe that if the Government, as you say, gives a soldier an opportunity, a large opportunity to make good he M ill make good. Mr. Goomxc;. He can't make good if you tie him down, if you ask the impossible, which to my mind you are doing in this bill. You must make it easier. 242 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH. The bill provides that the transfer can be made, but it must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. That is simply a formality to keep in touch with the entrymen. Mr. GOODING. There isn't the independence about it that I would like to see. I don't think the Government is running any risk as long as the title to all the soldier possesses is in the Government, and those who succeed him would have to pay in fully. The CHAIRMAN. The theory of this bill is that the man is going to be a picked man, and before he is permitted to go on the project his adaptability to the soil is going to be examined into by the Secre- tary, and I think there would be objections to waiving that right after a period of three years, and there should be the choice of selec- tion left after the three-year period. Mr. GOODING. I am merely trying to make him a pretty independ- ent American citizen. That is my idea in connection with it. and that is what he is going to want, and that is what the people are going to want for him. And that is the thought that I have, Mr. Chairman, in connection w T ith this bill. The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate 3 r our position. Mr. GOODING. I think you are needlessly alarmed at the thought that the Government is going to lose something. The Government is going to have three years of his work, in which he is going to make this country a bigger and a better country. Don't be alarmed about it. Give him some independence in connection with this great work. Mr. SMITH. What do you think of the suggestion made by a member of the committee that part of the wages of the soldiers employed on projects be withheld and applied on the price? Mr. GOODING. I can not agree to that. That is the spirit that I want to see left out of this bill. Mr. SUMMERS. Wouldn't you think that the original purchaser ought to have repaid the $800, for instance, for stock and machinery before he is permitted to sell indiscriminately? Mr. GOODING. I think that is true; yes. I would agree to that. Mr. SUMMERS. And the bill provides that he has five years in which to pay, so at least you would say he should repay that? Mr. GOODING. Yes ; it would be all right to provide that if he sold put he should pay up his loan to the Government made to him for improvements and live stock. The CHAIRMAN. You don't think, Governor, that we are merely holding out some lure or will-o'-the-wisp to him? Mr. GOODING. No ; I do not. I am sure that no one could be more sincere, more earnest than you gentlemen are in this matter. I am sure that your desire is only to help the soldier all you can. The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated in circulars sent around that we are holding out some lure, some will-o'-the-wisp, some gold brick, to the soldier. Do you feel that this is a practical proposition 1 Mr. GOODING. I think there isn't any question about it being prac- tical. It will be practical in every State in the Union. The Gov- ernment has got to take up this great work of reclaiming these lands some time or another, and I think it is a good time to commence, and there is no question about it. Mr. VAILE. What do you think, Governor, of (he suggestion made here by the representative of the grange, that we are doing too much for the agricultural business, and that it is unfair to the farmer? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 243 Mr. GOODING. I can't agree with that at all. I think we must go on. It is your duty to legislate for the future. This country has taken care of itself pretty well in the past. There are vital ques- tions before this Government which must be considered seriously, and the land question, to my mind, is the biggest question of all that confronts the American people to-day. This country must feed itself just as long as it can. The CHAIRMAN. Another objection that has been urged is that this measure will increase the present scarcity of farm labor. Have you any views on that ? Mr. GOODING. I hope there will always be a reasonable scarcity of labor. I hope we will never have the bread line and soup houses again in America that we have had in the past, and it is up to you gentlemen to legislate wisely to see that we don't have them, because you will hear more bombs 'then, and these anarchists that we have in the country will become the leaders of the mob with the torch. It is the first great duty of the Government to see that there is work for those that are willing to work. Again I want to say I hope there will always be a reasonable scarcity of labor; that there will always be a chance for a man who wants to work to sell his labor. I hope the time will never come when it will be otherwise. Mr. HERSMAN. May I ask the Governor one question? Governor, do you think that the average soldier could succeed under the pro- visions of this bill in a settlement ? Mr. GOODING. I am afraid that he could not meet the initial pay- ment. I do not believe the young man could save enough out of his wages working on any of the projects to make the initial payment as is provided in this bill. Mr. HERSMAN. You have had large experience in this work. Would you. as a young man, undertake to go into a project like this if you have the money ? And under the provisions of this bill ? Mr. GOODING. Well, I .don't know. It looks hard to me, as I see the situation now after years of experience pioneering on irigation projects and seeing the ups and downs. I want to see the Govern- ment make the lines easy so the soldier can succeed. You know something about it out there, Mr. Mays. Mr. MAYS. Yes, we have seen it. Mr. GOODING. There comes sickness and a hundred other things to contend with. The homesteader can have all kinds of bad luck. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. About that initial payment at 5 per cent. That would be on $5,000, $250, and that would comply with your idea. Of course, as to the improvements, he may borrow $1,200, provided he has one-quarter of the value of the improve- ments. He would have to put up 25 per cent of the $1,200 for im- provements. Then should he want money for stock purposes, he could borrow up to $800, not exceeding 60 per cent of the cost of the live stock, so he would have to have 40 per cent of the money for live stock. Mr. GOODINO. I want to make the point that it is impossible for the young soldier to make that much working upon any project. He can 'not save that much. He may have friends that will help him, but you are proposing legislation for the fellow that hasn't a dollar to-day to start with. 244 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BENTHEM. Governor, why do you not qualify your last state- ment by saying that if he is in his own community, surrounded by his former neighbors, he would stand a better chance of being helped ? Mr. GOODING. I do not want that in it. You will destroy the spirit of the bill if you do. The soldier is a mighty independent American citizen at the present time. Let us encourage that independence. Mr. SUMMERS. It has been pointed out here, Governor, that this 25 per cent on improvements might be contributed by his own labor, so that we lend only what he must invest in his horses, cows, and machinery. That brings it down to a smaller sum. Mr. GOODING. But he has got to live all this time. He has got a i i i l j i i j . i i & hundred things to buy in order to start housekeeping, just think of it. He is building from the ground up without a dollar. Now, what is he going to do? You want to take care of that kind of a boy, but he must pay for his living all the time. If you are going to help that kind of a young soldier and that is what you are proposing to do in this bill, its provisions must be made easier. Mr. SUMMERS. He may or may not have been a householder be- fore he goes onto this project. .Mr. GOODING. We should encourage him to be a householder, and I hope you will put that provision in the bill, by which you give a mar- ried soldier the first chance. I would dislike, and I am sure that you gentlemen woujd dislike, to feel that you have kept any young fellow who wanted to take advantage of this opportunity from get- ting married and making a better citizen of himself and providing a home. Mr. SMITH. Don't you think, Governor, that these young men who will go on these projects and will have employment for a year or two at $4 a day would be able to save a few hundred dollars ? Mr. GOODING. He is going to need it to buy a plow and a harrow and a team and a hundred other things that you don't provide for fencing and feed and everything else. Mr. SMITH. You would rather do business with a man who is re- liable and industrious and who had saved his money, even if it took him four or five years to do it, rather than the man who had nothing, wouldn't you? Mr. GOODING. I don't want to see you do anything that you are discriminating in at all. There are a lot of good young fellows that do not save much until they marry and settle down in this life, and yet at the same time they ought to be given an opportunity. What I am objecting to is the initial payment on the land to the Govern- ment. Mr. SMITH. I agree with you on that. Mr. GOODING. And the Government is perfectly safe, for you are going to borrow money for less than 4 per cent, if you please, especially if you take the tax off. I feel it was a mistake to have taxed bonds. At least, that is the situation as I see it in the West. Mr. RAKER. May I ask you if this is your position ; that you be- lieve in fee-simple ownership of our homes? Mr. GOODING. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Any other system is detrimental to our country. Mr. GOODING. I agree with you ; I want to continue, as I say. those conditions and principles that have built up our great citizenship in America. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 245 Mr. RAKER. You believe that the only restriction placed upon these men should be the sufficient guaranty of repayment to the Government of the money advanced ? Mr. GOODIXG. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And self-determination of the right of transfer from place to place, or moving from place to place, or to sell to be left to the individual American citizen? Mr. GOODIXG. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Any other spirit makes tenancy and makes them simply under the guardianship of the Government. Mr. GOODIXG. You want to get away from it just as far as you can. and safeguard the Government at the same time. Mr. RAKER. Your theory, Governor, from your experience in the YVe.-t. is that any system that will make a tenancy or a guardianship over these men would be detrimental to them and to the country? Mr. GOODIXG. It would destroy the object which is in view. There is no question about that. I want to see it start right, because I think we need to do those things all the time. I don't want to see anything done that would tend to give anybody an opportunity to break down that spirit. Mr. RAKER. Well, you are driving at nails that I want to see driven hard and clear before we get through. Now, on the further matter after the question of collection, is it your experience from your observation, that the man would do better by selecting what he wants to do if he wants to go to farming, or whether you should have a committee to tell him what he shall do for the future? I want your judgment on that now. Mr. GOODIXG. I can't agree with that at all. I am for the old- fashioned spirit of independence, myself, that helps to make the man. Mr. RAKER. Is it your view that a commission or an authorization to anybody to determine that this soldier should go on a farm and another should not ; do you think that should be the plan, or should it be left to the individual soldier whether or not he wants to farm, and, if he wants to comply with the rules and regulations and shows a willingness and disposition and is an honorably discharged soldier, that he should have that right? Mr. GOODIXG. I agree to that, but the man who goes on the projects and helps to construct them, and becomes a party to them, should be given the first chance. Mr. RAKER. I know, but I am asking. Mr. GOODIXG. Xow, I hope the Secretary will not be too searching in his inspection as to whether I am qualified to do certain things or not. I don't altogether like that, because I have seen all kinds of people, if you please, come to my project, or at least settle in my part of Idaho, and make good, from all lines of industry, all kind's of business, and some of them have failed that is to be expected. Mr. RAKER. And you want to give in legislation of this kind to the soldier boys who have got the initiative, the will, and the determi- nation to go there and to make their homes themselves you want to give him the right to do that as he wants to? Mr. GOODIXG. I want to give the soldier as much independence in this bill as can be put into it. I like that spirit. That is what I am talking about, the human interest you must have all the way through if you are going to succeed. 246 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Now, I hope that I have made the committee feel that I am right in spirit, any way. I merely wish to help to get something out that we are going to be proud of later. Mr. TAYLOR. I wish you could put that same spirit into about 425 other voters in this House. Mr. GOODING. I feel that the House will be all right. I am sure that all want to give the soldier a chance. Now, there is just one other thing that I am going to ask you to do for the soldiers, if I may. Don't understand me that I am asking you to give him anything. Our Government is appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for roads. I understand that the Government is joining with the States and offering to put up half in the cost of construction. In some States they are building hard surface roads that cost from $20,000 to $30,000 a mile. Now, here is something that I would like to see you do : Build the roads on Gov- ernment projects. It need not be an expensive road. Say a graded road on each section and half section line, with a gravel or crushed- rock surface. It may cost something like $4,000 a mile. Your bill provides for road building and I anticipate that it is going to be charged up to the homesteader under the bill, unless you make some provision for this construction. Mr. TAYLOR. You probably don't realize it so much as the rest of us do, and as I have, and as "Mr. Ferris has, sitting around this table for the past 10 years, but it is the hardest possible thing on God's earth to pass any constructive, beneficial legislation, to bring it out of the House of Representatives. The East, and the North, and the South have been drenched with Pinchotism and conservatism, and ideas of conserving everything for future generations, and they think it is just like taking a left lung and a right eye out of Uncle Sam for a person to go on and get a home out of this God-forsaken land that there is left, and we have an awful hard time to convince these people and to pass any kind of a bill through ; and if we wait to get an ideal measure we will never get anywhere. Now, I would like to pass a motion now to report this bill out of here and go ahead and do the best we possibly can with it, and amend it and get it through in the best possible way and take chances on amending it in the future. That is the only way we will get any- where with it. We have got to start somewhere and do the best we can. The CHAIRMAN. Are you through with your statement, Governor? Mr. GOODING. I am through, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have the governor of Oklahoma. Is he in the city ? Mr. FERRIS. He will be very happy to appear to-morrow, Mr. Chairman ; he has gone to welcome the soldiers home. The CHAIRMAN. Then all we have remaining is the governor of Oklahoma, and Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, and a few Congressmen who have expressed a wish to be heard. Mr. GOODING. I would like to thank the committee for the privilege accorded me. The CHAIRMAN. We thank yon very much, Governor. We will ad- journ until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m.. the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Friday, June 6, 1919.) HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 247 COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, June 6, 1919. The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we have here Gov. Robertson, of the State of Oklahoma, who will make a statement this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. J. B. A. ROBERTSON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I don't know that I ought to take up your time; there are so many other men who are better qualified to speak on the subject than my- self ; but I am so interested in the measure that is now being consid- ered that I feel, in justice to the soldiers, and to my State especially, that I should let you know how the people generally down there feel about this matter. I am frank to say that in the beginning when this subject was first broached it did not appeal to me very strongly, because we did not understand it, but after having read repeatedly some of the details of the bill and some of the plans of the committee, we are very much interested in it. Oklahoma sent many thousand soldiers, and a good majority of them are farmers, and I have had occasion to talk with many of them who have returned, and I might say, parenthetically, that I am in- terested in this matter from two or three viewpoints. First, of course, I want to see the agricultural interests of the State developed. Nat- urally, there would be some tendency among the soldiers to want something better than they have had in the past. Most of them went away boys and came back men. And I have discovered a large number of them who went off the farm and are not specially inter- ested in the farm any more, because unless they get some help, such as is designed by this bill, they will have to go back in the capacity of ordinary laborers, and that does not appeal to them. In our State we have three or four classes of land and I am free to say that it is all good land, but it is so situated, for instance, in McCur- tain County, we have a large area of what is commonly called cut- over land. It is not cut-over land of large forests like they have in Michigan and Wisconsin, but smaller trees, and it is the most fertile section of the State. The great difficulty we find in develop- ing that is that a single man I mean a single family will go in four or five, or six or seven miles away from civilization, so to speak, and try to hew out a home all alone. If we could get 100 or 200 hun- dred families to go in there and obtain a home of their own, and have some cooperation and assistance from the Government or the State, it would make an ideal community, and in a short time it would be among the best land in the State. Then we have what is known as " Boggy Valley " land in Coal and Atoka Counties, owned largely by the 'Indians, segregated lands, and that land likewise has been inaccessible. 248 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. In the western part of the State, sometimes called the semiarid portion of the country but the wheat is that high [indicating] mis year on it just the same it will grow 35 or 40 bushels to the acre, depending, of course, on the season but the State owns there in one body school land to the extent of something like 350,000 acres, and another tract adjoining it of something like 250,000 acres, and I think there would be no difficulty with the bill, as I understand it now, and with the aid that would be given the soldiers by the State and the Government combined, to develop these tracts to a high state of cultivation in a very short time. Now, this is not reclamation work at all, as I understand it, but it is simply putting these men in a position to obtain homes for themselves. I find also in discussing this matter with my people that they did not understand the first plan that was submitted, and for that reason they felt that it called for a large appropriation on the part of the State. We had the matter up in a recent session of the legislature, and while they are all interested in securing homes for the soldier, yet on account of the finances of our State, we did not feal justified in going ahead and making a large appropriation until the Federal Government had blazed the way. The Government had not done it at that time. I am sure that you will find hearty cooperation on the part of our State with the" Federal Government in this enter- prise. Now, I have not heard any valid objection, except, perhaps, certain organizations of farmers that think that the Government will al- tempt to put these extra men into competition with them, and that is a very short-sighted idea, to say the least. There can't be too much production in agriculture, as I see it, and one of the great troubles that confronts us in that new State is the increase in tenantry. We want to stop that if possible, and to that end I suggested to the recent legislature that we attempt to correct it now, and we did establish what is known as the home-ownership law, by which a man with the proper character and reputation and recommendations as to ability and integrity and honesty, and so on, can borrow in our State the full amount 100 per cent, if you please on land to build a home make a home out of it. That is to say, out of the permanent school fund we will loan 50 per cent of the appraised value, and if he is the right kind of a man we will loan him an additional 50 per cent out of the special home-ownership fund, and out of this special home-ownership fund we can go a long ways to cooperate with the. Government in this matter. We are very anxious not only to re- claim the land, but to reclaim these soldier boys who are coming back, because, I regret to say, that in conversation with many of them I find that since they went away from home, from the farm, and have seen the bright lights of the world, so to speak, they are just a little bit slow about talking of the farm and the drudgery connected with it. unless it can be in the capacity of owner of the land ; and I hope this committee can find it within its power to work out some scheme such as is embodied in this bill whereby these soldiers can be taken care of. I have appointed a special committee to work in conjunc- tion with the Secretary of the Interior, and they are busy now on it. They would be glad to come here and submit figures as to the number of acres and as to what the State will do in regard to this matter. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 249 I regret that I am not in a position, not having heard any of your discussions and not having had time to study the details of this bill, to go into it more at length, but I do say this, gentlemen, that it is a matter of great importance and interest to Oklahoma it must be to all the other States. When the matter was first broached and they talked about reclaiming hundreds of thousands of acres of land, unproductive land, it did not appeal to me at all, but with the land that I have in mind and with a little help from the Government and the State, these men can be put to work and they will make homes for themselves. They are naturally farmers, most of them. I think fully 75 per cent of these 90,000 boys that went from Oklahoma came from the farm originally, and we w r ant them to go back on the farm. Tenantry is on the increase in Oklahoma, and I presume it is else- where also, and that is something that we must find a remedy for, and this is one of the things that will help to solve that problem. You anchor a man to a piece of land, make a home owner out of him, and he is a better citizen always, and naturally we ought to give considera- tion to any movement that has such an object in view. Xow. that is about all I have to say, gentlemen. I thank you very kindly. The CHAIRMAN-. Do any members of the committee desire to ask any questions ? Mr. Ferris, do you wish to ask any questions ? Mr. FERRIS. I don't think so. Mr. BARBOUR. Might I ask one question that occurs to me? Gov- ernor, some people have expressed the opinion that we are attempt- ing to put over a great reclamation scheme here and have called it a soldier settlement bill for the purpose of getting it over. Now, none of those men, as I understand it, represent the soldier or speak for the soldier. I understood you to say that you had talked with a good many soldiers; could you give the view of the soldiers on this project? Do they want it? Are they in favor of it? Mr. ROBERTSOX. Well, I am frank to say that I think about three or four out of ten of those that came from the farm are interested in this idea. I don't believe the percentage will run over that. I am sorry to say that there are a good many of these boys who went from the farm who are not willing to go back to the farm. I am sorry to say that, but I think there are three or four out of ten who are anxious to go back, but all. of them want a piece of land of their own. The}' are men now, you understand. A year or two has made a wonderful change in them. Mr. BARBOUR. Have you heard the soldiers express themselves on this particular plan ? Mr. ROBERTSOX. I talked with them personally about this idea my- self, and I have talked with quite a number of them Mr. BARBOUR. Do they favor it? Mr. ROBERTSOX. Well, as I suggested, I think that percentage favor it ; I believe that is a fair estimate. Mr. BARBOUR. About 40 per cent? Mr. ROBERTSOX. Yes. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You spoke, Governor, of having a law in your State by which you could loan the full value of the farm? Mr. ROBERTSOX. Yes. 250 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH o'f Idaho. Are you able to meet the demand of those- that want to take advantage of this opportunity ? Mr. ROBERTSON. I should much prefer to answer that by saying that that law is not in effect yet. It will not go into effect until the first of July, but we have it organized and have many more applications in now than our fund will enable us to take care of. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It looks like a very attractive proposition, Mr. ROBERTSON. It is; but you have to have an attractive propo- sition to meet the demand of the man who has no home and no way of getting a home. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. These soldiers that you spoke of as having left the farm and entered the Army, are they looking for employ- ment in the cities ? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir; I am sorry to say there is a large number of them, of those I have investigated myself, who want to stay where the bright lights are. Mr. BENHAM. In your talks with the soldiers, Governor, would you assume that the possible ownership of a future farm such as is proposed appeals to them or would the 50 cents an hour, as pro- posed, working for the Government, appeal to them pretty strongly as well? Mr. ROBERTSON. I think the percentage that I gave a while ago want a home. Of course, a large number of them want any employ- ment they can get at the present time. Mr. JOHNSON. I assume, Governor, you are familiar with this bill, House bill 487. There is a clause in here a section, rather that says that there shall be no transfer or alienation of the property within 10 years without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. What do you think of that? Mr. ROBERTSON. I think that is a wise provision, a very wise pro- vision. Of course, in our country, where we had so many restric- tions placed upon the alienation of Indian land, anything that looks like alienation or restriction is usually viewed with suspicion. Mr. JOHNSON. Don't you think the soldiers will view this with suspicion and render it very unpopular? Mr. ROBERTSON. I hardly think so, because the man who goes on in good faith will not be looking for an excuse or at least he ought not to be looking for an excuse to alienate his land, but that saving clause in there that the Secretary may, after the investigation, grant that permission, I think that is sufficient. Mr. JOHNSON. Would you say that a shorter time would be better, say, five years? You know that under the homestead law he gets title in five years. Mr. ROBERTSON. That might be true. I would not venture to say. Mr. JOHNSON. I am just asking your opinion. I know 3^011 have had considerable experience. Mr. ROBERTSON. I have given that phase of it considerable con- sideration. Perhaps there should be, but I think there ought to be a limitation somewhere. Mr. FERRIS. If I may just put in a word there, Governor it is in evidence here in Gov. Lane's testimony, I think, that he has sent out query sheets to some 250,000 soldiers, and I believe he stated that lie had received replies from 52,000. I may not be quite accurate, but that was the substance of it. That would make about 20 per HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 251 cent, or about one fifth, of them that had replied, which would indi- cate, first, that they had shown enough interest to reply, and second, that they had shown enough interest to say that they were in favor of something of this sort. Do you think that would be about your percentage in Oklahoma, or do you think it would be larger ? Mr. ROBERTSON. You say he sent out 250,000? Mr. FERRIS. Yes; and about one-fifth of them made response that they would like to engage in something of this sort. Do you think that would be about our percentage in Oklahoma, down home? Mr. ROBERTSON. Of course, it would be a guess. Mr. FERRIS. It might be larger, due to the fact that we have a large agricultural State. Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; we have an agricultural State to start with, but I think perhaps that is reasonable. He ought to know more about it than I, of course. I haven't attempted to keep a close ac- count of these things. Mr. FERRIS. Of course, he didn't send this letter to all of them, from the very nature of things, but he did send 250,000 and from that came 52,000 who said they were interested in it and would like to have this opportunity. I was wondering if you thought that was about the percentage who were interested in our State. Mr. ROBERTSON. I think perhaps that would be reasonable. Mr. FERRIS. We have had considerable trouble, haven't we, Gov- ernor, about tenantry in our State? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir; tenantry is growing rapidly. It is one of the menaces and dangers of the Republic. That is the thing that prompted the passage of this home ownership law. Mr. FERRIS. It is in evidence here one of the witnesses yesterday testified that his objection to this bill went to the proposition that the Government allowed the soldier to get title to the land. He thought that there ought to be a lease-hold proposition. What is your opinion about that ? Mr. ROBERTSON. He was a single taxer. I was a single taxer for 25 years. It is a wonderfully beautiful dream, but when it comes down to a practical working of it, we haven't time nor opportunity, so far as that is concerned we will never see that day at all. It is not. practical. Mr. FERRIS. There wouldn't be any considerable percentage of the people in our State that would be favorable to any sort of lease hold estate, isn't that true ? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is especially true in Oklahoma, where we have had so much Indian land and have had so much school land. We have been compelled to sell our school land in order to put it on the tax roll and make real home owners out of the people. They wouldn't care for such a scheme. Mr. FERRIS. Have we land in Oklahoma that would be appropriate for a soldier's community ? Mr. ROBERTSON. I mentioned three or four tracts, large tracts, out in Beaver and Cimarron Counties, especially, and in Coal, Atoka, and McCurtain Counties we have large areas of good land. There is a great deal of the very best land in the State that is inherited, dead Indian land, and with the restrictions taken away so that the Gov- ernment could handle it, that would be a fine thing; but as it is now, you can't reach it. 252 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. And that would enable the soldiers, if projects were opened there that would enable the soldier that went from Okla- homa to the war, to come back and remain there if he wanted to? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, and lots of them want to do it. And the State of Oklahoma will give the most earnest consideration and hearty cooperation in this scheme. Mr. FERRIS. What would those Indian lands, like those in Me-, Curtain County, and those out through the northwestern portion what could those lands be had for, roughly ? Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, you take the Coal County project and the McCurtain County project, that is some of the very best land in the State, but it is large areas and hasn't been developed, and it is awaj; from the railroad, and it would necessitate the bringing in of high- ways, which the State is unable to do at this time; yet that Isiml is worth $10 or $15 an acre as it lies. But out in Beaver and Cimarron County it may be 25 per cent cheaper. Mr. FERRIS. Those prices, of course, would not be prohibitive under this plan. Mr. ROBERTSON. No ; but those are undeveloped lands. Mr. MAYS. Governor, in what way and to what extent do you esti- mate that the State could cooperate with the Government under this law ? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is a little difficult for me to answer. We are perfectly willing to do all we can. We made an appropriation of some $250,000, together with a freight refund of $490,000, making something like $600,000 a little better than $600,000 for the home ownership law. That can be increased at each session of the legisla- ture. That can be increased, and that can be taken advantage of. We can use that money for that purpose, and we will go just as far as we can. Mr. MAYS. Could that money be used to supplement the amount that the Government appropriates? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; if the Government wanted to loan not more than 75 per cent, we would take the 25 per cent out of this home own- ership fund. We would be glad to do it, provided, of course, they met the requirements in the way of being men of reputation and in- ^egrity and willingness to work, and so forth. Mr. RAKER. May I ask the Governor one question? If you have already gone into this, I will not bother you. Governor, what is your theory as to arranging any legislation that may be enacted for the purpose of giving the homestead I will call it a homestead; you may call it a home, but I like the word " homestead " that after he has done a certain amount on it, or an amount which would entitle him to a patent, whatever that may be, as to his having the right to sell and dispose of the land. Mr. ROBERTSON. I presume, of course, provision has been made that if he meets the requirements of the Government after three or four or five or ten years, as the case may be, he can pay out like he did un- der the homestead law, and have the land for his own, ami be free from restriction and inalienability, I think that there ought to be restrictions for at least a reasonable length of time. Mr. RAKER. Yes; no doubt about that. Now, there should be some arrangement tlial as long as there is an obligation from the home- steader to the Government, on any kind of a project for reclamation. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 253 drainage, or turning over the land, whereby he is to pay his propor- tion, by which he may be entitled to a patent. You believe that the Government should be protected by some method that the Govern- ment should not lose ? Mr. ROBERTSON. I do. From our experience with our school lands, which we sell on 40 years' time at 5 per cent, we give them the option to sell, just as though there was no restriction on it at all, and we haven't taken advantage of that in any case. Mr. RAKER. But that should be so that the man can alienate his land and still have the Government protect it. Mr. ROBERTSON. The right kind of a man would not want to take advantage of the Government, and the Government ought not to give the wrong sort of man the opportunity to take advantage. There ought to be a restriction on him, as you suggest, but it should not be an unreasonable restriction. Mr. RAKER. Governor, these men having gone into the service and having served, and been designated as men who are prepared and ready and willing to defend this country, do you believe that there should be any board or commission who should now select and deter- mine which one of these men should have a homestead, providing the man is physically capable and able and has the qualifications of a citizen? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; I do just the necessary machinery. Mr. RAKBR. Do you think there should be a board to designate which should go or "that the soldier should have the option himself the right of self determination ? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes ; I did not understand you. You have got to give the soldier some latitude. You have got to treat his as a free man. He has got to be consulted in the matter. Mr. RAKER. Don't you think it would be resented by the soldier? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; he has got to be a free acting man. You can't arbitrarily set aside a piece of land and tell him he can have that or none. That won't do at all. Mr. RAKER. Supposing here are 10 soldiers applying for home- steads. Do you think that any board or commission should be given the power to say, " We will select three of you, and you seven don't look good to us,'" or " You have been working in the cities, you have . studied electricity, and you have been in a law office; you have been in a blacksmith's shop, and you have been in a store, and I guess I won't give you a chance ; but these three boys have been on the farm and I will give them an opportunity to file on this homestead, but seven of them have these other occupations, and therefore I will not let you file " do you think there should be any such restrictions ? Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir; I don't. They would be dissatisi\ed. Mr. RAKER. You would give them all the same chance? Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes ; I think so without doubt. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that my State appreciates the efforts of Secretary Lane and the Interior Department in trying to solve this problem. We appreciate the spirit in which you have taken hold of this proposition. There is no politics in it; it is just a ques- tion of trying not merely to develop the agricultural land, but trying to save these boys and make good citizens and -home owners out of them ; and I say to you that home ownership is the great live ques- tion in America to-day. The stability of this Government depends 254 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. very largely upon converting these men that are not home owners now, these tenants into home owners, anchoring them down so that they will have an interest in the Government and in our institutions. Mr. RAKER. Have you given any thought as to the method of locating men on homesteads, whether there should be a particular spot or location in the center where he should live and then farm their land from that center, or have separate individual homes, like you have in Oklahoma and all over the United States? Mr. ROBERTSON. I have not given consideration to that thought, I naturally would think, though, that the individual home is the better plan. I am very much in favor of this village plan, like they have in Germany and Europe. I don't think that is a good thing. Mr. RAKER. Or Italy. Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. I was born and reared on a farm and I still think that the farm should be the great home of our people. And I think that this plan is going to bring splendid results. Mr. RAKER. Yes; it is going to bring splendid results, but what is your theory as to the method of placing the men on the homestead ? Suppose you build your roads ; you drain the land I will put it the other way you build your dam, get the main ditches in, and get the system into the building up of a modest little home so that it can be added to; have the necessary outlay, a sufficient amount to start in cultivation, and then leaving him a balance to develop and im- prove as he progresses. Do you believe that would be the better plan, or to give him a complete, improved farm ? Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, we have had a good deal of experience down there putting men on raw land. Of course, our State was opened every man that went in there with a family took possession of a quarter section, and he had jurisdiction over the whole quarter sec- tion, and, of course, he had no help but did the best he could. Now, I am inclined to think that if you go too far in helping these soldiers in the matter of furnishing them all the necessary equipment and tools and money, and give them to understand that you are going to take hold of this thing and make it a success, whether he will or not, I think you are going too far. You must make them dependent upon their own resources and their own initiative, and if they get the idea in their minds that this Government and the State, working in cooperation, is going to make the thing a success, whether or no, you will have trouble. He has got to have some responsibility him- self placed on his own shoulders. Mr. RAKER. Now, I want to make myself plain on that. If there are many projects to clear, the individual through his own initiative, could not reclaim the land, whether it was swamp, desert, or cut-over; if you do the big part, whereby he has a chance to get on his place and commence to cultivate, he can then complete the cultivation and development in a series of a years, and do better than if you had given him a completed farm. Mr. ROBERTSON. It might be. I wouldn't attempt to say. Of course, these lands that I spoke of perhaps the cut-over land in McCurtain County, that might present the problem, but these others would not present that problem. I am not prepared to say. I don't know. The ( 'IIAH;MAN. We thank you very much. Governor, for your statement. 3OMES FOR SOLDIERS. 255 Now, gentlemen of the committee, we have here Mr. Park, of Georgia; Mr. Morgan, of Oklahoma; Mr. Reed and Gov. Davis, of Idaho. I told Mr. Park that we would try to give him a hearing this morning, and also Mr. Morgan. Are you ready to proceed now, Mr. Park? Mr. PARK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I will state, Mr. Park, that it was the understand- ing the other day that Members of Congress should be limiiW *~ liftsen minutes. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PARK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA. Mr. PARK. Fifteen minutes is all I want. Mr. Chairman and gen- tlemen, as the department has outlined its opinion, I don't think that the people in my State are in favor of it, but as they become ac- quainted with the object and intent of the bill and the general plan, I think perhaps a majority of our people will favor it. I can't speak with any degree of authority as to how they feel about it. I am not supposed to lay before this committee any project or plan, but I wish to say that we have organized in this State a landowners association, which will be incorporated by this legislature for the purpose of cooperating with the Secretary of the Interior and his agencies in this matter. What I wish to outline, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of myself and other Members of Congress who have queries put to them re- garding this matter, is the application of this law as it is formulated up to date to the plain common soldier. We have many tenants who have always been tenants, and their children are tenants. Now, these boys were in the Argorine Forest, and some of them in Chateau Thierry, and they naturally would participate; but you take the farmer boy who has absolutely nothing; as I understand it, you propose to lay out a project and give such a boy $4 a day for 12 months to help improve this general project. If I am incorrect, I want to be corrected, because I want to state the facts to my con- stituents. The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing in the bill about the wages that he is to receive, nor the length of time he is to work. Mr. PARK. Well. Mr. Lane stated $4 a day in his report. The CHAIRMAN. He stated that it would be something like the wages of the neighborhood. Mr. PARK. Yes. Well, they can get that much now. Then he will be enabled to meet this first 5 per cent and perhaps 40 per cent on his mules and plow, tools, and other improvements, by working 12 months on this general project. Am I right in that? In other words, how is the boy to start? How is he to take advantage of what we propose to be a benefit to him ? Is it to be a benefit, and, if so, how is it to be a benefit? Now, a good many who were, as Mr. Raker mentioned, clerks, blacksmiths, and so forth, may want to take advantage they may want to change their occupation. If so, I would presume that the Secretary would provide that a man who had been in the Navy as an instructor, an overseer, to go by and see how each man is getting along with his project, make a report monthly or weekly to the Sec- 13331919 17 256 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. retary as to the progress each individual is making; otherwise, in the course of six months he would be flat; he will move off. and then the Government has the land on its hands. Now, to go on further, suppose this man through misfortune has a long spell of typhoid fever, or suppose he should die himself and leave it to -his wife. He is in debt; his wife is in debt; what provi- sion is made to look after these people at that time ? The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestions for .these contingencies that you speak of? Mr. PARK. I suggest that if he is doing his best intelligently, that the Government help him till he gets on his feet. Otherwise he had better start out and buy a piece of land himself on his own hook. In other words, we don't want to cripple or throw around him restrictions in such a way that he wouldn't be on a parity with somebody else who had not been a soldier. And in regard to selling his land, I think that the soldier ought not be encumbered in any way. If he went on one of these projects, a hundred-acre farm, or a fifty-acre farm, and did the best lie could for two years, and was afterwards left a sum of money by some of his relatives or had a good opportunity to get a better job, he ought to be allowed to turn it back to the Government, who could, in turn, sell it to somebody else. The CHAIRMAN. You mean sell it back to the Government? Mr. PARK. Sell it to the Government and give him pay for what he has done on that project. In other words, he should not be made to lose simply because we restrict him by certain conditions and laws and rules. He is not a free man; he is not a free agent when ycu do that. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. There is nothing in the bill. Mr. Park, that prohibits that man from transferring his rights to some one else. Mr. PARK. With the consent of the Secretary? Mr. SMITH. Well, some one in authority must consent. Mr. PARK. Well, you had better just simply make it if it is an automatic ruling, it is all right, but let him do it if he wants to; give him the same power and authority that you would if he was a free man. Mr. VAILE. I presume that the matter of transfer of the contract to purchase land would be covered by regulations issued by the Sec- retary of the Interior in some form. Mr. PARK. Why should you restrict him more than the ordinary citizen adjoining him is restricted? Here is another man that was not in the Army, who buys himself a farm, an industrious man. He stays there a year and he has an offer of twice as much as it cost him. and he sells out. This man improves his land the same way ; he has an offer of twice as much and he can't sell out except by complying with certain restrictions. Mr. FERRIS. In one instance the Government furnishes the money ; in the other instance it does not. Mr. PARK. No; the Government only loans him the money. The Government don't furnish him anything. This bill don't give him anything. It gives him an opportunity to make a farmer out of him- self and make a home, and that is all it docs give him. Mr. FERRIS. Well. Judgo. T know you are friendly to the farmer I know you are friendly to the soldier HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 257 Mr. PARK (interposing). I want to help the soldier, tind that is what this bill ought to do altogether. This reclamation project should be out of contemplation except incidentally. You don't want to drain lands for soldiers or irrigate lands for soldiers if you have got land already at a cheaper price that you can give the soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. Would it interrupt you to ask you a question now, or would you rather wait until you finish your statement? Mr. PARK. Not at all. Mr. FERRIS. On page 3 of the bill, lines 6 to 10, we find this pro- vision. I think it meets your suggestion : " The Secretary may also, through agreement with soldiers, make provision for necessary improvements, but the contribution from the fund" that is, this $500,000,000 fund " shall in no single case exceed $1.200, nor in excess of three-quarters of the cost or value of the improvements." Now, over on the next page that is, $1,200 for permanent im- provements Mr. PARK (interposing). That means improvements to the land? Mr. FERRIS. That is right. Mr. PARK. Buildings and clearing? Mr. FERRIS. Yes. Permanent improvements. Xow. on page 5, section 8, we find this: That the Secretary is also authorized to make short-time loans from the fund, not to exceed $800 at any one time, to a soldier settler for the purchase of necessary live stock and equipment, and provision shall be made for the repayment of such loans during a period not to exceed five years with interest on deferred payments at 4 per cent per annum, payable annually. Now, here we have first the Government giving him land that is, affording him an opportunity to get land second, we authorize a loan of $1,200 to build permanent improvements on the land; third, we authorize a loan of not exceeding $800 at any one time, but they may loan at another time. For what ? For the purpose of get- ting teams and stock. Now, there are three things that the Gov- ernment affords him the opportunity to do, because you say it is a loan, and it is, but, Judge Park, isn't it true that a homesteader or a man without means and without title and without money and without security can not borrow $1,200 from any bank to make" a permanent improvement at 4 per cent, and he can't borrow $800 without security ? Mr. PARK. That is the advantage you are offering the soldier. Mr. FERRIS. That is what I want to bring out. Mr. PARK. That is about the only advantage that I see, but that is a great advantage. Mr. FERRIS. That is quite an advantage, isn't it? Mr. PARK. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Then if I may interrupt you once more now I know you are a very great friend of the soldier ; I know you desire to see him provided for ; I know that is why you are here Mr. PARK (interposing). But I don't want to hinder him. Mr. FERRIS. I know, but. Judge, you have been here a long time, and you are one of the substantial Members of the House, and you know that this bill has got to bear the earmarks of fairness to the Government; otherwise we can't get it through the House and we can't get anv relief for the soldier. So there is such a thing as allowing our hearts to go out to the soldier to the extent that we 258 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. may load up this bill so heavy that we can't get anything for him ; so it is those of us here on the committee that are trying now to steer a middle ground that will maintain at all times a standard of fairness to the soldier and to the Government, and get something that we can get through. I know you appreciate that. Mr. PARK. Yes ; I appreciate that. At the same time I don't want any restrictions placed upon this applicant for one of these farms that will hamper and hinder him afterwards. Give him the same right that an ordinary free agent or free citizen has in disposing of his property if he wants to. Let there be a lien on his property for the money that the Government furnishes him at the time he begins this $1,200 or $800, or so much of it as he has not paid back. Mr. FERRIS. Now. one word right on that point: After the Civil War, Congress provided scrip for the soldiers, which you are familiar with, and that scrip was sold indiscriminately and got into the hands of speculators and scrip peddlers and merchants, until it became bordering on a national scandal. The Land Office, the Interior De- partment, and members of this committee will tell you that they don't want any more scrip. Now if you allow the soldier to dispose of his property immediately you will find this thing. I think, spring up, that these lands will get into the hands of speculators. Mr. PARK. He has got nothing to sell immediately. He owns nothing. Mr. FERRIS. Well, he has been allotted an area of land in which he has an inchoate right, which of course may develop into a patent right. I thought you were asking that he should have his right immediately. Mr. PARK. No; to sell his improvements. Mr. FERRIS. Well, even if you do that, Judge, immediately, I think you would find that speculators and men who wanted to make money out of it would get large areas of land and colonize soldiers. For what purpose? For the purpose of holding the land a little while and then buying them out, and the Government would be in the attitude of appropriating $500,000,000, for that is what this bill is going to cost, and what for? Not to benefit the soldier, but to benefit the speculator who bought the soldier up. We have got to have a care for that. The CH AIRMAN. You have just five minutes left, Judge. Mr. PARK. In case the soldier is satisfied and is making a living, and a little money, he wouldn't want to sell. Mr. FERRIS. That is true. Mr. PARK. But if the land you give him is not sufficient, or is im- proper for cultivation, he may want to sell out. Mr. SMITH. Don't you think it would be well to provide that this transfer should be made only to a soldier? Otherwise you would have civilians, private citizens, getting the benefit which the Gov- ernment intended to give only to soldiers. Mr. PARK. Well, I can see this, that at the end of three or four years all of these soldiers that fought against Germany would be located permanently in some kind of business. They will be already engaged in some pursuit that they don't want to abandon that it would be unprofitable for them to abandon. No\v, getting back to what I think the committee wants, in Georgia they have something like 100,000 acres of land that will HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 259 produce the ordinary products of Georgia, and they can make almost anything in Georgia in fruits and provisions, corn they can raise wheat now. and hogs and cows, and so forth. This landowners' association controls these bodies of land, different members of the association control different parts of the land, but the whole is under one organization, and there would be no profiteer- ing. I presume, under this bill. The CHAIRMAN. This organization is u State organization? Mr. PARK. It will be under the control or connected with the State government ; yes, as soon as it is incorporated. The CHAIRMAN. For the purpose of promoting the settlement of soldiers? Mr. PARK. Xot for the purpose of that alone, but then they will have large tracts of land to offer at a given price, from $6 to $20 an acre, according to the location and improvements. At the same time the competition will be sufficient to make them come down to bed- rock. In other words, the Government don't want to go in and buy up $1 an acre land at $5 an acre or $10 an acre and sell it to these boys at $10 an acre when it is only worth $1 an acre. We have a great deal of land in Georgia that is capable of a high state of culti- vation if it was put into a proper state of improvement to begin with, but it costs so much to do that. Xow, I want to say that I am satisfied that the people of Georgia will cooperate in this enterprise, this project that we have now before us this tremendous project, and will do all they can to further it by State aid, if possible anyhow, by encouragement in every way they can. Xow. Mr. Chairman, to go back to this other individual project I don't want to take up any more time than you have given me, and if I have got just one minute I will take that. Mr. CHAIRMAN. You have just one minute more. Mr. PARK. I think that the committee and every member of Con- gress should consider this bill from its application to the soldier alone, not through reclamation projects in south Georgia, that is wet. or western land that is dry, but to give to have the Interior Department purchase such land as now exists without any reclama- tion for these soldiers; start them to work now. If you are going to start them at all. and if you don't begin this scheme soon, you can't begin it, because, as I have said, the soldiers will already have oc- cupations that they don't want to leave. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. 'We are very much obliged to you. Judge. Mr. Morgan, do you wish to speak now? Mr. MORGAN, of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, did I understand you were going to give us 15 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. That was the understanding the other day, that Members of the House should be limited to 15 minutes. Mr. MORGAN. Well. now. with all due regard to the rights of the committee, I know how these things are, but I have prepared a bill on the subject and I would like to have 30 minutes. I don't want to impose upon you. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. What is the number of the bill? Mr. MORGAN. I just introduced it yesterday and I haven't got a copy of it yet. But I think I have got something to say, at least, 260 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. to present some new ideas that you have not thought of, and I can't do it in 15 minutes. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Morgan used to be a member of this committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he have 30 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection? Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. Inasmuch as Mr. Morgan's bill is not before the committee, it seems to me it would be just as well if he wants to have more time wait until to-morrow. Mr. JOHNSON. I think that is a good suggestion. Mr. MORGAN. I have no objection. I would rather wait till to- morrow. Can I come in at 10 o'clock? The CHAIRMAN. Ten o'clock tomorrow morning, yes. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Morgan, do you prefer to have the longer time here instead of 15 minutes, notwithstanding that you will have all the time in the House probably that you want, or do you want to address the committee with the idea of having the committee take up all the points that you wish to have considered? Mr. MORGAN. If there is no objection, I would like to have an hour before the committee, and I want just as much in the House. I would be very glad to wait till to-morrow: The CHAIRMAN. I was in hopes we could about finish this to-day, but, of course, the committee can sit to-morrow. Mr. MORGAN. I am perfectly willing to go ahead if you can hear me for 30 minutes now. The CHAIRMAN. Then, without objection, we will hear you now. Mr. FERRIS. Inasmuch as Mr. Morgan has expressed the thought that he can be heard to-morrow with better advantage to ourselves. we have the governor of Idaho here and others whom perhaps we are detaining. We might accommodate both Mr. Morgan and them by hearing some of them now. Mr. MORGAN. It would suit me just as well. Mr. FERRIS. It would suit you better, wouldn't it ? Mr. MORGAN. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Hathorn is here. Gentlemen of the committee, this is Dr. Hathorn, from Memphis, Tenn. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Hathorn. Will you state your name and residence and whom you represent? STATEMENT OF MR. H. GUY HATHORN, OF MEMPHIS, TENN. Mr. HATIIORN. My name is H. Guy Hathorn. in business with 8. X. Williamson, investment bankers, Memphis Tenn.; residence, Oxford. Lafayette County. Miss. : I retain my citizenship in Missis- sippi. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I had no expectation of appearing before this committee. I came to Washington with some members of the Memphis Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has been vitally interested in this project from its inception, and to whom tin- general outlines of the project were explained last year by Dr. Elwood Meade, is it? The CIIAIU.MAN. Elwood Meade; yes. Mr. HATIIOKN. We were asked to come to Washington, knowing that this matter was up again for consideration, and to do anything HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 261 that appeared after we arrived might aid in helping this matter along, because we all believe so strongly in the project in a general way in that territory. Now, so far as I am personally concerned, having been the chief appraiser for three years for a concern that makes farm mortgage loans, very similar in so far as the appraisal and the percentage of loan value to actual value is concerned to the Federal loan bank plan: of course, having covered pretty thoroughly west Tennessee, west Kentucky, eastern Arkansas, and north Mississippi, in the performance of my duties, I would naturally be in possession of some information that might be of some value to this committee, which, perhaps, you might help me to give by questioning. That, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, is my warrant for appearing before 3 T ou to-day. Xow, I have been so forcibly impressed with some of the dis- cii.-.-ions that have gone on here this morning that I am going to ask your permission to do what I have hesitated to do, and that is to read, just as I drafted them, a few little points that I jotted down last night in my room at the hotel; and I want to say, too, that I have not had any opportunity so far to even read, in a gen- eral and superficial manner the bill that is up for consideration, and so it may be merely a coincidence that my rather unformed and rough views about some of these points should coincide very closely with some of the views already expressed here; or it may be that my experience and observations in the South for a number of years, and my intimate association with the people who are making such splendid progress in the agricultural development of the South, might cause me to form these opinions. May I have your permis- sion to read the rough notes I have made ? Before I do that, there was one thing that seemed to me very r -onable and pertinent, that was brought out to a certain extent in this discussion, and that is that while the matter should be made attractive to those of the soldiers and sailors who would want to avail themselves of this splendid opportunity, it should not be made too easy: that as a matter of fact, the percentage of success in all lines of endeavor is decidedly higher among those who have had a certain degree of struggle, a certain amount of difficulty and ob- stacles to overcome, than those for whom the path has been made exceedingly smooth. Xow. with reference to the employment of the soldiers in the be- ginning of the time when they choose to avail themselves of the privilege, my first idea was that there would be a certain amount, a certain percentage of these soldiers, who have no capital whatever; who can not make any initial payment, and that there would be a certain percentage who, because of their own efforts, or because of assistance that might be rendered by fathers or brothers, might be in a position to make the initial payment that would be required by this bill. So there you have got two separate classes to begin with, and with reference to those who have no capital at all, it would seem to me that if some provision was made by which they would be insured steady employment for a period of perhaps two years, at a wage that it seems to me might very justly be a little bit in excess of the wage that is paid for such labor, because of the fact that thev risked their lives in the defense of this country in 262 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. other words, that they be paid the actual value of the labor they perform, and in addition to that, a small bonus, if you please, for a period of from one to two years; and if they stick during that entire period, that would certainly be a good warrant for believing they have the stuff that would go on and achieve ultimate success. and that this little excess payment that was put on in recognition and acknowledgment of the fact that they deserve consideration more than the man who had not been in the Army might be set aside, not paid to them, but set aside, to be devoted to this initial payment, and if anything happened that the soldier either elected to or was com- pelled to abandon the proposition before the end of the stipulated time, then it might be paid to him and let him go. In that way it seems to me that there would be a greater certainty that these soldiers without capital would have the initial payment at that time that was decided by the provisions of the measure when they should go on a homestead. There is another point that struck me, that the land should be sold to the soldier in a partially improved state, with necessary build- ings on it at the end, say, of two years, and nominal payments for the land and buildings with long time amortized payments, main- taining an adequate insurance on the buildings, and as development goes on, he can complete the improvement and clearing of the land and be employed by the Government for a large part of the year in clearing and improving other land. Now, I have seen over in Arkansas a sort of semiprivate, or semi- segregated, and yet in a way a community development proposition on the holdings of the Chicago Milling & Lumber Co. It is not far from Blytheville, Ark., and those lands were sold by this lumber company for an initial payment of $5 an acre, and then a payment of $5 per annum up to whatever the amount was. The price has been rising gradually since they began that seven or eight years ago, and of course there were restrictions on that, but the point is that a great many men went in there with practically no capital except the initial payment, and in some instances they didn't have that, but were employees of the lumber company and 'were allowed to work out part of the initial payment. The CHAIRMAN. Was that logged-over land? Mr. HATHORN. Yes; logged-over, alluvial lands. This was not far from Blytheville. In many instances these men had not enough money to build a house at all/ They had a team, and they actually had tents for the first year and they cleared up green timber, some of it just some scattered timber left maybe 10 or 15 acres of the 40 acres they had bought, and were enabled to make on that limited area the first year, perhaps, half a crop of corn or cotton, in the meantime deadening this timber. The next year they would take in a little more land and the timber would be entirely (load, so that, at the end of the second crop, perhaps they would get a full crop on the first limited area, so that in about three or four rears' time by exercising great industry, all of their ambition, and all of their resources-, those men would have their lands cleared, have cheap lion- s built on thorn: they were usually not as good houses as one would like to see, but the best they could do with the financial as- sistance they could get; and, in many instances, the secretary of that com panj' told me, those men anticipated their final payments by HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 2 68 from one to four years. They usually had from five to seven years to pay the proposition out. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am fairly convinced that there are thousands of young men, who have practically no capital, that were in the Argonne and at Chateau-Thierry, that have the same vim and the same energy and the same determination that these men have that have proceeded on this project over in Arkansas, and that with the limited assistance of the Government limited, I mean, to the point that you don't make it too easy for these fellows, but give them a chance and make it attractive that they will make good by a very large majority. The CHAIRMAN. The idea is to do under this bill just exactly what was done in Arkansas. Mr. HATHORN. Is that it ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HATHORN. I am glad to hear that. I knew that that had been practically worked out along those lines. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you know what rate of interest those men paid? Mr. HATHORN. Six per cent. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. This is 4 per cent. Mr. HATHORN. Well, that makes it still more attractive; but I didn't know that the proposition contemplated that the land would be entirely cleared and the stumps removed, only partially cleared, so that the purchaser, the soldier, or the sailor, who went on that land, would be able by his own labor, to coin his own labor, as it were, into dollars and cents in the further perfection of that land. Certainly that would be a far more inexpensive means for the Government. Mr. WHITE. Did you state what the price of that land was to the settlers ? Mr. HATHORN. I did not, but I will. I will be glad to do it, When they began to sell those lands seven or eight years ago, the price was then around $15 per acre. In the meantime land values have risen very rapidly in that section, and when I was there a year ago last May making these investigations the prevailing price then the average price, I might say was $35 an acre. Some of the more desir- able and more favorably located lands were selling as high as $45 an acre, but $35 was about the average. Mr. WHITE. One more question. How far are those lands from market, from railroad facilities? Mr. HATHORN. There is a main line of the Frisco that runs through Blytheville I believe it is the Frisco one of those lines running from Memphis to St. Louis. Then there is another road running from Paragould, Ark., that splits this tract wide open. They are right near transportation facilities. Very few of them will be more than 4 miles. Now, here is another thought that has come into my mind in con- nection with a proposition of that sort, that the soldiers who can make the initial payments, naturally, would buy the first land that was cleared and this would leave the land that was still being cleared. That would give employment to these men who had no capital and had to work out their salvation in that way. 264 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. Under the bill, the man who works on the land is the man who is given the preference right. Mr. HATHOKX. Well, to be sure; but the idea I had in mind there was that the man who had the initial payment, as a matter of fact, would be working also, but there would be so many of these men who could not make the initial payment until they had worked out a large part of it, consequently, as a practical proposition, even though the man that had the initial payment had not done much work, but if he is working, why he can make a payment right now and the thing would have a continuous and progressive development of the com- munity a little earlier, it seems to rue, than if the sales were deferred until those who had to make their capital had made enough to make 1he initial payment. That was the thought that was in my mind. Now, it seems to me very important that these soldiers should acquire an actual equity in the land as soon as possible, and that when he has acquired an equity by whatever payment he has made, that he should be allowed to relinquish his land to the Government not less than two years after the date of purchase, provided that is, if something happens that it doesn't seem feasible for him to go on with it, or it might be some of these blacksmiths or lawyers or sales- men would get out there and try it a year or two and he would see that he was just wasting his time, that he was physically or tempera- mentally unfitted for that proposition, and it would seem that it would be a hardship on him if he was not able in some way to dis- pose of the proposition to the Government and try something else. That point was brought out awhile ago. In that case, suppose he was allowed at the end of two years to sell to the Government what he had, not at what he paid for it, but get for his equity what- ever it might be in proportion to the expert appraised valuation of the land and buildings at the time that he relinquishes, provided that he had liquidated all the indebtedness for live stock and imple- ments. Mr, FERRIS. You don't want him, Mr. Hathorn, to have the right to either sell or relinquish or acquire title until he reimburses the Government for these expenses? Mr. HATHORN. I want him, sir, to have the right at any time inside of 10 years to sell to anybody, except that the Government be given preference to take over his holdings; and that point, I believe, is brought out in some further notes I have here. Mr. FERRIS. Your thought is to allow the Government to take it back with a view of placing another soldier on it? Mr. HATHORN. Exactly, with this idea, that if there has been an increase in the value of that land itself during this two years, that, this soldier to whom it seems it is for his best interest to go some- where else should be allowed credit, you understand, for that in- creased valuation. Mr. FERRIS. You understand there is a provision in here that he shall do that with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior? Mr. HATIIOKN. No: I haven't read the bill, as I stated, I haven't had an opportunity to look it over. Mr. FERRIS. Yes; so that if misfortune overtook the soldier settler or if he found that he were temperamentally unfit, as you suggest, (lie Secretary of the Interior could authorize him to transfer to somebody else and thereby protect his investment. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 265 Mr. HATHORX. Well, I didn't know that, and my experience is that where a thing has to go through so many channels, if a specific pro- gram were made by which this dissatisfied, let us say, soldier should want to get out, after a sufficiently guarded appraisal were made, and the bill provides that the Government should take it over at its ap- praised value and pay him whatever equity he might have, and sell to another soldier or sailor who had not yet availed himself of the privilege that is the thought, the idea that I had in mind. That is covered by this sentence : The privilege of paying any amount that is .still due after five years, because there are a lot of them that do make enough money on these private projects to .pay the entire propo- sition out at the end of five years or money might come to him by inheritance or otherwise, and he should have the privilege of selling after five years, but the Government to retain the right of buying any farm offered for sale at the appraised value, to be resold to a sailor or soldier who has not already availed himself of the privilege of this act, or to those who already own land and who have made good on it the adjoining farm may be 40 acres and who is able to make a payment equal in amount to the amount already collected by the Government. In other words, just take it over. That was the general idea about that part of it. Mr. FERRIS. You are speaking now of the provisions in section 7, lines 21 to 25 on that question? Mr. HATHORX. Beg pardon? Mr. FERRIS. I understand you are speaking about section 7. You are familiar with that? Mr. HATHORX. I am not, I have never seen it. I have not had an opportunity to even glance at the bill. Mr. FERRIS. Well, let me just interrupt you a minute then to read what it says here: " Sec. 7. Patents or deeds to project lands issued within 10 years from the date of contract of sale shall contain the condition that no transfer, assignment, mortgage, or lease made during that time shall be v;il id without the approval of the Secretary, and no transfer, as- signment, mortgage, or lease of any right, title, or interest held un- der a contract of sale shall be valid at any time without the ap- proval of the Secretary. The Secretary shall make all necessary regulations for the carrying out of the provisions and purposes of this act." Mr. HATHORX. That covers that point. You see I have not read that point. I would not have taken up your time discussing it if I had. Mr. FERRIS. I thought you had not read 'it. Mr. HATHORX. My idea is that 10 years is the limit of any sort of Government control over the land of any who may have paid out their indebtedness. That should be sufficient. In other words, in my judgment, after a rather long experience among poor folks, people that had to dig it out of the ground if they ever accomplished any- thing, it is my own conviction, gentlemen, if they can't walk alone after they have been assisted and aided and helped and directed by the Government for 10 years, that they will never be able to do more than crawl. Now, Mr. Chairman. I would a lot rather answer questions than to speak straight from the shoulder, because I think I can really give 266 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. you more information that way. This was just purely an after- thought after I had heard the discussion this morning. The CHAIRMAN. You have no doubt but what a proposition of this kind is a practical proposition is feasible? Mi 1 . HATHORN. None whatever, sir. Yes; as was suggested by the gentleman at the other end of the table, that safe and conservative middle ground should be taken, which really insures to the soldier and sailor not only his rights, but that recognition of what is due to him that we all concur in and which at the same time will safeguard the funds of the Government and let this project go through with the minimum of expense to the Government, and in a sensible and practical manner; it can be done. There is no question in my mind but what it can be done. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have covered the matter pretty thor- oughly. Mr. BARBOTTR. Might I ask Dr. Hathorn one question? In these projects in which you have been interested, Doctor, I presume you are familiar with the contracts for the sale of the lands? Mr. HATHORN. You mean those that I have investigated? Mr. BARBOUR. Yes. Mr. HATHORN. I was familiar with them in a general way, but I don't just recall specifically all the provisions of the contracts now. Mr. BARBOUR. Don't they restrict to a certain period of time, or until certain payments have been made, the right to alienate the lands? Isn't that a common provision in contracts of that kind? Mr. HATHORN. I don't think so, sir. for this reason : Since the in- auguration of this particular development scheme, which as a matter of fact, was instituted by the Chicago Milling & Lumber Co., par- tially to get a certain profit from the land, while they were always reasonable in the prices and I want to say for them that they never went up that $5 a year, about what it averages in advance until other lands were selling for that already that they at the same time recognized the very great value that the development of this land that they were offering for sale would have in the future development of their lands, as yet uncleared. Now then they had according to my recollection they had no such restriction with reference and by the way, which I think would be a very wise and necessary restric- tion in this project this Government project they had no such re- strictions as provided that all the payments must be made before transfer is made, but transfer could be made after a considerable number of payments I don't know what number there weren't any restrictions with reference to that, according to my recollection. Certainly, if there were any restrictions, if the party who was making the purchases, took over these notes and proceeded to pay them when they became due, they had no kick coming. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what it costs to clear that land.. Mr. Hathorn? Mr. HATHORN. I haven't any intimate data on that, but in a gen- eral way the sort of land that I speak of. until the recent very great increase in the cost of labor, could be cleared, in the way that they cleared it partially cleared, you understand at around $10 or $15 an acre. Now, that is a section up there where they have to put out hog-wire fences all around, and if that w;is cleared just by man HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 267 power, rule of thumb, it would cost about $25 to $30 per acre, but probably it cost less than that when they cleared it. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of timber was it? Mr. HATHORN. Different varieties of hardwood, such as was not suitable for lumbering. In many instances there would be a few scattering trees of considerable size, some underbrush, and a good deal of the switch cane that grows down in that country, but there would be no timber of any value that might be utilized for any- thing, except to have to make up for some by-products that some big company could utilize it for. Mr. BARBOUR. The reason I asked my question a moment ago was that in California, in contracts for the sale of land on long-time payments, we very often include a provision in the contract for the protection of the vendor, that the vendee shall not have the right to sell the land until a certain amount has been paid, without the written consent of the vendor. That is to protect the vendor against getting some one in there who is not suitable and who is not a good farmer, and who will not properly care for the land to protect him to that extent. That is very common in our contracts, and that is the reason why I asked that question. Mr. HATHORN. There may be some such a clause as that in these contracts I speak of, but I don't know if there would be the same necessity, on account of the great and rapid development of this section going on. Mr. RAKER. Might I ask a question there? And I want to predi- cate this on the statement that I am trying to develop legislation that will be attractive to the soldier, the homesteader, and still at the same time properly protect the Government and again make no dis- tinction between the soldiers. Do you believe that a preference be given to those on a project established under the legislation contemplated because he has worked on the project, as against a man who has not worked on the project and is ready and willing and competent and capable to take up a homestead '. Mr. HATHORX. Let us see will you state that question again? I am not certain that I have got it clear. Mr. RAKER. Here are two men ; one has lived in the city since the war: one goes on a project any project and works. They both go to another State to get a homestead under one of the projects. Do you believe there should be any distinction made as to which one should have the homestead, or should the first applicant receive the right, and have the right at his own volition to file upon that home- stead ? Mr. HATHORN. The first applicant, in my judgment, provided he comes up to such a standard of requirements as might be set. Mr. RAKER. That is just the point, exactly. I have heard that discussed here for 10 days. What do you mean by the " standard of requirement " ? Can there be any distinction between the men who have been soldiers in this war? Mr. HATHORX. Well, I don't know. You know, as I stated awhile ago. I haven't even read a draft of the bill. Mr. RAKER. This is outside of the bill. This is generally speaking, now. Should there be any distinction in legislation against the soldier who desires a homestead? 268 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HATHORX. I think not. specifically, and yet it seems to me, from my knowledge of human nature and men, and of those qualities that contribute to success that there might be some instances where that should be done. Mr. RAKER. Well, are you going to allow a governmental board in advance to determine whether a man is competent and qualified and will make a successful farmer or not? Mr. HATHORX. I wouldn't like to do that. Mr. RAKER. Well, do you believe that legislation of that kind would be wise ? Mr. HATHORX. Not specifically. Now. there might be some body whose discretion should be used to a certain extent that might have some sort of selective power. Perhaps that might do. Mi-. RAKER. Don't you believe that any legislation that will make a preference, or allow a preference, not only would be but ought to be distasteful to every American soldier? Mr. HATHORX. Yes, sir; I certainly do. Mr. SMITH. May I ask the gentleman a question in that connec- tion? Suppose you are in charge of a large farm and you are look- ing for employees on your farm. Would you give the preference right to the man that had been reared on the farm and was a reliable, vigorous, industrious man, or would you go into the city and pick up a clerk from behind the ribbon counter and give him a chance in comparison with the other man ? Mr. HATHORX. My judgment would be formed largely by the qualities, physical and mental, as I could best determine them, as .between these two men, without any particular reference to what their former occupation had been; with this exception, gentlemen, that seems to be practical, other things being equal, if it was some particular job, some special work on the farm that I had in mind, that I knew this man who had been raised on the farm was thor- oughly familiar with, it is but natural that in human nature, other things being equal, I should choose him, not because he w r as a farmer and the other fellow was not. but because he had already done that particular work and I would not have to train him ; I would not have to take time to train him to do the work. Mr. RAKER. Now, let us see here I come along, a callow-faced young man; I have been in a small town and I have been going to school for a year or so ; my hands are white and my face has all the red bleached out of it, and I come to you for a job on your farm, general work; now, here comes a boy that has been on a farm, raised on a farm, his hands are homey, and he looks as though he could do the work ; now simply because the one is raised on a farm and the other has been going to school, would you take him and turn me down ? Mr. HATHORX. Not for that reason. Mr. RAKER. What other reason would you have? You just see the two of us. Am I going to be deprived of the right to get the benefit of legislation of this kind and the right to work because my appear- ance is such that on first glance you might not think I could do the work? Mr. HATHORX. Now, as I understand your question, you are ad- dressing it to me as an individual with a private proposition, my own farm ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 269 Mr. RAKER. Xo : I am not. Mr. HATHORX. Well, let us have that clear. Mr. RAKER. I am making it general for legislation. Should there !.e anyone to determine whether a man will make a success on the farm, one of these soldiers, or should the soldier himself be given the right when the land i> thrown open for homesteading, to ge there and say: "I want this particular tract of land here. I will meet your obligations." Mr. HATHORX. I thought I already stated before that I thought any of them ought to have the opportunity to try it. That was my intention. I think they ought to. Mr. RAKER. And you would make no distinction? Mr. HATHORX. Xo, sir. The CHAIRMAX. Who made these selections on these Arkansas lands ? Mr. HATHORX. The man himself. The CHAIRMAX. The owner of the land had some option about it? Mr. HATHORX. To be sure he would, but it was the men who bought the land, the men who wanted the land to have homes. The ma- jority of these soldiers who would apply under the provisions of this act, if it is passed, would be men who want to own homes. Mr. RAKER. One more question in the way of illustration and then I am through. A boy is raised on the farm until he is 10 years of age. and he is sent to' school and he graduates from the high school, first from the grammar school and then from the high school, which takes him four years. Then he takes five years at college, and he becomes about 21 or 22 years of age, and he graduates. He was a farmer's son. born on the farm. Now here comes a boy who conies from town, a telegraph operator who was born in the city. Both are capable and competent. Would you give the boy that was raised on the farm with a college education, although he has had no experi- ence in farming, the advantage and the preference right, as against the boy who has been a telegraph operator before in the city ? Mr. "HATHORX. As an economic or sentimental proposition? Mr. RAKER. Xo, sir; as a business proposition, as between man and man, and American and American who wants to make an honest living and a good farmer. Mr. HATHORX. I would have to make a choice. I can't take both, perhaps. Mr. RAKER. Xo. Xow would you make a distinction? Would you let any law be enacted that would make a distinction between those two men. to try and make a good American citizen and a good farmer out of him ?. Mr. HATHORX. Absolutely not. Mr. RAKER. That is all. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Let me ask a question : Then, do we under- stand that you are opposed to this provision in the law which gives the preference right of entry to the men who have been employed on these projects and have shown by that fact that they are interested in making a success of it ? Mr. HATHORX. A preference right in what way ? Mr. SMITH of Idaho. In the way of employment. It is proposed in the bill here that those who have been employed on the projects 270 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. should be given the preference right over the man that had been living in the city. Mr. HATHORN. Certainly not. I am sorry if I gave that impres- sion. The only thing I recall having said that might give that im- pression was with reference to those men who might have the initial payments, you understand, and would not have to earn it ; that they might be allowed to buy land, that was all ; where they start on this side of the tract and start to build, that they might be allowed to buy this land, because they have the initial payment. But they are working just the same. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. But it is provided in the bill that those that are employed on the project shall be given the first opportunity. Are you in favor of that ? Mr. HATHORN. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Now, listen, Mr. Hathorn: Do you intend to tell the committee that if a man, a soldier, goes out and works on the project for two years, and here is a boy that is just returned from Franco, who has gone into the blacksmith shop and worked for two years he worked there before, but the proprietor and the blacksmith quit, and he hadn't any employment, but he sees out here a farm on one of these projects that he can go and take do you say now that we should provide in this legislation that this blacksmith boy should not have the same opportunity to get a home on that project as the boy who went and worked on the project, and, in fact, had no other place to work. Would } 7 ou make a distinction between those two soldiers? Mr. HATHORN. That is a hard question for me to answer without giving it more thought than I have been able to yet. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I read three or four lines from the bill under consideration ? On page 5, lines 3 to 8, 1 find this language : The Secretary of the Interior shall make all necessary regulations for the carrying out of the provisions and purposes of this Act and for safeguarding the interests of the settler and of the United States and is authorized to issue patents or deeds for the public and private lands embraced in farms, tracts, and lots within projects. Now, let me give you a case here. When the country was opened where I now live in Oklahoma, there were 19,500 tracts available for settlement. There were 250,000 men registered. Now, 250,000 men could not have 19,500 tracts, whether they be doctors, lawyers, mer- chants, chiefs, rich man, poor man, beggar man, or thief. There was no way to give all of them tracts of land. Now, the Secretary of the Interior did then, as I assume he will do now. work out rules and regulations to determine priorities, so that the men who held the lucky number, for example, or held the proper drawing, under the rules and regulations that were worked out, should have the place, whether he be a banker, a blacksmith, or what-not, and I assume that will be done here. Judge Raker's question seems to be that he is worrying about the priorities of the case. Well, nobody wants the Secretary of the Interior to say that Mr. Barbour, with the red necktie on, shall have the place, and that the man with the black necktie on shall not have the place. I think it is necessary for them to work out rules and regulations, as this bill provides they may do in order to determine priorities among soldiers. Now, as an example of that, let us take a given project of 10,000 acres. Some tracts will, in the very nature of things, be worth more HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 271 than others, but if the butcher gets that or the baker gets that under rules and regulations that are absolutely fair, he will have to abide by it. Isn't that your idea? Mr. HATHORN. I see the reason for it, certainly. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Will you read page 3, line 20, Mr. Ferris? Mr. FERRIS. Yes ; that provides that " Preference shall be given to those who have been employed in the development of such proj- ects." A^ 7 ell, clearly the man that creates the project ought to be the man to have the chance to live on it, shouldn't he ? Mr. HATHORN. I think so. I have already answered that ques- tion. Mr. FERRIS. I know you have. The CHAIRMAN. In other English-speaking countries the selection of the soldiers is largely in the hands of the local committee. They have to make some selection. They have to separate the sheep from the goats the white sheep from the black sheep, you know. Mr. JOHNSON. And I am in favor of that. I want to go on record for that. Mr. HATHORN. They are presumed to be men of discretion and intelligence and judgment. Somebody has got to decide. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, we have Gov. Davis, of Idaho, here who will favor us with a statement. STATEMENT OF HON. D. W. DAVIS, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO. The CHAIRMAN. You are at present Governor of the State of Idaho? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I came here to add just what little 1 might to this discussion. I arrived in the city last night and have ivully made no preparation. When our legislature met last January the Government was de- sirous that the State adopt a constructive program in order to fur- nish employment for returned soldiers, and stimulate business gen- erally. We have gone into that matter whole-heartedly, and we can see marked benefits on the constructive program in our State. 1 think this is a great question, and a question that we should look at from the standpoint of the Nation and not from the standpoint c nly of a State. A State, after all, is just one small unit of the coun- try as a whole. Idaho is an especially favored State by the fact that we have the land and we have the water. We can get quick action on development work in our State, so far as water supply is concerned, which is very great. The flow of the Snake River is something like 8,000,000 acre-feet per annum, with something like 1,000.000 acre-feet now in use, with 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 acres of available land ready for irrigation. It is not a matter of specula- tion with us as to what can be done with land and water; it has been thoroughly demonstrated. We have gone through the pioneer- ing stage of irrigation ; our land is as productive, I think, as any in tli3 country, and is in demand. It is well known throughout the United States. I think a greater per cent of our soldiers than 20 per cent, as has been mentioned, would avail themselves of the opportunity of acquir- 33331919 18 272 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. ing a tract of land in our State. They would be eager to acquire it. If 40 per cent of our soldiers should desire land, and they should desire 160 acres I think that 80 acres is sufficient, but 160 seems to be the unit that most men desire if 40 per cent of our returned soldiers would ask for 160 acres of land, it would require 1,600,000 acres to supply that demand. So you can see there is a tremendous demand for this land. I have had numerous letters, not only from my own State, but from other States clear to the Atlantic" Coast, asking about available land in our State and, gentlemen, it is the most popular thing that this Government could do for the recogni- tion of the soldier. Xow, I think the soldier should have the privilege provided for in this bill and I think this 10-year provision is a good one. I think that will overcome some of the questions that you asked a moment ago Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). Governor, I would like to have you elaborate on that because I am opposed to that clause. I am ordi- narily in favor of that bill. Mr. DAVIS. Xow, the 10-year provision, as I see it I am basing this on the experience we have had in our State of course, the peo- ple that settled on reclamation projects in Idaho did not settle there under the favorable conditions which the soldiers will settle upon land reclaimed under this bill. They experienced the pioneering stage. They experienced the perils of real hardship in developing their lands. A largo, part of those people went on the lands poorly equipped financially and otherwise, hoping to build a home. They have, in very large measure, been successful, but during this period of development that has extended over a period now of some ten years they have seen a period during that time that they would have been glad to have sold out at a nominal fee and gotten out of the country, and many a farmer in the United States to-day is wealthy due to the fact that he was unable to get away from the country at some period of its development. We have experienced it through Illinois, Iowa, and clear to the Pacific Coast. I know of men in Iowa that would have traded their land for sufficient means to transport them back to Indiana or some eastern State from which they came, that are to-day wealthy, not due to their own judgment but due to the fact that they were unable to get away. I think the 10-year period is a good thing for the young man that is coming back from the Army. He comes back and he settles on that land and he develops it ; he is going to build a substantial home there; he is rearing his children and they are coming up, and after having an experience on the land of five or six years you couldn't pull him away from that farm. You couldn't take nim away. He has learned to appreciate the value of a home, the indepen- dence of that home, and I will tell you it is a good provision, I think, and the provision that if he wants to assign the land it must be assigned to the Secretary of the Interior is a splendid provision. It cuts out the speculator. It cuts out these men that would colonize soldiers for the purpose of speculating. It removes that feature of it and it is a good thing. I would like to see the soldier that feels that he has made a mis- take in settling on this land have an opportunity of assigning the land back to the Government. I would like to see the Government HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 273 pay him every dollar that he has put into it, make as liberal a set- tlement as possible and then have the land available for another soldier. Mr. JOHNSON. And not for civilians who might wish to buy? Mr. DAVIS. I think that for some time to come the soldiers will take all of the available land, and until there is a scarcity of soldiers, I think that that provision should be maintained. The boys went to France and volunteered in the service of our country and we stayed at home. Thousands upon thousands are here now that would gladly avail themselves of the opportunity that we are trying to give the soldier in this bill, for the purpose of making money. Ihey have been taking advantage of war conditions to make money while the soldier has been over there fighting for his country for $30 ;i month and offering his very life in defense of the institutions thnt the wild-eyed Reds in this country are now trying to tear down. I am not in favor of the man who is in this country and doesn't think enough of it to become an American citizen and fight for the insti- tutions for which our soldiers fought having the privilege that is now proposed to be extended to the soldier under this bill. The soldiers of previous wars have had these privileges. The soldiers of the Mexican War and the Civil War veterans have had this home- stead privilege, and I am very proud of the fact that they were offered these privileges, and I hope that this Congress will see that the soldiers who are now returning from France will have every privilege that we can possibly extend to them. Mr. JOHNSON. Governor, does it bother you for me to .interrupt you '. Mr. DAVIS. Xo: not a bit. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you think that this would apply to the Spanish - American War veterans? Mr. DAVIS. The Spanish-American War veterans have had a great opportunity to take homesteads throughout the West from the time of the Spanish-American War. However. I am not opposed to the Spanish-American War veterans having some consideration in this bill, if you gentlemen see fit to extend it after going into it. because you are in a position to equalize those matters much better than I would be. because you are making it a daily study. Mi . IVAKKR. Governor, did we extend to the soldiers of the Civil War any different rights than we have extended to every other American citizen Mr. DAVIS (interposing). I think not. Mi-. KAKKI;. Ju.-t a month in regard to homesteading. except that we permit him to use the time that he has served in the war as part of his residence on the land, and then after subsequent legislation we allowed him to locate at certain places and dispose of the scrip well, it was quite a large tract, but outside of that we didn't really provide anything else, did we ? Mr. DAVIS. I think that is the only advantage given the Civil War veterans. Mr. FERRIS. Governor, there isn't any question but what Congress made an error in the scrip proposition. Mr. DAVIS. I think so. It opened the doors to speculators. Mr. FERRIS. Experience has taught us that that was a mistake. Xow if you allow the soldier under this bill to begin again to alien- 274 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. ate the land immediately after he settles upon it, it almost makes a second mistake. Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; I am absolutely opposed to that provision. Every land owner, the farmer, the man that farms the land, becomes a first-class citizen. He is a home owner, and we need more home owners in the United States to-day, because he is a satisfied citizen, as a rule; he rears a good, strong* healthy American family, which is another benefit; and when we do these things that we propo- > by this bill, remember that we are creating a demand for the output from the industrial centers. That is where our trade comes from. Don't think that this is benefiting only one small unit of the United States, or a western State. I am here in the interest of my State, but the benefit will go to the whole Nation. The development and production of the farm makes the demand and market for machin- ery, clothing, and all sorts of supplies. We can destroy our cities and they may be rebuilt, largely by the support of the rural districts. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the benefits of this act are not confined to the West. Mr. DAVIS. Xo, indeed: they are confined to the entire Nation. lie an-e I \\ i-h I had the statistics here to show you the consumption of our State, a small State from point of population, but it is g -ow- ing and growing rapidly, and that is very noticeable by the ca]>a ity of the railroads through Idaho. I remember some 1'2 or 14 years ago I made the statement to one of the railroad officials: "Inside of 10 years you will be wanting a doube track through here." He laughed at me. They need that double track now and have needed it i'or the last four or five years. So it is just a unit in the develop- ment of the whole country, and I am glad to see Congress look upon this measure, as I think they will, with favor. I don't think that any Congressman on the floor of the House, after making a careful study of this matter of reclamation, can honestly and conscientiously get up and oppose the bill, because it is a part of the Nation's de- velopment and it is needed. The CHAIRMAN. It is the purpose to build one or more projects in each State. Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; and on that point I might say, Mr. Chairman, that Idaho is so equipped with possibilities along that line that they could go to work on very short notice. And in regard to giving the man on the project preference, as you spoke about a moment ago, I think that a man goes to work on that project because he is in the market for labor, and I don't think that the man in the blacksmith shop that you referred to a moment ago should suffer he may be. the son of a widow with a large family, and he is working there be- cause he needs the labor, and I don't think there should be any dis- tinction made on that point. I think the blacksmith should have the same opportunity as the follow that works on the project because he is there; he is in the market for labor, and he is there because labor is there. Mr. RAKER. Governor, vour experience convinces me that you can with much propriety answer this question i'or the committee. Where- ever you take 100 acres of land that is unimproved and uncultivated, whether it lio in Idaho or in 'Penn>ylvsmiu. it adds jr.st that ;,u;rh to ( he nat ional wealth, doesn't it ( Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. i HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 275 Mr. RAKER. And we ought not to be too finicky upon the question of whether or not there is a project in each State, or which State has the best opportunity to provide for our soldiers. Now, isn't that just about the situation? Mi-. DAVIS. Xo. sir: I don't think you should hold up the whole proposition because some State representative says : " I must have it in my State or I don't support this bill." I think it is the duty of every representative here because you are representing the whole Nation to get in behind the project, whether it might benefit his State or not. I think, however, that your committee that decides upon the projects that are to be developed should make a close study as to what projects should be developed first. The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter for the Secretary to decide. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, certainly. Mr. HERNANDEZ. It has been pointed out here by some men that tin absolute payment, of, say, $5,000 to the returned soldier should be made, so that he can make his own selection, buy his own farm ;my place that he decides to live, and not restrict him to any par- ticular community or say: "Here, we have got a project in the Stato of Idaho or in the State of Pennsylvania, or anywhere else, come on and get it and settle on it if you want to." Mr. DAVIS. I would be opposed to that. Mr. HERNANDEZ. You don't think that is practical? ^fr. DAVIS. Xo, sir: I would be opposed to it. because the inexperi- enced soldier, you give him $5,000 and the land speculator imme- diately jumps in and may sell him a gold brick. Mr. HERNANDEZ. Oh. no; place the same restrictions on it, of course. Mr. DAVIS. You might place some restrictions around it, but I don't think it would work satisfactorily. Mr. SMITH. In any event, there would be no opportunity for mak- ing much of a profit out of the farm if you had to pay the market value of it. On these projects it is assumed that the land will be worth twice as much as it costs because of the cooperation of * K - Government in building the project and preparing the land for culti- vation: and if you eliminate the opportunity for profit by loaning a man the money to buy a farm at the market value it seems to me the Government would be assuming a pretty big risk there which would not apply to these projects, where the cost of reclamation is not nearly as much as the land is actually worth after it is reclaimed. Mr. DAVIS. I think that any man that went out wearing the uni- form of the United States and has good red blood in his veins can go on these projects and remain there for 10 years, and have a piece of land this would apply especially in the West, to land that I am familiar with a piece of land that is worth, at the least calculation, $200 an acre, when patent is available. Now, where can he be as- sured a better investment than that ? The rise in value there is abso- lutely assured because the productiveness of the farm is not keeping pace with the increase in population. I do not expect to see any per- manent set back in land values in the United States, so it will be to his interest to hold that land. And I want to say again that I think the 10-year provision is a splendid one. Mr. RAKER. Governor, have you thought of this feature that if you don't allow transfers, say within a reasonable time, say, two 276 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. years, or three years, or five years make it 10 years, or even run longer you have a community of all inexperienced young men with- out any of the hard-headed, well-experienced, properly seasoned men, like you have in every community, who are sort of stabilizers to it. Have you thought of that feature, that we might overdo this thing, and just bring a lot of young men into the community without any of this experience that every community in this country has had by virtue of the old man that has given 30 or 40 or 50 years to business life and whom the boys all consult and who sort of stabilize them in their ideas? Mr. DAVIS. Now, the fellow that goes on there and is inexperienced and feels that he has got a hard road to hoe, and feels that he isn't a practical farmer, he is going to assign back to the Government. Mr. RAKER. No ; you dont't want to let him assign back. Mr. DAVIS. He can assign by the consent of the Secretary, can he not? Mr. RAKER. No. Mr. DAVIS. That is my understanding of it. Mr. FERRIS. Yes; he can. Mr. DAVIS. He can assign back with the consent of the Secretary, and he can get off the land. Mr. FERRIS. Yes; he can. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to Mr. Raker ? Supposing, Mr. Raker, there are 100,000 soldiers who apply for this land and you have only land enough for 50,000, what are you going to do with the other 50,000? When a vacant entry is available on any of these projects, should not a soldier have the right to take it instead of a civilian? Mr. RAKER. Well, I will answer the question if the chairman di- rects me to. The CHAIRMAN. I will not direct you to. Mr. RAKER. I did not want to take the governor's time, that is all. I would like to answer it, but I would rather not take the governor's time. Mr. DAVIS. Go ahead. Mr. RAKER. I say that when a man has once assumed his right and has gone upon this land and complied with the law, s,o that he can transfer it, he ought to have the right to transfer it to whoever he pleases. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What about the other 50,000 soldiers that do not get any land? Mr. RAKER. They ought to provide more projects so that the other 50,000 may have homes also. Mr. DAVIS. This bill, as I understand it, provides for a loan of $1,200, does it not? Mr. FERRIS. $1,200 for permanent improvements and $800 for personal property. Mr. DAVIS. That is a splendid provision, and the man that goes on to make a farm of that place, in all seriousness, is going to get along splendidly with that law, and if this land is cleared, put in shape for him to go right to farming, he is going to have no trouble whatsoever, and you are going to have a wonderfully prosperous farming community out /of any project that is so settled. HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 277 Mr. FERRIS. Will you let me ask you three or four general ques- tions, to the end that we may not be lost in a maze here ? Now, as to the proposition of the Federal Government doing some- thing for the returning soldier, there is no doubt that that should be done, is there? Mr. DAVIS. No. Mr. FERRIS. And there is no difference of opinion among us about that, is there? Mr. DAVIS. No ; I think not. Mr. FERRIS. Either in or out of Congress ? Mr. DAVIS. No. Mr. FERRIS. Well, as to the necessity of this Government doing what it has done in the past, giving some recognition to the soldiers, and as to this Government doing what other Governments have done for soldiers, there is no difference of opinion ? Mr. DAVIS. No. Mr. FERRIS. Now, it is true in every State /of the Union there are large areas of idle land not being put to any productive use? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. And on every hand there are large unproductive areas in every State in the Union. Now, that being true, can there be any doubt that it will be financially beneficial to the Government to have those nonproductive areas made productive? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely; it will be beneficial all along the line. That is very clear. Mr. FERRIS. There can't be any doubt about that, can there? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. V . Mr. FERRIS. That every nonproductive acre made a productive acre has benefited the country and the community in which it is located ? Mr. DAVIS. It has added to the wealth and the population and general development of the whole country. Mr. FERRIS. Then if we have 4.000,000 returning soldiers more than that 4,500,000 returning soldiers and sailors that must be assimilated into society, nobody would be foolish enough to think that any very large percentage of them will be interested in this proposition. "The man who has a good position in a bank doesn't want a homestead. He wants to go back and take his job again, and the man who is an oil expert wants to go back and work as an oil expert ; but, on the other hand, there are thousands that have nothing to go back to and nothing in their pockets and nothing in life other than to try to get hold somewhere, and isn't it proper that a Govern- ment as wealthy as ours and as powerful as ours, which has made $11,000,000,000 of loans to the foreign Governments isn't it proper that this Government do something to stimulate some activity and throw out some ray of hope to these returning soldiers who have nothing? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely so. Mr. FERRIS. Well, on those salient facts then we are not in dis- agreement. Then isn't it the duty of the Government and of Con- gress, the men in the Houses of Congress, to set themselves to the task of doing something, and isn't that something done in this bill, aside from some minor differences as indicated? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir: it is true, and it is right in line with the debt of gratitude that we owe these men and that we can never pay. 278 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. Precisely. Now, it is in evidence here I don't know whether you have heard it or not one witness appeared here yester- day who very urgently insisted that this ought to be applicable to the nonsoldier the same as the soldier. Mr. DAVIS. xVbsolutely not. Mr. FERRIS. Can any thoughtful man subscribe to such a theory such as that? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And would that be fair to our soldiers to adopt any such thing as that? Mr: DAVIS. I think it would be absolutely unfair. Mr. FERRIS. Another witness appeared here who was very earnest in his opposition on the ground that this allowed the soldier finally to acquire title. He wanted him to be a tenant for life, a tenant for a term, or something of that sort, retaining title in the Federal Gov- ernment. Can any considerable portion of our citizenship subscribe to any such plan as that ? Mr. DAVIS. I would be opposed to that. Mr. FERRIS. Would that settle the West or the South, or any of the unproductive areas, any such scheme as that? Mr. DAVIS. It seems to me that would rob us of the very thing we must have in order to build up a good citizenship in the United States. Mr. FERRIS. Passing from that to one thought that is very preva- lent over in the House I think it is very prevalent on my side of the House I want to see what your views are about that. There is a line of thought over there among lots of very good Members of the House they are agitating it very vigorously, some of them that we ought to make this a loan proposition, a lump-sum loan of $5,000 or ' $6,000 whatever it is to buy a farm and turn it over to the soldier and cut him loose. Now, is that a practical proposition ? Mr. DAVIS. I think not. I think the proposed plan is much better because it creates a spirit of development that brings real develop- ment, and it is a constructive program. Mr. FERRIS. If the Government should, along the line of some of these bills and some of these views here, hold out and publicly an- nounce that they would lend 100 per cent of the value of the farm and let the soldier buy or select a farm wherever he will in the United States, it is true that a great portion of the soldiers would, of course, respond to that, would they not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. But wouldn't it from the very standpoint of impossi- bility of performance woudn't it fall? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; and then who would reclaim these undeveloped areas in the United States, if we adopt that plan ? Mr. HERSMAN. Did I understand the governor to say that in Okla- homa you had a scheme whereby you loaned farmers settlers 100 per cent? Mr. FERRIS. Our legislature made an effort to do that, saying, if I may answer that and it is done to meet a situation like this we are trying to reduce tenantry in our State, where the land all be- longed to Indians and the white man had to step in there and get hold as best they can as tenants, and it has reached such a stage that it is developing socialism, I. W. W.-ism, and everything else of that HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 279 kind down there; and it is the effort of our government and the effort of our legislature to try to meet this situation. I know our State can't' carry the load that will be demanded of it. We will carry it as far as we can, and of course I would like to see the Fed- eral Government carry it, if you can ; but you can't get a bill through Congress, I don't think, that will authorize the Government to take from all the people and give outright a sum of money like that five or six or ten thousand dollars to these 4,000,000 soldiers. The Treasury wouldn't stand it, in the first place, and the people wouldn't indorse it in the second place, and it is not feasible in the third place, and, in the fourth place, the soldier doesn't want a sugar tit rammed into his mouth and be made a child of; all he ought to want is the opportunity to make good. Mr. Davis, all the soldier wants, coming back from France, is a chance. Every man I have talked with says : " We don't want any- thing given to us. We want a chance to do something; that is all.'' They are coming back after seeing what has been done over in the old countries, and they appreciate more now, I believe, than ever before the value of a home, and that is going to work to our everlast- ing benefit in this country. There is really too much consideration given to people that are not absolutely loyal to this country and not good citizens to-day and not really the class of people that go to build up good red-blooded American citizenship. Mr. BENHAM. I would like to ask this question, Governor : Viewed from the standpoint of a reclamation project, would you consider this is the best economic project that could be arranged for? Mr. DAVIS. Well, I am not in a position to go into the details of this bill. You perhaps will work out a better bill, but the present bill is a good bill. It has splendid features in it. Mr. BENHAM. I am speaking now only from the reclamation side of it. You asked the question a while ago, who is going to do the reclaiming if we don't provide for it in this bill. Now, from that standpoint alone, is this the best thing to do ? Mr. DAVIS. You take in our State now may I just answer your question by saying what the conditions are there? The real impor- tant thing in our State at the present time is the building of a dam on Snake River, where the Oregon Short Line crosses it, that would im- pound the run-off of Snake River and make it possible for us to store there tAvo and a half to three million acre-feet of water by the con- struction of a dam 90 feet high, and not a very long one at that. That makes the water available. Now, I think that the Government is the party to do that work. Mr. BENHAM. That is not the question at all. I have no doubt about the practicabilit} 7 of reclamation and I am not in the least doubtful on that question, but as to the putting of this thing entirely in the hands of the soldier, is that the most economical from a merely utilitarian standpoint? That was the question raised by a former remark of yours. Mr. DAVIS. Make it available, you mean, for the soldier? Mr. BENHAM. Shall the work be confined by the Government to soldiers only? Mr. DAVIS. Well, I don't know that that restriction should be thrown about it. 280 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BENHAM. And should the work done there be governmentized. or shall we in short, have you gone into it from the standpoint of the building of improvements and the present amount of work done by our section men on the railroad under Government management? Are we justified in assuming, in short, that that is to be the permanent reclamation system of the Government ? Mr. DAVIS. I think for the present the soldiers should be given preference on this work. The soldier should be given employment. I do think, however, that the work should be dene in the shortest possible time, and if soldier labor is not in sufficient quantity at the particular place it should be offered to civilian labor, whatever is available. If there are no other questions, I want to thank the committee very much. The CHAIRMAN. We thank 3-011 very much. Governor, for your statement. Gentlemen, it is after 12 o'clock, and the committee will stand ad- journed until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon at 12.25 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Saturday. June 7, 1919.) COMMITTEE ox THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, June 7, 1919. The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. in., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. It was under- stood yesterday that Mr. Morgan should go on this morning for 15 minutes wasn't it? I believe his time was extended to 30 minutes. The committee will be glad to hear Mr. Morgan now. STATEMENT OF HON. DICK T. MORGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Mr. RAKER. Is your bill in the file, Mr. Morgan? Mr. MORGAN. There will be some here. They promised me yester- day they Avoulcl be here, and my secretary will bring some in in just a few minutes. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Public Lands, I appreciate very much the courtesy you have extended me, especially in permitting me to talk to you for 30 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. We have been limiting all members of the House to 15 minutes. Mr. MORGAN. Yes; especially when, on account of the large num- ber that desired to be heard, you have been limiting members of Congress to 15 minutes. I have made an honest effort to prepare a bill which I think has considerable merit. I hope that the committee will allow me to pro- ceed with my statement until most of my time shall be exhaust ;M I. in order that I may cover the ground without interruption, although I would be very glad to answer any questions that may be put to inc. T wish to sav also, by way of introduction, that I am just like you memnors of tlio committee, all of you. without exception, in favor HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 281 of doing anything within reason that the National Government can do to recognize the services rendered by our soldiers and seamen. I have no prejudice, I believe, against the Mondell bill or what might be called Secretary Lane's plan and yet after somewhat serious study and I know conscientious study I have concluded that we can prepare, and Congress can enact, a bill which will accomplish the purpose much better than the plan presented by Secretary Lane. If the Lane proposition shall be brought to vote, and other propo- sitions shall be voted down, I shall, of course, support the Lane measure, and do not appear in opposition to the measure so much as I do for the purpose of giving you my ideas of what I think would be a better way. The bill which I have intrduced, No. 5027 (reintrpduced as H. R. 554.")), presents a plan to provide home for the soldiers by utilizing a loan plan. It is not a reclamation project, but it creates an organi- zation whereby the soldiers may secure homes through obtaining loans. It creates a Government corporation, called the " Soldiers' and Seamen's Federal Home Founding Corporation." I believe jthat a corporation can attend to this business much better, more satisfac- torily all around, then it can be attended to by a Cabinet officer and a bureau in any of our departments. The corporation is the modern marvel as an instrument for transacting business, and here is a great business proposition, whatever plan you may adopt, and I think it can be done much better through a corporation. So I create a cor- poration with the Secretary of the Interior as the President of the corporation, and to be controlled and operated and managed by four other persons, constituting with the Secretary of the Interior the board of trustees. These four members are to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and receive salaries of $7,500 each annually. I create a county board in each county, consisting of the post- master of the county seat town, the agricultural county agent, and one other person to be appointed by the corporation, and that gives the machinery to reach out from the National Capital, where the corporation is located, out into every county and community of the Nation. And I think if Secretary Lane's plan is adopted, that it would be better to have that managed by a corporation than it would be by a Cabinet officer and a bureau. I haven't time, of course, to give' all the reasons why I think that would be true, but I think that is a fact. Now, in preparing this bill I have had three main things in view. First, I wanted to present a plan that would benefit or help the largest number of soldiers. Second, a plan that would be conducted with the least expense to the taxpayers of the Nation. Third, a plan that would confer its benefits upon every State and upon every community alike throughout the entire length and breadth of the Nation. One of my chief objections to the Lane plan is that so few soldiers will ever receive any benefit from it. For instance, the Mondell bill is exclusive that is, it excludes a large number of the soldiers. In the first place, it only provides for farm homesteads. We know that at the present, and for all time to come, 50 and probably 60 per cent of all these soldier boys will reside 282, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. in the towns and cities, so that to start out with, you propose a prop- osition that 60 per cent of the soldiers never can utilize. More than that, it excludes those who are the owners of homes. I don't know what number that would be, but taking the average, that might ex- clude 25 per cent probably not that many of soldiers, because if they own homes they can't get the benefit of it. Then, it excludes' those who are not able to put up 5 per cent of the purchase price to start on. You exclude those because every farm must have improvements you exclude those who are not able to pay 25 per cent, I believe it is, of the cost of the improvements, and you exclude those from getting a loan for live stock and equipment and every farm must have equipment who are not able to pay 40 per cent of the value of the live stock and equipment; and that would amount to, in my judgment, on an average of about $1.200 to every soldier. In other words, you exclude those who are not able to put up $1,200 to start on, and that would exclude a very large number of them. More than that, there is a provision in there that only "approved applicants " can take advantage of that bill. How many that would exclude, no one can tell. Another provision which is exclusive in its character, because it sa} 7 s that those who perform labor on these projects shall have a preference right to purchase the land. So, conditionally, you ex- clude those who don't perform labor on these projects. This bill proposes to appropriate now $500,000,000. That, accord- ing to the best estimates, would provide homes for about 100,000 men, to buy the land and improve it. Now, that 100,000 men would be only 24 per cent of the 4,000,000 men who have been enlisted and enrolled National Congress, having in our keeping the molding and the fixing of this legislation, ought to pass a bill that, from the very nature and character of it, can benefit only a small percentage of the soldiers. In my bill I have laid the bars clear down. The fact that a man is hon- orably discharged is the only certificate that he needs to give him the benefit of every single provision in the bill, and that is all that any man ought to be required to have. Whatever we do for the soldiers, w r e ought to treat them all alike, and not surround our legislation with limitations and restrictions and exclusions that will exclude 90 per cent, probably, of the soldiers. Now, why does my bill provide that take them all in it? Because I provide, in the first place, for two kinds of loans long-time loans, running from 40 to 60 years, and short-time loans, running less than 5 years. I provide a loan of $4,000 of course, that is arbitrary; it may be too much, it may be too little $4,000 on a long-time loan, providing that the loan may be made up to the full value of the homestead purchased; that not requiring a man to pay 5 per cent or 1 per cent or 10 per cent ; but he can get a loan to the full value of the home, and that is the only way you can make it equal and fair for every man, every soldier. You must not put a property qualification in w^hich restricts our soldiers from getting the benefit of this bill; and I believe if the Lane bill is passed all those restrictions ought to be stricken out. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 283 / Then I provide for a short-time loan, not exceeding five years, to purchase live stock and farm implements, and I authorize this loan to be made up to the full value of that live stock and farm equip- ment. I know that that is not according to the general principles of the loan business, for a bank expects to get chattels worth two or three times the value of the loan; and yet I believe that we can adopt that kind of a system, and by using other methods really save the (Tovernirient from any material loss through the failure to pay those loans. The question of the financing of the corporation or the proposi- tion is. of course, very important, so one of my propositions is that we should enact legislation that will help the soldiers with the least possible expenditure of cash out of the Treasury. Xow, that is our duty for the next 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years, perhaps. We are going to be burdened with taxation for this work. The plan presented in the Mondell bill and by Mr. Lane requires an absolute cash investment for every home that is secured for these soldiers. He is authorized to purchase the land and to reclaim the land, either by drainage or by irrigation; to improve these lands buy these lands and improve them and reclaim them and pay all of ihi^ money out, every cent of it, in absolute cash, by an appro- priation out of the Treasury. Now, that is not good business meth- ods for this Government to pursue. Under my plan I use ordinary business methods in the financing of the proposition. How do I do that ? I adopt those principles of business that we adopted largely in the Federal land bank and that are adopted in many countries of the world in financing propositions similar to this. I authorize this corporation to issue long-time bonds to cover the amount of loans made on long-time loans. I authorize it to issue short-time bonds, riot running over five years, in order to secure the funds necessary to make the short-time loans. I have given this corporation under the bill a capital of $100,000,000. That is not designed to furnish the actual money to carry on this great project for furnishing homes for 4,000,000 men, but it is merely a working, an operating, fund by which they must carry on this business. So a certain percentage will be set aside to operate the short-time loans, a certain percentage to operate the long-time loans, and the corporation issues bonds corresponding to the amount of loans made in each class, and to pay those bonds the corporation l.as these mortgages. Xow, the question comes it will be said that there will be a great many losses on these short-time loans as well as upon the long-time loans, because the corporation loans up to the full value, a principle that is not adopted in ordinary loan business. In order to meet that proposition, however, I do this. The long-time bonds are to bear one-half of 1 per cent interest annually less than the loans. The bonds, we will say, bear 3| per cent interest, and they loan this money at 4 per cent interest. That will give one-half of 1 per cent annually margin upon all these loans as a fund to go into what I call a guarantee fund in order to meet the losses that the corporation may have in operating this business in long-time loans. In tho short-time loans, the loans are to be made at 1 per cent annu- ally higher thnn the 1 on Is bear. If the bonds bear 4 per cent interest. 284 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. the loans are made at 5 per cent, giving the corporation a margin of 1 per cent annually. Just to illustrate what that would amount to, we will say we have a capital of $100,000,000, and, for illustration, that we have made loans of $500,000,000 long-time loans and short-time loans of $200,- 000,000. Now, here would be the proposition on that kind of a busi- ness. The capital, of course, is practically all the time a producing capital. It is loaned out on these propositions, so that the corpora- tion will receive from 3 to 4 per cent interest on that $100,000,000 of capital, which will be net profit, which would bring, I estimate. $3,500,000. There will be one-half of 1 per cent interest on the $500,000,000 loan, which would bring the corporation a net profit of $2,500,000. Mr. ELSTON. Did you say $500,000 or $500,000,000 ? Mr. MORGAN. On the $500,000,000. One per cent interest net profit on the $200,000,000 loan, short-time loans, would bring $2.000,- 000 net profit. In other words, on that proposition the corporation would have in the guaranty fund $4,500,000 annually and have an income from the capital of $3,500,000 annually, or a net annual in- come of $8,000,000. Now, I couldn't say that that would meet all the losses. We don't know ; but it would probably more than meet all the losses if this cor- poration exercised proper care and watchfulness over these loans, which, of course, the corporation should do. So that this whole prop- osition you can take $100,000,000, and, without another appropri- ation out of the National Treasury, without another cent of taxation, you can give homes to a million or more of our soldiers. These bonds out on the market and are sold. Then there comes another question as to the question of interest. In order to get a low rate of interest, and in order to be able to sell these bonds in large quantities, it is necessary for the Government to guarantee these bonds, but it is better for the Government under pres- ent and future conditions to loan its credit to carry out this proposi- tion than it is to give the cash, because that cash must come through taxation, every cent of it. but if the Government simply guarantees these bonds, both the principal and interest, it would not require any taxation, except the small amount that is used in the operating fund. Now, that is a wide difference, especially when it might take two, four, five, six, or eight billion dollars to carry out this project; and I hold that even if you adopt Secretary Lane's plan, you ought to change your method of financing. You ought to create a corporation, put a Cabinet officer at the head of it, let these projects be surveyed with the utmost care, and receive estimates as to what it will take to carry them out ; then let that corporation issue bonds, under the guaranty of the Government, and finance the proposition that way. You would make an appeal to the public, to the soldiers and their friends to buy these bonds in preference to other classes of securities. That is 'my idea about the financing of the proposition. Now. in every kind of busi- ness, 1 don't rare Avhat it is banking or mercanlile business, what- ever it may be there are always certain losses. How are those losses made up ? The banker don't pay those losses; he simply charges a higher rate of interest in order to get enough from those" who are good to make up the losses of those who turn out to be failures and not to pay, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 285 and all we need to do is to utilize that same principle which goes through every kind and character of business. Let the soldiers themselves, and they will be glad to feel that they are cooperating with each other: that they are helping those who are unfortunate; who through sickness or some other unfortunate occurrence are unable to meet their interest payments and their annual payments and may default, and the soldiers will feel when they are paying a little extra interest that it is going out to help those who are unfor- tunate, those other comrades, and they will do it cheerfully and gladly. How much time have I used, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. We started at 10.15. You have used 25 minutes. Mr. MORGAN. Xow just one other point there, and that is the question of extending these benefits one other point that I have not brought out under my plan the soldier can buy his home in the town or city or in the country, as he chooses. This is a home- building proposition. If the idea is that we are going to recognize the services that these soldiers rendered, and at the same time make them better citizens by giving them homes, and it is a home-building proposition, then we ought to help build homes in the towns and cities as well as we should in the country. It is not an agricultural proposition; it is a soldier proposition, and therefore we ought to extend these benefits to the 60 per cent, perhaps, of our soldiers who must live in the town or city, to the great army of men who work in our factories and mills and shops and manufacturing establishments, as well as in all of our commercial institutions extend this to those soldiers and promote home building in our towns and cities, where it is really as much in demand as it is in the country. So that my proposition extends to all, in the town or in the city or in the country. Xow I think there is something in having the benefits of this legis- lation extend alike I _sny extend alike to every State and to every community in every State. Some of you men who live in States where there are lands to be drained or reclaimed from timber, or irrigated, you may naturally and rightfully say, I think, " "Well, this is a good proposition for my State." But if we are appropriating large sums of money out of the Treasury of the United States, it is foi-tjunly worth while to see if we can't adjust it so that the benefits of it will go to every State alike. But even in a State take my own State we may have a little proposition down there; our gov- ernor talked yesterday and suggested that we h,ad land that could be utilized, but that would only be a little area in some particular locality of the State; it wouldn't give any general benefit to all the communities of that State, but under my plan whatever benefits, general indirect benefits, there are in the act would go not only to every State alike but it would go to every single community alike in the country, in the little village, in the larger towns, and in the great cities of this Nation. Everywhere its benefits would reach out and would be within the reach of every one of those brave men who did their duty in that great war. Xow I am ready to answer any questions if you desire to ask them. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan, the committee has had no oppor- tunity to examine into your bill. I suppose they will do that in executive session. There* are a few questions that I want to ask you. 286 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Does your bill provide for any organization to do the work itself, to put these farms in shape, either as a separate unit, or in a large area ? Mr. MORGAN. There is a provision in there that authorizes the corporation to buy lands and lay them off, either subdivide them to sell as a townsite or to sell as lands, as farms, or to sell as additions to a town or a city. I limit the amount of capital that can be used for that. For instance, they could buy under one section there; I give them authority to buy lands and subdivide them into farms; I don't give them authority to improve and cultivate them, but to subdivide them into farms, and to buy lands adjoining, adjacent to towns or cities, for the purpose of providing homes for these soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. It contains no authority to clear lands? Mr. MORGAN. No. The CHAIRMAN. Or to level or drain lands ? Mr. MORGAN. No. The CHAIRMAN. Or to irrigate lands? Mr. MORGAN. No. The CHAIRMAN. The individual would have to do that himself ? Mr. MORGAN. There is another provision in there which I have in the latter part of the bill in regard to public lands, which gives your committee jurisdiction over it. I provide that every soldier, honorably discharged, may make an entry on public lands without the payment of fees and commissions. That is not very much, of course. The CHAIRMAN. Your bill also contemplates assistance to those living in cities for the purpose of securing homes in the cities? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Does it also contemplate assistance to set them up in business? Mr. MORGAN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It does not contemplate that? Your bill em- braces,' then, practically all the soldiers, and you are going to sell bonds for that purpose? Mr. MORGAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And those bonds are secured by a mortgage on the property, a mortgage for its full value ? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And not in accordance with the plan of the farm loan, up to 50 per cent? Mr. MORGAN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Or other per cent? Mr. MORGAN. Unless you make that distinction, I think it is impos- sible to give the soldier an} 7 material advantage over other citizens. The CHAIRMAN. Then the Government is to guarantee these bonds ? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir; that is the only way you can sell them in large quantities or get them at a low rate of interest, and a low rate of interest, of course, is needed. The CHAIRMAN. How large a bond issue do you figure will be out at any one time ? Mr. MORGAN. Well, I think 2,000,000 soldiers, in the course of the next few years, would take advantage of this bill. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 287 The CHAIRMAN. Two million? Mr. MORGAN. Yes; that is just a rough estimate, you know. Then, if you give them a $4,000 loan a piece you can't tell what that will be; a great many loans might be only $1,000 $4,000 is the limit I fixed, but I contemplate there will be in time four, or five, or six, or seven, or eight billion dollars of these bonds. The CHAIRMAN. That would be 4,000 times 2,000,000. Mr. ELSTON. That would be $8,000,000,000. Mr. MORGAN. Four thousand times 2,000,000 would provide for 2,000,000 soldiers that is, provided they all took a $4,000 loan but there are many of these soldiers who would have $1,000 or $2,000. Many of them would not want to borrow the full $4,000. Mr. RAKER. What was your answer as to how much bond issue would be out at one time if 2,000,000 soldiers took it? Mr. MORGAN. Two million soldiers, if they had $4,000 a piece, that would be $8,000,000,000 in bonds. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is your idea, then, to supply the money so that the soldier may purchase -a farm wherever he sees fit ? Mr. MORGAN. Not out of cash out of the Treasury. The CHAIRMAN. But by the issuance of bonds? Mr. MORGAN. By issuing bonds. The CHAIRMAN. You don't restrict him to any Government projects? Mr. MORGAN. I don't restrict him to any Government projects. I provide that on public lands that where a soldier makes an entry on any public lands he may secure a short-time loan not exceeding $1,200, which would be, I think, a very great benefit to the Western States where the public lands are, because many of these soldiers, if they had $1,200 to put into stock and equipment, could go out on farms there and make a living, but would not be able to do it unless these loans are made to them. The CHAIRMAN. How many existing farms do you contemplate would be purchased under your act? Mr. MORGAN. Well, that is all problematical. My idea is that there would be a very large number. Of course, those farms would be all kinds of sizes. We have, say, 6,000.000 farms now. How many of those would be bought in the country and how many of them would be bought in the city I don't know, but I should think about half and half. That is my idea. The CHAIRMAN. You think there Avould be about a million new farms, then ? Mr. MORGAN. My idea is that in every State there are vast millions of acres that are not productive now, that are not cultivated, and much of it is waste land and yet capable of cultivation, in every State, in this Union, so that really, as a reclamation act, I believe, gentlemen of this committee, that as a reclamation act this bill of mine will bring into cultivation more new land, it will redeem more waste and unproductive land than the plan presented by the Secre- tary of the Interior. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what do you say as to the severe competi- tion that your plan will bring on with the present farmers? Mr. MORGAN. I don't think that applies simply to the ri'.-h. You take these boys that are farmer boys, if they don't own a farm, they will lease a farm. 13331919 19 288 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. That was one objection urged to the Mondell bill. Mr. MORGAN. I don't sympathize very much with thfct idea that is, I don't think that is the main thing. But here, one-third of our farmers are tenants, or more. Now, this will transform, in a large degree, these men who are tenants into owners. It will not increase the production so much altogether; it will not make competition very much, but it will transform them from farm hands, working by the month, and from tenants, into proprietors of farms. That is what it will do. The CHAIRMAN. The benefits of your bill are confined to soldiers, are they not? Mr. MORGAN. Absolutely, and their widows and minor orphan children. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many soldiers are tenants on farms ? Mr. MORGAN. No, sir; I don't know. I suppose they will average just about the same. Say that we. have 33^ per cent of our families on our farms who are tenants, then I presume 33^ per cent of our boys are the sons of tenants, and a certain per cent of them are the sons of farmers who have farms of their own, but who haven't a farm large enough to divide up with all the boys. There are more young men who are tenants than there are old men, you understand. The CHAIRMAN. Your bill is so comprehensive and embraces so many, what do you think as to whether or not its provisions will increase the present scarcity of farm labor? Mr. MORGAN. I think in that respect it will have little effect, be- cause these farm boys they are farmers anyway ; they are working on the farm, and it won't increase the farm labor, nor will it de- crease it, because I don't think there are many boys living in v the city that are going to the farm. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any provision in your bill against the selling or the alienation of the land ? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir; I provide absolutely against that, although I think I might modify that a little. I provide that this contract, this purchase of the farm home, or the loan on personal property, can not be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Now, I heard that question discussed yesterday. I thought ft might be well to provide that it might be sold to anybody who was a beneficiary under the act, another soldier, but to permit a soldier to sell his con- tract, to sell this loan, and to sell this land, simply means that you are making this for the benefit of civilians, and it is unjust to the soldier, because it is giving the civilian the opportunity to buy these contracts, which would give them the advantage of the act. The CHAIRMAN. Would a. widow of a soldier killed in France be entitled to the benefit of this act? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir; I provided that the widow of the soldier and their minor children. The CHAIRMAN. That is in addition to any insurance received under the present law? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do any other members of the committee desire to ask any questions? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 289 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Morgan, of course we all understand that people in the rural sections are flocking to the cities, and it is hoped we may secure legislation which will attract the city people to the farm, or at least keep the farmer boys on the farm. Under the provisions of your bill, it seems to me, if it were enacted, per- mitting soldiers to buy homes in cities, that it would have a tendency to attract farmer boys to the cities. Mr. MORGAN. Then, the farmers will make more money. They will have less competition. I always liked to see the farmer boys fto the town and the city. I think the towns and cities need them, never did sympathize very much with the idea that you must keep a farmer boy out on the farm ; that he must always stay there. I have been on a farm was raised on a farm. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You were raised on a farm, but you went to the city as soon as you got an opportunity ? Mr. MORGAN. I got to the city before I was 25 years old. The CHAIRMAN. But the farmers really support the city. Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. There are many compensations on the farm. I think it is a fine occupation. I w T ould like to see it a little easier for the farmer, and so on, but it is a noble occupation, worthy of the ablest man. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Why do you limit, Mr. Morgan, under the provisions of your bill, loaning people $4,000 to buy a home or a farm why do you limit it to 2,000,000 ? Don't you think there would probably be about 3,000,000 or 3,500,000 soldiers that would" take advantage of it? Mr. MORGAN. There is no limit in the bill. That is sort of a wild guess. I don't know how many of them there would be. Mr. BENHAM. In providing in your bill that he may get a loan up to the full value of the property, would you make any pro- vision or does it make any provision for the fluctuations in value? For instance, to-day we generally believe that prices are higher than they Avill be in two or three or four or five years from now. Mr. MORGAN. Well, now, fluctuations that is one advantage of this long-time loan system. In a long-time loan the fluctuation of the value of the farm cuts no figure. He has 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years to pay for the farm, and the fact that the selling price of the farm is less this year or more this year than it would be the next year or the next cuts no figure, because in due time we know this, gentlemen of the committee, that from the very nature of things the farm lands, as well as the city lands, will continue to grow in value. Our cities will grow, our commerce will grow, and our population will grow ; and those things that are inevitable will make every one of these farms you loan to its full value to-day, and next year is worth more than you made the loan for. Mr. BKXIIAM. Is 'that conclusion warranted by the experience of the past, that there is a constant and steady upward tendency of farm land? Is that justified by the experience of the past 60 years or since the Civil War days? Mr. MORGAN. I think so. Mr. BEX HAM. And yet everywhere we find farms that are nearly abandoned, comparatively small in value to what they were years and years ago. 290 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. MORGAN. That has been on account of bad farming, as a rule, absolutely bad farming. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there will be no trouble in selling a bond issue secured by the full value of the property ? Mr. MORGAN. Not if it is guaranteed by the Government, because then it is just as good as a Government bond, and the mere fact that it is for the benefit of the soldiers and their homes would make it at- tractive to many people. Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Morgan, you stated that the Mondell bill was 2^ per cent a soldier's bill and 97^ per cent something else. I want to call your attention to the fact that it is a 100 per cent soldiers' bill, although it is true that all soldiers could not be taken care of under the present bill. Isn't that what you mean ? Mr. MORGAN. I don't wish to be severe in my criticism of the bill. Mr. SUMMERS. You w r ere basing your percentage there on the num- ber that would be taken care of. Mr. MORGAN. I don't believe that 5 per cent I said 2 per cent soldiers but I don't believe that 5 per cent of our soldier boys ever could take advantage of that or ever would. That is my honest conviction. Mr. SUMMERS. Well, it isn't anything else. There is nobody else can take advantage of it under the present provisions. Mr. MORGAN. It is a reclamation project. Now, this Government might well, regardless of the soldier, this Government might well undertake to redeem our swamp lands, and I would vote for any reasonable reclamation project, independent of the soldier, for the benefit of the National Government and for the benefit of the civilians generally. I would vote for any reasonable project for the reclama- tion of these waste lands. Mr. WHITE. Would you do that at this time, Mr. Morgan ? Mr. MORGAN. Well, I would, just in a limited way; yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. Just one other question has it been your idea that these bonds should be taxable? Mr. MORGAN. No, sir; the bonds are made exempt from taxation, because that is the only way you can get a low rate of interest. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Morgan, you provide that a man can not alienate his land for how long? Mr. MORGAN. I don't allow him to alienate it at all. Mr. RAKER. How is that? Mr. MORGAN. Under the terms of my bill, he is not allowed to alienate it at all, except by payment of the purchase price in full. Now, for instance, a soldier can transfer his land, of course, and if he pays the Government the purchase price, of course he can transfer his land, but I mean I don't believe it is right to let a civilian buy this contract and get the benefits of it. Mr. RAKER. Then, so long as there was anything due, although he had a deed for his property, or a patent, if there was any lien of any kind against it, you still think it advisable not to allow him to alienate it? Mr. MORGAN. Well, that was my proposition. Mr. RAKER. Now, right in that line, let me ask you where is this theory coming from and what has possessed a few of our good citi- zens to reverse the policy of this country for 140 years and say that HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 291 we should go back to the Russian system, if I may use that expression, in regard to land tenures? What is the matter? Mr. MORGAN. You mean that the fact that I restrict the alienation is going back to the Russian system ? Mr. RAKER. It is similar ; r yes. In other words, other speakers have said that they want the Government to own all the land and become the proprietors buy up the proprietors of the old land now and allow men to come in, and under your bill, as many others have suggested, they would become tenants of the National Government. Mr. MORGAN. Not at all. Mr. RAKER. Or subtenants of some private individual. Mr. MORGAN. No; I don't think so. They are the owners of the land the proprietors. They have a deed for it. They can't be put off. Mr. RAKER. Still, you say he can not sell it. Mr. MORGAN. Oh, no; I say he can sell it, but he must pay the Government the full price when he sells it or there ought to be some restriction. Now, offhand, I absolutely restricted alienation, but on further reflection I have concluded that he might be allowed to sell to any soldier, because the benefits of the act would still go to sol- diers ; or you might, instead of requiring him to pay the full value of the land, you might say he might sell after he had paid 25 per cent on the principal, or 50 per cent, or something of that kind. Mr. RAKER. Well, I was simply getting at what you provided for in the bill. It seems to me that while the country has progressed and become wonderful as it has, by virtue of men being permitted to deal themselves, individually, in their farms and otherwise and borrow money and use idle capital, to now come in on a soldier and say: " We "are going to provide you a farm, but we are going to make you tenants and subtenants to some organization or board or something, and we are not going to give you the free will to exercise your own judgment as to when and how you shall dispose of your property "- isn't that about the effect of it? Mr. MORGAN. Well, I don't think so. Mr. Raker. Just for the benefit of the committee I would like to just read a paragraph from two letters that I received. A newspaper correspondent sent a story about my bill to a Texas paper The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Is this in answer to Judge Raker's question ? Mr. RAKER. I am not criticizing anybody's bill; I am just driving at the specific theory, the idea that other gentlemen have presented here besides yourself, as to this inhibition of alienation, and I am try- ing to find out what has come over our country, if it is general that we should go back to a foreign system of the old countries to make our people tenants of the Government and the Government a land- lord, and they be unable to exercise their free will in the disposition of their property. In other words, are we turning back 2,000 years or are we trying to progress? Mr. MORGAN. Well, my theory of it is that this is a contract, so to speak: that we are advancing through an appropriation of the National Government, through large expenditures from year to year in supervising and controlling this business, and we are doing that for the benefit of the soldier. Now, if the soldier is allowed absolute 292 HOMES FOR SOLDI KKS. freedom to transfer this contract as quick as he enters into it, that contract is supposed to be positively worth Mr. RAKER (interposing). I never said that. Now, listen Mr. MORGAN (interposing). Let me give you my reasons Mr. RAKER (interposing). I don't w^ant that on me. I have never said, never intimated, never asked a question upon the question of the transferring of the contract. I am going to the question of transfer after the patent has been issued. I am assuming now that the man owns the land ; that he has got a patent for it. Mr. MORGAN. Well, I don't remember Mr. RAKER (interposing). None of my questions have related to any other time. Now, why should there be any restriction after he becomes the sole. owner of the land? Mr. MORGAN. As I say, he has the legal title to the land, but he has secured that through a Government loan proposition, which is a valuable proposition for the benefit of the soldier, not merely in money. Now. Mr. Raker, if it is a question of money you are going to give the soldier, then you ought to make a direct appropriation, give him $500 or $1,000 or $2,000, every one of them, and turn them out. But if you are coupling with that the idea of getting him a home for the benefit of himself and family, as well as for the benefit of the country Mr. RAKER (interposing). But what business is it of the Govern- ment's or anybody else to put a restriction upon the soldier different from anybody else, to say, "After you have gotten a patent, I am not going to permit you to sell your land, provided the Government gets its money " ? Mr. MORGAN. My objection to it, just as I said, is that if you do that, if you allow him as quick as he enters into his contract Mr. RAKER (interposing). I didn't say " contract." I am not talk- ing about contract. Mr. MORGAN. Now, I will say this: Under my plan he is supposed to have a deed to his property before the Government makes the loan. Now, he is technically the legal owner of the property and has got a patent to it. Under the Lane plan, as I understand it, he don't get a patent until he has complied with the law, but I am not certain about that. Mr. RAKER. I hope I make myself plain to you, Mr. Morgan, on this. I am assuming that the prior conditions have been provided and complied with, and we have arrived at the point that the man has got a patent to his land, although there are liens upon it. Why restrict the soldier under any legislation to alienate his land, pro- vided the Government gets all that is due it? Mr. MORGAN. Well, as I say, it simply gives the civilian the bene- fits of this act. Mr. RAKER. But are we going to enact legislation here that after you give the soldier the benefit of a home and he receives the price for its sale, are you going to then say that the other American citizen can not buy of that soldier and become land owners with the soldier, if he wants to sell and go to some other place ? Mr. MORGAN. I believe, under certain limitations, he ought to be allowed to sell, but I don't believe it is just like the homestead. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 293 Mr. RAKER. Then why do you put a limitation on the soldier after he becomes a patentee owner of the land? Why do you want to put a string on him ? Why do you want to say that he is not capable of exercising his judgment as every other American citizen? Mr. MORGAN. I think he is. Mr. RAKER. I am trying to get your theory, Mr. Morgan. Mr. MORGAN. I have tried to give it to you, Mr. Raker. Mr. BAER. I don't think it would be constitutional. Mr. RAKER. I don't care about constitutions on this; I am trying to get the theory of the gentlemen now appearing before this com- mittee, to place upon the American soldiers to say nothing about the other American citizens to say that we should reverse our policy and make them tenants of the Government, and that they can't alien- ate their land after they get a patent to it. Mr. VAILE. If you will allow me a question there isn't it a fact, Mr. Morgan, that no matter what provisions we make requiring land to be inalienable, even before patent, those provisions will be avoided by private arrangements between parties ? That the intend- ing purchaser will send his money to the proper party to receive it, and have him deposit it in the bank in escrow, with a deed to him, and when the patent comes back to the bank, the transaction will be effected by the delivery of that deed, and we can't, as a matter of fact, make lands inalienable, not as a legal, but as a practical prppo- sition. Mr. MORGAN. Now, I will tell you, in my judgment, the question which Mr. Raker is so deeply interested in and rightly so is, as I recall, not a part of the main proposition. I am trying to present the difference between a loan plan and a cash plan in its general ideas. I might, on consideration, agree with you on that point, but just in preparing the bill, you are in a hurry, and you put a certain provision in it, and I might agree with you. But that is a subsidiary question. Mr. RAKER. I don't know why it is I don't intend to assume any opinion in asking a question, but you have had lots of experience and, of course, have gone into this subject, and that being the fact I just wondered where you are getting this idea from. Mr. MORGAN. It was for the benefit of the soldier that I was con- trolled. I felt that if you give him the right to transfer then you wore helping the civilian as well as the soldier in the same degree. So that I considered that it would be a detriment to the soldier. It was on his side that I felt we ought not to allow alienation ex- cept under certain restrictions. Mr. RAKER. Well, I hope the day will never come when we make legislation I will withdraw that. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we have had just one hour with Mr. Morgan and I think we have done more for him than we have for any other speaker here. The soldiers are waiting for us to do something. The CHAIRMAN. It has, been lengthened out. Couldn't you con- clude now. Judge ? Mr. RAKER. I am through. Mr. JOHNSON. There are other members here and I think they ought to be heard. 294 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. Xow, Mr. Boies is here. I promised him that we would put him on this morning. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of letters here from two men, I believe both soldiers who have heard something about the matter of the Mondell bill and I would like to put them in in my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to including the letters? Without objection, that will be done. Mr. MORGAN. I certainly want to thank the committee for the time that they have given me. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boies, will you state your name and whom you represent? STATEMENT OF HON. W. D. BOIES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA. Mr. BOIES. My name is W. D. Boies and I live at Sheldon, Iowa. I represent the llth Congressional District of that State. I have been delegated by the Iowa delegation to appear before this committee on the invitation of the committee to give our reasons why we are opposed to the bill that has been introduced in Congress, called the Mondell bill, but which is in fact a bill from the Interior Department of this Government. Now, we are against the proposition, and I can not conclude in 15 minutes. I think I should have sufficient time to conclude my address. I don't expect every gentleman upon this committee to agree with me by any means but I understand that this com- mittee is organized * for 'the purpose of hearing the views of the several gentlemen who appear before it. and that the record of the case is taken down and printed for the benefit of the Members of Congress, and I have felt that this bill, backed by the Secretary of the Interior, is a huge reclamation scheme and is primarily backed by men who either have land to dispose of, swamp, stump, and arid, or who live in the vicinity of that land. There are a great many quotations here and I will have to be confined primarily to my manuscript. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the several dele- gations in Congress having been invited by your chairman, Mr. Sin- nott. to address the Committee on the Public Lands, " now holding hearings on soldier land settlement legislation," the Iowa delegation very generously cast upon me the burden of presenting to the com- mittee on views of the delegation concerning the matter and of the related legislation proposed by the Mondell bill now pending before Congress. Everything in the interest of the American soldier in the World War, which has not yet been brought to a conclusion, is more than popular with the American people, as in justice it should be. I can assure you that the Iowa delegation shares this feeling to the full. Personally, I wish to have the record show that the facts are such that I would go a long way and excuse many things in an endeavor to assist every soldier inducted into the service of this country. My own son enlisted in August, 1917, left his young wife, his boy baby, and his farm operations behind and served his country for a HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 295 year and a half; my brother's only son sleeps to-day in a soldier's grave in France; two nephews served in France, one of them just returned, and the other still there. My Official Court reporter's son, a boy whom I loved, was shot to pieces on the battle field, and the homes of scores of friends made desolate by death on account of this terribly barbaric and inexcusable war. I make this statement, which might 'be immeasurably enlarged upon, in order that there may be no excuse for any small mind, now or in the future, conceiving the idea that I possess a single thought or feeling that does not respond to anything and everything that can or may be in the interest and the welfare of the soldier boy, and in all particulars, so far as I possess the judgment to see and I am not referring to this im- mediate vicinity w r hen I say that Mr. VAILE (interposing). Present company excepted? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir ; not conceding the idea that I possess a single thought or feeling that does not respond to anything and everything that can be or may be in the interest of the welfare of the soldier boy in all particulars, so far as I possess the judgment to see. The Iowa delegation in Congress is opposed to this bill because the Members thereof believe: 1. That, except in a very small proportion, the soldier does not approve it. 2. That it is impracticable. 3. That no considerable number of the whole have funds suffi- cient to finance that part of the project required to make the scheme anything but a failure in most instances. i. That the soldier who is possessed of funds sufficient to supply the apparent deficiency remaining when the aid proposed by the Secretary of the Interior shall have been exhausted, will be able to establish himself upon a farm without digging ditches in the swamps of Florida or grubbing stumps on the cut-over-lands of the North, as is proposed by the Secretary of the Interior for the soldier who is without funds, and the sum that he must so earn, in order to meet the Secretary's plan, will require so much time and hard work and unremitting toil as that the boy would about as leave be in a trench in France as in one in the Everglades of Florida or in the " Green Swamp," that the Secretary has referred to in some of his addresses. 5. That the unworkable scheme, the Secretary has suggested, has brought to the surface apparently every man, corporation, partner- ship, and sockty in this country, who are owners of swamp, stump, and arid lands, or who are in any wise interested; and, standing without invitation upon the shoulders of the young soldier, are straining their eyes in an effort to ascertain if. perchance, there are a few unencumbered dollars in the Treasury of the United States of America. The bill introduced in Congress does not disclose the plans, claims, designs, and purposes of the Interior Department of this Govern- ment, in case its Secretary is given the power and authority he so earnestly seeks. Hence, we must have recourse to the lectures and communications of the Secretary of the Interior upon this givat plan. Before proceeding further with the use of the name of the Secre- tary of the Interior or appearing to criticize his plans, I wish to 296 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. say that we have full regard for his great ability, his love for humanity, and his gigh purpose in general. However, the thought presses in upon my mind some times in reading the addresses and communications of the secretary on this subject during the past few months, and his addresses, his communications, and recommenda- tions theretofore delivered on the subject of reclamation of private and State owned swamp, arid, and stump lands, that the honorable secretary has unconsciously, by mistake, picked up the wrong brush, the old used one, in painting the landscape picture for the soldier. We agree with the secretary that, when this Government is able, when the billions upon billions of its obligations, piled mountain high, flowing in and out of the Treasury of the United States, from millions of streams and brooklets and rivulets, having their sources in as many patriotic hearts, have been brought under some reason- able control by the steadfast, sympathetic, loyal, generous, and pati- ent citizens of this country, then the people of the great State of Iowa, and of every other great State of this Union they are all great States will commission its several delegations in Congress to appropriate money in all reasonable amounts in aid of all sane reclamation projects, as speedily as may reasonably be accomplished, of lands in the United States fit for farming purposes, should be re- claimed wherein the cost is not discouraging. To attempt such a project on so large a scale at this time, especially so extensive as is being urged by many men, privately interested, is at this time, in the judgment of the gentlemen for whom I am authorized to speak, not permissible. So long as we are required to feed the world; to finance the up- building of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the isles of the sea ; and while engaged in an effort to redeem the world by a cancellation of the shortcomings of men with a glance, a happy smile, or grave, though time-worn, declaration, the men and the women of this country ex- pect their agents to handle their affairs pertaining to their Govern- ment in keeping with the times, having regard to the present condi- tions. And in our attempt to execute this agency we should remem- ber that we are not "the people"; also, that the law of the land, founded on simple justice, requires of the agent good judgment and the highest grade of fidelity. If the Iowa delegation ever votes to put the finances of this Government in a more serious condition than we know them to be in to-day, it will be when some one can show us that both the welfare and the desire of the soldier is knocking at the door of Congress, and the voice of the soldier is heard speaking with his own tongue, and making clear by his own expression what he desires and what he thinks is to his interest. The American soldier is not a mollycoddle; he is the ward of no individual or class of men. Let us have 'light from some considerable portion of the boys who stood ready to give their lives, if need be, that others might live in decent surroundings. It might have been wise, so far as I am personally concerned and my attitude better understood, had I earlier in this address called attention to what occurred in my home town some four weeks ago, and which set me to thinking strongly in disfavor of this plan of the Department of the Interior. We there banqueted that evening more than 40 returned soldiers. Some of the soldiers present had seen service in France, some active, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 297 fighting, others who had been in the service a long time in this country three or four officers, one major, who was in the Spanish- American War and who had just returned from France. These sol- diers, in my judgment, were as representative of the usual bodies that might assemble from the country and country towns as one could readily find. At the conclusion of my talk I called attention to this plan of " land for soldiers," desiring sincerely to secure theii attitude upon the question; and without the least information as to how they or any of them stood I asked those who favored the plan to stand. Not one stood. Then I requested that those of them who were opposed to the plan stand, and every soldier in the room forty-odd, including the officers was on his feet as quickly as though they were obeying the command of an officer. I talked with several of them personally after the banquet was over,- and they appeared to have given more thought to the question than I had, and all said they wanted nothing to do with the matter; that if the Gov- ernment felt that it owed them anything they would be glad to take the cash and go their several ways as free American citizens. They did not desire to be tied for two or three years to an uncertainty. I have talked with many soldier boys since, and I do not recall a single instance when even one of the boys signified a desire for the opportunity to acquire a home after the method proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. It is most difficult sometimes to criticize another's position or views without appearing to impugn the motives of that other, but I desire to declare most emphatically that such is not my intention, aim, or thought. I believe that Mr. Lane is altogether sincere in what he proposes for the soldier, and that the other gentlemen, who are earnestly working to accomplish the same end, are likewise sin- cere and are moved in the interest of the soldier. However, there are men, many of them, whose judgment is subject to challenge be- cause of interest one way and another. Interest so frequently biases men's judgment, and the fact is so well understood among men that, by common consent, no man may be allowed to sit in judgment in matters which affect him personally. The judge, however exalted and just, is prohibited by law from sitting in a case in which he is financially interested. This is set forth merely to show that in deal- ing with men who are personally interested in a project are right- fully subject to the criticism usually adopted by common-sense, every-day men. We do not call them dishonest, we do not think they are, we simply turn their arguments over, inside out, in order to get the real force of what they are driving at. This is the test, in my judgment, that you should apply in your consideration of the arguments appearing before you. So, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, if you will acquaint yourselves with the activities of the men who own swamp lands, stump lands, or arid lands, or who live in the vicinities of such lands, also the men whose constituents are thus interested, men who are members of the corporations, companies, and societies, and as such, likewise personally interested, you will be better able to weigh their arguments than you would be if you made this mis- take that they were so earnestly behind the Secretary's plan, and without any other interest whatsoever. It will be wise, in my 298 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. opinion, to watch for " riders " sought to be attached to the plans of the Secretary of the Interior. Gentlemen, if you do not now understand that there is a supreme effort upon the part of thousands of men in this country, at work day and night, in an effort to foist upon this Government the most collossal reclamation project that the world ever saw, you have neglected the speeches and the litera- ture of eloquent and fetching men. This work is going on in many parts of our land, and with a personal interest, aside from and in addition to their interest in the soldier. And it is expected and talked that the Government shall furnish the money. There is no difference, except in degree, between the South and the North, or the East and the West. Gentlemen. I have not had the time, I am not possessed of the in- formation nor the ability to present this matter to you as it should be presented. The question is altogether new to me, and I have had but a few hours' time with w y hich to examine the matters as outlined by Mr. Lane, the honorable Secretary of the Interior. I am only ac- quainted in a general way with the extent of the Government's irriga- tion projects, nor with its success in reclaiming the public or pri- vate lands, yet I have tried to study during the few hours at my dis- posal, the proposition proposed by the Secretary of the Interior and to get a line, as best I could, concerning the object and aims of the men, corporations, partnerships, and societies that appear to be so earnestly backing the proposition outlined by the Secretary. A nicely compiled pamphlet of 155 pages, entitled " Proceedings of the Southern Land Congress," held at Savannah, Ga., November 11 and 12, 1918, very recently came under my observation. Printed on the cover the following words appear : " Soldier settlements in the South," and this slogan appears at the top of each page. I recom- mend this pamphlet to your earnest consideration, and while I would not detract from a single word therein said in favor of the soldier,. I invite the scrutiny of this committee in order that you may de- termine in your own minds whether or not this Southern Land Con- gress, so called, was held specifically in the interest of the soldier and in his interest alone, or even strictly in keeping with the plans and purposes of the Secretary of the Interior. It is said on the first page of this book : Held under the auspices of the Southern Settlement and Development Organi- zation, Southern Pine Association, Georgia Land Owners' Association, Florida Tick Eradication Committee, North Carolina Land Owners' Association, and Savannah Hoard of Trade, in cooperation with the rnited States Depart- ment of the Interior. On the next page, under the heading " Executive committee," we find the following, omitting the names of the officers : Vice president Southern Settlement and Development ( irgaiii/at ion. Baltimore, Md., chairman. Vice president Georgia Land Owners' Association, Savannah, Ga., vice chair- man. Secretary-manager Southern Pine Association, New Orleans, La. Chairman Florida Tick Eradication Committee, West Palm Beach, Fla. President North Carolina Land Owners' Association, Bolton, N. C. 1 'resident Savannah Board of Trade, Savannah, Ga. On the next page, under the heading of " Looking ahead," the fol- lowing occurs: HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 299 It is also desired that the volume serve as the record of the first definite out- line of a work which is expected to become the greatest constructive farm- ownership movement ever undertaken by the United States Government. Under the " Foreword " it is stated : The Southern Land Congress is in reality a congress representing the "Coastal Plain Itegiou " of the United States. On page 13, in the address of welcome by the mayor of Savannah, the following language is used: But I can say in all sincerity that no body of men has ever met in this historic city with a broader conviction or a greater plan for American progress; none have had more patriotic motive ; no proposition has had a saner business basis; and none lias presented such a well-considered plan tor the development of our favored Southland. On page 15 the governor of Georgia said : Georgians are intensely interested in the purpose of your organization. While desiring commercial expansion and the increase of our manufacturing industries and the development of all of the resources of our State, we realize that our largest and greatest material advancement must come from the de- velopment of those vast areas of uncultivated and poorly tilled lands. On page 17, the chairman of the Florida tick-eradication com- mittee said, in response to the welcome : We have come here from many places in the South and we represent many varied operations which are all closely tied up with the land situation, and so we have gathered here to-tfay to hold counsel with each other, to impart what knowledge we may have, and to learn that which we ought to know, in order that we may further the interests of this great section in any program that ruay be adopted. :: ' Federal and State agencies have cooperated with us to such an extent that there is hardly a county in the whole South that has not a Federal agricultural advisor. * * : The South is very little developed. We can point to many States that are only 5 per cent developed. It is very neces- sary that we put our best foot forward and hold communion with each other and extend our hands across the various county and State lines and get together and bring out our country as it should be best brought out. I am sure that we all know how to make an effort, to work in concert, as a unit. We have all made efforts as individuals, and there are a great many men in this audience who represent Government and State agencies who, if they were to think, would recall the great advance that has been made and could recite the numerous instances where we have thrown aside all these things that held us back in the past. On page 20 it is recorded that the governor of North Carolina gave utterance to the following: When the Germans started their great offensive last March Lloyd-George said: "The race is between Hindenburg and Wilson." To-day the ends of the earth know, and knowing rejoice that Woodrow Wilson won that great Olympic. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I am just one member of this com- mittee, and I do object to the gentleman reading a manuscript which could be read by every member of this committee and save a great deal of time and a gread deal of money for the people, and we can do something for the soldiers quicker by adopting this method than we can by having the gentleman read his paper. I observe from his reading that it is in such shape from his manuscript I should say that it is in such shape that all of us could read it and the gentleman could make an address without taking up all this time. I object. Mr. VAILE. I would like to have an opportunity to interrogate Mr. Boies before he gets away. 300 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I want to ask two or three questions myself, but he is reading a manuscript here and we can all read it when it is incorporated in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the gentleman has been invited before the committee and has been designated by his State to represent that State, and I don't see how we can control whether he makes an ex- temporaneous speech or reads a prepared speech. Mr. BOIES. I want to say this : That I am very proud to have been selected as a member of the Judiciary Committee. We have been holding meetings for the last three or four days, and we have sat ?uietly there and listened to one man for as much as three hours, and would like to proceed with this. There are some things that I believe will be interesting Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). I am in favor of Mr. Boies of your paper going into the record, but I thought you could help us more by arguing your question and let your address go into the record. I have no objection to that. Mr. BOIES. But I believe that these gentlemen in the South are hooked up to the plan of the Secretary of the Interior and the men from the North and West, and that is what I want the Members of Congress to know. Mr. JOHNSON. I notice all through your address that you reflect upon the South. Mr. BOIES. No; I don't mean any reflection. Mr. JOHNSON. And I take exception to it, and I want the record to show it. Mr. BOIES. I am putting in their own language. I don't blame the South for getting all that's coming to them Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). Just pardon me one suggestion. You will observe that those men have come from the North, most of them, and have settled in the South. Some of them are from your own beloved State of Iowa. Mr. BOIES. That last sentence that I read was put in there as a matter of humor. It pleased me. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, I don't want to interrupt you, but it was understood the other day that Members of Congress should be limited to 15 minutes, but we have extended the time of Mr. Morgan to 30 minutes. I don't want to curtail you. How long would it take you to finish? Mr. BOIES. He was on his feet for about an hour and 15 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. That is the opening statement. Mr. VAILE. He was being interrogated about half an hour. The CHAIRMAN. How long would it take you to complete your statement ? Mr. BOIES. I am about half through. Mr. WHITE. He is presenting this paper, Mr. Chairman, very consecutively, much more clearly than it could otherwise be done. The CHAIRMAN. There is no idea of curtailing his time, but we would like to have some idea how long it will be, so we can determine how long we shall sit. Mr. BOIES. It is my judgment and I am entitled to my own judg- ment I don't expect it is going to fit the judgment of every man upon this committee, and I don't know that it will fit the judgment HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 301 of any gentleman upon this committee, but I think that Congress should know, and I think that I ought to have a chance to state orally to this committee, the history that the Secretary of the Interior has made, aided by men who have axes to grind, if you please, with reference to the worthless land in the present situation in this country. Mr. MAYS. Do you believe that the Secretary has an ax to grind? Mr. BOIES. Xo ax to grind financially; no ax to grind, except that he is in love with his own proposition and wants to see it carried through, and he wants help from whatever source he can get it. Mr. JOHNSON. Inasmuch as the committee seems disposed to allow you to go on over my objection which is right, for the majority to control I ask you this : Are you in favor of doing anything for the soldier? Mr. BOIES. Xot under this plan at all. Mr. JOHNSON. Just one other question. What is your plan? Mr. BOIES. My plan is that if anything is done for the soldier to-day, we ought to do what he desires, and that is for this Govern- ment to hand him as much money as the Government thinks it can afford to in view of his services, and let him go as an independent, free, American citizen. Mr. JOHNSON. How much do you think the Government should hand him? You represent a congressional district, I see. How much do you think the Government should let him have ? Mr. BOIES. I think the Government should let him have from $25 to $50 per month for the months that he was detained in the service by the Government. Mr. JOHNSON. That is your idea now, is it? Mr. BOIES. Yes. Mr. ELSTON. That would amount to at least an average of 12 'months for 4,000,000 men. Mr. BOIES. It would not amount to more than six months for 4,000,000 men. Mr. ELSTON. Don't you believe that all of that money would be in the hands of a very small number within two or three months and the soldier would be in just as bad a fix as he was when he was turned loose ? Mi-. BOIES. Xot any more so than the pension that goes into the hands of every soldier who ever served in any war in this country. Mr. SMITH "of Idaho. Pensions are r>aid by the month to meet his current needs, where under your plan it would go to him all in one lump. Mr. ELSTON. That would amount to $2,400,000,000. Mr. BOIES. The Government can very easily make this payable that way, and I would approve of that, and thank you for the sug- gestion, Mr. Smith. Mr. JOHNSON. Judge, you would object to any reconstruction measure of this kind ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir ; at this time. Mr. JOHNSON. You would be opposed to giving the soldier an opportunity to acquire a home for his family and himself ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir; because there isn't, in my judgment, 3 per cent of the soldiers that desire it. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what is the extent of your information about the soldiers wanting to acquire homes? 302 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BOIES. It is simply what I read to you. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that the judge may be permitted to first complete his remarks. Mr. BOIES. I have talked with soldiers since, and have received some letters. I attach one letter here from a soldier which I received yesterday that I never heard of before. Mr. JOHNSON. All right ; I will suspend. The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to break you off. Mr. JOHNSON. That is perfectly all right. I just wanted to elicit that information. Mr. BOIES. Again, on page 21, it is reported that the governor said [reading] : Some time ago I was down in Currituck, the extreme northeastern county of the State, and I said to one of the natives, " What do you people raise down here?" He replied, "Ducks and Democrats, hell and sweet potatoes." Mr. Secretary, I commend to your consideration a soil that contributes to the world four of its greatest staples. The governor having confirmed Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). I object to all of that, Mr. Chairman. That is the rankest kind of partisanship. Mr. BOIES. Now that was a little humor there. I thought this would probably be dry to some of the members, and I put that in aa a reflection of that humor. The governor having confirmed the truth of the " native's reply," I trust the southern gentlemen will not take offense if the friendly advice is extended to them to take off their coats and raise mort ducks and less Democrats, more sweet potatoes and less hell. On page 27 of the document it is of record that Mr. Elwood Mead, consulting engineer United States Reclamation Service, said : The main responsibility for carrying out rural reconstruction rests with the Federal Government. It is a Nation's task ;ind most of the money must conic from the Federal Treasury. * * * Most of this hind needs reclamation; logged-off lands need to he cleared; the Hat lands need to be drained, and the arid lands irrigated. * * * It would lie a waste of time and money to create separate State engineering organizations, when one central organization is already equipped for this task. The Federal Government can also give ;. unity to plans, can exercise an expert supervision over local organization every- where, and thus avert experiments that would certainly result in failure and put an end to wasteful and inefficient local efforts if such should unfortunately appear. Again, on page 29, this same gentleman is reported to have said : It takes hard work, economy, and self-denial to improve and pay for a farm. The man of the family on one of these farms will find it easier to work hard sind live simply if all the people around him are also working hard and living simply, but if a single settler is located in a community of well-to-do easy- going families, with farms paid for, the contrast with their conditions is dis- couraging, and the settler and his family will fall into easy ways of living and very likely fail. * * * No settler without money should be accept eil. The average soldier is not a superman. The task of improving and paying for a farm without any capital is a task which requires superior qualifica- tions. Every settler needs also a little reserve money for accidents and mis- fortunes. He needs a part of the investment on which lie docs not have lo pay interest. Furthermore, it will be unsafe for the Government to intrust valuable property to men who have no money risk and who could abandon it without losing anything. Many of these soldiers will he restless, made so by their war experiences. To them distant hills will look green. In their own interest th'-y need to be anchored, to have some stabilizing influence, and the most pot em is to have some money invested that they will lose if th;>y abandon their under- taking. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 303 Turn to page 32 and read further in connection with what the gentleman has to say : On some of the South Atlantic areas I have visited the settler can make his own improvements if he is given some help. Say to him it will take two or three years to clear this land and bring the soil into condition to produce crops ; no payments will be required until this work is finished. You will be paid for every acre properly cleared, for every rod of fence built, and for the fertilizing and manuring of the worn-out lands. Again he says : When settlement begins there needs to be created cooperative organization for buying and selling and expert assistance and direction in the building of houses and other improvements, and then when the settlers are on the land there wi.l be needed a superintendent, who will be the adviser of the Govern- ment and a source of encouragement and admonition to the settlers. He will go among the settlers advising them about farming methods, helping to save them from the consequences of inexperience and weakness. The Government will have to depend on him for advice as to who shall be aided and those upon whom aid will be thrown away, because they lack the qualities essential to success. In many ways the superintendent of the settlement is the most im- portant officer connected with this movement. * * * In every settlement the first three years will be critical, and this is the period where advice, en- couragement, and direction will mean much in the creation of agriculture and a rural life that the Nation needs, and which nothing but community organi- zation and the mobilizing of the expert knowledge of the country in constructive action will create. The general manager Xew Orleans Association of Commerce says : The project for the creation of complete farm homes to be sold to returning soldiers and sailors, which Secretary Lane is now developing, is a stepping stone to a national policy looking to a far-reaching improvement in the condi- tions under which farms are operated and farm folk live. The importance of this movement is so great, not only to the several com- munities directly affected, but to the national welfare, that the New Orleans Association of Commerce has sought the best engineering service obtainable in order to place itself in the best possible position to be of assistance to Secretary Lane, not only in the formulation of his immediate project, but in the development of a constructive national policy for the betterment of farm- ing conditions and the attraction of people back to the land. * * * The Government should acquire these waste regions, give them comprehensive treat- ment and development, and sell finished farm areas at value on convenient terms to people who have been trained to make such lands produce them a good living. * * * The Government, operating on a large scale, would save money, and could produce finished units at less cost than is the cost with private enterprise, which rmist invariably combat conditions which would not confront the Government at all. * * * In Louisiana we have 9,600,000 acres of humus-covered alluvial marsh lands much of it treeless ready and waiting such treatment. On page 104 is shown a telegram to this Southern Land Congress, which reads in part as follows : You have vast bodies of unused unreclaimed lands as rich as any in the world, a climate and rainfall which can not be improved upon for the growing of crops, and these things our country is beginning to appreciate. I trust you will be moved to take practical steps by which the Government can quickly coop- erate with the people of the South, as we hope it will cooperate with the people of the North and West, in using this opportunity for adding to the area of our productive lands. The Director of the United States Reclamation Service, announc- ing the contents of the said telegram from Secretary Lane and the fact that he could not be present as was expected, says (see p. 106) : And just before I left Washington the Secretary gave me instructions, which I have transmitted to the men in the field, to prepare the largest program for 13331919 20 304 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. which we are ready, which should be laid before Congress for their considera- tion, for the solving of this problem, which is coming much more rapidly than at first expected. We shall do the best we can. The program for the present is in the West. It is niy desire to prepare at the earliest possible time a similar program for the Eastern States. * * * (See p. 107.) I have not the au- thority to say definitely that the Government will enter into any such program. That will depend on the action of Congress. I do know, though, that the senti- ment in Congress for this plan is very strong. Our preliminary preparations have practically no opposition from the committees of either House. * (See p. 108.) We have already sent in, approved by the President, an estimate of appropriation for a million dollars to carry on the investigations of swamp and cut-over lands. * * * We have found the utmost cooperation through- out the South; there have been some skeptics, of course. It is a vast program, still it is possible. Of course, it could not be thought possible that the Govern- ment was going to undertake all the reclamation projects in the Southern States. There are some fifty or sixty million acres that might be reclaimed. If we undertook it all at once, it would justify the arguments made against it. On page 111 we find the following from the director of advertising and trade extension, Southern Pine Association : I want to say I enjoyed the talkfest of the governors, and if I am ever called on to write advertising copy for a campaign to sell the South I will know some wonderful things to say about it. * * * But this is more or less a big business proposition, and comes right down to the straight-out business of ex- changing cut-over lands for real honest-to-goodness spending money. He should have shot the unearned increment in his mind and added from the pockets of " Uncle Sam." The president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, read by the general secretary of Georgia Chamber of Commerce, said, as shown on page 143 : Not knowing just what plans Secretary Lane has to propose relative to the settling of our returning soldiers on our unoccupied lands, that phase of the question must be left to him. We have, however, a larger problem and oppor- tunity, for if every soldier landward inclined was to settle in the Southeast only a fraction of our now unused land would be put to use. Perhaps I should make a sort of apology to the gentlemen of the South for appearing to single them out from among some of their brothers of the North and West, who are as fully interested in the great scheme of looking beyond their interest in the soldier. My excuse is that these southern gentlemen, from whom I have quoted, have covenanted openly, frankness being one of the virtues of the man from the Southland. The northerner is more secretive, but I will guarantee the southerner that the interested northerner or westerner has been just as busy in connection with this matter as the man from the South. There is not much difference between the men from the two sections, excepting perhaps the man from the Southland is a little more effulgent, not due in any measure to heredity but to climatic conditions it may possibly be due in some measure to the habit of the statesmen from the South in their usual attempt to laugh the argument of the northerner out of court. I would not pass without mentioning the fact that there are many, many good things related in this book to which I have not called attention. I have simply drafted these quotations to show the trend of the minds of the gentlemen who spoke at that great meeting in the direction of the most colossal reclamation scheme ever dreamed of by man. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I beg your pardon for consuming so much time with this subject, and the only excuse HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 305 I have to offer is based upon my belief that this is the most important question, from a financial point of view, affecting the people of this Government that will be brought before Congress at this session. And the great danger, as I see it, is that the Government is going to be drawn into a business so large and so expensive as to seriously injure the credit of this Government when the money necessarily required to be expended is piled upon the top of the financial obliga- tions of the country to-day. So that if anything is considered or carried out under the plans of the Secretary of the Interior, those con- siderations and plans should be confined strictly in the interest of the soldiers, and those only, who would like to become the owner of a 10, 20, or 40 acre farm encumbered as proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. In case the project is confined absolutely to the welfare of the soldier, if it may be said to be in his interest, an army of new- men will be marching out of the office of the Secretary of the Interior to take up new duties without number. And should the Government be drawn into the larger scheme, that army of men would extend from Washington to Key West, from there to New Orleans, across the continent to southern' California, north to the Canadian line, east to the topmost point of Maine, and back again to Washington. Up and across the States again, checker-boarding the waste lands of this country. These men who are interesting themselves in this project are anx- ious that the Government " do it," and do it hurriedly and in a big way. We all know from recent experiences that when this Govern- ment moves rapidly and in a big way that waste and extravagance marks the path, especially in connection with all Government con- tracts with a " plus " attachment. Please do not get the idea for a moment that I would advocate a tight-fisted, stingy policy for this Government. It ought to be liberal in all good works, when the times warrant it, but to-day the tight affairs of this country are demanding of its agents in Congress all proper economy, and espe- cially until such time as the present great burden of debt may be at least eased from the weary shoulders of those who are required to pay, pay, pay. This demand is not only urgent on the part of the people who pay directly into the Treasury of the United States, but from all the laboring classes in this country, most of whom are having hard work to make both ends meet, though receiving the highest wages ever paid mortal man. I beseech the patience of this com- mittee for just a few moments longer to discuss the feasibility of the working plans of the Secretary of the Interior by referring to the hearings before the Subcommittee on Appropriations in charge of the sundry civil bill for 1920, third session Sixty-fifth Congress, that a line may be had on some of the plans of the Secretary of the Inte- rior. I will not trespass upon your time to call attention to all that Mr. Lane said before that committee, but this address would be sor- rowfully incomplete without some reference thereto, and I invite an examination of the hearings before such committee, especially as re- corded on pages 841 to and including 862. You will there find that it was proposed by a bill in the Sixty-fifth Congress, third session, to make an appropriation of $100,000.000 for the reclamation of waste lands. The bill now pending before Congress, which contemplates launching the power and authority into the hands of the Secretarj' 306 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. of the Interior, has increased the amount to $500,000,000. In the dis- cretion of the Secretary, churches, community centers, and schools shall be dedicated; also other public purposes, including town sites inaugurated, developed, and sold. Mr. Lane stated on page 842, sun- dry civil bill hearings: We want now $100,000,000. That figure is used not because it is the proper figure, in my judgment, because I think it is far too little to meet the needs of the situation, but we want a sufficient amount of money divided up among the projects that are feasible in each State, in order to start one of those projects wherever possible; $100,000,000 would cover practically all of the States in the Union if we put $2.000,000 into each State, but there may be some States in which there will not be any possibility of a project such as we contemplate. I think, gentlemen, that we are going to have need of a great deal more money. I do not know whether you want to put this into your record or not, but the reports that I get from the Department of Labor and the interviews that I have had with business men and with workingmen indicate to me that the labor market is in almost a state of collapse. The time of which the Secretary speaks with reference to a collapse of the labor market was last year. Since then 50 per cent or more of the soldiers have been returned from across the water and approxi- mately 70 per cent of all the soldiers on this side have been dis- charged, and now it does not appear that the labor market has " col- lapsed." I heard Congressman Fordney on the floor of the House of Repre- sentatives a few days ago make the statement that it was impossible to secure an order for an automobile within three months, due to the shortage of labor. I read within the last few days in a report from the Department of Agriculture that there was now a shortage in labor in certain agricultural lines, especially in the South. The Sioux City Daily Journal of June 1, 1919, published in a city of about 80,000 inhabitants, contains the following : Fifty calls for men to serve in various capacities were filed before 9 o'clock yesterday morning in the Federal employment Bureau. Many additional calls for help were received later in the day. The expected unusual demand of spring and early summer labor requirements has manifest itself with surprising strength in Sioux City territory, according to J. W. Holmes, director of the agency. Among the early calls yesterday were applications for 10 brickyard men. man on coal wagon at $5 a day. 5 men in wholesale store warehouses, 5 carpenters for elevator construction, 3 laborers, 2 cooks, 1 farm hand at $To a month, and 10 men to unload lumber. Not a single person was available to fill these vacan- cies, offering liberal compensation. It is easily seen that the strongest argument put forth by the Secre- tary of the Interior in favor of the proposition is that of furnishing Government labor for the unemployed, in order that the labor market might not collapse. If there was any danger at the time the Secretary spoke, it is very apparent that the danger is in no- wise imminent to- day. Again, on page 843. sundry civil appropriation bill hearing, the Secretary said: This project which I presented to you gentlemen of Congress and to the President last May was intended originally to take care of the returning soldier, so that he would not lie a burden upon the labor market. It was not exported that we would take care of every soldier and of every man thrown out of work; that is, I had no hope that such an amount of money could be obtained from Congress as would lead to that result; but I am inclined to think that before this summer is over you are going to have a demand made upon you HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 307 which you will have difficulty conscientiously in resisting for ten times the amount of money that is suggested here. * * With this hundred million dollars we can, of course, take care of comparatively few of the soldiers that return. I have here a pamphlet that I am going to send to you to-day, giving letters from a number of the boys who are over in France or who have returned or who are in cantonments, just such letters as have been sent to me from hun- dreds of other boys who have seen some mention of this proposition in the newspapers. I think you will be surprised in looking over them. I was sur- prised to find a very considerable number of letters from men who come from the cities where the greatest congestion is, men who have gotten a taste for outdoor life and want to continue it. There is no use in putting such men on a farm, on a piece of prairie land out in the mountains of California, or the plains of Wyoming, or down in southern Colorado and saying. " Here is 160 or 320 acres of land ; go to it and make a living." They have nothing to live on ; they do not know how to farm ; they do not know what crops will grow there ; they have nothing with which to build even a shack, nothing with which to buy tools, so that it would be simply turning a fellow loose on the desert to ask him to take up any of our public lands. We have about 230,000,000 acres of public lands, most of which is valueless. The larger part of it is at the top of the Rocky Mountains. You will notice that it is said these soldiers whom the Secretary proposes to provide for have no money with which to help themselves, " with which to build even a shack." Yet the bill before Congress proposes that these soldiers shall buy live stock and equipment, but that the Government will not lend them to exceed 60 per cent of the cost. Is it not well to stop long enough to inquire from whom they are going to borrow the 40 per cent ? The proposition is only to loan soldier settlers not to exceed $800 for the purchase of the necessary live stock and equipment. Is there anyone familiar at all with the price of live stock and equipment sufficient to carry on a farm of any size who does not know that it would cost two or three times $800 to purchase the necessary live stock and equipment to operate a small farm successfully. The bill before Congress also provides that the Secretary may also, through agreement with the soldier settler, make provision for neces- sary improvements, but the contribution from the fund shall in no single case exceed $1,200 or in excess of three-quarters of the cost or value of the improvements. Who will tell us where the soldier settler, " who has nothing to live on," has " nothing with which to build even a shack," is going to get the other $400? If he could procure the extra $400 from some unnamed source, and after he had borrowed $1,200 from the Government he would have $1,600 with which to make the necessar}- improvements upon his farm to build his house, to have a bath therein, as suggested by the Secretary. A house with a heating plant, made necessary by the appearance of a bathtub. To build a granary, to build a hen house, to build the hog houseings, to construct a water and heating system, because a bathtub without a water system would be a worthless piece of furniture, as the good wife of *this young soldier settler would not be content with heating the bath water in a tea kettle. This is mentioned because the plan proposed is to be such that not only the young soldier settler, but his wife, may live in " contentment " and stick to the farm. We have not yet built the barn for the soldier settler, nor dug him a well nor cistern, nor fenced any portion of the farm, nor purchased or set out any fruit trees or any'of the smaller fruit-bearing shrubs. It will be borne in mind that inasmuch as the 230,000.000 of acres of public lands are largely " on the top of the Rocky Mountains " it 308 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. will be necessary to deal with State governments and private parties in the procurement of the land by the Government. In speaking of irrigation the Secretary of the Interior, on page 844, sundry civil hearings, refers to the Colorado Eiver, the Snake River, the Sac- ramento River, the Platte River, and the St. Mary's River to afford him water for such purpose. How much money will the Govern- ment have to expend in order to check these rivers for irrigation purposes ? The Secretary says (p. 843, sundry civil hearings) : Effort has been made to colonize those lands and to cultivate them. That effort, in great part, has been a failure because they have not been handled in any more scientific or reasonable way than we have handled our public lands. Still, on the same page, the Secretary says: If you take those lands and divide them up into small farms, sufficiently large to support adequately a family of five, and center those farms in toward the settlement in a way somewhat similar to the Mormon settlements of Utah. with the nucleus of the settlement a community in which there would be some growing life; if you have every one of these farms connected up with that central community by a good road and by telephones, and have the central community either on a railroad or adjacent to one and connected with the railroad by a good wagon road; if you have that central community a mar- keting center so that the settlers can buy and sell cooperatively ; if you have some of the evidences of civilization in that community, such as a good school, instead of the single-room schoolhouse that we have very generally where we pay the teacher $40 a month and she teachers everything from the A B C's to higher algebra ; if you have a moving-picture show and a good store and other evidences of community life, you will be able to do the one thing that seems to me ought to be done throughout the entire United States if we are going to maintain this as an agricultural country, and that is, make the women contented. May I ask who are we going to get to build the railroads into all these settlements proposed the Railroad Administration or the bankrupt concerns? - Remember, that the project contemplates get- ting these soldier boys onto these farms quickly, and where is the money coming from to-day to accomplish all of these vast projects? Does "it not suggest a beautiful dream. I should not take up the time to quote all that the Secretary says, but ask you to turn to the sundry civil appropriation bill hearings for full information. The Secretary, on page 845 of the hearing, also says on this same sub- ject, " the farmer should learn to buy fertilizer by the carload." which everybody knows would be necessary in order to bring this stump land into any sort of condition for agricultural purposes. Who is going to furnish fertilizer to the young soldier- farmer. The Secretary asks him to " chip in " a few dollars to pay for a co- operative creamery or to have him raise the standard of his hogs and of his cattle. The Secretary further says : All of these things require a good deal of education, and so we want to have an agricultural educator in each one of these settlements, who will tell the set- tlers what kind of crops should be put in and how the crops should rotate in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. Is it proposed that the soldier boy shall spend the time in acquir- ing an education in agriculture after he shall have dug in the ditches for a year to drain the swamp land or has helped to pull stumps from the sandy land of the north, whereby he is to earn at least $500, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 309 before he goes onto the land and before he can commence to put in a crop? The Secretary is made to say, on page 847 of the hearings : We have had a very active canvass of the South, and there are a great many million acres down there, chiefly along the coastal plain, which have been cut over, need drainage, in fact, can not be used without drainage, that are available and that will be extremely useful. At the top of the page 848 the Secretary says : Oh, yes ; I saw in North Carolina what is marked on the map the Great Green Swamp, which you would think was something like the Dismal Swamp, or worse; that you could not go into it. That was developed by some timber- men, chiefly from Minnesota, and they have taken part of it and driven a big canal through every mile, and then put in small lateral drainage canals, I think about every 40 acres. I went into the heart of that thing, where they had cut over a lot of the land and let a fire sweep over it ; then they had a lot of boys carrying a string, as they went along, stretching out over the field, and at every pace they would take a stick and push it down 5 or 6 inches in the ground, then drop a couple of seeds of corn in. They had gone over this 200 acres in that way. I saw that land when there was corn on it 10 feet high ; no plow had ever been put into it; it had never been hoed, and the bins were full of ears of corn a foot long wonderfully productive stuff. I fancy the whole South has vast areas of lands like that. I know of one association down there that has 40,000,000 acres of unused, and they claim, tillable land. Now, if it is not true that the soldier boy is not to be put upon this land, there is no use of talking about it, but if it is necessary to dig a big canal every mile and put in small lateral drainage canals a huge amount of money is going to be required to bridge these canals be- cuse the good roads proposed will be of no avail unless the canals are bridged. This land was necessarily very moist where the Secretary saw them planting corn 5 or 6 inches deep. It may be the proper thing to plant corn in the swamps of North Carolina at that depth, but when I was taught farming I was told to plant it shallow when the ground was in a damp condition and deeper when the ground was dry. Speaking of the everglades of Florida, the Secretary says, on page 848 (sundry civil hearing) : Tlint land is, of course, just filled with the seepage of hundreds of thousands of years, and there are a million 1 think it is a million and three hundred thousand or a million and one hundred thousand acres of such land that is owned by the State of Florida. All that land has been turned over to a board which has been given plenary power, and they would put that or any portion of it at our disposal. * * * And too much emphasis can not be put on drain- age. I think drainage in the United States is just as important as irrigation. The South has been cursed for 50 years, not so much by the war as by its reputation for having malaria and yellow fever. And we have got to take those lands and clean out the water so that the malaria or yellow-fever mosquito can not bread there ; and we can then make those lands perfectly wholesome. The Secretary again proposes good roads, good enough for the sol- dier farmer to run an automobile over them. This young farmer will probably not buy an automobile the first year. We now come to the proposition as to some of the things that the young soldier will be required to pay for in advance, according to the plan. Secretary Lane, on page 850 says : My contract would be that that mail should go on and pay. I think a rea- sona'ble figure would be 10 per cent in advance. We estimate that these farms ^vill cost, improved, between $4,000 and $5.000 apiece, and that a man would pay perhaps $400 or $500 down. 310 . HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. Gillett asks the question : " Where would he get it ? Secretary Lane answers, " By working on the project. You see he makes his own farm, and he would work on it, and we would give him decent wages. He can save enough for the first payment if he is thrifty at all, and we would not want him if he was not. There ought to be a little latitude there. We ought not to be forced to take any fellow who did not have any aptitude for this thing and who did not show the slightest desire to be a farmer, but simply wanted to grab hold of one of these farms." I do not anticipate that it would be necessary to increase the Secret Service to an alarming extent in order' to prevent most of the boys from attempting to grab one of these farms. On page 851 the Secretary says: After he gets on there we hope to be able to subordinate our lien, or make it run concurrently with a loan from the farm loan bank, by which, under proper supervision, he could get money that would go into actual things, such as cattle and sheep and hogs, and perhaps increment, so that you could keep an eye on him and see what kind of use he makes of the money. On page 854 the question is propounded : Does your scheme contemplate any contribution on the part of the individ- ual? Secretary Lane: Yes: an initial payment on the part of the individual of 10 per cent of the cost of the project. In this connection please bear in mind that the Secretary estimates that the farm will cost the Government $4,000 or $5,000 so that the young farmer-soldier boy must pay upon that valuation $400 or $500. The Government will in addition loan him $1,200 for improvements ; to this he must add $400. That makes $900 that he must pay down. On top of this I believe any practical farmer will tell you that the young solder boy will have to put up in addition to the $1,600 for improvements at least $2,000 in order to bring his farm up anywhere near the ideal condition that the Secretary suggests in order to make the young people " contented." Gentlemen, it is a great scheme, but it won't work. It is a fine word picture, but you can't realize on it. I also desire to refer you to Secretary Lane's testimony at a hear- ing before the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session. Friday, January 10, 1919. I will not detain you long, but will give a few quotations therefrom. On page 9 the Secretary said : Now. gentlemen, I have asked, and I think Mr. Byrnes of South Carolina has put in an amendment to the appropriation bill for an appropriation of $100,- 000,000 .for this plan. My only regret about that is that the amount is so small. It is ridiculously, absurdly on 40-acre farms or 50-acre farms. the land, the cottage, the barn, th< crop put in, the necessary farm in and his wife can move in immediate I would take all these boys person gone to your homes, and do not fii then here is a job for you. We will mall. * : ' Let us give to these men, it merely the bare land, but a home upon land fenced in, the land plowed, the first ilements, and have the place ready so he v and go to work upon that place. * * ' lly and say to them, "If, after you have 1 the old job all ready and open for you. the current rate of wages while you are clearing this ground, while you arc removing the stumps and undergrowth, while you are draining this swamp, digging that ditch or building that dam in the Par West; we will give you good wages, we will take care of you in a barracks that will look palatial to you. Then, after you have worked for a year or two years upon that project, pick out your farm." HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 311 On page 11 it is shown that the Secretary said: We can not possibly give employment to more than 100,000. This was said in the light of the appropriation of $100,000,000. Later on the same page it was recorded that the Secretary said : But we ought to have work for the man when he conies back and if times become hard three months from now, I want you to think about this propo- sition that in Michigan and Wisconsin we can put at work just as many men as will be out of employment in the Great Central West, and down in North and South Carolina and Florida and Louisiana we can put more men at work hundreds of thousands of men, if need be, and care for them. All that will be necessary will be to have the money. We can not do it with $100,000,000. Figures talk: The plan of the Secretary of the Interior was to work 100,000 men with or under an appropriation, as proposed, of $100.000,000. Xow it is proposed to appropriate us a starter $500,- 000,000. and it is not easy to arrive at any other conclusion from the Secretary's testimony that he would work 500,000 men under the $500,000.000 appropriation as he says he can work hundreds of thou- sands of men and care for them if lie can get the money. The Secretary can not expect soldiers to dig ditches and grub stumps, living in barracks away from home and in strange lands, even though the work is done by machinery, for less than a driver of a coal wagon is receiving, to wit, $5 per day; 500.000 men. and that is only 1 in 8 of the whole number of soldiers, at $5 per day will cost $2,500,000 for every eiffht hours work, or $65,000,000 per month of 26 days. If the $500,000,000 was all devoted to the pay- ment of wages to the soldiers it would last seven months or a little over. However, we can not start this plan from that end. The land proposed to be built up into thousands and thousands of farms ^ ill first have to be purchased, as the Secretary is not authorized under this bill to spend the $500,000,000 in payment of wages, machinery, mobilization of the army of 500,000 soldiers, and in addition to the Interior Department of thousands of experts, governors, superin- tendents, and run up millions and millions to be taken care of in deficiency appropriations. The sum of money to be expended before a shovelful of dirt is removed or a stump pulled is beyond my com- prehension, and I doubt if anyone has taken a pencil in hand to esti- mate it. The probabilities are. making a fair guess, that before the real work started a good share of this $500,000,000 would have been expended and the Secretary of the Interior would noi have funds sufficient to pay the wages of the 500,000 soldiers for 7 months nor of 100,000 soldiers for 3 months. If Congress saddles this scheme on to the Government no man in Congress to-day will live to see the time when the debt incurred is liquidated. This is the debit side of the question. The other ques- tion, that is more easily presented, is the fact that no considerable per cent of the soldiers will invest in the proposition. More than a million of the soldiers have now returned from France, about TO per cent of the whole number on this side discharged and yet the labor market has not collapsed, and I do not believe the soldier boys intend to create any disturbance in this country. The soldier has the right to be counseled as to what he desires, and should not be farmed off on land that is old and worthless, under all the plans laid down for them: with governors and overseers to live among them, to tell them 312 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. what to do and how to do it, and to see that they do not rob the Government. Congress has already appropriated $200,000 to make the survey of the swamp and cutover lands, and in this connection Mr. Lane says, " We have not had enough money to make complete recon- naissance." Anyone is justified in coming to the conclusion, after reading the record, that this general survey at an expense of $200,000 has been in most part if not entirely a survey by the eye. Mr. Lane also says on page 13 of hearings before Committee on Irrigation, Sixty-third Congress : "One of the things \ve ought to know definitely very quickly is whether you are going to do this or not. because we have got to get a personnel, the direr-ting and managerial men together, and we ought to know in advance whether this will go through so as to plan for an organization in each one of these States. We practically will have to have -4."> or more different organizations." Mr. Lane says on page 14 (same hearings) : " On the irrigation projects in the West it might be that 20 or 30 acres will be ample," speaking of the size of the soldier's farm. " In the South he would probably get more than on the irrigation project probably 50, 60, 80, or 100 acres, depending upon the kind of agriculture for which tb^t proiect was fitted." Page 16, same hearings, Mr. Lane says : You know that private irrigation schemes failed in the West very largely because, after some years of experiment, private capital would no longer go into it, and then the United States was forced into the enterprise. Mr. OLIVER. Do any of your plans contemplate asking for State cooperation and help? Secretary LANE. All our plans do, but I very much doubt if we will get more out of the States than advice and counsel and education of the men and some consideration, perhaps, after the projects are founded. We did think it might be possible for the States to buy the land and turn the land over to us. But I think that is very unlikely. There has been much talk about the Capitol since Congress was convened in this extraordinary session concerning the average price that the Government would have to pay for the land, and the con- sensus of opinion seems to be that it would cost the Government about $15 per acre. It is very easy to believe that if the Govern- ment gets started in such a way as that it can not well withdraw, the price for this land will materially advance. I believe that to be the history of most land deals. Now, in order to be reasonable and to accommodate those gentle- men who are opposed to my reading this entire manuscript, it may be understood that I may hand my manuscript to the clerk and that it will be printed in the record. If that is done I will omit a great portion of it. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection to that, that may be done. Mr. JOHNSON. To be fair, I will withdraw any objection I have to it. I am a southerner. Mr. BOIES. I attempt to give some figures here that show where the Government would land if Mr. Lane's proposition is carried out; The several departments of the working organization of this Government are helpful and proper when they confine themselves to the power and authority intended to be conferred. I believe that it is generally conceded that man is a selfish being. I also believe that it is well known that the departments in the State as well as HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 313 in the Nation, where no budget system is in vogue, are grabbing for about all the money they can get for their deptartments in order to make the best showing possible. Our present plan has been in existence altogether too long, and there appears now to be a genuine desire to work out some practical so-called budget system for this Government all hail the day. In conclusion I desire to acquaint you with the opinion of a soldier, with whom I am not acquainted, who wrote me from Des Moines, Iowa, under date June 3, 1919, as follows: Hon. JUDGE BOIES, Washington, D. C. DEAR JUDGE: The writer, who has just been discharged from service, although not being as fortunate as a good many of my comrades in that I was stationed in this country while being in the Army, has just read an article in the Register and Tribune, of Des Moines, dated June 3, 1919. I agree with you. Judge, that the average soldier does not wish any land, but does very much prefer a liberal bonus of some kind. We did not hesitate when we were called and gave up our business or in whatever line we were to serve this country. Nearly every returned soldier from Iowa was very much disappointed upon finding that Iowa did not give each man a bonus of some kind. For instance. North Dakota gave each returned soldier $25 per month for every month he was in the service, while Minnesota, I am advised, has given $25 for every two months. Most of the boys with whom I have talked about this proposition claim that they are trying to unload some southern swamp land upon us, and I urge you in behalf of the rest of the boys of Iowa to have Congress make an appropriation giving the returned soldiers a liberal bonus. I wish to now record my attitude toward the brave young man who offered his services in behalf of his country and in behalf of humanity by saying that I stand ready to vote for a cash payment to him, or in the form of bonds, in the sum of $25 to $50 for every month that he was detained in the Government service. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the' committee, I thank you very kindly for your patience. I have spoken my piece. Those who be- lieve with me will probably approve : those who do not will undoubt- edly criticize. I realize fully that I am responsible for what I have said and am willing to take the consequences. The only regret I have is that I did not have sufficient time to present this address in a more acceptable manner. Xow. there is an addendum with reference to the examinations be- fore your committee that I did not have an opportunity to examine, as the print did not come into my hands until yesterday evening. Mr. ELSTOX. What is the form of the addendum? Mr. BOIES. It is just headed "Addendum." Mr. ELSTOX. What does it contain ? Mr. BOIES. It contains hearings that you have had before you here and comments thereon. Mr. ELSTOX. It is all to be included in this record of your speech? Mr. Bores. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Is it something you wrote yourself, Judge, this ad- dendum ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTOX. And you want it included as part of the record ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't know; you stated you didn't have time to examine it. 314 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BOIES. I would not put it upon anybody else's shoulders, that they wrote any of it. Mr. TAYLOR. You said you had not had a chance to examine it. ADDENDUM. The hearings before the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives, May 27 to 31, 1919. being Part I, which was not distributed from the printer's hands until yesterday evening, I have toad but very little time to examine. Mr. Mondell. appearing before that committee (see p. 6), said: "I conferred with the officials of the Interior Department, with the Secretary of the In- terior, and with the gentlemen who he called to his aid, among others, Mr. Cory and Mr. Suiythe. * * * So the bill you have before you is my bill only in the sense that I availed myself of all of the suggestions that had been made and that had been urged in regard to the legislation." On page 15, Mr. Elston said : " In other words, Mr. Mondell, although this is an authorization for $500,000,000, the first appropriation for this current year need not necessarily be the full amount ; it might be much less. " Mr. MONDELL. My thought is at this time, and I do not make that suggestion as at all conclusive or as intended to bind anybody, that $100,000000 or $125,000,000 at the most, is all that could be economically expended within a year." Mr. Raker, on page 17, said : " What I want to do is to get your view on the matter, and later the view of the committee, as to whether you believe it advisable under any circumstances to permit the obtaining of a home under any of these projects and then permit regulations to be promulgated or authority extended by the Secretary of the Interior, whereby the homesteader and that is what I want to call him could live in town and not live upon his farm or home ; that is, not make his home his permanent place of abode. "Mr. MONDELL. I am glad the gentleman called attention to that, because that is exactly one of the things I had in mind in drafting the language of this provision, and if you will note the language you will see it authorizes the soldier to live anywhere in the settlement. The thought is that the Secretary shall require the soldier to live in the settlement." Mr. Baer. on page 22, said : " There is only one more qualification to be con- sidered am 1 that is experience. If the applicant is a farmer's boy and has lived on the farm for years, he would be more likely to be a successful farmer than some clerk in a store. The trouble is that they will try to get people who are clerks in stores or banks who can no more run a farm than a farmer's son can run the First National Bank of New York. They are not experienced and do not know anything about it." Mr. Ferris, on page 23 : "A soldier came to me yesterday and with bated breath said that this would not amount to anything for the soldiers, because it requires him to put up one-fourth of the money for the improvements and 5 per cent of the purchase price of the land. He said that for that reason, the soldiers being penni'ess, this will be of no value to them. I did not agree with him, but I thought it well to call attention to it." (I request that the committee have here printed at this point with my re- marks, the Secretary's questionnaire, including its heading, found on pages 33, 34, and 35.) Secretary Lane, on page 35: "We have about 100,000 men still left in France, and I do not know what percentage of the men in the cantonments have been demobilized, but you must realize that as an outgrowth of this bill, if you were to give us this year $125,000,000 that would take care of approximately 25,000 farms, so that the drain made upon farm labor in New York cou'd not be very great. " Mr. SNELL. I am especially interested in the condition of the farmers at the present time. I represent a purely agricultural district, and there is abso- lutely no help to be obtained to work on the farms. All of our people ;m> very much interested in anything that will tend to disturb what little farm labor there is." It seems to me if a project of this kind were established in the central p:irt of New York Stale in which you would employ, say, 1.000 men. paying them $4 or $5 per day. the few farm laborers that we have would flock down there. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 315 Legitimate farmers could not compete with that sort of market for labor and make a living. Mr. SXKI.L. How many men would you put on a project in its initial stages, for instance? Secretary LANE. I would suppose that if we got 4,000 men on a project that we would be doing extremely well. Mr. SNELL. Page 36: "The taking of 4.000 farm laborers from central New York would absolutely cripple us with what we have there at the present time. 1 ' SKtitKTAUY LANE. These men are not farm laborers, but they are men who are interested in this proposition, or men who have been everything street-car con- ductors, foresters, miners, etc. They are not farm laborers who have sent these requests to us. About 70 or 80 per cent of them are men who have had some agricultural experience. Mr. SNELL. I appreciate that ; but if you should establish one of those projects there, would not the boys in northern New York, for instance, say, " I would rather go down there and work for the Government for nice pay than to work as a common everyday farmer has to do in New York." Serreiary LANE. I should suppose they would. I should rather think that of I were a fellow with a chance like that, and who had been across in France, I would want to get some sort of farm for myself, and that if I saw an op- portunity to get that farm I would not work regularly upon a farm for wages for somebody else, but would strike out for myself. *I think we ought to give them that chance. Mr. SNELL. But in doing that you would cripple the original farm industry in that section of the country. Secretary LANE. Coming from a farming section, as you know I do. because I come from one of the great farming sections of the country, I know that at this time of the year the farmer is always busy and always unhappy because of the prospect of shortage of labor. Last year I remember distinctly, when the war was on, how utterly hopeless the promise was that there would be a suffi- cient amount of farm labor to harvest the crops; and yet you in New York got your women into the fields, and they were enthusiastic about it. Does the Secretary of the Interior intend to build these soldiers' homes so attractive as that the wife will be altogether " contented " and pass lightly over the fact that the New York women are required to work in the fields? Mr. UAKKII (p. 39). Your answer just> given that the man should live on his place practically answers the question I intended to put; that the man should live on his place, and if he had a little tract he could go to the town. Would it be advisable for us to put in this legislation some provision whereby they could form as they are doing and as you have so successfully maintained in the West an organization so you would have something to deal with directly and would not have to deal with each individual man where he had filed upon land or had taken out his homestead? Secretary LANE. Of course, we can do that now. There is nothing to pre- vent the formation of such an association. We want to keep our individual hold upon the men, but I think it would be wise policy to provide for the organization of cooperative associations. Mr. FKRRIS ( p. 41 ). Of course, there are 4,000,000 soldiers in the service of one kind and another, including the Army and Navy and all. Has anybody made a careful estimate as to what percentage of the 4,000,000 soldiers in all prob- ability will desire to avail themselves of this law? Secretary LANE. No one can. Mr. FERRIS. Has anyone made an estimate? Secretary LANE. No. Yes; I think 250,000 of those little pamphlets were printed, and upon the basis of that figure 40,000 were returned to us. That would be 15 per cent, we will say. Mr. FERRIS. Let us see if it would. You had 250,000 printed, or a quarter of a million, and 40,000 returned as undelivered? Secretary LANK. No; 40,000 answers came back. Mr. FERRIS. That would be almost one-fifth. Secretary LANE. Not quite; about 16 per cent. Of course, there are 12,000 additional that are volunteer letters that have just come in. Mr. FERRIS. Going on that basis, if 16 per cent made direct response out of a total queried of 250.000, then it might be a rough estimate, with some degree of accuracy, to say that 16 per cent of the entire 4,000,000 might make reply if they had an opportunity to do so. 316 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Secretary LANE. I think that is perhaps as fair as anything you can get. Mr. FERRIS. As a mathematical proposition that would be about 640,000. Now, Mr. Secretary, I notice from reading the bill that there is no limit or exact sum fixed which the homesteader and the improvements thereon may cost; in other words, there is no maximum. Secretary LANE. No. We have figured about $6,000. We will probably find that it will be a good deal more in some places and less in others. Mr. FERRIS. Undoubtedly that would be true; but a rough estimate of it is that the original purchase and the improvements thereon such as we have in contemplation here would average about $6,000. Then, if our other estimate had any value and this estimate had any value, it would be 640,000 soldiers multiplied by $6,000 as the possible sum total that we might expend on this project ; of course, all of us recognizing that that is a rough estimate. Secretary LANE. Yes. One word in this connection. I desire to present a few figures on the esti- mates of Mr. Ferris and the Secretary. It seems to be proposed to use about $125,000,000 the first year. And it is estimated that this would improve 25,000 farms at $5,000, instead of at $6,000 a farm, according to the latest estimate of the Secretary, upon the proposition of working 4,000 men per project, which must mean 4,000 farms, according to the plan of having the soldier work on the project, at even $5,000 per farm, amounts to $20,000,000. It is in the record that the Secretary of the Interior proposed to work at the start 100,000 men, which would require the working of six projects, and six projects would practically consume $125,000,000, mentioned by the Secretary for the first year, with 24,000 soldiers on the work. Mr. Ferris says : "As a mathematical proposition that would be about 640,000 men," so that the Secretary of the Interior furnishing labor for 24,000 soldiers each year upon the six projects it would take 26 years to complete the job ; and if he worked 100,000 each year, it would require more than six years' time to complete the job. Then, again, if the estimate of 640,000 soldiers applied for farms at $6,000 per farm, the Government would have invested $3,840,000,000. In addition to this, it is proposed to loan each soldier at least $800, which would make another investment on the part of the Government of $512,000,000. Such estimates as these, if anyone ever heard of them before, are easily about one-half the amount that will be required to carry out the project, and I think it is safe to multiply these amounts by two, ;is showing the real amount of money that the Government would find that it had invested. It is clear to my mind that the Secretary has had bad advice with reference to the cost of things in general, and this conclusion is reached from the testimony of Mr. Ferris, page 43: " Then suppose he needs a pair of mules, to get right down to the' practical side of this live-stock proposition, which cost $300, he would have to put up $120 and the Government $180, which he thought would be be- yond his reach." Secretary LANE. I doubt very much if that is so. You can change the per- centage, of course, in any way you want; but I believe in challenging the best thing in the boy and making him feel from the start that he has got to be thrifty. I believe it will look to the ordinary man from a critical examination of this whole plan that the soldier boy has been sufficiently challenged. While some one in the record I will not take time to turn to it now has stated that, the soldier boy was not "a superman," I feel that if he accepts one of these jobs from the Secretary of the Interior and goes through with it to the end that he will have proved himself altogether " a superman." Going back a little to Mr. Ferris's $300-mule team : Some one should advise him That mule teams cost to-day from $600 to $800 per span. If this Govern- ment desires to issue ten billions more of its securities in the form of bonds, per- haps they had better adopt the plan of the Secretary of the Interior. If Con- gressmen are in favor of cutting down expenses of this Government they better throw this scheme into the ash barrel. If Congress feels like doing anything for these soldier boys that is at all reasonable the Iowa delegation will stand with the majority will 11 votes. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the judge a question, if he has completed? HOMES FOK SOLDIERS 317 Judge, will it bother you for me to ask you some questions ? Mr. BOIES. It might bother me, but then you have the right to. Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate my rights, Judge, but out of fairness to you I didn't want to bother you. Do you know that the State of Georgia, the State of Alabama, the State of Louisiana;, the State of Texas, and other Southern States have no representation here, and that the North, the East, and the West have practically all the representation around this table? Mr. BOIES. I noticed that, and while I did notice that, and after having read the proceedings of that big congress down there the thought came to me I didn't know whether it was true or not if they were not purposely left off. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Judge, do you not know that the State of Iowa, the State of Michigan, the State of Pennsylvania that is, citizens of those States just named own practically all the cut-over lands and timbered lands in the South, and that those people who live there own practically none of them? Mr. BOIES. That is my understanding, that they are owned by speculators. Mr. JOHNSON. Then your assault on the South you mean to apply that as to the men who have gone from the North and from your own State Iowa the State of Michigan, and the State of Pennsyl- vania, and not to us southern people? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir; I have no criticism to lodge against the southern gentlemen. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. BOIES. It is the men down there with land to sell. I appre- ciate your southern gentlemen. I have visited in the South once or twice, and I like them. Mr. JOHNSON. If you would come and stay a long time, we would make you a Democrat and move you down there. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Judge, you talked to 40 soldiers out there in your home town? Mr. BOIES. No, sir; I talked to over 40; but I didn't simply go around and talk to 40 soldiers that is, I don't want the record to show that I went around and talked to 40 different soldiers. They were at the meeting gathered there. We have a town of 4,000, and there was as many there as you would get at a banquet, and I thought, congregated as they were, hit or miss, it was a fair repre- sentation. The CHAIRMAN. Were they residents of your State or of other States? Mr. BOIES. They are most of them residents of our State, I pre- sume. The CHAIRMAN. And you haven't found a soldier who is in favor of this plan? Mr. BOIES. I have not talked with a soldier who was in favor of this plan. The CHAIRMAN. Then, it is your idea that this is a reclamation project; and by reclamation project you mean a scheme to reclaim the arid lands of the West and the swamp lands of the South ? Mr. BOIES. I do. The CHAIRMAN. And I suppose those soldiers had that same idea ? 318 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. BOIES. I presume so. Mr. MAYS. Did you take the vote after your speech ? Mr. BOIES. I didn't say a word with reference to the plan. Mr. VAILE. How did you put the question? Mr. BOIES. I just simply called their attention to the fact that there was, or would probably be, a bill in Congress to give soldiers some of the land in this country. Mr. MAYS. Swamp land? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir. Mr. MATS. You mentioned swamp land? Mr. BOIES. Yes ; I did. I had a right to. It is within the truth swamp land and stump land. Mr. MAYS. And it was after you mentioned swamp land that they voted? Mr. BOIES. How is that? Mr. MAYS. After your designation of this land as swamp land, they cast their votes? Mr. BOIES. They did not vote until after I made the statement. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, you know the object of this bill, as stated in the bill, is to select one or more projects in each of the several States where a feasible project may be found; that this is not de- signed solely to reclaim the arid lands of the West and the swamp lands of the South ; that it is not designed for that purpose. Mr. BOIES. Who says so ? The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of the Interior and the bill itself. Mr. BOIES. The bill itself does not speak in that respect. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the bill says: Projects shall be selected with a view to developing one or more projects in each of the several States in which feasible projects may be found. Now, Secretary Lane has repeatedly called to the attention of Con- gress and to this committee the large areas of land existing in the Northern States, in the Northeast, in the North, aside from the West, and it is specifically stated that a project could be found, or projects were found, feasible in every State so far, with the excep- tion of four States, one of those four being your own State, Iowa ; but later examination may disclose a project in your State, although I doubt if there is a project in your State. Your State is so fertile and is all under cultivation that there probably wouldn't be any- thing there. Mr. BOIES. Doesn't that contemplate a monster scheme mon- strous, I mean in extent? The CHAIRMAN. That was not the question. I am directing my question to your impression of the bill and the impression that your soldiers had, that it is a scheme solely to reclaim the swamp lands of the South and the arid lands of the West. Now, that theory being incorrect, that would not modify your views any, would it? Mr. BOIES. My impression of the bill is gained by an examination of the history that led up to the introduction of this Mondell bill. The CHAIRMAN. Well, Judge, I am giving you some of the history of the bill, some of the genesis and the exact language of the Secre- tary of the Interior, who states that within 50 miles of the city of Washington there are numerous feasible projects. Now, Judge, your opinion and the opinion of these soldiers was formed because HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 319 you thought this was a proposition to reclaim the arid lands of the West and the swamp lands of the South; yet you have told this committee that you know nothing about the failure or the success of the reclamation or the irrigation of the arid lands of the West. Mr. BOIES. Well, I don't think that the statement of the chairman is borne out by what I said. The CHAIRMAX. Well, as a matter of fact, have you any knowl- edge, Judge, of the failure or of the success of the irrigated lands in the West ? Mr. BOIES. Just as I have said, only in a general way. But, then, my knowledge of that don't affect the proposition of its being a reclamation project, and I don't object to this Government going into a decent reclamation project, I don't care how large, when this country can afford it and the States in which it is located help to improve their own States. Mr. ELSTOX. Judge, that is the very question. Your main objec- tion is that this is an extravagent proposition and will involve the Government in the expenditure of too much money ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir ; and that the soldier boy won't adopt it. Mr. ELSTOX. Now. your plan is to do what the soldier boy wants, and to do it immediately ; is that it ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTOX. All right. Now, you say that your plan is to give him six months' pay at $50 a month. Mr. BOIES. $25 to $50. Mr. ELSTON. Make it $50 for six months. That would be $300, and 4,000,000 times $300 for six months makes $7,200,000,000. Then your plan, which involves economy and excludes extravagance, calls for the immediate outlay in actual money at this time of $7.200,- 000,000 ; this plan here calls for the appropriation at the present time of only $100,000,000. Now, as between the two plans, do you think yours is the most extravagant, or that the Lane plan is the most extravagant ? Mr. BOIES. The bill says $500,000,000. Mr. ELSTON. That is the authorization. It has been stated here over and over again that the uttermost appropriation that will be asked of the Appropriation Committee at this time will be $100,- 000,000. This bill is an authorization of a maximum amount to be appropriated over a course of five years. Now, do you think, Judge, in your judgment, that in a matter of comparison between the two plans, yours can be characterized as reasonable, unwasteful, economic; while the Lane plan can be characterized as extravagant and wasteful ? Mr. BOIES. It is not in the blood of the American people to-day to deal economically with the soldier. Mr. ELSTOX. But you are putting your argument on that very basis. Your argument calls for the immediate expenditure of over $7,000,- 000.000, which the Lane plan will never approximate. Mr. BOIES. You forget, as the gentleman sitting next to me sug- gested, the pension to old soldiers goes out monthly. I thanked him for that suggestion. It probably ought to go out in that way to these soldiers, and if you will take the figures they are set out there if you take the figures of the Secretary of the Interior, the plan that is outlined by his own language, you will find that the expense, if car- 13331919 21 320 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. ried out according to his ideas and he is given full authority by this bill will amount to many billions of dollars. Mr. ELSTON. No ; the very utmost amount he can spend under this bill is $500,000,000. That is the absolute limitation. Mr. BOIES. That is in the start. Mr. ELSTON. Well, that is up to Congress. Mr. HERSMAN. Judge, don't you realize that under this bill the money is also to be paid back to the Government? Mr. ELSTON. A revolving fund. Mr. BOIES. No ; the bill says it is not or Mr. Mondell says in his argument that it is not. Mr. JOHNSON. It is not revolving. Mr. HERSMAN. It is to be paid back, isn't it? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; with interest. Mr. BOIES. Well, if I am at all right, no considerable percentage of these soldiers will adopt this plan, and you won't have any soldiers to pay back the money. Mr. JOHNSON. Just a moment ; right on that point, Judge do you not know that 1,578 of your own citizens, your own soldiers, have applied for homesteads under this plan? Mr. BOIES. I have read that statement. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you believe that it is true? Mr. BOIES. Well, if you will allow me to answer one question before you put another Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). Secretary Lane says it is; that 1,578 men already have applied for these homesteads under the Lane plan. Mr. BOIES. Now, the only knowledge that I have of that is the ques- tionnaires sent out by Secretary Lane, and which I ask here to have incorporated as part of my address. The CHAIRMAN. They are in the record. The secretary put them in. Mr. Bones. And I want the heading in. Mr. ELSTON. It is in the record. Mr. BOIES. That questionnaire didn't amount to very much to the boy in the trench or out in the fields, or wallowing in the mud. The heading is : " Hey, there ; do you want a farm ? " Of course, he wanted a farm if he could get it. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, Judge; that was not the idea conveyed. Here is what the secretary said : Does the Government give me this farm for nothing? Answer : No. And you wouldn't want the Government to do it. The plan is for you to arrange to pay for your farm in small payments after a long term of years, with interest charged at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. There was no lure held out to the soldier, no gold brick held up before him in that statement. Mr. BOIES. Well, the heading is, as I state, isn't it ? Mr. VAILE. Judge, Iowa is now a very highly developed State agri- culturally, isn't it? Mr. BOIES. Yes; I think it is the best agricultural State in the Union. Land is selling there from $350 to $550 an acre. Mr. MAYS. Eight there, Judge ; is there much show for a man with- out some means to get one of those farms ? Mr. BOIES. To get one.of them ? Mr. MAYS. Yes. Mr. BOIES. Yes. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 321 Mr. MAYS. How ? Mr. BOIES. He must, perhaps, to-day be a little more than an ordi- nary man. Mr. MAYS. We are dealing with ordinary men. Mr. BOIES. But if he has the money that the Secretary of the Interior contemplates that he shall have before he can go on one of these improved farms, he can get a piece of land there on a small payment down or he would have enough to go on to a farm and rent ; and I will tell you that the renter to-day can pay for a piece of land from three to five hundred dollars an acre at these prices, and some of them are doing it. Mr. VAILE. Now, Judge, there is very little land in Iowa that needs to be irrigated or drained or cleared of stumps or otherwise re- claimed. Mr. BOIES. It is stated that 97 per cent of it is tillable. Mr. VAILE. It is one of the States referred to by Secretary Lane as not now being reported as having any available land for this project? Mr. BOIES. Yes. Mr. VAILE. Well, now, Judge, of course we all recognize the justice of your remark a few minutes ago, that all of us, no matter how fair we are, are somewhat affected by our own selfish interests. You would hardly expect the people of Iowa to be entirely exempt from that vice which is common to us all, would you ? Mr. BOIES. No, sir. I say that mankind is a little selfish, and I don't wish to be understood as putting myself above the ordinary man. Mr. VAILE. We had a gentleman here the other day he is here right now who objected to this plan because he thought it was mak- ing competition with the farmer. Isn't it very possible, Judge, that the people of Iowa regard this as competition with them, with their lands already developed? Mr. BOIES. No, sir; I don't care if it is competition. Every man that wants to farm and can find a piece of land to farm, or go into any other business under the Government, ought to be privileged to do so. Mr. VAILE. Now, these soldiers that you talked to were men who were coming home to be demobilized or had been discharged ? Mr. BOIES. They had been discharged. Mr. VAILE. So, most of them were Iowa soldiers ? Mr. BOIES. Yes. I dare say most of them were Iowa soldiers. Mr. VAILE. Living on or in the neighborhood of the richest lands in the world? Mr. BOIES. Well, most of them live in town and work at various propositions. Mr. VAILE. They were not the class of men, mostly, who would care who would have an inducement to move to some other new country, were they ? Mr. BOIES. Well, there are a good many of them there that are broke. Mr. VAILE. At all events, their surroundings were calculated to encourage a man and assist a man to become wealthy, weren't they ? Mr. BOIES. Well, if a boy was straight and industrious, he would be assisted by most anybody that had the money to help him along. 322 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. And furthermore, they didn't have before their eyes the sight of large tracts which could be readily developed by their own efforts? Mr. BOIES. No; but if you read this whole record and got into what the Secretary says about this land down South, and one place where the timbermen had cleared off 200 acres of swamp land The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Judge, get away from the South a little while. This is not solely a southern proposition. Mr. VAILE. I want to refer to one other question. Mr. BOIES. But most of the record evidence backing up this bill comes from the South. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no ; that is not true, Judge. Mr. TAYLOR. Judge, if this bill fails it will fail by reason of the opposition of the South. Mr. BOIES. I am not talking about the southern man ; I am agree- ing with that man, I don't care where the man comes from, if he comes from my own town or my home Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). So far as I know, I am -the only member of our delegation that is in favor of this bill. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. That is because you are posted on its merits. Mr. JOHNSON. I have studied it. Mr. VAILE. Isn't it a fact, Judge, that our point of view, as af- fected by self-interest, changes from time to time as conditions affecting our self-interest vary ? Mr. BOIES. I think so ; but there isn't anything in my position that is affected by my self-interest. Mr. VAILE. Isn't it a fact, Judge, that Iowa itself was settled very largely under the provisions of various soldier settlement acts, espe- cially by veterans of the Civil War, who came out there under the liberal policy of the Government came out there and settled those lands, the richest in the world ? Mr. BOIES. Not all through Iowa ; but in my section of the State, where I have lived for 38 years, that is true. I don't mean to say that is generally so, but a great many soldiers took up homesteads there. Mr. VAILE. So the interest, now that it is fully developed, would be different from that which existed immediately 'following the Civil War. Mr. BOIES. Yes ; because if these boys could go and homestead any such land as that now we would all want them to homestead it, and they would be desirous of homesteading it. Mr. VAILE. If they had a chance to homestead that kind of land anywhere they ought to be allowed to do it, shouldn't they ? Mr. BOIES. Yes ; but the record shows there isn't any such land as that to homestead. Mr. VAILE. That is a question. Mr. BOIES. And nothing to give them a farm until the Government takes hold of it and reclaims it. Mr. RAKER. Just a moment there, so that we may not get a mis- apprehension of that. When Iowa was opened for settlement, it was opened for everybody, the soldier and the man who was not a soldier. Isn't that right? Mr. BOIES. Every citizen of the United States possessing the quali- fications of a homesteader had that right. HOMES FOR SOLDIELS. 323 Mr. RAKER. And the only advantage that the soldier got that went to Iowa was that he was allowed to get a patent in a shorter space of time than the man who had not been in the service? Mr. BOIES. Yes. Mr. RAKER. And he got no other advantage. Isn't that true ? Mr. BOIES. Not that I recall. Mr. RAKER. So, therefore, it shows that the benefits we are talking about to the soldier, soldiers' scrip, so far as it applies to Iowa, is not true. The soldier did not sell his scrip, but he went out and located himself and made a farm. Mr. BOIES. Well, I don't think the Iowa soldier homesteader had any scrip to sell. Mr. RAKER. Then he did become a farmer himself? Mr. BOIES. Certainly. Mr. RAKER. Now just one other question. You have spoken in glowing terms of Iowa. Mr. BOIES. The questions pulled that out of me. I didn't intend to sav that. Mr. ELSTON. You are not going to refer to California in that con- nection, are you, Judge? Mr. RAKER. I have a question that will elicit a good answer. Let me repeat what I said I want to make it short you have spoken in glowing terms of Iowa, the men working there, and the value of the land, etc., now why is it that 60,000 of your citizens have gone to one county in California alone within the last 10 years? Mr. BOIES. Because they have grown rich, and you have some nice sky and flowers out there, and men who want to take their money away from them. [Laughter.] Mr. ELSTOX. Is that satisfactory, Judge. [Laughter.] Mr. RAKER. Now there are just a few matters that I want to ask, if I may have the privilege, and then I will not interrupt anybody else. It has been stated here inferentially that this committee was not rep- resentative. Now, as a matter of fact, we have two southern men on the committee, and you don't expect to present here the fact that because the committee did not come from certain States it would affect their attitude in hearings on this bill, and their judgment in re- porting it out, did you ? Mr. BOIES. Not at all, and I tried to fortify the record so that no- man could go out of here and say that I did. Mr. RAKER. Exactly. Of course, there are committees of the House on which for years there has been no representative from the West, the Intermountain States, or the Pacific coast, and it is still true. They can't get on. Now, Judge, in your presentation here you are trying to convey to the committee the idea that you are opposed to this bill, but sup- pose it should be workable and part of our soldiers were given an opportunity to get a home at a reasonable price and pay for it eventually, you would be in favor of such legislation, wouldn't you? Mr. BOIES. You mean the soldier will pay for it eventually? Mr. RAKER. Yes, that is what this bill provides. Mr. BOIES. Yes, sir ; if there is any considerable number of soldiers who want to adopt this plan, I would be willing that it go through, and if it could be ascertained just how many, so that it might also 324 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. be ascertained what sum of money would be required to locate those soldiers so, as the Secretary of the Interior says, their wives would be contented a nice place to live I would agree to that, too. Mr. MAYS. You estimated awhile ago there would be 3 per cent. How many would that make altogether? Mr. BOIES. That would make about 240,000. Mr. MAYS. Do you know how many this bill would care for its provisions ? Mr. BOIES. About 640,000. Mr. MAYS. I hardly think so. Mr. BOIES. The provisions of this $500,000,000 ? Mr. MAYS. Yes. Mr. BOIES. Why, no; that would provide for about 24,000 times six. Mr. MAYS. So that 3 per cent of the soldiers, if your estimate is correct, would occupy all the lands made available under this bill, wouldn't they ? Mr. BOIES. Yes, I think it would, and I think before you got through with that you would have an awful debt on hand. Mr. MAYS. So, if 3 per cent of the soldiers would desire to take advantage of this bill, you would be for it to that extent, would you? Mr. BOIES. If it can be shown to me what it is going to cost, and that they will furnish something that the soldier that is of benefit to the soldier. Mr. MAYS. Well, a home is usually of some benefit, isn't it? Mr. BOIES. Yes; but how are you going to furnish the soldier a home who hasn't got a cent, as the Secretary of the Interior says, hasn't got enough money to buy a shack how is he going to pay the four or five hundred dollars cash down, and then after the Gov- ernment loans him $800, put in $400 himself ? Mr. MAYS. Well, there are provisions in this bill for payment for work that he may do to help out such a soldier as you mention. Mr. BOIES Yes ; but the Secretary of the Interior proposes that the Government shall go on and prepare this farm and build the houses and put the crop in. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no ; it doesn't go that far. Mr. BOIES. There is a record of that The CHAIRMAN. No; there is no provision for putting in a crop. Mr. BOIES. I may be mistaken as to the Secretary saying that, but if he didn't, some other man did who was at the meeting with him. The CHAIRMAN. That was said, probably, at this convention you refer to, but it is not in the bill. Mr. BOIES. But he has talked about the bathtub in the house and about good roads and about railroads being built into these projects and that it ought to be done quickly. Xow, who is going to build railroads to-day? The Railroad Administration or the bankrupt railroads? Mr. BAER. The railroads in Iowa when they found that that land was good for farming a lot of railroads went in there. Mr. BOIES. They didn't build them for a great many years, either. I want to know who is going to build railroads quickly". Mr. BAER. I think the trouble is, Judge, you can't adjust your mind to 50 years ago, because you were a pretty young man when our HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 325 fathers went out to get homesteads. There was lots of free land then, but these soldiers are not in the same condition. They haven't any land. Mr. BOIES. I was born on a homestead, 65 miles west of Chicago, and my people cheated me out of fame because they moved out of the log house on January 1 and I was born in the new house on January 3. Mr. BAER. I was born in a log house 100 miles north of Chicago and they didn't cheat me. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. White wants to ask a question, Judge. Mr. WHITE. Do you think that the competition that would result from the products of those farms that might be established through the operation of this bill would have any effect whatever upon the price of agricultural products? Mr. BOIES. I don't know whether it would have any effect upon the agricultural products of the country, and it would not have, in m J judgment, a bad effect upon the condition of the people and the cost of living. You can't get too much competition in the world for the good of mankind in the way of raising foodstuffs. Mr. WHITE. You don't believe, do you, that there is any prejudice whatever in the minds of the farmers of your State toward this proposition for that particular reason, do you ? Mr. BOIES. I know there is not. Mr. WHITE. I am glad to hear that. Mr. Bonos. I happen to own a little land in Iowa, and I did work some of it myself along with my boy before he enlisted, but when he came back he didn't want to go back to the farm. _ He went to selling tractor engines. I don't care how much competition you get into the farming business. Mr. WHITE. You don't believe they care, either? Mr. BOIES. No, sir. Mr. SMITH. Judge, in your opening statement, you intimated very strongly that the people most interested in this legislation were the land owners, and included the owners of swamp lands and the owners of arid lands in the West. Do you not know that practically all of the arid lands in the West that would be reclaimed are in the public domain and not in private ownership at all? Mr. BOIES. Secretary Lane says that the greater part of the public lands are on top of the Rocky Mountains. Mr. SMITH. That may be true, but there are great quantities of arid lands that could be reclaimed that are still in the public domain and are useless until they are reclaimed. You are mistaken when you assume that we are interested in this bill because somebody has got some land to sell out there. The land we would reclaim is in the public domain. Mr. BOIES. Well, I have lived in the West all of my life, and I know how the land business is transacted. Mr. SMITH. Do you know how it has been conducted from a gov- ernmental standpoint? Mr. BOIES. Not from the governmental standpoint, but I know I have been in the Rocky Mountains, too. Mr. SMITH. You probably rode through in a Pullman car. 326 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. BOIES. Well, I have walked around there. Mr. SMITH. Now, you say the land in Iowa is worth from $300 to $500 an acre on the average ? Mr. BOIES. No, sir. Mr. SMITH. $250 an acre on the average? What chance has a poor young man in Iowa to get a foothold on the soil there? This legislation is intended to give the Iowa boys a chance to get a home in some other section of the country; for instance, out in our country we have probably 10 or 15 per cent of the people who came from your State. Mr. BOIES. You are as competent to judge of that as I am, and I don't I am not arguing against this land, the Government land, being reclaimed, and I am not arguing against the man who owns the swamp lands of the South or the stump land on the sandy districts of the North putting their land upon the market if they can, and I wouldn't be against Government aid in helping the States to get their lands under cultivation, but I don't want it done quickly, as they are asking for at this time, because of the $24,000,000,000 of debts that we know something about, and more coming in that we don't know anything about. Mr. SMITH. If we made these young men self-sustaining by putting them on farms, they would help to pay this enormous debt. Mr. BOIES. You are not going to get these young men on the farms, according to this plan of the Secretary of the Interior you are not going to get them to work under two or three years. Mr. i SMITH. We expect to give them work constructing these projects as soon as the bill is passed. Mr. BOIES. You will get about 24,000 of them the first year, and the balance of the 100,000 would be waiting for four years before the lats twenty- four or twenty-five thousand would get a chance to go on the land. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, just one question. Do you realize, when you speak of the land schemes and the land sales that will be put over upon the Government do you realize the safeguards under this bill and the legislative situation surrounding the bill ; that this bill is a bill solely for an authorization ; it does not appropriate any money, and before the money can be made available the Appropriations Committee of the House and yourself will have an opportunity to pass upon the specific projects" that are to be developed; that it is contemplated that the first year we can spend about $75,000,000; that whatever service has this in charge, if under the Secretary of the Interior he will not have carte blanche to spend that money, but he has got to put his cards upon the table before the Appropriations Committee, and they will report to the House an item in the appro- priation bill, and the project will be disclosed and the scheme will be disclosed upon which the $75,000,000 is to be expended. Mr. BOIES. Where does the evidence of that sort of a plan appear ? The CHAIRMAN. That is the requirement of the rules of the House. Mr. BOIES. This is turned over absolutely under this bill the $500,000,000? The CHAIRMAN. Yes ; that appears in the last section, and I know a great many new Members and I was confused myself on the dif- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 327 ference between an authorization and an appropriation for several years " That for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act the sum of $500,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appro- priated." Now, that is an authorization. This committee can not make an appropriation. The Appropriations Committee is not a legislative committee. We give them the authorization of law, the statute which enables them to make the appropriation; then the Secretary of the Interior has to come before the committee, the Ap- propriations Committee, as he does to-day in the matter of reclama- tion expenditures, and disclose to the committee and be subjected to a cross-examination before the Appropriations Committee will approve the item. Then that is reported to the House, and we vote on it a second time. That is the procedure, and that is the safeguard sur- rounding a matter of this kind. Mr. BOIES. I tell you that when the Government goes out to buy this land spoken of for this purpose they are more liable than other- wise to get cheated. The Government is not a good land agent, and it is not a good buyer generally. The CHAIRMAN. The Government can't buy this land, Judge, ex- cept as directed by the Appropriations Committee, presided over by the gentleman from your own State, Mr. Good. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. And it is also true, Judge, that there would be a great deal of land that would be given absolutely, either by the State or by the owner, to the Federal Government for this purpose. Mr. BOIES. Secretary Lane says he don't believe that is 1 true. He says about the only thing they will get from the States is a little advice maybe some help after the project is completed. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, there is a captain in the Army here. I promised him that he could go on, so that he could leave to catch a train. Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to ask one question: Do you believe that the $300 that you have suggested be given to the soldiers in cash would do the average soldier more good than if a feasible scheme could be worked out to make him the proprietor of a farm ? Mr. BOIES. If a feasible scheme could be worked out so as to give the soldier boy a farm, it ought to be done, when this Government can afford it. Mr. HERSMAN. Well, now, Judge, one more question. Don't you know that this committee is trying to work out a feasible scheme, with the assistance of the experts of this Government that are well informed as to what schemes are possible? Mr. BOIES. I haven't any knowledge of what this committee is trying to do. All the knowledge I have is what Secretary Lane is trying to do, with the assistance of men who have land to sell. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, just one more question : Do you feel that you have fairly canvassed this matter among the soldiers to deter- mine \vhether or not they want it? Mr. BOIES. I think I have canvassed it more thoroughly than any other man, outside of the Secretary of the Interior, who has made any report upon the question, that 1 know anything about. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. 328 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. STATEMENT OF CAPT. ELLIS BASHURE, UNITED STATES ARMY. Capt. BASHURE. I am at present in the financial section of the Army. I will not take up very much of your time, gentlemen. The reason that I am very much interested in this hearings that when the little questionnaire came out from the War Department I called our little garrison together 700 men read the questionnaire to them, explained everything that they wanted explained, and we "found that 87 per cent of our garrison of 700 men wanted Government farms. We explained to them that they were not going to be given anything; that they would have to pay for everything they got; that it was not a gratuity in any sense of the word. Our men were composed 10 per cent from South Carolina ; three- quarters, in equal proportions from the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana. The remaining 15 per cent were scattered, some Mississippians, some Californians, and they were scattered gen- erally all over the country. Three-quarters of them, however, were from the middle section ot the country, either the North or the middle section. I do not think, from my own observation, from the questions that I put to these men, that they want a gratuity. I think they want farms. They are thrown now on their own resources. We jerked them out of good jobs and told them to serve their country, and they did it; and we are throwing them back Avith no jobs, with nothing to do. My folks are in California now, and they tell me there are a lot of soldiers, unemployed men, in Los Angeles. I think Judge Raker will bear me out in that. There are a lot more in New Orleans, a lot more in Atlanta, and it seems to me that something should be done as soon as possible ; and it seems to me, too, that the only feasible method is the Lane method. That is about all I have to say. The CHAIRMAN. You have talked to these men personally. Cap- tain? Capt. BASHURE. I talked to them personally. The questionnaires were distributed and after four days spent in interviews with them, the matter was brought to a straw vote by receiving these cards from them, for their expression of opinion as to whether they wanted a farm or did not want a farm. Eighty-seven per cent of our garrison of 700 men wanted a Government farm on those terms. The CHAIRMAN. They thoroughly understood that this was not a gratuity ? Capt. BASHURE. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Or an absolute bounty or charity? Capt. BASHURE. Yes, sir. This one thing was brought out very forcibly to me. A great many of these men were taxpayers and they objected to a gratuity, because they realized that they would only be taking out of one pocket to put into another. The CHAIRMAN. How long ago was it that you canvassed this matter? Capt. BASHURE. That was the time this questionnaire came out. That was, I should say, February or March of this year. The CHAIRMAN. And have you had any general talk with them or canvass since that time? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 329 Capt. BASHURE. Not since that time; no. The CHAIRMAN. In what capacity are you acting now ? Capt, BASHURE. At present I am attached to the Finance Section of the Army. The CHAIRMAN. Were you a demobilizing officer? Capt. BASHURE. I was demobilizing officer at the remount station, Camp Shelby. The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any such experience as Judge Boies had? Capt. BASHURE. No; I did not. The CHAIRMAN. You did not find anything like the adverse senti- ment that he found ? Capt. BASHURE. I found no adverse sentiment at all. I found some men that did not care for farms, because they were city men and did not think they had the necessary training to become farmers. But there was no one opposed to it at all, so far as I could find out. The CHAIRMAN. Do any members of the committee desire to ask the captain any questions? Mr. BENHAM. I would like to ask, Captain, what is your native State? Capt. BASHURE. Virginia, by parentage ; California, by education ; and Mississippi by citizenship. Mr. BENHAM. And how many years how much of your time have you spent, in California and how much in Mississippi ? Capt. BASHURE. I have been in Mississippi a year and four months. I came to California immediately after my birth in Virginia. I am now 38 years old, so I have spent practically 36 years in California, in central and southern California. Mr. VAILE. As demobilizing officer did you have any connection whatever with the Reclamation Service? Capt. BASHURE. Not in the least. Mr. VAILE. Merely and entirely military? Capt. BASHURE. Entirely military ; no feeling one way or the other. Mr. VAILE. What are the duties of the demobilizing officer ? Capt. BASHURE. Simply to pay off the men, prepare their records, and send them in. I was acting as adjutant at the same time. In other words, I was running the office of the remount division. Mr. VAILE. Did you have any cooperation with such agencies as the Red Cross in regard to placing men or seeing where they could be placed after they got out of the service ? Capt. BASHURE. We had a representative of the United States Em- ployment Service call on us frequently. We were in close cooperation with them, and we had the local establishment of the Y. M. C. A., but the principal work was with the Government Employment Service. Mr. VAILE. Your putting this questionnaire to these men, or inter- rogating them about it, was the result of your previous activities in see- ing where men could be placed in emplo^yment? Capt, BASHURE. That was the point. I didn't want to turn my men out without any place to go, because I realized that it would probably lead to crime of some sort if they were thrown out with nothing to do and no place to make a livelihood. Mr. VAILE. And that work was undertaken by you on your own initiative ? 330 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Capt. BASHTJRE. In one way. yes: as part of my duties as adjutant. Mr. VAILE. You had general instructions from The Adjutant Gen- eral's Office to be on the lookout for places to place these men? Capt. BASHURE. Xo; I can't say that I did. I received these ques- tionnaires and asked for an expression of opinion without prejudice from the men either one way or the other. I explained what the situa- tion was, and I asked, in view of that explanation, what they wanted to do. Mr. BENHAM. Do you happen to know, Captain, whether there was any general attempt by the military authorities to interrogate men in the Army as to their 'feeling in regard to this project? Capt. BASHURE. I only know as to my own garrison. I don't even know as to Camp Shelby, just below us. The remount is a separate post. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What proportion of the soldiers. Captain, that you interrogated had been overseas ? Capt. BASHURE. Our men, none of them, had been overseas. They were all in the remount service. They were men put into the remount service because they had had clerical training, and some percentage of them I don't know what percentage now were farmer boys, and some were veterinarians. They were men skilled in the care of horses, P. great many of them. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Most of them were recruits, I assume, from the agricultural districts? Capt. BASHURE. Yes; three-fourths of the entire garrison of 700 men were drawn from Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia. 10 per cent from South Carolina, and the balance were scattering. The CHAIRMAN. This was a voluntary canvass on your part? Capt. BASHURE. Absolutely voluntary. They were sent the ques- tionnaire and I took it upon myself to see just how the men stood. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen ( Mr. RAKER. Just for the sake of information, how did you get your questionnaires, Captain? Capt. BASHURE. They were sent us through the War Department. The CHAIRMAN. The War Department sent you down a whole bundle of them? Capt, BASHURE. A whole bundle of them; yes. We were told to distribute them to the men. Mr. RAKER. The purpose of that was to get an idea from the boys as to what they would like to do as soon as they got out of the Army ? Capt. BASHURE. That was the point exactly. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It was the policy of the War Department to try to place men as they were demobilized in some useful occupation as quickly as possible? That is the general policy of the War De- partment ? Capt. BASHURE. Yes; that is the idea. Of course, that was entirely independent of this, because they realized that it would take some time to put this into operation. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Captain. Gentlemen of the committee, it is evident that we can not complete to-day. Mr. Drane wants to go on and we still have Director Davis, and Mr. Atkeson tells me that it would be just as convenient for him to come Monday. What is the further wish of the Committee about sitting longer? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 331 Mr. RAKER. Can't we take a recess until Monday at 10 o'clock? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will take a recess until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Monday, June 9, 1919.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, Monday, June 9, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF MR. E. PHILIP ROSENTHAL, OF PORTLAND, OREG., REPRESENTING THE HUMAN WELFARE ASSOCIATION. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I believe I have something very important to tell you. I have been working on this proposition for 30 years, and I have come here especially from Washington and Oregon to lay before you this proposition. This is a proposition that has been indorsed by the Sixty-third Conference of the Methodist Church, by the Parent Teachers' Association, and by the State Federation of Labor. I have here a proposition that is far superior, aye, ten thou- sand times superior, to the one you have before you. This is a propo- sition that will benefit all of the soldiers and all of the people, and the proposition is one that is very vital. Xow. I have something important to say to you, and I want to take the time to say it. The CHAIRMAN. Can you complete your statement in 15 minutes? Mr. ROSENTHAL. If you decide at the end of 15 minutes that I have said nothing worth while, then I can stop. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you start in for 15 minutes. First tell the committee whom you are and whom you represent. Mr. FERRIS. May I "suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this ought to be in the form of a specific amendment to this bill? Whatever you have ought to be in the form of specific amendment to the bill that we are endeavoring to perfect. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you something prepared in specific or concrete form? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; I have something specifically prepared, but. not being a lawyer, I do not think I am capable of making an amendment to your bill that will pass muster. Mr. TAYLOR. You are capable of reducing your important ideas to writing, are 3 r ou not ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir : and I have them here in writing. (The matter referred to is as follows:) THE SELF-HELP PLAN : A PROGRAM OF RECONSTRUCTION SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT THE AMERICAN WAY. Placing education as the foundation of the plan, and recognizing the spirit of the new democracy as expressed in the self-evident truth that every human heing is endowed with the inalienable right to the ownership of a job, giving him access to the means to satisfy the demands of life, developing in the person an independence such as every lover of liberty should possess, and places the person on equal footing with every other person as to opportunity in the race for the pursuit of happiness. 332 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. A BILL To establish in the Federal Board for Vocational Education a Bureau of Self- Help Education, making appropriation for its support and for other purposes. [Proposed by the Self -Help Plan Society.] Be it enacted ~by the Senate and House of Representatives of the I'nitcd States of America in Congress Assembled : That there is established in the Federal Board for Vocational Education a division to be known MS the Division of Self-Help, the director of which shall receive a salary at the rate of SS.ooo per annum. That there be in such division a section of farm workshop education and a section of self-help community in charge of a superintendent of education and a superintendent of communities, each of whom shall receive a salary of $5,000 per annum. That this act be known as Self-Help Act and that the word " board " herein- after used in this act shall mean the Federal Board for A'ocational Education, and the word "establishment" shall mean farm workshop schools and the word " community " shall mean self-help community. That the word " director " shall mean the director of the self-help division of the Federal Board for Voca- tional Education. SEC. 2. That the director, subject to the general direction of the board, shall ad- minister, execute, and enforce the provisions of this act, and for that purpose have full power and authority to make rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, necessary or appropriate to carry out its pur- poses, and shall decide all questions arising under the act. Wherever under any provision or provisions of the act regxilations are directed or authorized 1o be made, such regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, shall or may be made by the director, subject to the general direction of the board. SEC. 3. That the director in cooperation with States, counties, cities, and any other agencies shall through the section of farm workshop education establish on the public domain national forests, State lands, or any other lands that may be required, farm workshop schools. These schools shall teach the science of farming and other necessary trades and professions which supply the means to satisfy the needs of life by practical creative work. Such labor shall be utilized as far as possible in producing and manufacturing the food, clothing, shelter, tools, materials, and equipments necessary for the maintenance of said estab- lishments. Such establishments shall be open to persons of all ages and of both sexes, either as individuals or as family units. The director when necessary shall provide the means to bring the prospective students to the establishments. The director shall maintain an employment service as a branch of the establishment for the placement of students. SEC. 4. That the director in cooperation with States, counties, cities, and any other agencies shall through the section of self-help community establish on the public domain national forests, State lands or any other lands that may be required, farm workshop villages. The director shall select those from the students attending the establish- ment who have proved themselves capable and worthy, group them harmoni- ously according to their respective vocation, locate them in the self-help colony a farm workshop village laid out on a definite plan by an expert on community settlement back these groups with land for farming and other purposes, implements, tools, stock, buildings, and other equipment necessary for the successful pursuit of their vocation on a system of credit to be deter- mined by the board, and during the period of such a credit the director shall, as the agent of the student draftsmen, supervise the sales and the marketing of their products and purchase their supplies. And for this purpose the direc- tor is authorized to business agents and to establish the necessary warehouses, exchanges, and stores. The director shall allot as much land as in the board's discretion may be required for the support of sxich allottee and his dependents. Such allotment shall be made only for the period of actual and continuous occupancy and beneficial use by such allottee, but the improvements on the land and the right of occupancy and use may be sold or otherwise shall pass by descent in like manner as real estate. The director shall plan the farm workshop village in such manner that there shall be produced from the various workshops thereon, as far as is possible, all the supplies that are needed to meet the requirements of the farm workshop villages and producing a surplus of the products of the predominating industry HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 333 of the community which is governed by the natural resources of the community. The surplus to be exchanged with other communities. The director shall establish in each farm village a community house to be the center of the social activities of the community. SEC. 5. That the President is hereby authorized and directed to withdraw from entry under existing land laws, from time to time as much of the public domain as shall in his judgment be requisite for the carrying out of the pro- visions of this act. When so withdrawn, such lands shall be subject to dis- position under the provisions of this act, and where necessary additional lands not already publicly owned may be acquired. SEC. 6. That it shall be the duty of the board to make or cause to have made studies, investigations, and reports with particular reference to their use in aid- ing in the cooperation with the States, counties, cities, and other agencies in the establishment of the farm workshop schools and self-help colonies. When the board deems it advisable, such studies, investigations and reports may be made in cooperation with or through other departments and bureaus of the Government, and the board in its discretion may cooperate with any bureau, department, State board, and with such other public or private agencies as it may deem advisable in performing the duties imposed upon it by this act. The board shall have the power to cooperate with States, counties, cities, or any other agencies in carrying out the provisions of this act on the plan which the board is carrying out the provisions of the previous acts. The board shall also have the power to adopt another plan or plans which will be more suitable to fulfill the purpose of this act. SEC. 7. That the board is hereby authorized and empowered to receive such gifts and donations from either public or private sources as may be offered unconditionally. All moneys received as gifts or donations shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and shall constitute a permanent fund, to be called the " Special Self-Help Fund," to be used, in the discretion of the said board, in connection with the appropriation hereby made or hereafter to be made, to promote and maintain the aforesaid establishments ; and a full report of all gifts and donations offered and accepted, and all disbursements there- from, shall be submitted annually to Congress by said board. SEC. 8. For carrying out the provisions of this act there is hereby appropri- ated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise ap- propriated, for the fiscal year ending June, 1920, the sum of $5,000,000 ; for the fiscal year ending June, 1921, the sum of $10,000,000 ; for the fiscal year ending June, 1922, $20,000.000; for the fiscal year ending June, 1923, $30,000,000; for the fiscal year ending June, 1924, $40,000,000 ; for the fiscal year ending June, 1925, $50,000,000. The board is hereby authorized to so proportion the funds to the various branches of this work on a plan that will best serve the purpose of this act. SEC. 9. All moneys appropriated by this act, excepting that portion used by the board to acquire land, shall be refunded to the Government with interest from the earnings of the student-workmen on a plan to be formulated by the board. SEC. 10. The said board shall file with the Clerk of the House and the Sec- retary of the Senate on July 1, 1920, and every three months thereafter, for the information of Congress, an itemized account of all expenditures made under this act, including names and salaries of employees. Said board shall also make an annual report to Congress of its doings under this act on or before December 1 of each year. SEC. 11. The board is hereby granted authority to reorganize and readjust the work of any of its divisions and offices, to employ instructors, supervisors, clerks, and any other assistants, and to take any further action that may be deemed necessary to accomplish the purposes of this act. SEC. 12. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. Mr. ROSENTHAL. My name is E. Philip Rosenthal, and I was born in Russia. I came here to this country because American ideals ap- pealed to me. I am not in favor of this plan for many reasons. Mr. TAYLOR. Where do you live and where have you been living ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have lived for 15 years in Portland, Oreg. Mr. TAYLOR. What is your business there? 334 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ROSENTHAL. My business is lecturing. Mr. TAYLOR. On what subjects? Mr. ROSENTHAL. On these particular ideas, or on human welfare. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you been lecturing in just one place? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; all over Oregon and California. Mr. TAYLOR. On the subject of human welfare ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTOX. Do you belong to any organization ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have talked to many organizations. Mr. FERRIS. What organizations do you represent in your lectures ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I represented the Human Welfare Organization, which has branches in Oregon, Washington, and California. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you convinced the people in the chairman's home city on this subject? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think that before I am through I will convince you gentlemen right here. Mr. BARBOUR. What is the name of this organization you repre- sent? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I said I represented the Human Welfare Organi- zation. Mr. BARBOUR. I thought you said a human welfare organization. Mr. ROSENTHAL. No. Mr. TAYLOR. The organization has funds for this purpose? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No; there were just some contributions made. The mayor of the town and the chamber of commerce paid my ex- penses in coming here. I refer to the mayor of Portland, Oreg. Mr. FERRIS. Do you represent them here ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; I represent this idea. We had a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, and they got together $200. One man put in $100 and the rest gave $100, and with that money I came here. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I move that we give this gentleman 10 minutes. Mr. BENHAM. I suggest that we give this gentleman sufficient time to present his views. The CHAIRMAN. You have 15 minutes, and you may proceed with your statement. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am not in favor of this plan, first, for the reason that this plan is un-American. The American ideal is 100 per cent ideal, and wherever we start in we should say " all." We say that all men are born free and equal, and that all men have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The American ideal is all ideal, and whenever there is a proposition that does not take in all of the people, then that proposition is un-American, and I am against it. Even if the proposition takes in 99 per cent of the people and leaves out only 1 per cent, it is un-American in principle, and I am opposed to it. The proposition of the American ideal is much broader than what is claimed by some people. It is not the greatest good for the greatest number, but it is the greatest good for all. It is such that not one can be left out. The proposition of an autocracy is the proposi- tion that the King is the only one having rights, and that all the rest are his subjects; the proposition of the autocracy is that the King is the only one that has inalienable rights, and that the others have such HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 335 rights as he gives them. This proposition takes in 2 per cent of the soldiers, and. therefore, is not a 100 per cent proposition. For that reason I am opposed to it, because I want a 100 per cent proposition. That is one objection. The CHAIRMAN. When you say "100 per cent" do you mean 100 per cent of the soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I say that you should put them all in. because if you include 100 per cent of the soldiers it will be reflected so as to benefit all of the people. If you do something for 100 per cent of the soldiers it will be reflected iii benefits to all the people. You will be doing something for the soldiers, and it should be something for 100 per cent of the soldiers. Then, another objection which I have to this proposition is that it is misleading. It is not what it purports to be. Mr. FERRIS. Will you let me understand, first, exactly what your proposition Xo. 1 is? Do you mean by making it 100 per cent to take in nonsoldiers as well as soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; I mean to take in all the soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. Then, if this offers an opportunity to all soldiers, does it not include all of them ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Do I understand that this 1 5 minutes allotted me is to be taken up by you or by myself? Mr. FERRIS. . Please answer my question. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I mean that 100 per cent should take in all of the soldiers who want something done for them. Mr. FERRIS. Then, it is your proposition to confine it to soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. But you want to take in all of the soldiers? Mr. ROSENIHAL. Yes, sir; and that, of course, will be reflected in benefits to the whole of the people. In this way you can do some- thing for one man that will be reflected in benefits to others. If you do something for 100 per cent of the soldiers, that will be reflected in benefits to the whole of society. The whole of society will be bene- fited by it. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you want to include the Spanish War and Civil War veterans? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Well, they have had something, and I do not know about that. The Civil War soldiers had their lands given to them, and I consider this a proposition for these returning soldiers. Xow. the next objection is that this proposition is misleading and is going under a false pretense. We are made to believe that this means a job for the man. but. in reality, it means a man formed for a job. This job is here, and you are looking for men to fit the job. Xow. last night I was wondering about what this judge who had spoken here meant when he claimed that this was a reclamation project. I was lying in bed, and I said, "This is a problem for Solomon to decide." Then, all at once. I heard a voice say, " This is Solomon : what do you want "? I said, " Is that a proposition for reclamation or is it a proposition for soldiers"? The voice said, "Put it down and see how it fits." I did so, and saw that it fit 2 per cent. Then the voice said, " It is no fit at all. Anything that fits only 2 per cent is not fair to the soldiers." The CHAIRMAN. Did you actually converse with Solomon? 13331919 22 336 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ROSENTHAL. That does not make any difference. The CHAIRMAN. Did you actually converse with him, or was that merely a figure of speech ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. It may have been a figure of speech, or, maybe I really had the conversation. That does not make any difference. The third objection is that even this 2 per cent is not the beginning of the 100 per cent ; that it is not 1 and 2 but that it is about 40 and 41. This picture of farms for soldiers looks to me like a second story on stilts. There is nobody who can reach it except a second-story man. This proposition requires that the soldiers should have at least $f>00, and, besides that, he must have sufficient money to carry him through until he makes a crop. Now, it is absolutely impossible for any man or for any soldier who has nothing but his hands to make his living by going to work and taking his chances under this liberal offer. He is entirely cut out from this proposition. Now, I have an article here by Elwood Mead, who is the father of this plan here. He was the consulting engineer, and he verifies my statement that the problem which they are trying to solve is not a soldier problem, but is the problem of the country that is, that the farms are going to waste and that they must do something to reclaim the farm idea. It is only by a coincidence, and it is only a coincidence, that the soldier has appeared. Then, there was the demand that the soldier should fit that particular farm idea. Mr. Mead is the father of this proposition, and he specifically states that the soldier should be made to pay an installment of $500 for the simple reason that if he does not pay the money he will not be apt to be a farmer, and, conse- quently, will drop the project and disappear. They are not trying to solve the problem of the soldier, but they are trying to make a success of particular colonies, it making no difference to them whether the soldier succeeds or not. It is not a soldier proposition, but it is simply an effort to make a success of the other proposition. I can leave you here a copy of Mr. Mead's article and you can read it for yourselves. Then I have another article from Prof. Newell, who was chief of the Reclamation Service of this country, and he. too. attacks that plan upon the same particular idea that it is mixed that is, that it is not a soldier proposition, but that it is a mixed proposition. Now. I do not say that Secretary Lane is in league with the land speculators, but I do say that Secretary Lane is at the head of the reclamation proposition. The Reclamation Service is in his department, and he wants to boost his department, just as any other man who is in charge of a particular service would do. Mr. RAKER. Is Mr. Newell against this proposition ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Do you mean the Mr. Newell who was the Chief of the Reclamation Service? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; and who is now connected with the Uni- versity of Illinois. I saw this article which was printed in the Vocational Summary. The CHAIIOIAN. When did it appear? Mr. ROSENTIIAL. About three or four months ago. Mr. ELSTON. You do not mean that Mr. Newell is against it, but you simply imply that the arguments he uses would support your theory ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 337 Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir ; he is against the proposition. The CHAIRMAN. Have you read this bill before the committee and the other bill by Secretary Lane ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. He wrote something about the idea that was brought forth, or when it was brewing. Now, there is another thing I want to tell you, which may or may not be a secret, and that is that the Department of Labor is not in favor of this propo- sition. The Department of Labor at the last session of Congress did all they could to defeat this proposition. They went to work, or tried to go to work, to get somebody I do not know who the Con- gressman was to introduce some amendment to take the whole propo- sition out of the hands of Secretary Lane and put it into the hands of a commission. Mr. RAKER. Who was that? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I do not know who introduced the bill. You can find that out yourself. You can get people down here. Mr. ELSTON. A representative of the Department of Labor, speak- ing for the department and for the American Federation of Labor, explained that situation and said, notwithstanding that, that they were perfectly willing to adopt this plan, and they were unreservedly in favor of it. Mr. ROSENTHAL. That is all right. Now, I have here an article from Wallaces' Farmer, which has just come this morning. This article in Wallaces' Farmer says. " We have no wish to be unfair "- Mr. WHITE (interposing). Did you refer to the Federal Govern- ment's Department of Labor or to the American Federation of Labor ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. To the Department of Labor. They are trying to get this proposition out of the hands of the Reclamation Service, and want to put it in the hands of a commission, which will be in charge of the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. RAKER. They are in favor of this proposition, and the only difference is that they want to handle it instead of letting the Secre- tary of the Interior handle it? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; that is it. Now, here is an article in Wallace's Farmer, which came this morning. The CHAIRMAN. What date is that? Mr. ROSENTHAL. May 23. This article says : We have no wish to be unfair, but this whole scheme would seem to be far moiv in ilio interest of owners of desert and swamp lands and the communities round about than in the interests of the soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. Are you reading all of the article ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. The article continues: Why would it not be a good thing to take the whole matter out of the hands of Secretary Lane? Why should the Department of the Interior meddle with farm lands at all? If anything along this line should be done by the Govern- ment, the Department of Agriculture is the Department through which it ought to go. The people there certainly know as much about farming as the Depart- ment of the Interior, and are far better informed concerning agricultural con- ditions generally. In addition, that department has an organization which can be of real help to the inexperienced fanner. Mr. RAKER. There is only a difference between them as to whether it should be under the Department of Agriculture, under the Depart- ment of Labor, or under the Department of the Interior. Where do you think it ought to go? 538 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I will give you my plan. Now, Secretary Lane himself has indorsed this particular proposition of mine. I told him .about it, and I talked this proposition of mine over with him. He inferred that my proposition was too big for Congress. He said. " It does not require any more money, but the idea is too big." I myself .believe that you are big men and that you can comprehend big ideas. The CHAIRMAN. Who made that remark? Mr. ROSEN THAL. Mr. Lane did not use those particular words, but he inferred to me that Congress was ready to do good work and to do popular things, but was not ready to do big things. That, of course, is the proposition. The Secretary himself has indorsed this, and gave me a written statement indorsing this particular plan or idea. The CHAIRMAN. Your plan? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But you do not reciprocate with the Secretary and indorse his plan? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would indorse his plan if he would make it include 98 per cent more. The CHAIRMAN. Do you indorse it as far as it goes ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; I do not, because it lacks the beginning. It is all in the middle. The CHAIRMAN. You dp not indorse it as far as it goes? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir ; not at all ; absolutely not, because it is un-American. The CHAIRMAN. You do not indorse it as a step in the right direction? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No sir; it is not a step, but it is a second story. You must have a basement and first story before you can reach it. As it is, you must have a flying machine in order to get up there. I can not indorse that particular proposition. Now, the whole situa- tion is this: The whole world is afire just at the present time; the world is crumbling and there is a great problem for somebody to solve. I believe that the American Congress can find the solution. Mr. RAKER. I did not quite get your idea that the world was crumbling. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; it is crumbling. When men are fight- ing one another, when men are running bayonets through other men's bodies, when men are murdering other men, and when men are grab- bing other men by the throat, I say the world is crumbling. Do you want anything more than that? Civilization is crumbling. The CHAIRMAN. You are dealing with a lot of generalities and we have before us a specific proposition. Your time is running rapidly, but we do not want to curtail you. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I say that the American Congress has got the solu- tion of this problem. Now, the solution of this problem is this : My proposition is that the Board for Vocational Education is dealing with men, while the Reclamation Service is dealing with lands. The Reclamation Service is dealing with the land propositon. Now, I vvant to have a division in the Federal Board for Vocational Educa- tion, under the Federal Board for Vocational Education, the Secre- tary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, and the Commissioner of Education. I want those representatives of those three depart- ments, and I want a division in there to carry out this proposition. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 339 I would add to that a school where everybody could come and learn the science of farming and the science of every trade that is necessary in the pursuit of a vocation. I would not only take in the farmer, 'but I would take in the whole mass of soldiers ; not only those who want to farm, but those who want to be blacksmiths, those who want to be engineers, or those who want to be jewelers, or those who want to be anything else by which they can make a living. I would take in the whole scope of industrial education. I want every student to learn how to do things, and after the student has become proficient in his vocation to back him up in that particular vocation, either on the farm or in some other trade. It would include every line of industry in which they would want to engage. There is abso- lutely no reason why this Government should back up men as. farmers and not back them up in other lines of industry. Why not; back him up in a carpenter shop or a blacksmith shop or any other shop ? There is no reason why Congress should back up a man on a farm and not back up a man who can make beautiful things in silver and gold; there is no reason why a man should be backed up on a farm and should not be backed up in any other kind of industry. If we do something for the farmers and we have no lands any more we must spend $500,000,000 in procuring lands. If it is a, question of backing the soldier, then let us make this a soldier propo- sition and back every soldier. Then the proposition will take in all these other men. I say that because I want the school to be a pro- ductive school, where the student \vho comes in may produce while he learns, and the things that he produces will feed him and support him while at school. It will not be any expense at all. There is a, beautiful idea embodied in this workshop. We will say to the sol- dier, " Do you want to be helped ? " The soldier would say, " I do not know what to do." We would say to him, " Would you like to learn the carpenters' trade, would you like to learn the cabinetmakers' trade, the jewelers' trade, or would you like to be a fireman or a brakeman? We will instruct you in anything you want to learn. We will give you work and give you a chance." We could say to him r "The Government of the United States is willing to back up every soldier and will do everything for the soldier in the way of teaching him to do useful things." Then, after the soldier has learned how to- do things, we ought to go to work and say to him, " Look here, the Government is liberal, and we will back you up. Do you want to start in the cabinetmaker's business, do you want to start in the blacksmith business, or in some other business? If you do, we will back you up." The only difference between this plan and the other plan is that under this plan which I propose the Reclamation Serv- ice goes to work in cooperation with the Federal Board for Voca- tional Education, and we start a school there. We do not pay wages to those who go to school, but we make them productive while they are learning, so that they may pay their own expenses. Mr. JOHNSON. Have you reduced your plan to writing? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have, but it is not in proper shape for a bill. It is ungrammatical, or it is not worded in the proper form. I am not a lawyer, but you can get the drafting machinery which Congress has provided to put it in proper shape. Then you will have a 100 per cent plan. When you put something in that will benefit 2.000,000- 340 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. soldiers you will not benefit all of them. Now, there is a great prob- lem of unemployment. I think it is far better that the labor market should be short than that one man should go around in this country hungry and unable to find a job. It is far better that the capitalist should not find people to work for him than it is for one man to go around hungry and naked. We are a rich country and can feed the world. We can solve the unemployment problem here, and Avhen we have done that we will have solved every other problem. We will have solved the problem of capital and labor; we will have solved the problem of child labor; and we will have solved every other in- dustrial problem. In New York there was a report that a majority of the children in a school district went to school hungry. Think of it ! Think of chil- dren in America going to school hungry, while Congress sits here and does not provide a plan by which the fathers of those children can get work and be able to feed their children ! On the child-labor prob- lem Congress has enacted two laws, and both of them were uncon- stitutional, but if you will provide a plan by which the fathers of the children can get jobs so that they can feed their children and not send them to school hungry no judge can make that law unconstitu- tional. Then you will have solved the child-labor problem. Now. under the plan you have here $500,000,000 are demanded of you. Suppose you go to work and use that $500,000,000 under this plan of Secretary Lane's, and it will benefit only 2 per cent of the soldiers; but if you will enlarge it so as to include 100 per cent of the soldiers, then you will have solved this American problem in an American way. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know that the jurisdiction of this com- mittee pertains only to the lands of the Government, and that it has no jurisdiction over many of the matters that you have been speak- ing of? Have you taken these other features up with any other com- mittees that have jurisdiction of them? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I come before this committee because this whole proposition is based on lands. If this committee has not the juris- diction, then it is your business to go to work and call in the other committees. If I give you something that it is worth while, then you should go to work and fix it up in proper form. If I say something that you think is foolish, then, of course, you should not pay any attention to it. Mr. ELSTON. Do you want your proposed bill inserted as a part of jour remarks ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record. Mr. FERRIS. I would like to have his proposed bill or plan to pre- cede his remarks. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Mr. JOHNSON. You said that you were born in Europe. How long have you been in this country ? Mr. ROSENTHAL.. Over 30 years. Mr. JOHNSON. You have been naturalized? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; I was naturalized just as soon as I could be. Just as soon as God let me, I became a naturalized citizen. I will tell you right now that I have done some work in this country HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 341 for the benefit of America, and I have also pushed the question of industrial education. I helped to make this Federal Board for Voca- tional Education. In the solution of the American problems, the Federal Board for Vocational Education and every man in this country should go to work and try to do things. It is said that the industries in this country are only 25 per cent efficient. These in- dustrial colonies or soldiers' colonies should be made models for helping the Federal Board for Vocational Education to bring up the efficiency all over this country. Now, just imagine what would hap- pen in this country when manufacturing concerns could increase their production 400 per cent. To-day it is only 25 per cent efficient. In the first place, they could pay four times the wage they are now paying. Mr. JOHNSON. During the 30 years you have been in this country, what has been your business or vocation ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I organized the Industrial Art League, which is promoting industrial education in this country, and I will give you the names of some of the people who have worked with me: Mr. Lowden, who is now governor of Illinois; Dr. W. R. Harper, the late president of the University of Chicago Mr. SMITH. He has been dead about 10 years. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I said 30 years ago. Then, there was Dr. George E. Vincent, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation; Francis W. Parker, principal of the Chicago Normal School and founder of the Francis W. Parker School; Prof. George N. Carmen, director of the Lewis Institute ; Prof. Gabriel Bomberger, head of the Jewish Manual Training School; Dr. Henry Wade Rogers, Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews, and other leading educators. I have been working trying to improve the condition of America in an educational way. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you represent organized labor? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Well, no. Mr. JOHNSON. You said a while ago that organized labor was against this bill. Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; I did not say that. I said the Depart- ment of Labor was against it. Mr. JOHNSON. You do not represent organized labor? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; but I told you that the State federa- tion of labor indorsed my plan. I have taken this proposition up with the State Federation of Labor of Oregon, and they have indorsed it. I have taken it up with churches, and they have in- dorsed it. There is no opposition to it. You are not opposed to it ; you can not be opposed to it, because who is opposed to seeing that everybody should eat and be able to work ? Nobody can be opposed to that. The CHAIRMAN. Have you been cooperating in the work of the Federal Board for Vocational Education ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir ; the Federal Board for Vocational Educa- tion was not exactly the idea that we worked for. The CHAIRMAN. I mean, have you been cooperating with them in their work? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. I pushed it and I educated for the Federal Board for Vocational Education, but the Federal Board for Vocational Education has gotten out from the hands of educators 342 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. and has gotten into the hands of business. They are using the Federal Board of Vocational Education as a means for making men for machines. My idea is for men that is, to make the shop for the man and not make the man for the shop. We are doing things in this country that are the reverse of that. What we want to do is to make the man first, and upon him to build the country. The CHAIRMAN. You have had 35 minutes. Does any member of the committee wish to ask Mr. Rosenthal any questions? Mr. SMITH. Do you think it is necessary to send men to school to make of them carpenters, blacksmiths, machinists, etc., instead of letting them learn those trades, as they are now learned to a large extent, by associating them with those who are engaged in those occupations ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. These schools ought to be for the people, and there they should be trained. Mr. SMITH. Is it intended that these people in training should not be compensated? Mr. ROSENTHAL. They should have the opportunity to learn until they become proficient in their vocations. Mr. SMITH. Do you think that would be attractive to the soldier ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. The idea is not for him to go to school long. If he was in school two months Mr. SMITH (interposing). You could not teach a man a trade in two months. Mr. ROSENTHAL. He would be a soldier, and the question of whether he should be paid while learning is a detail. Mr. SMITH. Is not your proposition a burden upon the Govern- ment? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir ; because they could pay back the money. The CHAIRMAN. What do you estimate as the cost of this scheme? Mr. ROSENTHAL. For the proposition there, about $100,000,000 $5,000,000 the first year, $10,000,000 the next year, and $20,000.000 thereafter. It might run for five years. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that that will take care of the lands for soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And of the vocational education and everything of that kind? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much will that aggregate, or what would be the total cost of it ? Mr. ROSFNTHAL. The total cost would be about $100,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. How many farms would you secure, and at what price? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Those farms could be small. The CHATRM\N. What would be the size of one of your farms ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. These farms would be about 20 acres. The CHAIRMAN . Where would they be located ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Everywhere. The CHAIRMAX, In what States would you have those farms? Mr. ROSENTHAL. In all the States. The CHAIRMAN. Well, in what particular States would you have 20-acre farms? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 343 Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would have them in our State of Oregon. We could have 20-acre farms in Oregon. Here is what I would do, and I will show you a picture of that community. Here is a community or settlement with farms and shops intermingled. These farms are intensive farms. The CHAIRMAN. What would the land on your 20-acre farm cost? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Are you advising this committee on a matter on w T hich you have no idea of the cost involved ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I had some idea about two years ago, but now, as you know, lands are three times as high. The CHAIRMAN. You have just come from Oregon. What could you buy these farms for there ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have not investigated lands there lately. The CHAIRMAN. You are advising this committee on an important subject. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Do you know that Secretary Lane has $200,000 to be used in bringing that information to you. I have not exact in- formation on that, but I am bringing to you a plan. The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of land values in Oregon? Take eastern Oregon, for instance, and state what, in your opinion, you would have to pay for a 20-acre farm. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Col. Good, who bought a tract for a French con- cern there, bought some for $20 per acre. The CHAIRMAN. Where was that ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. In eastern Oregon. The CHAIRMAN. Where in eastern Oregon ? In Malheur County ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes. sir. The CHAIRMAN. And in Coos County, too? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think in Coos County, also. The CHAIRMAN. Coos County is not an eastern county, but it is one of the Pacific coast counties. Mr. ROSENTHAL. There are three tracts. There is the Handley tract. The CHAIRMAN. The Handley tract is the "P" Ranch in Harney County. It is a cattle ranch containing 150,000 acres. What could you get that for? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I could have gotten it four or five years ago for $20 per acre. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever been on the " P" Ranch? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know that the " P " Ranch is at an elevation of nearly 4,000 feet, where they have frost nearly every month in the year, and do you not know that it is in an arid section where, in order to make a living on a 20-acre farm, the land would have to be irrigated? What would it cost to irrigate it? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have not the figures. You could get those fig- ures from the Reclamation Service. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what a 20-acre farm in that section would produce ? If you put a man on a 20-acre farm out there, don't you know that it would be impossible for him to make a living? Don't you know that it would be impossible for a man to make a living in eastern Oregon on a 20-acre farm, unless you placed him 344 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. at the lower altitudes where he could engage in truck or orchard farming, as, for instance, in the Hood River section? Mr. ROSENTHAL. There are some 20-acre farms in Oregon. I know of school boys making $600 on a garden right in the city of Portland. The CHAIRMAN. What yould you pay for a 20-acre tract in the city of Portland? Mr. ROSENTHAL. There are lots of tracts being sold at $20 per acre within 10 miles of Portland. The CHAIRMAN. That would be $400. Mr. RAKER. Where is this land ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. At Portland, Oreg. Mr. RAKER. At $20 per acre? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; that was four years ago, but not now. You can take Secretary Lane's figures. Mr. SNELL. Were you connected with any other business except this agitation business Mr. ROSENTHAL (interposing). I am not an agitator. Mr. SNELL. I think that is the word you yourself used. Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. Mr. WHITE. I want to ask you whether it is your idea that the students in these various industries in which they are to be instructed shall pay the Government the expense of their education subse- quently i Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir; everything shall be repaid. Mr. WHITE. In cash ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. From earnings. Of course there are some details I have not worked out, and there are a lot of questions to be decided. We ought to do something for the soldier who does not want to be a farmer and who is not fit to be a farmer. The CHAIRMAN. What would you pay per acre for land in the truck- farming section of Oregon? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I do not know. I would like to take Secretary Lane's proposition there and add to it these schools or workshops, and let the Federal Board for Vocational Education The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You have been dealing with a lot of glittering generalities, and I would like to have your views on some practical phases of the matter. How many farms would you pur- chase for the soldiers ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would purchase just as many farms as there are soldiers who want farms. The CHAIRMAN. How many are there? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would have to get those figures. The CHAIRMAN. Assume that there are 4.000,000 soldiers and that one-half of them want to be farmers: Then you would purchase 2,000.000 farms, would you not? Mr. ROSENTHAL. It does not make any difference; yes, sir. What is the difference? What difference does it make what we pay if the soldier pays it back ? The CHAIRMAN. What is your idea, then, as to how much we should provide? Mr. ROSENTHAL. That is for the committee. You are going to work investigating here, and you have given the Secretary $200,000 so as to enable him to come before you and bring you the details. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 345 Now, you want me, a poor man, to come here and bring you the de- tails. The idea is my business. I am not an engineer, but my specialty is education. I give you the idea, and you have got the machinery here for making it practical. Mr. BARBOUR. You say that your propositon has the indorsement of several organizations, including some churches? Mr. ROSEN THAL. Yes, sir. Mr. BARBOUR. Have you talked to any soldiers' organization upon this subject? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. BARBOUR. What organization? Mr. ROSENTHAL. With soldiers. Mr. BARBOUR. With individual soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. BARBOUR. You have talked with how many of them ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Probably with 50 or 60. Mr. BARBOUR. What do they think about it? Mr. ROSENTHAL. They think it is fine and beautiful. Mr. BARBOUR. I mean this Mondell bill ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. They say that it is all right if a man wants to be a farmer ; but some of them said, " I do not want to farm." You are trying to do something to fit the soldier to the farms. This is something that should be done for the soldiers, and I want you to do something for the machinist, for the carpenter, and for all of the soldiers who are here asking for help. It was not the farmer alone who fought, but the machinists, carpenters, and laboring men also fought, and they want to be appreciated in this beneficent under- taking. Mr. RAKER. You are in favor of providing homesteads for those soldiers who desire them ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Provided you provide for the others, too. Mr. RAKER. Will you not answer my question? Are you in favor of providing homesteads according to the methods provided in this bill for the soldiers who desire to take advantage of them and make homes upon the land ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. You are against that ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am against it unless you provide for the others. Mr. RAKER. You are against providing homes for any soldiers? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes; if you do not at the same time provide for the carpenters and blacksmiths. Mr. RAKER. You understand my question ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir ; I do, perfectly. Mr. RAKER. Let us start back again. Are you in favor of the pur- poses of this bill to provide homes for soldiers who desire to go on the land and farm ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am in favor of providing jobs for the soldiers, and they will get their own homes. I want to provide for the soldier who wants to be a blacksmith, carpenter, or jeweler, or who wants to follow any of the other trades. I am not in favor of any special privileges to anybody. I am an American citizen, and believe in affording equal opportunity to all. Mr. RAKER. Do you think that the Government should take charge of these soldiers and look after them from now on ? 346 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Either all of them or none of them. Mr. BAKER. Let us get the question first. Let us understand what the question is, and do not answer something else. In that way we will save time. You are in favor of the Government taking charge of these soldiers and providing work for them and caring for them from now on until their death ? Mr. KOSENTHAL. No, sir; I am in favor of the American principle of equal opportunity to all, and I am in favor of having this Govern- ment to give the American soldier who went to the war a fair oppor- tunity. That is all. I am in favor of this country giving the soldier an opportunity, and of giving all the soldiers an opportunity not simply 2 per cent of the soldiers, but 100 per cent of them. Mr. RAKER. In furnishing these soldiers with homesteads, do you think the Government should permit them to sell them after they have made the proper payments? After the soldier has made all proper payments, do you think he should have the right to sell it? Mr. ROSENTHAL. That is another matter entirely, and I can not go into that proposition. I am not talking about single tax, and I do not want to bring that in. Mr. RAKER. I am not talking about single tax, but I am talking about this bill. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir ; I am in favor of affording the soldier an opportunity to own the land, so that no land speculator shall come along and grab it away from him. Mr. RAKER. Do you think this Government should change its policy of permitting a man to own real estate in fee, and that the Government should own the land and keep charge of it and let the soldier use it for a time? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. That is your theory ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. All right. Now, if you should locate these soldiers upon homesteads, you would want them located in separate homes? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; in communities. Mr. RAKER. Let me get through with my question. We will make much better progress if you will simply answer my questions, and then you can dilate upon them afterwards as fully as you like. Are you in favor of the method of farming in this country whereby the soldier settler would have an individual farm, or are you in favor of a community center where they would live in a town and farm their land from that center? Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am in favor of every soldier having his own farm entirely, but at the same time I would keep the community. They would have the churches, schools, workshops, stores, etc., to- gether. Mr. RAKER. They would have the workshops, schools, churches, etc., together, and then the soldier who owned his farm would work his farm from that community center? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; he would live right on his farm. He could live right on his farm, and he does not have to live somewhere else. He would still have the community. Mr. RAKER. Would you have the farm at the community center? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. Suppose they had 100 farms and about 40 workshops intermingled with the churches, school houses, etc., HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 347 and the community center. That would be a building, and they could all come to the community center. Then they would not be hindered as they are now, and they would be very much more closely asso- ciated. Mr. RAKER. Where ? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. Under this community plan. Mr. RAKER. In what way are farmers hindered now? Do you mean that they are hindered because the individual farms are sepa- rated by a distance of a mile and a half from other places? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. They have not the community sociability. Mr. RAKER. What I am trying to get at is whether, fundamentally, you are trying to advocate to this committee that there should be a community place or center where they should live and have their workshops, churches, moving picture show r s, etc., all of it forming a sort of community ? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. You are giving a wrong interpretation of the word " community." The man would live on his farm, and the place where the public buildings are located will be the center, with every farmer having about the same distance to go in order to reach the community center. Where there is a community center there is the elevator, schoolhouse, church, etc. Those things make up the community. Mr. RAKER. I understand that you have crossed the continent from Portland, Oreg., to tell the committee that this bill should not pass? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. I came here from Portland, Oreg., to tell this committee that any legislation which is not marked for the Ameri- can people is a stab at the American Government. Mr. RAKER. Then, in your opinion, this bill, if enacted into law, would be a stab at the American Government ? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. Yes, sir; it would be class legislation. Mr. RAKER. It would be vicious legislation, to your mind? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. Yes, sir; class legislation. It is just as bad for Congressmen to get away from American principles in legislation as it is for Socialists to get away from American principles. That is what I came to tell the committee. Mr. SMITH. The gist of your whole argument is that the activities of the Federal Board of Vocational Education should be extended so as to enable them to educate all the people ? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. Do you suppose that a very large percentage of the soldiers want to go to school? Mr, ROSEXTHAL. Yes, sir; a number of them want the opportu- nity. Here is a large unemployment problem. Here is a soldier who is peddling because he has got "to do something. He can not do any- thing because he does not know how. Mr. SMITH. If you do not pay them, do you think many of them would enter? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. They will when you get this scheme started. The proposition is to get work, or to give the soldiers something to do, because they have nothing to do. The CHAIRMAX. Are many of them idle? Mr. ROSEXTHAL. Quite a number. 348 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. I Avould like to make this suggestion: Does not the gentleman know that from all the industries of this country and from all the farms of the United States there is a cry for laborers at the present time? Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. That demand is constantly coming up from every direction. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. We hear nothing else from the West but the cry for labor. Mr. ROSENTHAL. In the West they want men. and they will pay them $100 per month for two months' work. It costs $200 to go there, and the labor does not go because it can not get a steady job. Mr. WHITE. That is partially true; but on the farms in the West, through all the Middle States, and in the great Central States there is a demand for labor at remunerative wages the year around. Those wages include board and lodging, and those men are better off than workingmen in the city. I do not care to open up that great ques- tion, but a great deal of the discussion of this labor question indicates a lack of knowledge of the situation. The CHAIRMAN. Do you claim that the chamber of commerce of the city of Portland, Oreg., is against this Mondell bill, and that you have been sent here to represent the chamber of commerce in oppo- sition to it? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir; I did not make any claim like that. When I said the chamber of commerce, I meant the people there at the chamber of commerce. They clubbed in together and gave me $200, and blessed me to go on my way. The CHAIRMAN. They have a special fund? Mr. ROSENTHAL. These were private people. The CHAIRMAN. Then you do not represent the chamber of com- merce ? Mr. ROSENTHAL. No, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT J. DRANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. The CHAIRMAN. You understand, Mr. Drane, that Members of Congress are limited to 15 minutes. Mr. DRANE. It is not really necessary for me to appear before the committee at all, except to place my State on record, and I think it is my duty to do that. I have not had the pleasure of reading the bill introduced by Representative Mondell, and I only know of it in the broad and general principles underlying it. Now, just to give you a very brief history, and you will then understand what I am driving at: When the so-called Lane bill was first formulated, and I mean before it was introduced, away last fall, the legislature of my State happened to be in extraordinary session at that time. Secretary Lane was invited by the legislature to appear before a joint session of the legislature at Tallahassee to explain just what his l>ill was. He knew that it w r as an extraordinary session of the legislature : he did not know how long it would last, but he knew it would only last for a few days at best. So he sent for me to ask me sonic ques- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 349 tions as to the feasibility of getting there in time to address the legis- lature. At that time he discussed his bill with me only in a very general way. inviting my attention to it. I told the Secretary that it would be impossible for him to get to Tallahassee even on the invitation of the legislature, because it was going to adjourn within about three days. He could not get there, and I asked him what he de- sired to do, or what was his particular reason for wanting to go. He said that his object in wanting to go to talk to the Florida Legislature was that Florida might place itself in a position, if it so desired or considered it wise, to cooperate with the United States Government in the interest of this bill, provided the bill should pass. I said, " Mr. Secretary, that is easily done in a much simpler and less ex- pensive way than you have proposed. I will undertake to get a bill passed by the Florida Legislature within two days which will en- able Florida to participate in cooperation with the Federal Govern- ment." I did not know what I could do, but I was willing to try. I sent a telegram to the president of the senate and the speaker of the house in Florida, calling attention to Secretary Lane's plan, which, I understand, as I have said before, is the general plan under discussion now. The Florida Legislature passed a bill which became a law within two or three days, the substance of which was this: That the land board we have a board in Florida in which all the public lands are vested Mr. SMITH (interposing). State lands? Mr. DRAXE. State lands derived from the Government. They are so-called swamp and overflowed lands, but the swamp and overflowed lands under the law do not mean lands that are really swamp and overflowed lands. I live on some swamp and overflowed land myself, which is about on the same elevation as the dome of the Capitol at Washington. We class as swamp and overflowed land, lands that are much higher than the land on which we stand now. This bill simply provides that the land board shall have carte blanche to do anything it desires to do in so far as it will cooperate with the Federal Govern- ment in any bill involving the principle laid down in the bills that are under cfiscussion. Then this bill which passed the legislature also provided that the governor should appoint a committee of well known citizens of his own choosing, who should cooperate with the Govern- ment in the event of any discussion coming up as to privately owned lands in large bodies. That committee was appointed. I regret that I do not remember the names of the members, but I remember seeing them, and they are gentlemen of distinguished standing in the State. Mr. SUMMERS. The names are published here in the hearing. Mr. DRAXE. Yes ; I see here that what I am now saying to you is already contained in your hearings. The CHAIRMAN. That is a very brief statement there. Mr. DRAXE. Going just a little further before I consume my 15 minutes, Florida has practically every class of land under the "sun, and it grows practically everything that is grown or that is suitable to the southern climate. It produces corn, hay, oats, and other crops, but it does not grow wheat. It produces the citrus and semicitrus fruits, and it grows every vegetable that is known to mankind. It has lands for corn, lands for fruit, lands for truck, and it has lands for 350 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. general farming, and selections have been made, as I understand it, of lands to be offered, but not privately owned lands. I know of no privately owned lands that are ready to be offered, although I assume that they will be. The lands that have been selected are State lands. They are not cut-over lands, but they are virgin timber lands, prairie lands, virgin swamp lands, etc., all of which are subject to or at the disposal of the Government upon any terms which are reasonable and which can be agreed upon as equitable and just as between the State land board and the Federal authorities. I simply want to say that my State is in hearty cooperation and sympathy with this movement, and is willing to cooperate in any bill which the wisdom of Congress may see fit to adopt. I think that covers about all that I have to say. The CiiAiitM \N. I suppose that neither you nor the people of your State feel that this is a big scheme solely for the purpose of irrigating the arid lands of the West? Mr. DRAKE. I have never thought of it in that way. The CHAIRMAN. The poison that has been sown among southern Members is that this is a big scheme to irrigate the arid lauds of the West, and the poison is being sown among western Members that this is a big scheme to drain the swamp lands of the South. The poison is being sown among Senators and Representatives from the East that this is a big scheme on the part of both the West and the South to irrigate arid lands in the West and to drain swamp lands in the South. You take no stock in that, do you ? Mr. DRAKE. My view of that is this, that we have an ail-American Congress and that we have an ail-American President. We have an all-American country. I believe and God give them light to see it that we are all working for a 100 per cent Americanism. I believe that we are trying to benefit the soldier who went across the seas to fight, in order to show that America is 100 per cent American. I do not care whether a Democrat should indorse or introduce this bill, or whether a Republican should indorse or introduce it ; and I do not stop to inquire whether a soldier is a Democrat or a Republican. I will be glad to see the American soldier, if he wants to better his condition when he comes back into the paths of peace, to settle where it best suits him to settle, whether it be North, South. East, or West. Of course. I would rather see him settle in my State, which is the most cosmopolitan State in the Union. We have people there from all over the world. I should say, not from all over the world but from all over the United States, because, thank God, we have very few foreign- ers there. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know that under this bill no scheme can be put over on the Government and no land taken over by the Govern- ment until its selection is approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the particular State in which the land lies, and a member of the Federal reserve bank; and after it is approved by all three of them, it has to be approved by the Appropriations Committee of the House, and then by the House itself ? Mr. DRANE. You could not put any more safeguards around it if you tried. I do not look upon it as anything except what it shows on its face, that it is something for the benefit of the American soldier, with the love and affection of his Government behind it. That is all I see in it. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 351 Mr. SMITH. I understand that your state is so deeply interested in this proposition that the State land board has been authorized to do whatever may seem proper in the way of cooperation, and that the State land board has indicated that they would turn over 200,000 acres of State land to the Government? Mr. DRAKE. I understand that by rumor. I have no official informa- tion, but I have no doubt that it is true. Mr. NICHOLS. Can you say in what way this benefits the soldier? Give us your opinion of this proposition. Mr. DRAKE. If the soldier wants to farm, there is his opportunity ; if he wants to get work, there is his opportunity. I understand the bill provides that he shall have good employment at a remunerative wage. I might say that, whether the bill passes or not, if 50,000 sol- diers want to work on farms they can find them in Florida to-day. Mr. WHITE. You do not think there is any prejudice in the minds of your people, your farmers, against this scheme out of considera- tion for the fact that it might increase the supply of farm products and thereby decrease their profits? Mr. DRAKE. No, sir; I should be ashamed to represent people like that. Mr. WHITE. I am glad you bring that out. Mr. DRAKE. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we have with us Mr. Atkeson, of the National Grange or Patrons of Husbandry. He has been invited to appear before the committee on two matters. Are you ready to be heard, Mr. Atkeson ? Mr. ATKESOK. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS C. ATKESON, OF BUFFALO, W. VA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUS- BANDRY. The CHAIRMAN. The first matter on which Mr. Atkeson has been invited to appear before the committee is the matter of some press notices that have been sent out and which many, on account of their tenor, assumed came from his organization. You are familiar, Mr. Atkeson, with these press notices, are you? Mr. ATKESOK. I have one in my pocket. The CHAIRMAN. I have three of them here. Now, these press notices are full of insinuations, innuendoes, and poison against the committee, intimating and directly alleging that Mr. Atkeson did not have a fair opportunity to be heard before the committee; that, in spite of the manifest antagonism, he was able to secure just 15 min- utes before the committee to express the views of the National Grange. If you are familiar with these notices, I wish you would state whether or not these press notices emanated from the grange. Mr. ATKESOK. I am glad to say emphatically that they did not, and until a copy drifted into my office, as they seem to have drifted into other people's offices, I knew nothing about it. This press notice professes to make some quotations from the statement I made. If those quotations are correct, I stand responsible for them; if not, I do not. I can not remember now, because my statement was purely 13331919 23 352 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. extemporaneous the other day, and it is impossible for me to remem- ber the quotations from my statement. If anyone has a copy of the statement he can compare them. If they have quoted me correctly, I stand responsible for the statement. The CHAIRMAN. You stand responsible for what you have stated before? Mr. ATKESON. Exactly; but for no other word or statement made in that circular. I do not know the motive ; I do not know who sent it. I know nothing about it except that it seems to have emanated from some enterprising newspaper man. The CHAIRMAN. You do not know the origin of it? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir. It was not written or prepared in my office. The CHAIRMAN. On page 2 of one of them it says: "In spite of the manifest antagonism in certain congressional circles, the National Grange succeeded in securing 15 minutes for the testimony of Prof. T. C. Atkeson." Was there any antagonism to your appearing be- fore this committee? Mr. ATKESON. Not a bit in the world. I came in here without any expectation of making a statement. The Chairman recognized the fact that I was here and said, " We have 15 minutes." I looked at my watch and saw it was about 15 minutes before 12 o'clock. I think someone asked a question as to interference with my 15 minutes, and the hearing was continued until about 20 minutes after 12, giving me on the whole about 35 minutes, including the questions asked and answered. The CHAIRMAN. You stated to the committee that less than 15 minutes would satisfy you ? Mr. ATKESON. I said it would be entirely satisfactory. The CHAIRMAN. And you got over 35 minutes? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then in the middle of your remarks you stated that as far as you were concerned, you were through. You also stated on page 73 that : " I have come to the place where I could say all I have to say in a very few minutes." Mr. ATKESON. That is correct. The rest of the notice I have absolutely nothing to do with. The CHAIRMAN. This is from our record. Now, it is implied in this article that although you represented the great organization of the National Grange, you were asked whom you represented. Did you feel that there was any disrespect to you in asking whom you represented ? Mr. ATKESON. I did not. The CHAIRMAN. You knew that was the customary way to intro- duce a witness to a committee? Mr. ATKESON. I had absolutely no ground to feel that I had been shown anything but the most absolute courtesy on the part of this committee, in the most good-humored way, and off-handedly. I would have been satisfied with 5. 10, or 15 minutes. I left this room in the most good humor I ever was in in my life. Any implication or any statement from any source whatever that indicates anything else is absolutely unfounded in fact, and iinthought of until I read this notice, and I resent that notice as much as you gentlemen <>f tho committee do. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 353 The CHAIRMAN. Have you any idea of the source of it? Mr. ATKESOX. I have a suspicion that it was a newspaper man. Just ns I was leaving the room a gentleman asked me my name and when I asked who he was I was told that he was a newspaper man. Mr. ELSTOX. Is that gentleman in the room ? Mr. ATKESOX. He was out in the corridor at the time. Mr. ELSTON. He is not in the room now ? Mr. ATKESOX. No, sir. The CHAIRMAX. You did not ask for further time when you were heard before ? ; Mr. ATKESOX. No, sir. The CHAIRMAX. Did you feel that you had ample time to express your views ? Mr. ATKESOX. I had all the time I wanted, absolutely. The CHAIRMAX. Just another matter, Mr. Atkeson, in regard to the correction of your testimony. Mr. Graham asked you this ques- tion : " Then if your association had been passing upon that, you would have opposed the homestead laws of 1863?" Your answer was, according to the notes : " We are opposed to wholesale home- stead laws." Then that answer was stricken out and this inserted in the notes returned : " It is impossible for me to know what farmers would have done 50 years ago." This matter was brought up before the committee and they thought if you wanted to make any explanation of that answer you should come before the committee and not strike out the answer. Mr. ATKESOX. I am perfectly willing to print the statement if it is correct, and I recall making that statement. The CHAIRMAX. If you wish to make any further explanation of } r our answer, the committee will be glad to hear you. Mr. ATKESOX. The two propositions are not comparable in any way. The homestead proposition, as you all know, was a question of public lands for soldiers. I live on a farm now which was surveyed by President Washington as a military survey. It came through Washington and his heirs to my father and to myself. Following the Civil War we had whole States, almost, of fertile and pro- ductive farm land, and the soldiers were granted homestead privi- leges on those lands. I do not think there is any comparison, from any standpoint, be- tween a proposition to expend a half a billion dollars in reclaiming this unproductive land and offering unoccupied lands 50 years ago. That is what I wanted to convey by that statement. It was impossi- ble for a man to know what they would have said at that time. But this is what happened, so far as'the Eastern States are concerned : A great many men who owned lands were trying to cultivate them, and they were bankrupt as a result of this rather promoted development of these enormously productive prairie lands in the West. The CHAIRMAX. 'As a result of the homesteads? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes, sir. I have an illustration in my home State, where land that sold before the Civil War for more than $100 an acre, a very few years afterwards sold at $30 an acre. Now, something happened, and somebody got hurt. The farm people are a little afraid. Personally, I am not at all afraid. The CHAIRMAX. But the ultimate good was the development of the Nation ? 354 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Which far surpassed any temporary discomfort that anyone may have suffered, if they did suffer ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. Now, there is just one other explanation I want to make, and only one other, I think, and that conies out of a statement made by one of the city papers. Perhaps I made the im- pression that I undertook to cover too much territory in 15 minutes. I realized that then, and I realized it afterwards when I saw the state- ment. One of the city papers, in a little four-line statement, called attention to the fact that the reason the Grange people were opposed to the Lane proposition was because they were afraid of competition. Now, I can submit all the records you want, if I had time, to show that we have never feared legitimate competition. I said, as well as I remember and if you have the statement we can compare it that if this is a soldier proposition I will not attempt to quote my lan- guage, but this is my thought if it is to benefit the soldier, if that is the primary purpose, then it should apply to all soldiers, whether they wished to live in the country or the city, or engage in farming or in any other occupation I think you will find that is, in substance, my statement that the farmers could not see why their business had been singled out to be discriminated against ; that soldiers who wanted to farm should not be discriminated in favor of as against those sol- diers who did not want to farm. I tried to put that thought into words. I think in the statement it is a little vague and hurried. Xow, how much time can you give me ? I do not want to hurry too much. The CHAIRMAN. You can have all the time you want. Mr. ATKESON. Much obliged. The CHAIRMAN. You asked permission to have inserted in the record certain editorials, and here they are. The committee thought that you ought to appear before them in that connection, so that they might question }"ou upon the editorials. Mr. ATKESON. I did not know whether I had the privilege of in- serting them or not. The CHAIRMAN. We do not want to exclude them. Mr. ATKESON. I found them in my office and they were very per- tinent. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to read these to the committee? Mr. ATKESON. I do not know. I think perhaps I may if I have time. Mr. BAKER. Before you go into the explanation of this matter I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Atkeson. Does your organi- zation repudiate this entire five page circular that was sent out to all the members and everybody else as a newspaper editorial ? Mr. ATKESON. You me&n this statement that the chairman read? Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. ATKESON. We are not responsible for any of them except where it quoted me. Mr. BAKER. I am talking about your organization. They say the organization has opened headquarters in Washington and' they are going to fight this legislation, and the general matter referred to by the chairman. Now, I want to know not only as to this, but have vou taken this matter up with the executive committee of the organi- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 355 zation, and have you and do they repudiate this sort of anonymous circularizing by some one who does not belong to or have anything to do with the organization ? Mr. ATKESON. Nothing whatever. It does not emanate from our office. Mr. RAKER. Then, as a matter of fact, you intend to tell the com- mittee that that is a spurious document of five pages, written by somebody The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Judge, let me interrupt you: There are more than five pages. There are three different press notices. The first two contain two pages each, and the last contains five. Mr. ATKESOX. I never saw any of those. Mi 1 . RAKER. Then you intend to tell the committee that this docu- ment, so far as you and your organization are concerned, has been promulgated without your knowledge and consent, and is spurious, and is repudiated by you and your organization. Mr. ATKESON. We had nothing to do with it whatever with its promulgation. Mr. RAKER. Then you are ready to answer that it is a spurious document, gotten up to misrepresent you and the committee, without your knowledge or your organization's knowledge or consent. That is right, is it ? Mr. ATKESON. That is the situation. Mr. HERSMAN. Have you the slightest idea from whence this docu- ment emanated ? Mr. ATKESON. It could only be a guess, a very vague one. I have no information: I do not know, but I have my suspicions and I am trying to locate that press circular. 'MrT HERSMAN. I will ask you further: If you continue this investi- gation, will you report to this committee if you find out in any way who wrote it ? Mr. ATKESON. I will be perfectly willing to give you the name if I find it. I will say. frankly, that we are trying to find out who wrote it. Mr. SMITH. May I ask you a general question? Mr. ATKESON. Certainly. Mr. SMITH. You stated that one of your objections is that it will discriminate against a certain class of soldiers who do not want to go on farms. Do you not believe that when you develop 100.000 home- steads in the country the merchants and mechanics would be benefited by the increased market brought about by the increased use of harness, clothing, machinery, and supplies? Mr. ATKESON. It is probably true that in the course of time it would have that effect. This scheme would be put into productive operation so slowly that I think it would affect the food supply very seriously. Mr. SMITH. But you have not suggested anything better or even anything different. Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir; I am going to suggest something before we get through. Mr. BAER. How many members are there in the grange which you represent ? Mr. ATKESON. The best way I know to answer that is to say that the expenses of our office in this city, which was established in this city 356 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. last January, a're costing its members 1 cent apiece, and we appro- priated $10.000, and you can find out easily what the membership is. Mr. BAER. I understand about half of them are women ; the women belong to it as well as the men ? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes. but not half. Probably minors and women represent about half. About one-half of our membership, we esti- mate, are voters: and since the ladies will vote they will all be there pretty soon. Mr. TAYLOR. A representative of the Federation of Labor appeared here and said that every soldier taken out of a town and furnished a job furnished an opportunity of obtaining a home that that of itself benefited all the rest of those that were left there in town, by reducing that much competition; that every fellow who does not go on the farm is benefited to a certain extent by the fellow who goes on the farm and ceases being in competition for the jobs that are left, and becomes a producer to that extent in reducing the high cost of living problem. Do you subscribe to that idea ? Mr. ATKESOX. Our Federation of Labor people are not making many mistakes these days. They know that is a fact the statement you made and I know it is a fact, and they are not making any mis- takes, from their standpoint. Mr. TAYLOR. From a labor standpoint they would like to see a great many of them go on the farm ? Mr. ATKESON. Unquestionably. I am afraid if they get enough of them out there there would be so much food produced that nobody could get any kind of price for it, and they would all flock back to town again. Mr. TAYLOR. There is no danger of that. Mr. ATKESON. I am inclined to think that as long as I appear here in a representative capacity I am justified in trying to put this organi- zation of farmers right before the committee. If I misrepresent it or represent it inefficiently, that is my misfortune. This is not my first experience in this sort of thing. Mr. FERRIS. Might I interrupt you before you go into that ? What is the relation of the American Farmers' Union and different unions of the farmers, and the unions of the laboring people ? Have they not had a sort of federation whereby they are all working and pulling in the same direction : and if not. what is that relation ? Mr. ATKESON. They are entirely separate in all their relations in life, so far as I know. There is no quarrel on between any of them. Mr. FERRIS. Where is the Farmers' Union? I had a talk with a gentleman a few years ago, and I think he told me there was a move- ment on foot whereby the Farmers' Union and the Grange per- haps I am mistaken about the Grange and the other farmers' unions, whatever they may be, had formed an alliance with the labor unions. and they were all fighting in the same direction. It is true some were producers and some were consumers, and I think I had the figures as to the membership of each organization at that time, but I think they had all settled down in one happy family and were all working to the same end ? Mr. ATKESON. You mean all the farmers' organizations? Mr. FERRIS. They had intermingled and allied themselves with the labor unions. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 357 Mr. ATKESOX. So far as I know there has been no such attempt. Mr. SMITH. What about the Buffalo convention last year, when Mr. (tampers spoke, and Mr. Townley. representing the Non-Partisan League ? Did they not pass resolutions along that line ? Mr. ATKESOX. I am pretty familiar with those people. Their official paper comes to our office once a week. There are a good many farmers' organizations in this country, and we have been here longer than any of them. During these 50 years we have seen a good many of them turn their toes up to the daisies and pass to the happy be- yond, and we w r ill probably be here when some of those that are here now have done the same thing. Mr. FERRIS. What farmers' organizations have belonged to the labor unions? Have not a number of farmers' organizations gone into the labor unions, so that they are made up in one organization \ You say the grange has not. Has not the Non-Partisan League done it 5 Mr. BAER. I have never heard of any direct affiliation between the Non-Partisan League and labor. The only thing is that the Non- Partisan League has advocated certain legislation that labor was sympathetic toward, has indorsed that legislation, agreed to vote for it, and voted for it; but they are not joined in one organization. Mr. FERRIS. I did not mean that. I thought there was an allied league among them of some sort, where they had all come under one tent, not in name, but an organization so comprehensive in scope that it took in all these organizations. Mr. BAER. I think you are right so far as the farmers' organiza- tions are concerned. There is a short extract from the master's ad- dress at the State grange of Washington this year, in which he states the membership of the grange. I thought it ought to be put into the record because it is interesting to know that in the Middle Wes- ern States the granges are not so strong. I will quote this in the record. Mr. FERRIS. How long is it? Mr. BAER. Very short. This is from the address of William Bouck, who has been reelected master of the grange in Washington. I understand it is about as strong there as anywhere else in the West, Thirty-three State organizations are represented in the National Grange, with a combined membership of 620.000. This membership is mainly in New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. West of Michigan the only States of considerable membership are Kansas, Colorado, Oregon, and our own State. This leaves the grange with very poor membership in the great agricultural States of the Central West, and shows the wisdom of granges getting together with the great progressive farm organizations of that section for joint action in support of a common national legislative pro- gram. While the National Grange has not .joined us in the Farmers' National Council or in our Farmers' National Headquarters, through which we are working with other grange organizations, we are glad to say the present officers are showing a good spirit of cooperation with our headquarters in all legis- lative matters in which there is common agreement. Later on in his address, still quoting Mr. Bouck, Master of Wash- ington State Grange : Among the farm organizations with which wo are allied through our national headquarters and the Fanners' National Council are the American Society of Equity, the National Gleaner Federation, the National Creamery Butter Makers' Association, the National Nonpartisan League, the largest of the State farmers' unions, and. with a few exceptions, the State granges with which we have been associated in national work. 358 HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. That is the end of the quotation. So that, regardless of the state- ment made before the committee that the National Nonpartisan League did not represent the grange, Mr. Bouck says that they are cooperating together. I do not know anything about it myself. Mr. FERRIS. I had heard that in so many different ways I wanted to find out the truth of it. Mr. BAER. Now, I quote again from Mr. Bouck's address : The movement begun in this State under the leadership of Brother Kegley to bring the form and labor organizations together to work for their common interests through a joint legislative committee, and in the national field, also under the leadership of Brother Kegley, begun by the progressive State granges. is being taken hold of by the progressive farm and labor organizations throughout the country. Thus one more of the pioneer efforts of the Wash- ington State Grange has fully demonstrated its importance. It is in making common cause in this way that the workers are winning their battles. Mr. FERRIS. It is things like that that have gotten me confused. I do not pretend to say or know anything about it. I beg your pardon, Mr. Atkeson, for this interruption. Mr. ATKESON. I have no objection to being interrupted. Mr. FERRIS. It was with no discourtesy, but merely with an in- quiring mind. Mr. ATKESON. I have read before what has just been read. You all understand that the grange organization is composed of sub- ordinate granges or organizations down in the schoolhouses or coun- try churches and grange halls, and we have grange halls running all the way from a few dollars, made out of rough lumber, up to $20,000 or $30,000, made of the best lumber in the country. AVe have county granges and we have State granges, and once a year the delegates all assemble and constitute the National Grange. Indi- vidual members, sometimes subordinate granges or State granges, get at variance with the national bodv. That is the failure of hu- manity, I reckon. But the National Grange in its organic capacity is the only organization that has any authority to speak for the entire membership nationally, just as the National Congress deals with national problems and not with State problems. Now, in our office here we prepared a little circular which has been sent to every Member of Congress, and in that little booklet we said just what we meant, and I am going to read a couple of paragraphs : The Grange representatives are not lobbyists in the usually accepted mean- ing of that term, and there are no unclean dollars paying us for our service. It costs the members of our organization just about 1 cent apiece a year our munificent compensation in this city. Mr. Loomis, my associate, and I are representing our membership very cheaply. Mr. RAKER. You get a salary for your work, do you not ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. To continue : We are in Washington in a spirit of helpful cooperation in our efforts to place- before Congress and the various departments the true farmers' viewpoint of the food-production problems which are now receiving so much attention, and upon which the welfare of all our people so largely depends. In a spirit of helpfulness we hope to go over these rural problems with the Members of Congress and with congressional committees who have a charge of the measures affecting the interests of agriculture in order that we may, it' possible, assist them in arriving al a fair and unbiased understanding of the problems and points of view of the real farmers. With this object in view we HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 359 will be glad to have the facilities of this office made use of by the Members of Congress to the fullest extent. We extend a very cordial invitation to each of you to visit the Grange office at any time. Now, I have here the journal of the last National Grange session. Mr. RAKER. Before you go into that, let me ask you this question if it does not interrupt you : Does your organization in general con- vention assembled, through resolution or otherwise, direct its execu- tive committee, through its president and secretary, to appear before the various committees in Congress to urge this legislation ? Mr. ATKESON. You mean to oppose the land proposition ? Mr. RAKER. You did not answer my question. Mr. ATKESON. I did not quite catch it. Mr. WHITE. He asked you a question, Judge. Mr. RAKER. I asked you if this organization in convention as- sembled at any time voted, by resolution or otherwise, that the executive committee or its officers should advocate or oppose this pro- posed legislation known as the soldiers' homestead bill ? Mr. ATKESON. I thought I answered it that they did vote to oppose the Lane proposition, and I was going to read the action of the body itself. Mr. RAKER. I know, but you did not answer my question. Outside of this resolution, did they request or direct that their executive com- mittee appear before the various committees of Congress to oppose this legislation? Mr. ATKESON. They undoubtedly did. The executive committee was in this city a week ago last Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, re- peatedly, and the body itself is on record by unanimous vote. I want to read two or three paragraphs here in order that we may put this organization squarely on this question. The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute, Mr. Atkeson. You said " by unani- mous vote." Unanimous vote of what ? Mr. ATKESON. The National Grange. The CHAIRMAN. That was at the last meeting? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There was not a dissenting vote? Mr. ATKESON. Not a dissenting vote. Now, before I read this I would like this committee to keep this fact in mind : That the day I arrived in Syracuse, N. Y., to attend this meeting of the National Grange was the day following the signing of the armistice, and I heard more noise than I ever heard in my life by the time we struck the city of Buffalo, and when we got to the city of Syracuse it was in the forenoon, and they kept it up all day and all night and all the next day. Our organization assembled the next day, and we were the first organization of any considerable number of people to as- semble anywhere except to jolify for the signing of the armistice, and we undertook to deal with reconstruction problems. We were pretty near to the end of our turmoil of war, and these are among the things we said : The farmers of America ai'e proud of their part in the world war. In loyalty and devotion, in food production, in financial aid, and in the gift of their sons they have again shown their sturdy Americanism and have justified the confidence always reposed in them when serious danger threatens the Republic. 360 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Just as agriculture ha* had a vital part in the war. so it must have a strong voice in the reconstruction program that is to follow. This task is hardly less gigantic than the great war itself and will command the hest thought of our leaders. Broad-minded statesmanship demands that our entire citizenship, without distinction of class. or occupation, shall unite in keeping the Nation steady in the inevitable price-leveling process that must come. Justice to all must accordingly be uppermost in our minds, while we insistently urge that the interests of agriculture so fundamental to the prosperity of the whole Nation must he safeguarded ai every point. Holding the first national gathering of farmers since peace has become definitely assured, it is clearly The duty of the National Grange as a recognized spokesman of the organized farmers of America to state clearly and forcefully the needs and demands of agriculture in the program of readjustment. To fail is to invite neglect and to merit contempt. We therefore present the following statements and recommendations as a platform upon which the fanners of the country may stand as a program of reconstruction with confidence that their interests arc carefully safeguarded and their welfare assured. Profitable agriculture : Profitable agriculture is the keynote of our declaration. A prosperous and progressive agriculture with an independent, self-respecting citizenship in the open country is the surest guaranty of an enduring national life. Farming must be made as profitable as any other occupation involving the same amount of investment, business ability, and hard work or our de- mocracy must fail and our people go hungry. Mr. RAKER. Right in that connection, I would like to get this in- formation: I understand this organization in convention assembled passed a resolution which in part you have read before the committee. That part opposes soldiers' homesteads or the settlement plan. That is right, is it ? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Now. the executive committee has opened headquarters in Washington. Through what source is this paid ? Mr. ATKESOX. How is that? Mr. RAKER. Who pays for the executive committee's headquarters? Mr. ATKESOX. It is paid out of the funds of the National (range. Mr. RAKER. The National Grange voted to do that ? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And it also paid the salaries of the president and secre tary and executive officers while here in Washington preparing to oppose this legislation? Mr. ATKESOX. This was a mere incident Mr. RAKER (interposing). I know, but you are not answering the direct question. That is right, is it not ? Mr. ATKESOX T . That is one reason; but we regarded this whole proposition from any standpoint as of minor importance compared with matters like merchant marine and the railroad question, and many other question which you gentlemen will have to deal with and which I am going to take up and hope to talk to this and other com- mittees on. Mr. RAKER. That is, in addition to opposing this legislation? Mr. ATKESOX. This is a mere incident. We did not come to do this and nothing else. The CHAIRMAX T . Just a moment, Mr. Atkeson. How much time do you think you will require? Mr. ATKESOX. Oh, I can quit at any time. The CHAIRMAN. No: I do not want you to quit. I wanted to sug- gest that you be allowed to conclude your remarks before questions are put to you. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 361 Mr. ATKESON. How much time may I have? It is just 15 minutes after 12. The CHAIRMAN. You can take your own time, but I want to get some idea of how long a time you wanted. Mr. FERRIS. May we find out what is going on in the House ? The CHAIRMAN. They are trying to arrange for debate on the Army appropriation bill. Mi'. ATKESON. I came up here the other day entirely unprepared to talk on this bill. The CHAIRMAN. We want to give you all the time you want, but we have to make some arrangement about Members going over on the floor. Mr. ATKESON. I can take 30 minutes. Can you give me 30 minutes ? The CHAIRMAN. I think we can. Then we will interrogate you afterwards? Mr. ATKESON. Just at your pleasure. Above everything else I want to put this organization fairly before this committee. Every- thing we say and do is in absolute good humor. The action of the National Grange in establishing headquarters here reads as follows : Whereas the emergencies now confronting our country, and especially our agricultural industry, make it imperative that the National Grange should have a duly accredited representative at the National Capital Now, there are other people here claiming to represent the farmers, and they do it, but they do not represent the National Grange. Therefore be it Resolved, That the executive committee is hereby instructed to immediately establish grange headquarters in Washington City, under such safeguards and conditions as they may deem expedient, with due regard for the protection of the character and good name of the grange. Second. That the sum of $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated for the maintenance of said headquarters. All bills to be approved and paid as other bills against the National Grange are paid. Third. That said headquarters shall be under the direction and control of the executive committee, and may be discontinued at any time at their dis- cretion. Fourth. That said headquarters may, and in our opinion should, cooperate with other farmers' organizations in support of such policies or measures as may be mutually agreed upon. Now, there are some questions upon which we may agree with some of these other organizations like the Farmers' Union and the Society of Equity, and we may mutually support them; there are other questions that are absolutely hopeless. Mr. FERRIS. How does your organization cooperate with the Non- partisan League ? Do you get along together all right? Mr. ATKESON. We have not gone into the Nonpartisan League business. I think the feeling of our membership is that if they can get away with it and make good they are pioneers out there the whole world will call them a blessing; but if they fail to do it, which a few years will demonstrate, then they will have to take the consequences of their state socialistic line, as w r e call it, and our organization is in no way socialistic. I think that is a fair answer. I am not going to read this reconstruction platform that we adopted two or three days after the war closed, but there were nine gentlemen constituted a special committee to formulate this plat- 362 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. form, and I do not know their politics, except three or four of them, although I have known them for some time. The CHAIRMAN. What are their names ? Mr. ATKESON. L. H. Wright, of Indiana; J. C. Ketcham, of Mich- igan; L. J. Taber, of Ohio; C. C. King, of Oklahoma; W. J. Thompson, of Maine; C. E. Spence, of Oregon; S. J. Lowell, of New York; B. Needham, of Kansas, and myself. They were the nine men, all masters of State granges, who prepared this plat- form, and they were distributed from Maine to Oregon, and as be- tween political parties, so far as I know, all the parties were rep- resented. There are two or three of these paragraphs that logically bear on this question. I would not take your time to read them. There are two or three that deal with railroads and public highways. I will just mention the public highways and what they have to do with our policy so far as the soldiers are concerned. Before I go any further I want to disabuse your mind of any thought that I would not do everything on earth that can legitimately be done for the benefit of the soldiers. It was my fortune to have eight nephews in the Army. Four went to France; one of them is buried there; one is still there in the Army ; the other two have returned. The other four have been demobilized ; they did not get across. Some of these nephews of mine were farmer boys, and one of them, who came home a lieutenant, is the son of a brother who is a practicing attor- ney and was a candidate for Congress last year, and happened to bo in a district where his political party did not get enough votes, and although he is not of the same political party as mine I do not think any the less of him, because if I had been in the State I would have scratched my ticket and voted for him. Now, speaking about the highway and what it has to do with this Lane proposition, I want to show that we have duly considered the question, not only last November, but ever since the Lane plan has been proposed. The welfare of agriculture demands an aggressive road-const ru by the National. State, and local Governments. We demand t funds shall not be used in an extensive boulevard system to be few, but that market and post roads, the highways over which the food supplies of a nation, be given first consideration. Such roads will meet every possible military need of the future. Instt mental effort to use returning soldier labor on doubtful schemes tion policy it Federal *ed by the mst travel system of d of senti- drainage. irrigation, etc., we urge that road construction be used as a shock absorber against an oversupply of labor caused by the return of soldiers from the front. You will certainly have the roads left if they are properly con- structed. I could read all these paragraphs in their logical sequence, but I will not inflict that upon you. Land tenantry is rapidly increasing, farm property is concentrating in the hands of wealthy landholders, and abandoned farms are becoming altogether too common. In the face of these conditions every means should be provided to assist the young man of character and training to secure a homestead of his own. The largest possible number of owners operating and living on their farms is the surest guarantee of the perpetuity of American agriculture. To this end we favor such modification of the farm land bank law as will extend its benefits still more widely. That is, in the case of soldiers we will extend it to the entire amount instead of half. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 363 We advocate the establishment of a system of personal cooperative credit to enable tenant farmers and small-farm owners to extend their operations and avail themselves of the economics which command of credit always affords. Now, regarding " farms for soldiers " : We oppose the proposed plan of providing swamp and arid lands, by drain- age and irrigation, for returning soldiers as unsound and impractical and detrimental to the best interests of the Nation and agriculture. We believe that is absolutely true. The time may come that will justify this huge expenditure of public funds, but that time is not now. This plan fails to take into consideration the previous occupations, desires, or ambitions of these boys and the economic welfare of established agricultural communities. There is an abundance of unused and untenanted farms and available farm lands near established market centers to supply all needs in this direction. The Government should offer our heroic soldier boys who desire it such help as will enable them to secure farm homes of their own. Xow, in those few paragraphs you have a rather systematic plan. Build roads as a shock absorber of surplus labor. I am going to make one remark and then I will be ready to answer any questions and be ready to quit. Following the Civil War we sold wheat at $3.80 a bushel. On that same farm within a few years we sold wheat at 50 cents a bushel, and my father nearly went into bankruptcy ; not quite. Xow. if the Government appropriates a half billion of money and it is a wonder how it grows! It was $100,000 and then a newspaper article I read figured it at $300,000. and when I got Mr. MondelPs bill it was $500,000. I am afraid to look at anybody else's bill, because it may be $1,500.000. I do not know where we are going to get it. But this proposition is absolutely sound: That if you undertake to drain any swamp land in this country or irrigate any arid land in this country, at the present scale of cost of effecting that reclamation, there is not a man living to-day who will under- take to reimburse the Government, if the price of food products should drop one-half, which was normal before the war, and be able to pay the cost of that reclamation, with isolated exceptions, if he should live 1.000 years. If we are going to tax the taxpayers of this country on a reclama- tion scheme let us put it on that basis and stand fair and square I do not believe there is a sane soldier in this country to-day who, when these lands are reclaimed, on the present scale of wages and other costs of reclaiming, which includes machinery and all appli- ances necessary, when asked to accept that land and reimburse the Government, as Mr. Mondell's bill provides well, he ought to have a place in an insane asylum if he would tackle the job. I have been in every State in the country except Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico*, and when I talk about farm problems I know something about what I am talking about. Let me tell a story : In the days when everybody had timber down in our State and the portable sawmill first came out, shiftless people got this sawmill and went out and cut up timber and had a jolly time. They got credit at the local stores and then went broke, and the manufacturer took the sawmill back at a reduced payment. There was an old fellow named Meeks who stuttered, and he had 364 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. a little quarrel with a neighbor over some matter in the store. The old man wanted to wish him the worst thing he could think of. and he said, " I I I wish you had a sawmill ! D d d damn you, I wish you had two sawmills " ! And if that did not finish him I wonder what would. If our American soldiers want this propo- sition, all right, but if I had an enemy I would wish he had one of those farms, and then I would wish he had two of them, and if that would not finish him, I wonder what would. It is an economic impossibility, on the present scale of cost of reclamation, for any man to take this land I do not care where it is and get ashore with it. I say that, and I have wrestled with farm problems for 65 years. I nave touched the farm problem at more angles than any other living man in America. I was raised on a farm, engaged in productive farm industry from 12 years of age, on a 16-hour basis, and spent five } r ears as a farm hand at 75 cents a day, after I was married. I was a farm renter for five years, then bought a farm and paid taxes on thousands of dollars of my debts, because the land w r as assessed at its value. About the time I got that farm paid for my State agricultural college invited me to go to the institution, where they did not have much agriculture. I went up there to organize the agricultural department and stayed 23 years. To-day they carry my name in the catalogue as " professor emeritus." In all that time I never went loose from that farm that I paid for five-sixths of it part of it by day labor, part of it rented, part of it in money. I say five-sixths, because I inherited one-sixth. The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready for questions now ? Mr. ATKESON. This is a large subject. I will answer your ques- tions now. The CHAIRMAN. With reference to these press notices, you said you did not know the individual w r ho got them out. Do you know the organization who is responsible for them ? Mr. ATKESON. For those press notices? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ATKESON. No, sir ; I do not. I do not think there is any organi- zation. My own impression is that it was some enterprising news- paper man. The CHAIRMAN. Just a few more questions. I want to see just how far we are apart. I understand your organization, from its resolu- tions, is in favor of legislation to encourage farm home owning and to discourage tenantry. That is true, is it not ? Mr. ATKESON. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. Then your organization says, in its resolution on page 8. that There is an abundance of untenanted farms near market centers to supply all soldiers who may wish farm land. The Government should meet this need in this way, so that they may become self-supporting and useful without waste and delay. The resolution you read had the words " unused and untenanted farms." That is true, is it not? That there are untenanted farms near market centers? Mr. ATKESON. If you will take the trolley to Annapolis, as I did the other day, you will see something. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 365 The CHAIRMAN. There are untenanted lands between Washington and Annapolis? Mr. ATKESON. Enough to feed this city. The CHAIRMAN. That might be used for soldier homes? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Secretary Lane agrees with you on that and agrees with your resolution. He says that within 50 miles of Wash- ington there are innumerable farms that might be used, and you say in your resolution that the " Government should meet this need in this way." Mr. ATKESOX. Do you know why those lands are not used and need reclaiming ? Some of it is too wet and some too dry. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have noticed them in the vicinity and be- tween here and New York, and if the farmers in the West were in this part of the country they would soon have them under cultivation. Mr. ATKESON. The reason they are not cultivated is that it would not pay to reclaim them, and if you take the taxpayers' money and reclaim them and expect somebody to reimburse the Government you will not find many takers. The CHAIRMAN. You state in your resolution that legislation should be devised to encourage farm home owning. We are agreed that far, that these farms in the eastern section of the country should be utilized for the soldiers. Is that true? Mr. ATKESON. That is right; or in any other section where the proposition is economically sound. As an extreme illustration, I could raise oranges on top of Pike's Peak or in Alaska. The CHAIRMAN. In the hothouse? Mr. ATKESON. But I could not sell them for a nickel apiece. The CHAIRMAN. You could not raise them economically? Mr. ATKESOX. I could not raise them economically; no. I could raise apples in West Virginia but not in Florida. The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you refer to reclamation I take it you mean the irrigation of arid lands and the drainage of swamp lands? Mr. ATKESON. Or the reclaiming of any other land that ordinary business horse sense would not show was a sane financial proposition. The CHAIRMAN. You would not do that with land that could not be economically developed ? Mr. ATKESOX. And I would not do that with the taxpayers' money. The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee agrees with you and the Secretary of the Interior agrees with you, that such land should not be taken up and that only land should be utilized that can be economi- cally utilized for that purpose. Mr. ATKESON. There is no such land in this country at the present cost of reclamation. The CHAIRMAN. You do not think so? Mr. ATKESON. Not if the food prices go down, as I believe they will. The CHAIRMAN. Referring to irrigated land, the farmers in my district and these men are actual farmers have voted bond issues within the last two years of nearly $10.000.000 to irrigate land where they now dry-farm and where they now partially irrigate. These men are actual farmers and they have sold within the last year some- thing under $5.000,000 worth of those bonds. That is for irrigation projects. 366 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, should it appear that the Government recla- mation projects have made a success and are paying, would that in any way modify your views that you have expressed on irrigation ? Mr. ATKESON. Well, the Government is attempting to do a .great many things. The economic objection to attempting these things now is based largely on the assumption that the cost of reclamation is double what it would be under normal conditions, and that the products of a farm would be half what they are now. which would make it economically impossible. There is one other objection. I do not want to omit that. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; what is it? Mr. ATKESON. There is one other objection that our organization makes to Mr. Lane's plan, and I am glad you put me in mind of it. We are opposed to the whole colonization scheme as radically un- American and undemocratic. It presupposes a sort of overlordism. The projects are limited to 5,000 acres or more. It provides for a lot of Utopian schemes. I have some of Mr. Lane's stuff here, and it reads like a dream book. The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you there. You did not have in your convention any concrete bill before you when you discussed the matter? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You discussed it from the viewpoint of some of Secretary Lane's exuberant rhetoric? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I mean exuberant from your viewpoint. Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. Now, we are opposed to any form of State socialism, to take the taxpayers' money and go out and acquire Gov- ernment land. This scheme provides for laying out town lots and a multitude of things, and these soldiers can not even sell this land if they go on it. You will have to tie them because they will want to abandon most of it before the 10-year period is out. "it is based on what we regard as a fundamentally un-American principle. The CHAIRMAN. Do you consider that there is anything un-Ameri- can or socialistic about the present reclamation projects? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. They are all in a colony, as it were ? Mr. ATKESON. They are disposed of in severalty. The man ac- quires possession and pays for it like any other land. The CHAIRMAN. It is contemplated that where large units are selected the same process will go on as is now going on on the Gov- ernment reclamation projects. Mr. ATKESON. We had an attempt some years ago in my State to establish a community. These people were spiritualists, and it was their religion, or lack of religion, that brought them together with common interest. They flourished for a while and then the com- munity was abandoned. The CHAIRMAN. But this plan is not like those old colony plans. The one that Hawthorne was on what was the name of that ( Mr. VAILE. It was called " Meadow Brook." The CHAIRMAN. You realize that the lands here are disposed of in severally. They do not work the whole thing in community. Kadi man has his own individual unit and will eventually get a patent. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 367 Mr. ATKESON. Yes; but there is a community of interest contem- plated in the whole proposition; for instance, about the marketing. That is how some of our milk dealers got into trouble with the Sher- man law in Chicago when they tried to sell their stuff in community. The CHAIRMAN. Does not your organization approve of collective selling? Mr. ATKESON. Selling and buying. The CHAIRMAN. " Wherever necessary in State or Nation to estab- lish beyond question the right of producers of farm products to bargain collectively for their sale." That is what you say in one of your resolutions. Mr. ATKESON. But that is different from this proposition. You take the taxpayer's money and invest it, whether it is ever returned or not; and if that is not State socialism, we fail to know what the words " State socialism " mean. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what they are doing on the Govern- ment reclamation projects. They are spending money out of the Treasury, from the Government reclamation fund, to build up these projects. I have never heard any accusation made against that plan as being socialistic. Mr. ATKESON. There is a great deal of argument against it. The Government has proceeded on the theory that the Government recla- mation projects will be worth what they cost. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask you a question, if you will pardon me. Have you thought about a case of this kind : A good many sol- diers will come back from the war in your part of the country, and you say you have a large number of abandoned, unused farms unoccupied lands? Mr. ATKESON. All over the country. Mr. WHITE. And that the productive quality of the land has depre- ciated, and it is not a good dividend-producing proposition. Now, we will suppose a young man comes back, the son of a poor farmer, who may be poor for any number of reasons, and he will say to his father : " I would like to buy one of these farms." In case he is not able to capitalize it himself.'do you think it would be a good idea for the Government to cooperate with him and assist him with a loan ? Had you thought about that? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir; not in furnishing him money but in fur- nishing him Government credit. Mr. WHITE. I mean loaning him the money. Mr. ATKESON. All through the land-bank discussion our organiza- tion took an active part, and it was my fortune, or misfortune, to appear before committees in support of the land-bank scheme. I made this argument and I cited this specific case. We insisted that we should loan these purchasers more than 50 cents on the dollar, and that was finally written in the law. The CHAIRMAN. You stated a while ago you would rather have full value than half? Mr. ATKESON. That was for the soldier, so that the soldier could go out and find land wherever he wanted it, and wherever he found it the Government would give him credit and sell bonds. Mr. Morgan stated the other day that he had a proposition in his bill that would be worthy of consideration 33331919 24 368 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE (interposing). I want to know your view on it, Mr. Atkeson. I made my question hypothetical, but it is not hypothetical because it is absolutely true. There will be hundreds of instances of this kind. I am not stating my views, but I would like to have yours if you are ready to express them. Mr. ATKESON. I cite this case : Assuming that you leave the land- bank laws as they now stand; that a gentleman has three sons and a fairly good farm for one, but they all want a farm. I know of hun- dreds of those cases. He is out of debt ; his farm is worth say $20,- 000. He gives a mortgage on his farm for $10,000 and tells his son to buy a farm as good as that. Mr. WHITE. That is distorting the question. My proposition is where he is the son of a poor farmer, where he would have to go to the city, when we are trying to keep them out of the city and in the country. If my question is not clear, it is all right, but I would be glad to have your view. Of course, I have no right to insist on it ; I want to be polite. Mr. ATKESON. In the resolution I read we said we recommended some system of personal credit where a man's character, skill, and industry should be utilized to make it possible for him to acquire land, and that is dealing with the question of land tenantry. Give the man a fighting chance. Help him all you can by loaning him the Government credit, but not the taxpayer's money. There is a great difference between those two things the Government credit and the taxpayer's money. I know by experience that it is easier to spend other .people's money. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atkeson, right there, the difference between you and the Mondell bill is a difference in plan. You believe in the plan of securing farms for soldiers? Mr. ATKESON. Wherever they want them. The CHAIRMAN. Through the medium of the land bank? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then, it is just a difference in principle? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I was wondering why you set down different plans in your resolutions. Your first resolution, on page 8 of your little pamphlet Mr. ATKESON (interposing). Yes; those are only summaries. The CHAIRMAN. It says : " Better farm credit : Every possible means should be provided to assist men of character and training to secure farm homes and to establish a system of personal credit for the purpose of increasing farm ownership. To this end we favor such amendment of the land-bank law as will extend its benefits more widely." There you refer especially to the land-bank law. Then, again: "Land tenantry: Land tenantry is increasing; farm ownership is concentrating in the hands of wealthy landholders, and abandoned farms are becoming too common. Legislation should be devised to encourage farm-home owning, and to discourage land spec- ulation and tenantry." You say nothing in this resolution about the land bank, but you say that " legislation should be devised." Do you mean additional legislation, in addition to the land-bank legis- lation? Mr. ATKESON. I have been asked by congressional committees and general assemblies as to what was the growing evil HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 369 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not want to interrupt you, but I want to know the meaning of this second paragraph, because in the preceding paragraph you say we should utilize the land-bank law, and in the next one you say that legislation should be devised. Mr. ATKESON. That means to interfere with or prevent as far as Csible by legislation the acquirement and holding of agricultural d by nonresident landholders. If I had the time I would tell you some things that pehaps you are not aware of in that connec- tion. More than half of the best farms in this country are culti- vated by tenants and owned by men living away from them. The CHAIRMAN. You mean absentee landlords? Mr. ATKESON. In the hands of landlords who live in the city. It- should be feasible by legislation to remedy that condition. l"have never been able to conceive of any remedy beside the graduated land tax. The CHAIRMAN. Then, in your last resolution, on page 8, you refer to the unused and untenanted farms, and say that the " Government should meet this need in this way." What kind of legislation would your organization approve, or what did you have in contemplation when you enacted that resolution? What would you do to supply these soldiers with untenanted farms ? Mr. ATKESON. We had nothing but the land-bank law. The CHAIRMAN. Just the land bank? Mr. ATKESON. Yes ; but we recommended the extension of the land bank law to include soldiers, so that John Smith and myself could not get a certain amount of land until we got half of the money. Now, if I had to extend that scheme to the soldiers I am ready to do it, Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that there is any exceptional opportunity extended to the soldier in this measure any unusual opportunity ? Mr. ATKESON. In our proposition? Mr. NICHOLS. No ; in this bill. Mr. ATKESON. I do not know. I have not studied it closely enough to answer that question. This is purely a reclamation proposition. Mr. RAKER. Here is a hypothetical question and I would like to have you answer: Here is a farm between Washington and An- napolis containing 160 acres. It has a fair house on it, somewhat in want of repair. It has sufficient outbarns, 20 or 25 acres under cultivation, and the rest is grown up in brush, shrubbery, etc. It is being cultivated but little; 20 acres partially and the rest of it is not under cultivation. It is cultivable land and will produce a good crop. A young returning soldier comes along and wants to buy that. Its actual value is $5,000 in the market. It is your pur- pose now that the law should be amended so that he may get the Government credit whereby he could buy that farm and let the Gov- ernment stand sponsor for his credit, to the end that he might take up the farm? Is that the theory? Is that what you believe ought to be done? Mr. ATKESON. I think that would be vastly better for the soldier and better for the taxpayer than the present proposition. Mr. VAILE. You would favor it as regards a farm between here and Annapolis, but not as between places in the West or between places in the South ? 370 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ATKESON. Let the soldier determine where he wants to live, without being colonized. Mr. VAILE. Then, if the soldier was willing to. choose a farm in Colorado or California Mr. ATKESON (interposing). It would not make any difference. Mr. VAILE. Your objection to irrigation or drainage would not apply ? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. Take another illustration : If the same kind of farm was anywhere the young man wanted it, in any other State in the Union, under like conditions you would say amend the law whereby he might take it up and get the Government credit to back the farm. Is that right ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir; and for the machinery you already have the appraisers and land bank officials. Mr. RAKER. Well ; that is the machinery to work it out. I want to get your idea. Mr. ATKESON. That does not look like we are afraid of competi- tion. We are perfectly ready. Mr. RAKER. If the soldier wants to get 40, 60, or 100, or 200 acres of land, I want to know if it is your belief or theory that he should be given the opportunity to obtain that piece of land wherever he wants it, anywhere in the United States, under like conditions ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir; right in the neighborhood where he was reared. Mr. RAKER. I do not care where it is. Mr. ATKESON. Well, I will say any place, wherever he wants to locate land, except picking him up and colonizing him where he does not want to go. Mr. RAKER. Now, let me go a little further. Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Suppose there is a tract of land of 100,000 acres, where 500 families may be placed, where the money invested in putting it in shape for cultivation will make it an attractive home for the soldier, and the money invested is not in excess of what would be a reasonable expenditure to put that land in shape. Do you object to putting that 100,000 acres of land in that condition so that these 500 soldiers may go on there and make their homes, if the conditions are favorable as to climate, soil, and the price for which it may be done ? Mr. ATKESON. We object to making our sympathy for the soldier or our desire to benefit the soldier a pretext for reclamation. Mr. RAKER. I have not put any sympathy into my question. I am just as cold-blooded as a snake in asking this question. Assuming that you answered the other question as to 160 acres located anywhere, what distinction is there if you take that 160 acres and give him the sole right to select it? Is there any difference between that proposi- tion and taking 100,000 acres and allowing 500 men to select it? Mr. ATKESON. There is no difference in principle. Mr. RAKER. If this 100,000 acres is good agricultural land and will produce good crops and can be put in cultivation without any extraordinary expense, is there any objection in your mind to putting that 100,000 acres in cultivation, so that the soldier might take it if he wants it? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 371 Mr. ATKESOX. None whatever if the soldier wants it. The last Reclamation Record gives in tabular form the crop report of King Hill project. Idaho, for last year. I will take the subject of wheat, because most people know wheat. Production of wheat, $4 an acre; income, $7.48. I will bet $7.48 would not pay for putting water on it. The CIIAIRMAX. What project is that? Mr. ATKESOX. King Hill project. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the King Hill project ? Mr. ATKESOX. Xo. sir; not personally. The CHAIRMAN. Well let me tell you this. Wheat raising is not the ordinary crop on a Government reclamation project. They gen- erally raise alfalfa. Mr. ATKESOX. Yes. sir. The CHAIRMAX. Xow, King Hill project is one that has recently been taken over by the Government. It is not completed. It was a defunct project under the Carey Act. They did not have enough money to put it on its feet and complete it. and the Government, I think, in the sundry civil bill of last year, made an appropriation to take it over. That is the history of the King Hill project. Mr. ATKESOX. Alfalfa is a semiarid plant. That is, it is grown in a semiarid climate. I just want to get these figures in the record. Taking all the products on that project, the total income per acre total and aver- age is $27.18 on that whole project. Xow we will turn over to the prevailing crop prices on land in the Yellowstone project in Mon- tana and North Dakota it is in both States in 1918. The wheat yield of this project was 15 bushels an acre, which -is the average for the country, but the total acreage, which includes the production of alfalfa at *33 an acre and alfalfa seed at $66 an acre the total pro- duction of those acres in that project was $31.85. The crop on the Yellowstone project in Montana and Xorth Dakota that seems to be the same project was $11.39. That seems to be the same thing. The crop report for the Xewell project in Nevada shows a total average of $53.15. Xow. we have undertaken to ascertain what it has cost per acre in these reclamation projects. Mr. Lane does not give us any figures. We have tried through the Reclamation Service and we feel absolutely certain that there is not a single one of these proposition.-) that is a' paying proposition. I have been on some isolated fruit farms that are abandoned, in Colorado The CHAIRMAX. Xame one. Mr. ATKESOX. I do not recall the name. There was one over be- yond the hills. The CHAIRMAX. What was the nearest town? Mr. ATKESOX. Salida was the nearest town, I think. The CHAIRMAX. Salida was the nearest town? Mr. ATKESOX. I do not know whether it was the nearest town. The CHAIRMAX. What year were you there? Mr. ATKESOX. I think I was there' in 1915. Mr. SUMMERS. I want to call your attention to the fact that thera is an irrigation project in my district of 200.000 acres that in 1918 averaged $150 an acre income. There is another of 3.000 acres in 372 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. my district the income of which is stated to be $280 an acre. I be- lieve it is only fair to the arid lands, when you select some that have had the very lowest possible productions, that some others should be put in comparison with them. Mr. ATKESON. Those are only four that Mr. Lane selected. Mr. SUMMERS. You were quoting on the production of wheat ? Mr. ATKESON. I took all the other products, too. Mr. SUMMERS. Then that is fair. That is what I have done in quoting my figures. I want you to bear in mind the $150 from 200.000 acres and the $28Q from 3,000 acres. So that there are high and low productions in irrigated land the same as in nonirrigated land. Mr. VAILE. Do you know the altitude of the land which you referred to as abandoned fruit farms in Colorado? You said they were near Salida. Mr. ATKESON. It was in that section of Colorado. We stopped there a day on our way to Salt Lake City, and I can not recall exactly. Salida was the place where people Avere getting on, and they said they were abandoning those lands. After water had been put on for a few years and it soaked down, and by capillary action some alkali came to the surface, and they were abandoned. Mr. VAILE. Do you know what railroad facilities they had in thai part of the country for getting their produce to the markets ? Mr. ATKESON. Well, we were on the line of the Missouri Pacific. Mr. VAILE. Did you have any opportunity to compare those lands on the western slope which are still selling for $1.000 an acre and upward ? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir ; I was not out there on that business. Mr. VAILE. This is the second or third time that you have referred to abandoned farms in Colorado, and I am frank to say I do not know where they are. Now, you said your organization favored the exten- sion of the land-bank law ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. Mr. VAILE. Did you mean by that that you favored the increase of facilities for loaning money to farmers? Mr. ATKESON. Not to farmers generally. Our proposition is that if we are going to do something for the soldiers, we should do it through this organized machinery of the Government. You do not take the taxpayers' money, but you sell bonds. Mr. VAILE. But it does involve advancing cash to the farmers. Mr. ATKESON. Well, you would sell bonds. Mr. VAILE. It involves loaning cash to the farmers. Mr. ATKESON. But that is not the Government's money. Mr. BAER. The Government has to secure those bonds. It is the Government's credit that you want ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. Mr. BAER. The Government would have to pay those bonds if the project failed? Mr. ATKESON. If you are familiar with the land-bank system, a man can pay half the purchase price if the land-bank appraiser de- cides that is a fair price, and he can borrow the other half and have 36 years to pay for it. Mr. VAILE. Would it be your suggestion that the farmer should be allowed to borrow a larger amount than half ? HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 373 Mr. ATKESOX. That is for the soldier only. I think that 50 cents on the dollar is not enough. In normal times 50 per cent on the pres- ent valuation may be too high, but that depends on the appraiser. When the land-bank law was enacted it could have been made 75 per cent. Every time the man makes a payment, every six months, you will have a much better security. Now/if the Government wants to show its generosity, without any reference to socialization, coloni- zation, or a lot of other " izations " that we are opposed to, they can say to the soldier : " You can settle anywhere you want to live, in your own State " Mr. VAILE (interposing). Or anywhere else? Mr. ATKESOX. Anywhere he wants to in the United States, because I would not want him to leave the United States. He contracts for it in advance ; the Government sees that the title is good and that the land is worth, say, $10,000. The Government will take very little risk if the Government guarantees bonds under the land-bank system, if you are familiar with the land-bank system. Mr. VAILE. It is based on the credit of the land ultimately is it not ? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes, sir. The only risk would be the difference be- tween what was paid for the land and what the Government would get for it if it was forfeited. Every time he made a payment he would be liquidating part of the debt, and it would be better and better security. He can sell that land at any time he pleases, and his successor simply steps into his shoes and takes up the payments. Mr. VAILE. If your suggestion is that the land bank should be able to loan to the soldier a greater percentage of the value of the land he occupies. I can not see any difference between that plan and the Mondell bill, except that under the Mondell bill there is no provision that it shall be through the land bank, and it does not provide for alienation except within a certain period of time. Is there any differ- ence? Mr. ATKESOX. There is very vital difference. One provides for the taxpayer's money and the other is based on the Government's credit. If the prices of "farm products should go down one-half, it would become an economic impossibility for the majority of those farmers to get their money to pay off the debt. The soldiers are either crazy, if they undertake to do it, or bamboozled into a wild-cat scheme that they never can get ashore with, in the majority of cases. Mr. VAILE. Are you familiar with the safeguards of this proposi- tion that have been developed by the chairman of the committee in these hearings? Mr. ATKESOX. Yes, sir ; I have read the bill there. Mr. VAILE. Do you still think there is danger of using too much of the taxpayer's money? Mr. ATKESOX. On this level and the question of the purchaser being able to sell his products on the other level. Mr. BAER. I think I am in sympathy with some of your ideas, Mr. At- keson. That yon want to see these soldiers given the land that they want: that there shall not beany forcing of men on land that they do not desire. Xow, before the appropriation is made I recognize that the Secretary of the Interior will have to bring before the committee a statement of so many thousand soldiers who have already volitionally declared in which direction they want to go ; that is, in which State 374 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. they want to settle on a farm. It is purely optional where the soldiers want to go. If they decide on 1,000 farms in Pennsylvania or 1,000 farms in Colorado, then we are not going to develop more land than they require. Your position seems to be that we are going out and arbitrarily take 100,000 acres of land and then force the soldier to that land. My idea is just the reverse; that we are going to ask the soldier where he wants to go, and if one wants to go to Colorado we are going to develop lands there, and that will be right in accord with your views. Mr. ATKESON. It isn't pleasant to discuss the Secretary's returns from the soldiers, but I have talked with several hundred soldiers within the last six months and I have not found a single soldier yet, when this proposition was put to him, who would say that he ex- pected to occupy one of those farms. He would go out there and go to work at $7 and $7 a day to reclaim one of those farms ; but if you want to tie him to an impossibility Mr. BAER. We don't tie him to an impossibility. He has a choice. Mr. ATKESON. But you have spent the taxpayer's money reclaiming those lands, which is not economically possible. The CHAIRMAN. West Virginia is your State? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I will say that 432 soldiers have already written in favorable to the proposition from West Virginia. Mr. ATKESON. They don't understand the proposition. Mr. BAER. If they want the farm, they should have it. As I under- stand you in this plan, Mr. Lane is to find out where the soldiers want to go before we develop that land. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. BAER. In regard to the Federal farm-loan bank. I have been interested in the same proposition Mr. Atkeson is in extending credit; but so far as the liability goes, if the price of farm produce goes down one-half in the future, as you predict it may do, then there is just as much of a risk. He has got his money out of the Federal farm-loan bank as if he had it out of some other appropriation in Congress, because that makes an inability for him to meet the pay ments, and consequently the Government has to back up the Federal farm-loan bank as well as it would an appropriation, and they would lose the money anyway, so the sort of credit don't make any difference whether it comes from one department or the other department. But the point that you make that the machinery is already established in the farm-loan bank is a good point, but it is the taxpayer's money, no matter which way you go. Mr. ATKESON. 'it is the taxpayer's money in one place, and it is the taxpayer's money whether you ever pay it back or not. Mr. BAER. The soldier has got to pay this back into the Treasury. It is a sort of revolving fund. Mr. ATKESON. It isn't unreasonable to expect that by the time these lands can be made available for production that the prices of farm produce in this country will be one-half as high as they are now. I would like to see that if other things are relatively as low. We can't continue at this high rate. If you reclaim these lands on the present level of prices, it is impossible for them to pay on that basis. Farm products are not very largely increased from what they were before the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 375 war. In some places they have, but the normal increase has not been more than 25 per cent of the farm land. It would be impossible for the Government to lose any very great amount of money, largely because there would be very few soldiers availing themselves of it. I know when I say that that the figures the Secretary has are in the air. You get down with the boys Mr. BAER. I have talked with 250,000 of them in the camps from tidewater to Bridgeport since last May Mr. ATKESON (interposing). They were all for it? Mr. BAEK. Xo; I don't think more than 16 per cent of them wanted iarms, but the point is that those that do want farms are agreeable with you they want to make their own choice. If we have farms over in West Virginia and these fellows want these farms, the Gov- ernment should extend credit to them to buy the farms. I would go a little further. If they were farms that Avere run down, I would extend credit to resuscitate the farms just as we would in Colorado. If they want a farm there in the State of Colorado, which is to be irrigated, I would irrigate it, so it would be just about the same to extend them credit for fertilizer to resuscitate the soil which would cost about as much ; the same as they would in Xorth Dakota ; and it would all fall back on the Government, and the Government would have to back up the guaranty when it was in the Federal reserve bank or farm loan bank or some other bank. Mr. ATKESON. But in this proposition we lose sight of two basic facts. One of them is that the farms now are underfarmed, because they are undermanned, and other farms are not farmed at all simply because under present conditions they have not the boys to farm them. There is hardly a farm in the United States to-day that has man power on them to farm them adequately. There isn't a soldier in the United States to-day that can't get a farm-labor job at $2.50 a day ,,on the farm. They ought to do that a year or two before they attempt any of these " wildcat " schemes any way. Mr. BAER. I don't like to hear you say " wildcat " schemes, because we are pretty well agreed that wherever the soldier wants to go Mr. ATKESON (interposing). It is unnecessary. Mr. BAER. It is unnecessary if the soldier don't want it, but if the soldier expresses a desire to go to a certain place, they are aware of the fact that there are farmers in the community making a success on those farms, or they wouldn't be disposed to go there. Mr. VAILE. The real gist of your argument is that you are opposed to any sort of reclamation schemes? Mr. ATKESOX. At this time ; yes, sir. Mr. BAER. In regard to that, I said to Secretary Lane that there were certain farms in the West that would be very expensive, and to be practical we should try to fertilize the land out here nearer the great industrial centers. I will quote from the hearing, as follows: Mr. BAER. I am very much interested in seeing the market situation taken care of. Now, it' they are located in eastern Montana or western North Dakota and I am not casting reflection upon any State the situation would lie bad. Those farmers have become discouraged because they are so far away from market. They can not make good on them. If you take these men away out there, where you must develop railroads, the difficulties there would be great. I think it would be practicable to try to fertilize these lands right near the great industrial centers. 376 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH. Is it not a fact that farmers on the reclaimed arid lands in the West are more prosperous than those who live in any other section of the country? Mr. RAKEK. If this bill is to stop the development of the West, it would seem Secretary LANE (interposing). Mr. Baer's point is a perfectly good one. There has got to be some artificial incentive to bring about the reestablishnient of people all around upon their own land where they have markets near at hand. You will lind that sentiment very strong in States like Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and all down the coast. Mr. Lane has gone on record as favoring building up the farms in the Eastern States and in New England as well as he has in the West. Mr. ATKESON. But he limits his project to 5,000 acres or more, and there isn't a body of 5,000 acres in my State a man can make a liv- ing on. Mr. BAER. Is that in this bill, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. It isn't in the bill. Mr. BAER. I just thought if that was in the bill I would be opposed to it myself. That may be some of Mr. Lane's theories. The CHAIRMAN. All his theories will have to run the gauntlet of the Federal farm-loan banks, the governors of the States, the Appro- priations Committees of the House and the Senate. Mr. ATKESON. You have the bill in the record and it contemplates the community colonization scheme. Mr. BAER. There is nothing said about the 5,000 acres. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atkeson, how old are you? Mr. ATKESON. If I were a woman I wouldn't tell, but at my last birthday I was 67 years of age. The CHAIRMAN. You are old enough to remember the controversy over the passage of the homestead law ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. I lived through the Civil War and all the things that followed. The CHAIRMAN. That controversy was raging from 1850 to 1862, at the time of the passage of the homestead law. Do you know that every objection that has been urged against this bill was urged against the passage of the homestead law? It was called communism and socialism. Mr. ATKESON. I never heard it. The CHAIRMAN. It was contended that they were taking money out of the Treasury of the United States, because the public land prior to that time was sold to raise revenues for the General Government. President Buchanan in his message to Congress said there was no dis- tinction between taking money out of the Treasury of the United States and giving some one 160 acres of land. Every objection that we have heard urged before this committee was urged then. Let me read to you what McMaster wrote in his history on the introduction of the bill and see if these objections that we are hearing to-day are not repetitions of a great many of them and if they don't recall the old saying, " Hark, from the tomb, a doleful sound." HISTORY OF THE PEOPT,E OF THE UNITED STATES Jl'MASTEl!. (Vol. VIII, P. 108.) In the House Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, became the champion of flu- landless, introduced a homestead bill, and strove manfully in its behalf, till, in the spring of 1852, when Congressmen were soon to be nominated, 70 Members HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 377 of the House, fearing the consequences of opposition, absented themselves, and the bill passed. Then went up from some of the old States a cry of opposition. It would draw population from them, leave them to pay the debt incurred in acquiring the public domain, depreciate the value of their lands, for who would buy a farm in North Carolina when he could get one for nothing in Alabama or Missouri, and would tempt the scum of society of the Old World to come and squat on our public- domain and scatter seeds of political pestilence on the frontier and in a little while the agrarian laws of Rome would be re- enacted in America. This wholesale robbery of the old States for the benefit of the new should be denounced by every honest man the land over. Will not the good sense of the Senate strangle this political monstrosity? Besides the injury done to the old States by depriving them of their property in the public lands and draining off their population, the agrarian character of the bill is most objectionable. It is the most flagrant act of depredation on the public domain yet attempted by demagogues. Property and usefulness are the fruits of industry and self-dependence, not of Government bounties and land plunder- ing. There is no way of demoralizing any class more certainly than by means of gratuities. Undoubtedly many citizens would rather have a "farm given them than buy it. But they are greatly mistaken if they think they are the people of the United States. The people approve not of such agrarian and Utopian schemes. Congress has no power to dispose of the public land save for na- tional purposes. If it may donate land to the landless, it may give money to the poverty stricken and take the value of 160 acres out of the Treasury and bestow it on each individual of the favored class. Instead of giving land to the homeless, the bill will unsettle the homes of many honest persons who have bought their farms with hard earnings by bringing them into competition with other farms received as an alms by men too indolent and improvident to acquire them as others have. The CHAIRMAN. And now let me show you, in part, what Presi- dent Buchanan said in his message vetoing the homestead law, and see if he didn't voice many of the utterances that we have heard against the Mondell bill. EXTRACTS FROM THE VETO MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT BUCHANAN, JUNE 22, 1860. I return, with my objections, to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill entitled "An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, and for other purposes," presented to me on the 20th instant. * * * * * * * IV. This bill will prove unequal and unjust in its operation, because, from its nature, it is confined to one class of our people. It is a boon expressly con- ferred upon the cultivators of the soil. While it is cheerfully admitted that these are the most numerous and useful class of our fellow citizens and emi- nently deserve all the advantages which our laws have already extended to them, yet there should be no new legislation which would operate to the injury or embarrassment of the large body of respectable artisans and laborers. The mechanic who emigrates to the West and pursues his calling must labor long before he can purchase a quarter section of land, while the tiller of the soil who accompanies him obtains a farm at once by the bounty of the Government. The numerous body of mechanics in our large cities can not, even by emigrating to the West, take advantage of the provisions of this bill without entering upon a new occupation for which their habits of life have rendered them unfit. ******* That land of promise presents in itself sufficient allurements to our young and enterprising citizens, without any adventitious aid. The offer of free farms would probably have a powerful effect in encouraging emigration, especially from States like Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky, to the west of the Missis- sippi, and could not fail to reduce the price of property within their limits. An individual in States tlnis situated would not pay its fair value for land when, by crossing the Mississippi, he could go upon the public lands and obtain a farm almost without money and without price. * * * * * * * The people of the United States have advanced with steady but rapid strides to their present condition of power and prosperity. They have been guided in their progress by the fixed principle of protecting the equal rights of all, whether 378 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. they be rich or poor. No agrarian sentiment has ever prevailed among them. The honest poor man, by frugality and industry, can, in any part of our country, acquire a competence for himself and his family, and in doing this he feels that he eats the bread of independence. He desires no charity, either from the (Jov- ernment or from his neighbors. This bill, which proposes to give him land at an almost nominal price, out <-L the property of the Government, will go far to demoralize the people and repress this noble spirit of independence. It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which have proved so disas- trous in other countries. I am not going to read all of that; but nearly every objection that we have heard urged against this bill is in Buchanan's message veto- ing the homestead bill in 1860, and the contention was made then that you should give anybody that did not or could not take up one of these" homesteads the equivalent in money out of the Treasury, equiva- lent to the value of the land. Mr. ATKESON. And all the arguments given 50 years afterwards have been demonstrated to be true. The CHAIRMAN. You think it has all been demonstrated to be true :' Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. It broke up many people in the East . The CHAIRMAN. What was the ultimate benefit to the Nation? Wasn't it good ? Mr. ATKESON. Probably so. The CHAIRMAN. Should we seek the ultimate benefit and good of the Nation, or the temporary benefit and convenience and accommo- dation of some particular locality? Mr. ATKESON. No, sir. That isn't the proposition. We take the broad proposition that if a soldier for instance, I have two nephews. My sister's son is a farmer. The other is the son of a lawyer (and he ran for Congress out there in his State). I don't see why both of those boys shouldn't be given something if you are going to do something for the soldier. The CHAIRMAN. Do you realize that this committee is a committee of limited jurisdiction? We can't make the entire wearing apparel of a person. W& can't make the shoes and tie and collars, but our proposition is simply how to dispose of the land. There are other committees that have jurisdiction of those other matters. Mr. ATKESON. I have so much stuff here I would like to put into the record, but I am not going to ask you to print it, for it wouldn't be w r orth while. When I came before the committee the other day I assumed that there wouldn't be anything said against the bill ex- cept what I said myself, and w^as rather disposed to treat it cap- tiously. Since that time I have discovered that there was some other monkey wrenches in this machinery and I was lead to treat it more seriously, and we were trying to get the best which we could furnish the chairman of the committee (we won't ask you to print it in the record) as to the productiveness of some of these schemes. We want to do any reasonable thing for the soldier, and as was suggested by Judge Boice the other clay that you give it to him in pay. I lived through the period following the Civil War down to this, and I had personal friends in both armies and also relatives. I had an uncle that was an officer in the Union Army and a cousin that was in the Confederate Army. The Confederates didn't get any pension and none of them went to the poorhouse that I know of. Ihey were inspired. They knew they had to make a living. They went to work. Their cause was lost and they went on. I could name HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 379 dozens and dozens of cases. One case in my neighborhood illustrates the whole bunch almost without exception. I had a man at work on my farm, AY ho is still living, now close to 80 years of age, who was able bodied. He could do twice as much work as I could. He ap- plied for a pension. I laughed at him. His first name was George. I said, " George, if you get that pension you won't work any more." " Oh. yes," he said, he would. He said he would buy him a little farm and do something. A local attorney was looking after the claim, and one day he came to the place at my home and wanted to know where this gentleman was. I told him he was out in the field husking corn, and he went out into the field where he was. He told him his pension, with quite a little bunch of back money, came in. And he didn't finish husking that shock of corn. He just threw down the last nubbin he had husked. That was nearly 35 years ago, I should say, and he is still living, and he was able-bodied then. The CHAIRMAN. Was he a private or a brigadier general ? Mr. ATKESON. He was a private. To my certain knowledge he hasn't done a full day's work from that time to this, and I have lived in sight of him all of this time. They become sort of mendicants. They are dependent on the pay, and it took the manhood and nerve of some mighty good men in this country some things that were done for the boys following the war. I would like to give these boys a chance. For God's sake let's make it possible for them to stand on their hind legs as respectable citizens. If they want to farm, let's help them. Let the boys get the identical farm that they want. Eliminate this whole colonization scheme. If another boy wants to engage in some other business, I would extend to him some personal-credit plan, predicated on the land-bank scheme, with the ability to set himself up in business wherever he wanted to go. This lieutenant that has just returned, the son of my brother in the West, was halfway through one of the universities in the West taking a course on journalism. The CHAIRMAN. That was the argument made by Buchanan and others against the old homestead law give him the value in money of 160 acres of land and let him set himself up in business. Mr. ATKESON. We are talking about the things in front of us now. That young man will possibly get through the university and his course in journalism. I can't see, for the life of me, if it is a propo- sition to do something for the soldier, why that boy shouldn't be set up in a newspaper business. I don't mean to give him a plant, but give him some kind of personal credit to enable him to measure up to the position in life that he is trying to attain to. I can't, for the life of me. see why it should be a farm. It is a fact that there has been a good deal said about going back to the farm. Behind this whole propaganda and I will not make reference to what Judge Boice said, because I own a farm and my son is farming it down in southern Alabama. My people are southern, intensively and all the way around, so I have no local prejudices in the matter whatever. But I can't, for the life of me, see why a man who wants to farm should have the advantage: but behind the whole propaganda are three propositions. I say this advisably, rather regret fully. One thing is to provide immediate employment out of the Federal Treasury to 380 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. take up a slack in the labor supply of the country. Another is to provide, if possible, a cheaper 'food supply for the country. Another is involved in the proposition Judge Boice brought out yesterday. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you to say that you deprecate this " back to the farm " propaganda ? Mr. ATKESON. No; I didn't say that I deprecate that. I have no objection to that, if a man wants to go back to the farm. The effort to induce other people to go to the farm by any means possible isn't based on a sound economic policy. Nobody is going to a farm with- out he thinks he can do better there than anywhere else. That is the last analysis of this whole thing. If it is a question of help, the soldier is to be extended some sort of benefit equally with all the other soldiers, whatever he wants to engage in. If that interferes with my business, he is welcome to it. If it would interfere with somebody else's business, he is welcome just the same way. The CHAIRMAN. You have had a fair and full hearing you feel that you have ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir; as much as any of the rest of them have. And I am going to stay on this job. The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your statements, and I am sure the other members of the committee will. Mr. ATKESON. We are here to talk this thing over in a friendly way, and I know and you know that the real farmers in this country have not been free to talk and present their views on this matter. Mr. HERNANDEZ. I want to ask you if you have made any calcula- tions as to how much money it would take to set up the 4,000.000 men in business ? Mr. ATKESON. It wouldn't take any of the Government's money. The Government guarantees the bonds, and it isn't in money at all. Mr. HERNANDEZ. How many failures do you think there will be? Mr. ATKESON. I don't think there will be any if these lands are judiciously selected and the men who buy them have any skill in cultivating them; and every six months they would have to make a little payment on the land, and the better security they would be. Mr. HERNANDEZ. I know ; but we are talking about setting them up in other lines of business now besides the land. Setting them up in other lines. Mr. ATKESON. That is a matter of personal credit. Depends on the character of the business. The CHAIRMAN. You would approve a bond sale through the Federal farm-loan bank for that purpose ? Mr. ATKESON. Of course, you wouldn't have the land bank if a man was in business that didn't require land. But I refer to a ques- tion of personal credit, that has been agitated over and over. The CHAIRMAN. The modus operandi is to sell bonds? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir ; so far as the land is concerned. The bond is predicated on the land and guaranteed by the Government, which makes them as good as the Government. The CHAIRMAN. You would want the Government to guarantee those bonds? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir; and reserve title to the land till paid for. The CHAIRMAN. How large a bond issue would that contemplate? Mr. ATKESON. That depends on how many soldiers want farms. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 381 The CHAIRMAN. What is your idea of them ? Mr. ATKESON. I don't believe 10 per cent of the soldiers want farms. The CHAIRMAN. That would be 400,000 ? Mr. ATKESON. That would be giving them the benefit of the doubt. The CHAIRMAN. What would it cost per soldier? Have you any idea? Mr. ATKESON. I would put the limit at $10,000. The CHAIRMAN. $10,000 per soldier? That would amount to $4,000,000,000? Mr. ATKESON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN" Bond issue of $4,000,000.000 guaranteed by the Government ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is what you would approve? Don't you know that the Federal farm-loan banks do not guarantee the bonds ? Mr. ATKESON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your idea that they do or do not at the pres- ent time ? Mr. ATKESON. They are guaranteed by the banks. The CHAIRMAN. The Government does not guarantee them? Mr. ATKESON. They are not guaranteed by the Government but by the banks. The CHAIRMAN. But you would be willing to have your bonds for farms for the soldiers guaranteed by the General Government? Mr. ATKESON. I think you would have to guarantee it by the Gov- ernment if you issued bonds to cover the entire purchase 'price, and that is for soldiers only. The Government guaranteeing the bonds at a rate of interest of about what it would cost to handle it. (Thereupon, at 1.45 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again Tuesday, June 10, at 10 a. m.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, June 10, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, Mr. Gandy desires to be heard this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY L. GANDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Mr. GANDY. Mr. Chairman, I particularly wanted to call to the attention of the committee the legislation along this line which has already been enacted by the State of South Dakota. At the last session of the legislature there was passed an act creating the South Dakota land settlement board. Mr. SNELL. This past winter, Mr. Gandy ? Mr. GANDY. Yes. There was appropriated an initial amount of $1,000.000. There was provided a certain tax levy, which will also 382 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. raise some funds for the board. I shall ask consent. Mr. Chairman, to incorporate the law as a part of my remarks before the committee. A careful reading of the law discloses that the legislature had in mind both the individual selection of a farm by the soldier and also the community idea in that the legislature authorized the land board to provide for town sites and churches and schools, if in their opinion the situation made that desirable. It is provided, first, that the benefits of the act shall apply not only to soldiers of this war but other wars of the United Stud-: second, that the soldier shall make an initial payment of 10 per cent on the land. The board is authorized to make him a loan of $1,500 for improvements and then it is authorized to make an additional loan of $1,500 for stock or equipment. I take it from a reading of the act that if the loan of $1,500 for improvements is not made, the board can make a loan of $3,000 for equipment and stcok. There are several classes of lands in South Dakota that this board will be able at once to begin action on and with. First, the State has large tracts of both common school and endowment lands. Then, in the eastern part of the State there are many quarters held by non- residents that perhaps the State will be able to purchase; in the we-t- ern portion of the State there are many thousands of quarters of Indian lands that may or may not be available, as the board there is able to work with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The law provides that the board shall have full power to enter into contracts, agreements, and memorandums with the United States Government or any of its agencies and cooperate in any way to provide farm homes for returning soldiers. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all I care to say on the act which I want to print as a part of my remarks. If anyone has any ques- tions with relation to it that he desires to ask, I will be glad to answer them. Mr. SNELL. Have they started operating under that act ? Mr. GANDY. I am unable to say as to that. The governor has made the appointments. It is provided that the board shall consist of the governor, the Rural Credits Commissioner, the Commissioner of Im- migration, and two other members. The governor has made the ap- pointments. I may say in connection with that also that the State has a State rural-credits system which has loaned to date some six- teen to eighteen million dollars to the farmers of South Dakota. It is getting along very well and has been of very great help to the State. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Gandy, have you sounded the sentiment in your State as to how they feel about this matter and what the situation is there? Mr. GANDY. I have just been explaining that the State has already enacted legislation very much along the same lines. Mr. FERRIS. So that your thought is that they are pretty well in agreement on it; is that it? Mr. GANDY. Oh, yes. Mr. FERRIS. Have you studied these plans that have been offered by various Members of Congress, some of which have been advo- cated before this committee, of giving the soldier an outright, fixed HOMES FOR SOLDIEBS. 383 sum as distinguished from an opportunity to earn a homestead? Have you thought of those plans? Mr. GANDY. Yes; I have. Mr. FERRIS. What do you think of those plans ? Mr. GANDY. I have been inclined to believe that the greatest good will come from an opportunity to acquire and build up a home, rather than a straight-out loan or gratuity of a certain amount of money. Mr. FERRIS. What do you conceive to be the objection to a straight- out loan of 100 per cent with which to buy farms wherever they may elect to buy ? What are the serious objections to that ? Mr. SNELL. I did not understand you. Did you say straight-out loan or gift? Mr. FERRIS. Straight-out loan. I do not think anybody has pro- posed a straight-out gift. Mr. SNELL. That has been proposed. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Garner proposed it. Mr. FERRIS. Well, perhaps so ; but I am asking about loans. What are the salient objections to a straight-out loan to the soldier so that he can buy a farm wherever he elects to buy one, in your opinion? I ask these questions, I will state to the committee very frankly, because there is a lot of talk about the cloakrooms and hotels by Members who think that is one way to reach this proposition, and what I want to develop is the opinion you have on the subject. Mr. GANDY. A loan of 100 per cent, permitting the individual to make an individual selection, would certainly have to be very care- fully safeguarded or not much good would come from at least a portion of the loan. If the individual has a portion of the money to pay himself, so that he becomes financially interested in it, then I see no objection to permitting him to make an individual selection. Mr. FERRIS. Of course, the bills we have before us contemplate having the soldier pay only 5 per cent, and then these other bills, a good many of them, are to the effect that they should be advanced the entire 'amount. Mr. GANDY. I have just stated that the South Dakota law pro- vides that the individual shall pay 10 per cent of the price of the land and 20 per cent of the price' of the improvements. Mr. FERRIS. Xow, what is the answer to the proposition being bruited around here that if you require them to pay 5 or 10 per cent, or any per cent, the penniless soldier without anything at all can not avail* himself of it. while the man who has some means can take advantage of it. What is the answer to that proposition? Mr. GANDY. Well, I think under the Lane bill, even the man with- out anything will be enablgd to work out his own salvation. If he is interested to the extent of working it out in that way, he is in no different position than a man has always been in with reference to a homestead. It has been a very serious proposition as to whether a man without any means can get one of these free homesteads that we have talked about for a good many years. Mr. FERRIS. The problem there is the difference between a man who is fortunate enough to have some means and a man who has no means whatever: and that is a problem that has always been with us. Mr. GANDY. Yes. 13331919 25 384 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. AN ACT Entitled "An act establishing and maintaining by the State of South Dakota a land-settlement board and defining its powers and duties ; providing for the purchase and sale of real and personal property and the loaning of money by the State of South Dakota to settlers ; authorizing the State of South Dakota to borrow money on its warrants and bonds secured by the good faith and credit of the State for the purposes authorized by this act ; providing for the management of said board, and providing for an oppropriation of $100,000 to be used by the land-settlement board for the purposes authorized by this act and for the payment of salaries, expenses, nnd equipment, and declaring an emergency." Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota: SECTION 1. The object of this act is in recognition of military service, to pro- vide useful employment and rural homes for soldiers, sailors, and marines, and others who have served with the armed forces of the United States in the Euro- pean war or other wars of the United States, including former American citizens who served in allied armies against the central powers and have been repatri- ated, and who have been honorably discharged ; and to accomplish such purpose by cooperation with the agencies of the United States engaged in work of a similar character. This act may be cited as " The South Dakota land-settlement act," and its benefits may be extended to other persons when there are no qualified soldier applicants. SEC. 2. There is hereby created a South Dakota Land Settlement Board, to consist of the governor, the rural credit commissioner, the commissioner of immigration, and two other members, who will be appointed by the governor, and, unless sooner removed by the governor, shall serve for a term of three and two years, respectively, and to be so selected that the board will not be composed wholly of persons who are members of or affiliated with the same political party or organization. One of the appointed members shall be designated as land- settlement commissioner, and shall be ex-officio secretary and general executive officer of the board, and shall be appointed for a term of three years ; shall devote all of his time and attention to the duties of his office: and shall receive a salary of $3,000 per annum, payable monthly. He shall at the time of his appointment subscribe and file the usual oath and furnish :i bond in :i sum not less than $5,000, but at all times sufficient to protect the State against loss, to be approved and filed as are the bonds of other State officers. He shall be cus- todian of the seal of said board, which seal shall contain the name of the board, and shall keep a record of all its proceedings and all such other books, records, and accounts as are necessary or requisite to keep an accurate record of all the business transacted by the board, and shall do and perform such other duties as may be required of him by said board. The remaining member shall be appointed for a two-year term and receive a per diem of $6 per day while en- gaged in discharging his duties as such member. He shall take and subscribe to the usual official oath, and shall furnish an official bond in a sum not less than $5,000. The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the board and represent the board in any suits or actions which may arise out of the dis- charge of its duties. SEC. 3. Said board shall have authority to acquire, on behalf of the State, such lands in this State as, in its opinion, are suitable for cultivation and improvement, together with any water rights and rights of way desirable or necessary in connection therewith; to improve and sell such lands to approved settlers, giving preference always to soldiers, under the condition prescribed by this act : to set aside for town-site purposes any lands acquired under this act when in the judgment of the board this is desirable; and to subdivide and sell same in lots of such size and with such restrictions as to resale as the board shall determine best; to set aside and dedicate to public use such area or areas as it may deein desirable for roads, school houses, churches, or other public pur- poses; to improve or to furnish money in the manner herein provided for the improvement or equipment of lands sold to a settler, or upon which the owner has obtained a loan from the State through the South Dakota Rural Credit Board or under the Federal farm loan act, or public lands which have been sold by the State upon deferred payments; to take security upon the lands, improvements, and equipment for lands sold, improvements made, or moneys furnished; to borrow upon the credit of the State not exceeding the sum of $1,000,000, to he used for the purpose authorized in this act, and to issue war- rants or bonds of the State therefor; to expend any moneys appropriated for the use of the board, or which it may obtain by the sale of its securities or otherwise, as herein provided ; to cooperate with the Federal Government in providing employment and homes for soldiers and sot Hers by providing for and encouraging settlement upon lands, and for this purpose to enter into conn-arts HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 385 >r agreements with the United States of America ; and it shall have the author- ity to perform all acts necessary to cooperate fully with the agencies of the United States engaged in work of a similar nature; to acquire tracts of land that are susceptible of intensive cultivation by reason of irrigation or otherwise, and to prepare such lands for irrigation and cultivation, and to subdivide and sell the same; to exercise the power of eminent domain on the part of the State for the condemnation of water rights, rights of way for roads, canals, ditches, dams, and reservoirs necessary or desirable for carrying out the provisions of this act ; and, on request of the board, the attorney general shall bring the nec- essary and appropriate proceedings authorized by law for such condemnation ; to appropriate water under the laws of the State when such appropriation is necessary or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this act ; to procure such employees as it may deem necessary to conduct the business of the board; to tix the bonds and salaries or compensation of such employees ; to define the duties of the officers, agents, and employees of the board ; and shall make to the gov- ernor annually a full report of its business for the preceding fiscal year, with such general information and recommendations as may to the board seem proper. SEC. 4. The board, prior to disposing of lands to settlers or ;it any time after such lands have been disposed of, but not after the end of the fifth year from the date of settler's purchase, may: (a) Seed, plant, or fence such land and cause dwelling houses and outbuild- ings to be erected on any farm or make any other improvements necessary to render the land habitable and productive in advance of, or after, settlement," the total cost of such dwellings, outbuildings, and improvements not to exceed $1,50(1 on any one farm. per cent per annum, and the board shall endeavor to secure the best interest rate possible on both bonds and warrants. The board shall prescribe rules and regulations concerning the manner in which such bonds and warrants shall be sold, paid, and retired not inconsistent, with the provisions of this act. Said bonds and warrants shall be signed by the governor and the land-settlement commissioner and shall be attested by the secretary of state. The total amount ol such bonds and warrants shall in no case exceed the sum of $1,000,000. SEC. 10. The tax commission of the State of South Dakota is hereby authorized and directed to levy an annual tax. not exceeding one-hall' of 1 mill, on 1 he assessed valuation of all taxable property in the State, sufficient to pay the interest semiannually and the principal of such bonded indebtedness within 10 years from the final passage of this act. SEC. 11. Such taxes when collected shall be paid into the State treasury and credited to a special fund to be designated " Land-settlement interest and sink- ing fund " and applied to the payment of interest on such bonds semiannually, and the final redemption of such bonds and such taxes, when paid into the State treasury, shall remain a specific fund for such purposes, only except as herein- after provided. SEC. 12. Said land-settlement, interest, and sinking fund may be invested annually in United States bonds or deposited at interest in any bank in the State of South Dakota whose deposits are .guaranteed under the depositor's guaranty fund of this State. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 387 SEC. 13. If at any time it shall appear that there will not be sufficient funds in the land-settlement fund in the treasury of the State to pay the bonds, war- rants, or interest thereon, when same shall become due, it shall be the duty of the tax commission of this State, upon request of the board, to make a special assessment and levy immediately to pay same, which levy shall be collected in the same manner as other tax levies made by said commission. As soon as such tax levy shall have been made, it shall be the duty of the State auditor, upon request of the board, to issue warrant or warrants, as said board may direct, bearing interest not to exceed 6 per cent per annum, and register same drawn on the fund to be derived from such special levy, in an amount with interest pro- vided in said warrants not exceeding said levy, and deliver the same to said board, and said warrants of the State auditor may be sold by the board. The moneys derived from the sale of such warrants shall be used for the payment of the bonds, warrants, or interest on same issued by the board, for which there were not funds available from which they might be paid. The moneys derived from said special levy shall be placed in a special fund in the State treasury and shall be used only for the redemption of the warrants drawn on said fund, and which shall have been sld, or for the payment of bonds, warrants, and interest thereon issued by the board when same shall become due. All of the moneys derived from said special levy are hereby appropriated for the pay- ment of the warrants drawn on said fund and sold as above provided, or for the payment of the said bonds, warrants, or interest thereon, at maturity. SEC. 14. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act and for the payment of all expenses incurred under its provisions, including salaries per diem, and actual and necessary traveling expenses of the members of the board and its employees, the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the State treasury not otherwise appropriated. These moneys, together with all other moneys of the board, shall constitute a revolving fund to be known as the " Land Settlement Fund." The moneys hereby appro- priated shall be returned to the general fund of the State in such amount and at such times as to said board shall seem advisable. The board may file a voucher approved by the governor and the land settlement commissioner with the State auditor for advances of money to the board needed to meet con- tingent expenses in such an amount not exceeding $5,000 at any time as the said board shall deem necessary- It shall then be the duty of the State auditor to issue a direction to the State treasurer, who shall be ex officio treasurer of said board, to set aside in an account the amount required, and the board may thereupon check directly against such account. The checks issued by the board shall constitute the vouchers of the State treasurer in settlement with the State auditor for said sum so set aside. Other disbursements of the board shall be made in the usual way by the presentation of vouchers to the State auditor, who shall thereupon issue his warrant upon the State treasurer for the sums expended, or required to be expended, by such vouchers. SEC. 15. The board may also lease, or assent to the lease of, any lands pend- ing receipt of application for purchase thereof. The proceeds of all operations under this act shall be covered into the South Dakota land settlement fund. SEC. 16. Lands acquired pursuant to this act shall be subject to State and local taxation and assessment for improvement purposes from the date of the execution of the contract for the purchase thereof by settlers upon any project undertaken hereunder. If the contracting purchaser shall fail to pay such taxes and assessments, the same may be paid from the fund hereby provided and charged to the purchaser with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from date of payment, and shall be a lien on the property assessed. SKC. 17. No money shall be loaned nor property purchased, under the pro- visions of this act, after January 1. 1922. SEC. 18. The board is hereby authorized to perform such acts and make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary and proper to carry this act into full force and effect. SEC. 19. If any part of this act shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this act. but shall be confined in its operation to the particular part thereof directly involved in the controversy wherein such judgment shall have been rendered. SEC. 20. Whereas the passage of this act is immediately necessary for the support of the State government and its existing public institutions, an emer- gency is hereby declared to exist, and this act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval. 388 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. STATEMENT OF MR. BENJAMIN C. MARSH, SECRETARY OF THE FARMERS' NATIONAL COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D. C. The ( 'iiAiit.MAN. ( ientlemen, there is a Mr. Marsh here, and Mr. Baer has requested that he be given some time. Mr. MARSH. May I have about 15 minutes or so. Mr. Chairman ( The CHAIRMAN. That has been the limit to members. Will you tell the committee your name, your residence, and whom you represent. Mr. Marsh ? Mr. MARSH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Benjamin C. Marsh, and I am secretary of the Farmers' National Council, which is a special union for carrying out the reconstruction program of a num- ber of leading farm organizations. The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell us something about that organization, how it was formed, and of whom it is composed? Mr. MARSH. Yes; it was called into existence at a conference on re- construction held here in Washington last January a delegate body representing the National Federation of Gleaners, the American So- ciet} r of Equit}'. the National Non-Partisan League, and a number of State farmers' unions and State granges. The National Farmers' Union and the National Grange, as such, are not affiliated witb this Farmers' National Council, but a number of the State granges are. because, as you gentlemen probably know, the State granges have complete autonomy in their own affairs and on national questions. The CHAIRMAN. How many attended your meeting? 1 wish you would go very fully into your* organization. Mr. Marsh. Mr. MARSH. I do not know just what you mean by going fully into our organization. The CHAIRMAN. Tell us who compose it and who attended, particu- larly the meeting that you have referred to. Mr. MARSH. I do not know that T can give you a list of all the mem- bers, because there were so many here at this reconstruction confer- ence, but I may go a little further back and say that shortly after the armistice was signed the Farmers' National Headquarters asked these farm organizations to send representatives here to draft a tentative reconstruction program, and they came down here and spent nearly a week, and representatives from several of these organizations drafted this preliminary or tentative program, which was then sub- mitted to the organizations for discussion all over the country, and then this January conference was the outcome of that. The CHAIRMAN. I did not get just who sent out this invitation. Mr. MARSH. The Farmers' National Headquarters. The CHAIRMAN. What is that? Mr. MARSH. That was started as a combination of several progres- sive granges, and it has been operating here in Washington for nearly 10 years now. I have been here with it only since a year ago last April, and it has been cooperating The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What do you mean by progressive granges? Is a progressive grange different from the patrons of husbandry ? Mr. MARSH. The granges which designate themselves as progres- sive granges you may know that there was a good deal of discussion in the national granges some years ago on political questions, but HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 389 chiefly on economic questions, and there was an organization known as the Progressive State Granges. " I might say this. Mr. Chairman, that naturally I am not in complete touch with all the details of that matter, but if you would ask Mr. George P. Hampton, the man- aging director, I know he would be glad to come here and explain to you the organization. The National Headquarters is distinct from the Farmers' National Council, which I understand is the chief one you have in mind, while, of course, these farm organizations, either out of a clear sky or on their own initiative, or in any way, have the right to come together and adopt a reconstruction program. Mr. TAYLOR. Is that the same program that Dr. Atkeson presented here yesterday? Mr. MARSH. Not at all. Mr. TAYLOR. He said there was some call for a meeting and that they gathered here and drafted a program of reconstruction, and he presented it to us yesterday. Mr. MARSH. The National Grange at their last annual meeting, held at Syracuse, N. Y., last November, adopted a reconstruction program which differs in many respects, although we agree on a number of fundamentals, from the Farmers' National reconstruction program. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a copy of your program? Mr. MARSH. I have a copy of the full program here. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Marsh, before you go into that, let us get this organization straight. Who are tlie officers in this National Head- quarters, and what is their address? Mr. MARSH. I will give you that. Mr. FERRIS. Second. I wish you would state just who they repre- sent, and who pays for this headquarters, and pays the salaries of yourself and Mr. Hampton' at these headquarters ? Mr. MARSH. I can not give you. right off the bat all of the addresses. Mr. FERRIS. You can give us the organization, and the names of the men who run this national headquarters that you spoke of? Mr. MARSH. I am very glad to answer these questions, but this should not come out of my 15 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. No: we will not take it out of your time. Mr. FERRIS. What I am trying to get. first, is just what this head- quarters is. and my reason for asking you these questions is that we have had so many farmers' organizations coming here, and so many have appeared and have such different views that I want to see just who they are each time, and I would like to have the record show the names of the men who run these headquarters that Mr. Marsh repre- sents, and I would like to have the name and address of every organi- zation that they represent and who maintains them here. Mr. MARSH. 'Now, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to give that from memory or submit it in writing, but I would suggest the pro- priety, since the questions have been raised, of having Mr. George P. Hampton here, and I know Mr. Smith and several others know him. and I would suggest it would be more appropriate to have the man- aging director, who has been associated with this movement from its inception, answer these questions. I can answer, in a general way, but the details as to conrtibutions. and so forth, would have to come from him. The president is Hon. Herbert F. Baker. Republican State Senator in Michigan, and a leader in the grange movement. 390 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. He is not actively in charge here. Let us have the names of the men actively in charge. Mr. MARSH. The men actively in charge are the gentlemen who drafted this program. Mr. FERRIS. Who are they ! Mr. MARSH. That I will have to give you. Mr. Herbert F. Baker was here, and Mr. C. H. Gustafson, president of the Nebraska Farm- ers' Union, was here, and Mr. Grant Slocum, president of the National Federation of Gleaners, and Mr. J. Weller Long, secretary-treasurer of the American Society of Equity, and there was a long list of 40 people here, and, naturally, I can not give you at the minute all their names and addresses. Mr. TAY'OR. Did they all sign this pronunciamento ? Mr. MARSH. This was unanimously adopted. They also unani- mously adopted a program to carry it out through special commit- tees. Mr. Hampton is managing director of the Farmer's National Headquarters, and was selected to continue as managing director of the Farmers' National Council, and we indulge in the exceedingly democratic method of a referendum on special matters, after adopt- ing this program. The CHAIRMAN. Who are the executives or the officials residing in Washington? Mr. MARSH. Mr. George P. Hampton and myself, Benjamin C. Marsh. Mr. Hampton is the managing director and I am the secre- tary. We have frequent conferences. For instance, Dr. Long and Mr. Tittenmore and Mr. Gustafson have been down here several times, one or more of them, since this program was adopted. The CHAIRMAN. When was your last national convention held ? Mr. MARSH. You understand we just organized this Farmers' Na- tional Council in January of this year. We have announced to the press that we shall hold a farmers' national conference here in Octo- ber or at the first session of the league of nations, assuming it meets here in Washington, which seems to be the general understanding. The CHAIRMAN. How many representatives from the different States attended this organization meeting? Mr. MARSH. Approximately 40 to 45, but the National Nonpartisan Leageu, for instance, represents a membership of about 250.000, and there are approximately 750,000, although the number is constantly increasing, members of the farmers' organizations which are united for the specific purpose of carrying out this reconstruction program. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what are these farmers' organizations united for the specific purpose of carrying out this program ? Mr. MARSH. I will be glad to repeat them. The American Society of Equity, the National Gleaner Federation, the National Nonparti- san League, the Washington. Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado State granges, the Farmers' Union of Nebraska and of North Carolina, which together constitute nearly one-half of the total membership of the National Farmers' Union. They are all cooperating in the pro- gram, and there are a number of smaller organizations. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Marsh, are you the representative here in Wash- ington of all these organizations? Mr. MARSH. No: we are the representatives of these organizations on this program. For instance, if matters come up on which we have HOMES FOR SOLDIEKS. 391 not taken any definite action, we do not assume to speak for them except as we may have instructions. Mr. TAYLOR. Are you now presuming to speak for all of them OR this program? Mr. MARSH. On this program; yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Before this committee? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And what you say is the reflection of the views of all these organizations? Mr. MARSH. It is what we understand to be the reflection of the views of all these organizations. Mr. TAYLOR. What you say is their sentiment rather than what anybody else has said ? Mr. MARSH. So far as these organizations are concerned, I think 1 made it clear from the beginning that I do not attempt or assume to speak for the National Grange. They are entitled to their own point of view, but a State grange can adopt, and does adopt, its own pro- gram and its own platform, and it disagrees, if necessary, and op- poses the position of the National Grange on any national question. Mr. TAYLOR. Aside from the Grange, you represent here all the other farmers' organizations? Mr. MARSH. We represent them on this program, as we understand their position. Mr. FERRIS. That is, the Nonpartisan League, the American So- ciety of Equity, the National Gleaners' Federation and what other organization ? Mr. MARSH. And some of these State granges and the farmers' unions some of them, not all of them. Mr. FERRIS. Do you represent the entire National Farmers' Union? Mr. MARSH. I said in the beginning that I do not represent the National Farmers' Union. Mr. WHFTK Did you not rather represent the Farmers' National Council instead of representing all those organizations ? You repre- sent, do you not, the Farmers' National Council and its program of reconstruction? Mr. MARSH. As adopted by these farmers' organization. Mr. WHITE. You represent the Farmers' National Council? Mr. MARSH. For instance, to illustrate, when we were down before the Shipping Board conference the other day, Mr. Hurley raised the question, or some one raised the question of whether we were repre- senting the organization we claimed to represent, and Dr. J. W. Long, secretary-treasurer of the American Society of Equity, announced that they did officially indorse this program. Mr. RAKER. Have you presented your program to the committee ? Mr. MARSH. A summary of this and the program also went to every Member of Congress. Mr. BAKER. Have you presented it to the committee to-day ? Mr. MARSH. No, sir. Mr. SNELL. What was your position before you took this position here in Washington? Mr. MARSH. I am glad to explain that. Mr. RAKER. Have you put a copy of your program in the record? 392 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MARSH. I have a brief statement of it here in writing. Mr. SNELL. What was your business before you took this posi- tion here in Washington as the representative of this organization? Mr. MARSH. Do you mean to ask what my position was? Mr. SNELL. Yes ; what was your business before that time ? Mr. MARSH. I worked about all of my way through college. Mr. SNELL. I did not mean to go away back there, but what wa- your position before you took this position here in Washington ? Mr. MARSH. I worked on a farm; and it was there, gentlemen, that I got all my training as a farmer and my insight into the farmers' problems. Then, I lived for 11 years,* and until I came down here, in the worst congested and most inhuman city in the world New York in slum districts, and I have been in every dis- trict in New York. I was interested in coming down here, because I know that it is the effort of the privileged classes to try to pull the farmers and the laborers apart. I know how important it was to prevent that and to demonstrate the common interest of the farmers and working men in America. In that I do not mean to imply by any means that the farmers are not workers, because I often put in 14 hours a day on the farm. Before that I was for several years in New York the secretary of the congestion committee, secretary of the committee on the high cost of living, secretary of the lower rents society, secretary of the league for municipar ownership a nil operation of New York Cit} 7 , and secretary of the association for an equitable Federal income tax. I have always managed to do several men's work on one-third of a man's salary. Mr. SNELL. You have been interested lately in farmers' organiza- tions? Mr. MARSH. I happen to have met the leaders and to have had correspondence with most of the leaders of the farmers' organi- zations before I came here, and I am sure you gentlemen will agree with me that in a spirit of self-determination it is entirely up to the farmers' representatives themselves to decide whether or not they like me. and when they do not want me I think it will be within their scope to fire me. Mr. SNELL. That is not what I was interested in. I was interested to know what your experience had been. Mr. MARSH. 'My experience has always been in fighting the privi- leged interests who carry America around in their vest pockets, and I thought this was a splended opportunity to come down here right in the center of things, and I cheerfully accepted Mr. Hamp- ton's invitation to come down here. Mr. SMITH. Would you call yourself an economist ? Mr. MARSH. At college I was regarded as so excruciatingly eru- dite that I was given the scholarship key, and I attended the gradu- ate school of the Chicago University and of the University of Pennsylvania for four years, but I have been able to live doAvn most of the rot they taught me there. I am not an economist, but I am a student of economics. The CHAIRMAN. You have been circularizing Congress for the past year or two and have written a number of letters, or are you that same Mr. Marsh ? Mr. MARSH. T am Mr. Marsh, although there may be some other Mr. Marsh. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 393 The CHAIRMAN. In your reconstruction policy and program I find this under subdivision -2, under the head of " Transportation " : " The Government should acquire and operate all the railroad systems ot the country/' Now, I do not want to go into an academic discussion of that matter at all, but is it vour contention that the Grange advo- cates that? Mr. MARSH. Do you mean the National Grange? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MARSH. No, sir ; the National Grange has never gone on record as being in favor of Government ownership and operation. Let me illustrate that : Dr. Atkeson appeared as opposing the Government ownership and operation of railroads, and he made a statement to the committee that if the National Grange asked me to come down here before Congress and try to prove that black was white, I would do my best to prove it. t would not assume to do that, but I would resign first. The CHAIRMAN. I do not care to go into that. I just wanted to know whether or not they did advocate it. Mr. MARSH. The National Grange has not adopted any resolutions against it. Let me say this, that when the resolution to indorse Gov- ernment ownership and operation of railroads was introduced at the Syracuse convention of the National Grange last November, instead of having it discussed, the president of the Pennsylvania State Grange moved to table the resolution, but that proceeding hardly gives the national grangers' opinion upon the subject. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, if you please; I do not care to go into the reasons as to why it was or was not adopted." Do you con- tend that the Grange of the State of Oregon is in favor of Govern- ment ownership of railroads? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. The master of the Oregon State Grange, Mr. C. E. Spcnce. introduced a resolution in the National Grange favor- ing Government ownership and operation. I beg your pardon there it was Mr. Bouck who introduced it and Mr. Spence sec- onded it. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any record evidence of that, or have you a copy of the resolution? Mr. MARSH. Yes. sir; Mr. Bouck introduced the resolution and Mr. Spence seconded it. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would produce those resolutions. Mr. MARSH. I will ask, Mr. Chairman, again regarding answering these questions that have been raised, that Mr. George P. Hampton, the managing director, may come here and make this statement. Looking over the record, I do not see that these questions were ad- dressed to Dr. Atkeson. Mr. VAILE. He only purported to represent the National Grange. Mr. MARSH. Did lie tell you how many State granges agreed with him? Mr. YAILK. I do not think that question was raised. He said he -represented the membership of his organization. Mr. MARSH. May T correct that? Dr. Atkeson knows that he was ihcorrei't in stating that he represents 1.000.000 farmers or 1,000,000 members, because he does not. The membership is only 620,000, and about half are women. A large number of them are not engaged in farming. 394 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. He said that a large part of the membership of the Grange was made up of Avomen and minors. - Mr. MARSH. It is not 1.000,000, but it is less than two-thirds of that, including 10 per cent for those who arc temporarily in arrears. There are about 750,000 farmers and others, but almost exclusively farmers, in the organizations which unites in this reconstruction program. The National Nonpartisan League is composed entirely of farmers. The CHAIRMAN. How many farmers did you say indorsed that reconstruction program ? Mr. MARSH. There are about 750,000 in the farm organizations which indorsed it. I have not the result of the poll I am making among masters of State granges and among presidents of State farmers' unions to know how they stand on the question of Govern- ment ownership and operation of railroads, but you would be some- what surprised to know how the sentiment is growing for Govern- ment ownership and operation of railroads and of the merchant marine. Mr. SMITH. Regardless of the increased freight rates? Mr. MARSH. Let me illustrate that : When we went down to see the president, he stated that he wished he could live on a farm, because he would have more time to think. Now, the farmers have been doing a lot of thinking, and they know that the guarantee of high dividends was what produced the deficiency, and those high dividends were guaranteed, so that the railroad looters among the large financia.l interests could rehabilitate themselves during this stress of patriotism. They know that the high guaranteed dividend-, were what increased the freight rates. The CHAIRMAN. Just one other question: You say that 750.000 farmers indorse this program? Mr. MARSH. Approximately, but I do not know how many more. The CHAIRMAN. Your paragraph 7 deals with the restoration of personal liberty, and under that head you say : The espionage law and all similar laws enacted to render American unified in the war must be repealed and abrogated at the close of the war. All acts of Congress and by State legislatures restricting freedom of speech, freedom of publication, freedom of travel, and freedom of choice of residence, or of occupa- tion, and all executive acts of the President and of the governors of States and Territories, that have their foundation in war needs, must be similarly repealed or terminated. We declare for general amnesty for all political prisoners. That is one of your plans? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. In relation to that, I am reminded that the party that kept the espionage act on the statute books after one of our wars died and has never been resurrected since. The CHAIRMAN. Is Victor Berger one of these political prisoners? Mr. MARSH. He is a man who is associating with you people here, and I do not think that this is a prison, Mr. JOHNSON. You do not see me associating with him. The CHAIRMAN. What political prisoners are referred to here? Mr. MARSH. I will be glad to submit the view of the Attorney Gen- eral of the United States on the subject. Mr. GANBY. Was Haywood one of the political prisoners? Mr. MARSH. That setems to be a matter the Attorney General at- tempts to decide. I am inclined to think that although that is a HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 395 matter which the Attorney General has attempted to decide, that in fact what constitutes a political prisoner must be a matter for the determination of Congress. Mr. RAKER. Is Mr. Debbs one of them ? Mr. MARSH. I do not know whether Mr. Debbs is included or not, but I will illustrate further as to what might be political prisoners. A year ago this month the Washington State Grange was broken up on charges of disloyalty. Finally the matter came here. Mr. Hampton was out there, and a long telegram was sent to the Presi- dent. I know that the Attorney General investigated that case right to the bottom, and found that there was not the slightest evidence against them. Mr. RAKER. That is your view. Mr. MARSH. No, sir: it was not my view, but it was the view of the Attorney General of the United States, who would not institute any proceedings against them. Mr. RAKER. They were not prosecuted ? Mr. MARSH. No,~ sir ; I did not say they were prosecuted. Mr. RAKER. They could not be political "prisoners unless they are held. Mr. MARSH. They were trying to do the usual thing, and you gen- tlemen realize deep down in your own hearts that every predatory interest in America tried to railroad to jail every farmer and labor- ing man who favored a real economic democracy here in America. You gentlemen know that as well as I do. Mr. MAYS. Mr. Chairman, would it not be a good idea to get his views on the bill ? Mr. MARSH. You are welcome to all of my views on all these sub- jects. I wish I could print that in every paper in the United States. Mr. SUMMERS. In regard to the breaking up of the State grange meeting in the State of Washington last year, I would like to say that that meeting was held in a high school building, under per- mission granted for the holding of the State grange meeting. There came about a very decided division in that grange as to whether or not the nonpartisan league principles should be there advocated, and speakers for the nonpartisan league were there introduced and it became quite largely a nonpartisan league meeting. For that rea- son the school board said that they must vacate the building. Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman, permit me to question the accuracy of the gentleman's information. Mr. Hampton, who was there 'and who handled the case for them The CHAIRMAN (interposing). We do not care to go into that mat- ter at length. Mr. MARSH. I thought, perhaps, there had been some sort of mis- apprehension, I wish you would let me finish with the rest of these questions, because' I submit it is not fair to not allow me to complete my answer. The CHAIRMAN. You have gone into the bill Mr. MARSH (interposing). I beg pardon, you gentlemen have raised matters that are utterly irrelevant to it. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have covered the matter. Mr. MARSH. No, sir; I respectfully ask the right to go on. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have; and you may proceed now upon the bill. You may proceed now to discuss the bill. 396 HOMES FOR SOLDI Kits. Mr. RAKER. Let me ask him a <|iiestion. Mr. Chairman, before he proceeds. Have yon here in the room the program that your people are desirous of carrying 1 out, and Avhich you claim is opposed to the contemplated legislation for providing homes for soldiers? Have you that program here in writing? Mr. MARSH. I have the printed program here. Mr. RAKER. Let me have it. Mr. MARSH. I want to read a little section of it. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee to have this program made a part of the record, and that the gentleman be given an opportunity to discuss the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will l>e inserted in the record. (The matter referred to is as follows:) UKcoNSTUrrnoN POLICY A\I> l'i:oi!.\M 01 AMKIMCAN KAKMKHS. < Xlicially am) unanimously adopted :ii the farmers' national conference on reconstruct ion in America and international reconstruction Meld at the National Hotel, Washington. I >. ('.. .January 7. X. and i), 1919. Tlie conference was attended by representatives ,,r the American Society of Equity, the National Gleaner Federation, the National Xon-Partisan League, several State granges. State farmers' unions, the stock growers', wheat growers', and dairymen's asso- ciations, with a total membership of 7r>0,(MHt. and a number of smaller organiza- tions. Six weeks prior to the assembling of the conference a special joint com- mittee of the leadiag farm organizations met at the farmers' national head- quarters. Washington, D. C., and drafted a tentative reconstruction prom-am, This tentative program was published extensively in the farm press and sub- mitted to the farm organizations for discussion, and made the basis of instruc- tions to the delegates to the ollicial conference. This program thus carefully considered includes the chief measures which united farmers will seek to have adopted as the permanent policy of the country. It can accur.ttely be designated : " The fighting reconstruction program of the forward-looking fanners of America." I. FOR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION IN AMKRICA. The World War has brought up for solution modern problems of production and distribution of food and farm staples. We farmers have realized to the full the important role which we must play in war as well as in peace. We have responded in measure up to our capacity. But with the coming of peace these problems are not settled, but are accentuated. During the war we have voluntarily governed our activities in conformity with the wishes of our Com- mander in Chief, solidly standing by our country in its hour of need, feeding our armies and our allies, even though the dislocation of labor conditions com- pelled superhuman effort to do it. It is impossible for us to organize in militant fashion for our own defense- Nothing could justify a threat on our part to refuse to produce and thereby inflict hunger, and we are therefore justified in demanding of the Government, of which we are no inconsiderable part, definite action that will lead to greater production and to cheapened distribution. Xot all of our institutions could stand the strain or meet the exigencies of war. however, and our Government was compelled to take over, operate or control, many agencies of production and distribution of food, namely, railroads. shipping, express, telephone, telegraph, mills, elevators, packing houses, cold storage, and wholesale and retail dealers a degree of governmental interfer- ence necessary to compel these agencies to function successfully in the crisis, varying from complete Government ownership and operation to licensing with strict supervision. By these means a wise statemanship prevented hunger and defeat in the war. Wheat is not ready for consumption when it leaves our hands. The wool is not ready to wear as it leaves the ranch: the meat is not ready for the table as it leaves the stall or sty. It is necessary to use the mill, the elevator, the factory, the railway, the packing bouse, and cold storage HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 397 before these products are prepared for human consumption. The transfer of the ownership of these commodities on their way from the producer to the ultimate consumer goes through banks, chambers of commerce, commission houses wholesale and retail stores. These, then, are the channels of trade through which our products flow from the producer to the consumer. Monopoly control of these channels is a constant menace to the welfare of our people and of the world. These channels must be public or subject to public control, or no eco- nomic freedom can exist. It is to the mutual advantage of both producer and consumer to have open access to these channels of trade. The unrestrained greed of the private owners of these channels threatened disaster to our arm? and those of our allies, through their excessive tolls. Government control, and in many instances Government ownership and operation, was necessary to allow the flow of trade to continue. Idle cars by thousands encumbered our railways while lack of cars threatened our industries and our homes with shortage of coal and food. Our supplies were ample and to spare, but we could not move them to the consumer. Commission houses and speculators at times joined hands to make available food so scarce that our workers could not buy it, while we who produced by endless toil could not sell it to them at any price. Packing houses and cold-storage concerns hoarded our supplies while refusing to pay sufficient wages to employees to enable them to live and maintain the necessary physical vigor to carry on their work, or to purchase at reasonable prices the food we raised for them. The Government wisely came to the rescue, and happily the difficulties pecu- liar to the world crisis were in a degree overcome. But with the coming of peace the problems are no less serious and no less difficult of solution. Labor conditions have been dislocated by the war. Commercial conditions affecting farm produce have been turned upside down and inside out by the necessary price fixing of some commodities and stimulation of production of others. The destination of huge quantities of farm and manufactured products must now be changed and the channels of trade opened anew in other direction. Millions of men and women with the will to do their share of the world's work must divert their energies from war work, now unnecessary, to tasks of peace. Happily we have vast stores of natural resources upon which they may expend their labor in producing those things which keep the wheels of industry turning. The world want, created by the war. provides ample demand for the product of their toil. It was important that all be fed during the war; it is no less Im- portant now. Sound statesmanship will prevent the clogging of the channels of trade now. as well as in war. and we therefore demand as a minimum pro- gram for reconstruction the following measures, the efficiency of which have been demonstrated during the war : 1. Natural resources. The natural resources of the country, now in public ownership coal, iron and copper ores, water power, timberlands, phosphate deposits, potash, gas, oil, etc. are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a solemn obligation devolving upon the country not to alienate any more of these natural resources either by patent or by lease, but to develop and hold them in trust for this and succeeding generations. Such of these natural re- sources as are now in private ownership should be acquired by the Government at the earliest possible opportunity, payment to be only for actual and prudent investment. 2. Transportation. "Within 21 months following the close of the war, at the expiration of which the railroads would otherwise be returned to their present owners, the Government should acquire and operate all the railroad systems of the country, and within the same period acquire and operate pipe lines and express companies, and the Government should operate all inland water trans- portation so that we may have a unified system of transportation of passengers and freight as a Government service. This service should be rendered ai cost, with the single view of reducing cost of transportation, securing fair treatment of those employed, and facilitating the development and expansion of domes! j.- manufacturing, and of domestic and foreign commerce. In making payment for railroads and other means of transportation, the guaranteed payment dur- ing war time should not be made a precedent, and the people should pay the owners thereof only for prudent investment. Enormous sums have been expended by the Government in constructing ships. The ships so constructed at Government expense should remain the property of the people of the country and should be operated as a merchant marine for the benefit of the people as a whole with due regard to terms and conditions of employment. 398 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 3. Packing plants. The revelations by the Federal Trade Commission of the monopolistic control which the " Big Five " packers have established in the business of the manufacture and preparation of meat their effort to control the entire food supply of the country, and their entrance into allied and unrelated lines of business an exposure revealing the direct connection and vital iden- tity of interests of the packers and the big financial interests of the country make it clear that the privileges which have enabled the packers to build up such a monopoly must be immediately terminated. The four following recom mendations of the Federal Trade Commission to deal with the packing situa- tion should be adopted as the permanent policy of the country. That the Government acquire: " (1) All rolling stock used for the transportation of meat animals and that such ownership be declared a Government monopoly. " (2) The principal and necessary stockyards of the country to be treated as freight depots and to be operated under such conditions as will insure open, competitive markets, with uniform scale of charges for all services performed, and the acquisition or establishment of such additional yards from time to time as the future development of live-stock production in the United States may require. This to include customary adjuncts of stockyards. " (3) All privately owned refrigerator cars and all necessary equipment for their proper operation and that such ownership be declared a Government monopoly. " (4) Such of the branch houses, cold-storage plants, and warehouses as are necessary to provide facilities for the competitive marketing and storage of food products in the principal centers of distribution and consumption. The same to be operated by the Government as public markets and storage places under such conditions as will afford an outlet for all manufacturers and han- dlers of food products on equal terms. Supplementing the marketing and stor- age facilities thus acquired, the Federal Government establish through the Federal Administration, at the terminals of all principal points of distribu- tion and consumption, central wholesale markets, and storage plants with facilities open to all upon payment of just and fair charges." Slaughterhouses should be constructed near sources of supply and municipal slaughterhouses in all important cities. 4. Demobilization. To secure the transition from a war basis to an eco- nomically sound and ethical peace basis of industry, we believe the following measures are essential : (a) Every nation of the world, at least our own nation and those with which we have been associated in this war, should immediately make an inventory of its stocks of essential goods on hand, to ascertain in what industries maxi- mum production is essential, and priority of material, transportation, fuel, and labor should be accorded to these industries. (b) Those now engaged in industries directly connected with the war should be transferred to the industries essential in peace as rapidly as possible, and plants now engaged in war industries should be converted to peace purposes, while semiessential industries classed as nonessential during the war should be encouraged to maximum production. (c) In view of the world's shortage of foodstuffs, men in the Army and Navy training camps in this country and soldiers abroad who have had ex- perience in farming and those essential to the transportation and distribution of farm products should be discharged first and provision made to secure them employment in agriculture at the earliest possible moment. Men not experienced in farming but who wish to farm should be encouraged to do so by the adoption of a system similar to that which has proven so successful in the settlement of soldiers in the Province of Ontario through the provision of training for agri- culture, with adequate payment during such period. (d) Men in the Army and Navy who do not wish to enter in schools estab- lished for that purpose should be given vocational training until such time as they can be absorbed by the peace industries of the country. Men in the serv- ice overseas should be similarly trained and discharged by industries as indus- trial opportunity develops. (e) Federal, State, and local governments should also immediately plan con- struction of public improvements in order of urgency, so that when due to indus- trial or economic crises any large number of men or women are unemployed they may find work at fair rates on governmental undertakings. Kxtension of railroad*, reclamation work, reforestation, and land clearing and preparation, (lie development ol' highways, waterways, and other public works should he HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 399 similarly planned in order of urgency to prevent the unemployment which would otherwise follow the end of the war. 5. Agriculture. Though this country has the best natural opportunities for agriculture in the world, farming has been the most unprofitable industry in the country. The farmer and the farmer's family have not shared appreciably in the increasing wealth of the country to which they have contributed the largest share. They have toiled longer hours and more arduously than any other class of workers in the country, but with meager financial returns. They have always taken heavy risks and gambled with nature, with the possibility of small gains and the probability of large losses. Among the essentials to place farming on a sound basis are the following : (a) The establishment of a sound and economical method of marketing farm products. Existing wasteful methods of distributing farm products belong to an outworn age. Thousands of unnecessary middlemen intervene between the producers and the consumers of farm products. These must be eliminated, and direct, free, and open channels established either through cooperation or direct Government operation all the way through, from farm producer to ulti- mate consumer. Municipal slaughterhouses, warehouses, and cold and common storage warehouses must be established in large centers of consumption as a part of this system of distributing farm products, while centralized wholesale and retailing plants must be established under municipal ownership or control. (ft) Credit must be made as available and as cheap to farming as to any other legitimte and responsible industry. The farm-land banks, while service- able in this direction, fail in large measure to make increased production pos- sible. Like collateral loans in commercial banking practice, they rely for se- curity upon existing values, and fail to aid in productive operations in the way that the banks through commercial loans aid in production and distribution. A farmer owning high-priced land is not the man in most urgent need of Govern- ment assistance, but rather the man endeavoring to produce from land of initial small value crops that require intensive cultivation and sometimes the lapse of years. The need of such credit can not be met by mortgage security. The funds should be available through regional agencies, wherein cooperative guaranties are secured for repayment in due season. Without such a system vast areas of our country must lie idle except as they are redeemed by the application of great sums of private capital, which are seldom available, and, even if available, lead to tenancy rather than to independent operation. Land-mortgage credit can never benefit existing tenants, any more than it can result in adequate development of productive possibility. (c) The present unrestrained system of land tenure must be terminated. Vast holdings of productive fertile lands in a single ownership is detrimental to all legitimate agricultural interests. Tenant farming should be replaced by the more responsible system of cultivation by owners. Taxation should be used as a remedy to force into productivity idle acres held for speculation. (ort by Congress for the necessary extension of the work of the United States Public Health Service ; provision for a greatly increased number of public health nurses in rural dis- tricts, such service to be uoncompulsory. 14. International congress of farmers. We indorse and approve the idea of an international congress of farmers to sit at the same time and place as the official peace conference to consider their mutual interests in : (a) Peace terms. (6) Production of food, (c) International marketing. id) Closer relations and better understanding between the tillers of the soil in all countries. II. FOR IN'TKKNATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION. The war to end war has been won. The right of all peoples, large and small, weak and strong, to maintain unmolested by external intervention their own standard of democracy has been established. The world has learned by the tragic suffering of over four years of armed conflict that political, financial, commercial, industrial, and imperial autocracy must end ; that these several manifestations of autocracy inevitably produce war. The world has paid the price to win freedom for all peoples for all time. We must admit that causes tending to war exist in every country. The approach of the peace conference challenges the democratic forces of the world to evolve a plan of cooperation between the peoples of the world which, by ending the causes of war, shall make another war impossible. The farmers of America implicitly follow the world's leading Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, in his determination to make this the world's last war by the application of the principles which alone will prevent war. War is always an economic loss scarcely less serious to victor than to vanquished. \Ve hold the following to be essential to prevent wars between nations in the future: 1. Recognition of the common interests of the working people of all countries, regardless of the form of political government under which they live. 2. International control over international trade and international investment. 3. Freedom of production, and uniform and equally free exchange between all peoples. 4. Termination of all secret treaties and understandings between nations. 5. Gradual reduction of armaments. 6. International control over the occupation and development of backward countries, subject always to the right of small and backward peoples to self- determination. 7. Complete and direct control by the peoples of every established country of their own government. 8. Unrestricted passage for legitimate commerce over land and sea. 9. War must be made democratic by the agreement of all nations to declare war only by the majority vote of all, men and women. Wars in the future can be made impossible only by securing just economic conditions and relations within nations as well as between nations. The people of every nation, earnestly desiring that this war shall not have been fought in vain, must democratize their governments if they would do their part to insure the establishment of permanent world peace. But each nation must determine its own freedom by its own efforts without the intervention of other nations. Only for the regulation and control of international relations have nations the right to combine to prevent future wars. and. then only to insure Ilie establishment of democracy between nations on the solid basis of equal rights for nil and special privileges for none. As democrats of the soil and guardians of the rights of producers we feel it to be our solemn duty to present to the peace conference and democrats throughout the world this pro- gram, the adoption of which American farmers believe will insure the estate lishment of international relations on a sound, economic, and just basis, and make war through international misunderstandings impossible. The league of nations. Among the instrumentalities of the league we believe the following to be essential : 1. An international investment board. Foreign Investments have be prolific source of misunderstanding between nations and if unregulated will the future lead to conditions that may make war unavoidable. We therefore advocate the establishment of an international investment board whose f tions shall be as follows: 402 HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. (a) To prevent the investment of money of one nation in another unless justified by conditions and agreeable to the nation receiving the investment. (ft) To adjust conflicting claims among nations as to "spheres of influence. (c) To prevent the use of force by any nation to protect or to promote the investment of its nationals, and to determine methods of securing justice to foreign investors. 2. An international board of trade. Tariffs are constantly disturbing factors and if any nation enacts a tariff law, it should operate between all nations alike and with absolute equality. To facilitate international trade under fail- conditions to all peoples we advocate the establishment of an international board of trade, whose functions shall be : (a) To furnish market places open to all nations and operated for service alone. (ft) To report market quotations and market information of the markets of the world. 3. An international commerce commission to control international freight rates, and to enforce its rules by judgments enforceable in the courts of the country of the offenders. There rmist be joint use of coaling stations and of canals over which the international commerce commission would have juris- diction. 4. An international institute of agriculture. The international institute of agriculture of Rome, Italy, should be brought under the jurisdiction of the league of nations and made a part thereof. The importance of this institution is now well understood. As a department of the league of nations its functions and powers should be enlarged, as now recommended by its general assembly and permanent committee. 5. An international labor board, to have such functions and powers, con- sistent with the democratic purpose of the league of nations, as the organized labor forces of the member nations may desire. Abolishment of secret diplomacy. All treaties not made public should be abrogated, and no treaty should be considered binding until made public, while diplomacy in the future must be carried on through frank and open discussion. Reparation, not revenge. Unjust and revengeful financial punishment must not be inflicted upon the Central Powers. Such action would sow the seeds of a future war, inviting prewar conditions which made this war inevitable. We indorse the statement of President Wilson on this point and affirm that in de- termining the restoration to be made by the Central Powers we must avoid the principle of revenge, and insist that only the principle of reparation for wrongs done by the Central Powers be enforced. Except as a means of securing peace and justice in the future, we are opposed to economic boycotts and reprisals. Armies and armaments must be reduced. Confident of the soundness of our position that this must be made the last war, we urge our fellow workers in all countries throughout the world to join with us in demanding that there be a reduction of armies and navies, and that all countries signing the treaty of peace shall agree to abolish compulsory military training, and adopt as a sub- stitute for such military training such physical, industrial, and agricultural training as will promote the health and efficiency of their peoples. No matter what the offense of one country, large or small, may be in the future, such country must be punished not by the physical forces of other nations within its own territory but by an economic boycott of all the associated peoples of the world, to continue while the violation of international justice continues, and to cease when the offending country makes due and adequate reparation. We advocate only such an international police force, subject to the control of the league of nations, as shall keep the offending people within its own territory and protect others from any injury through invasion of their territory, or destruction of life or property on the high seas. Position of German colonies. The colonial possessions taken from Germany should be internationalized, and free trade with them established, or they should be governed by an international parliament until they are qualified for self-government. Supplementing the activities outlined above and in order to advance under- standing and good will among the peoples of all nations, especially those en- gaged in the same line of industry, we believe the leagxie of nations should foster the holding of international conferences of farmers, organized workers, manufacturers, merchants, bankers, etc. Through frequent international con- ferences of this nature most of the national misunderstandings that hitherto have been such prolific sources of trouble would be things of the past and be replaced by mutual understanding and respect. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 403 The people of all nations are looking with prayer on their lips and hope in their hearts to the peace conference to deal justly with our enemies and com- plete their labors, of such vital importance to the world, by providing for ilic establishment of a league of nations on a foundation economically and ethically democratic. Only as this is accomplished can government of the people, for the people, by the people spread o'er the earth and wars be made impossible. We, therefore, on behalf of the farmers of America, after careful thought, investigation, and consideration have herein presented the positive convictions of the producers of America as to the essentials of a democratic solution of our international problems, and submit them to the peace conference and the democratic people of the world. Mr. MARSH. I was going to say that the farmers' national confer- ence has not taken definite and specific action upon this specific bill, one reason, of course, being the fact that it was not introduced at the time, but I am going to discuss it, with your permission, from the point of view of the general program, and make certain suggestions in relation thereto. My first suggestion and if it is not appropriate, you will strike it from the record is that the Secretary of Labor, the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture be invited to appear before this committee to discuss these questions in relation to this bill. Taking up the printed program, I will try to make clear the reasons for my suggestion. We suggest in section 4, under the head of " Demobilization," that Federal, State, and local governments should also immediately plan construction of public improvements in order of urgency, so that when due to industrial or economic crises any large number of men or women are unemployed they may find work at fair rates on governmental undertakings. Extension of railroads, reclamation work, reforestation and land clearing and preparation, the develoi>- ment of highways, waterways, and other public works should be similarly planned in order of urgency to prevent the unemployment which would otherwise follow the end of the war. Then, under the head of "Agriculture," in subsection (c) we say The present unrestrained system of land tenure must be terminated. Vast holdings of productive fertile lands in a single ownership is detrimental to all legitimate agricultural interests. Tenant farming should be replaced by the more responsible system of cultivation by owners. Taxation should be used as a remedy to force into productivity idle acres held for speculation. Now, we feel that there are certain features of this bill and of the principles involved that we all naturally subscribe to that is, that we must do the right thing by our returning soldiers. I have talked with Mr. Mondell upon the general purposes of this bill, and he said that we must be practical. I said, "Mr. Mondell, the Kepublican and Democratic Parties have been practical since the Civil War, and, as a result of their practicality " this is the substance of my words ;i every rich man in America, in the richest country in the world and with the best opportunities, is shaking in his boots from fear of Bolshevism, which happens only when the privileged interests gov- ern." Now, would it not be proper for both parties and I do not belong to either would it not be proper for both parties to question whether they have been so practical as a result of their joint control of domestic affairs since the Civil War that we are threatened with the menace of Bolshevism? It is remarkably strange that in a country with these vast resources, with our 875,000,000 acres of farms, we should have any problem whatsoever in reabsorbing in our principal industries, manufacturing and agriculture, the returning soldiers? Mr. JOHNSON. I am interested in what you are saying, and I want to ask you whether you think this country is threatened with Bolshe- 404 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. vism now ? I am interested in it, and I am asking this for informa- tion. Mr. MARSH. You are asking me a question, and I am here as the representative of farmers, but if I may give you a personal opinion Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). That is what I want. Mr. MARSH. My personal opinion is this, and I have watched con- ditions pretty closely since I got out of college that the Bolsheviki of Wall Street and the land speculators have run the Government so long that we are now threatened with the inevitable result of their conduct of it. I think the Bolsheviki of privilege who run things in America are one thousand times greater in influence and a great deal more vicious than the Bolsheviki in Russia. I am not alarmed over the threat of Bolshevism, because I think the American people have too much good common sense. I think that John D. Rockefeller's conduct of the Colorado Coal & Iron Co. is a more stupid thing and a more vicious thing than what the bomb-throwing anarchists have attempted. If you permit the espionage law to remain on the statute books The CHAIRMAN (interposing). We have no jurisdiction over the espionage law. Mr. MARSH. Don't you have a vote ? The CHAIRMAN. This committee has no jurisdiction over that sub- ject, and we can not go into these collateral matters. Mr. MARSH. You have gone into a number of collateral matters this morning. The CHAIRMAN. There are certain matters before this committee and of which we have jurisdiction. Mr. MARSH. As I was saying, we would have no difficulty in reab- sorbing into the manufacturing industries and into agriculture the men whom we are going to discharge, or who are being discharged, from all branches of our service, if we had had a reasonably efficient and humane organization before the war started of both manufactur- ing industries and agriculture. The war compelled us to pay the penalty for the past half century of what Herbert Croly describes in "The Spirit of American Life" as individual aggrandizement and collective irresponsibility; so that now some 23,000 people own one- fourth of the whole wealth of America, and so that there are indi- vidual landholders who own over 1,000,000 acres. I just want to summarize from the Statistical Abstract the proper tion of the land in farms by sections. It is given here for every State in the Union, but I want to give it by sections, that is, the pro- portion of land in farms to-day that are improved. Of course, the percentage I will read is the improved, and the balance is the unim- proved. Mr. ELSTON. Can you not just have that go into the record by referring to the page, without reading it? Mr. MARSH. Yes; it is on page 132 of the Statistical Abstract for 1917. I want to call your attention particularly to the fact that, taking the country as a whole, only about one-naif of the land in farms in 11)10 was improved. Xow, gentlemen, here is the way the Secretary of the Interior described some of this work of reclamation. This is his last annual report, the press report, page 115. He cites the fact that there are 228,- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 405 500.000 ucrer- of cut-over lauds, and I quote liberally: "In their pres- ent -tale the.-.e 228,500,000 of cut-over lands are a picture of desola- tion calculated to discourage the hardiest pioneers."' Then in the name of justice and patriotism, why do you want to make the sol- diers who have risked their all go there while the millionaires hold their millions of acres of fertile and idle land out of use and get richer and richer and richer? I will tell you a little story I told when Mr. Lane was present. It illustrates my position and I think the farmer's position on this pro- posal. There was a fellow in a hospital who was going to die, and the chaplain was away, and the orderly served as chaplain, and the orderly came to this Tommy and said, " Tommy, you have been a sin- ner." " Yes," he said, " I know it." " Tommy, you have been an aw- ful >inner. and you are going to hell." " Well," says Tommy. " maybe I am : it is too bad." " Well,'* says the orderly serving as chaplain. " You ought to be damn thankful that the good Lord has provided some place you can go to when you die." The soldiers are not going to take that attitude toward this proposition, gentlemen. I have talked down at Camp Meade, and down at the barracks here to thousands and thousands of soldiers during the past year, and I have told them about our program, and I never met a more enthusiastic crowd, and I have talked in Madison Square Garden, and Carnegie Hall, and a number of other big halls throughout the coun- try, and I have never had a more enthusiastic response than to the proposition that the soldier is entitled to something else besides what is left that nobody else wants. Mr. SNELL. Under whose auspices did you speak to the soldiers? Mr. MARSH. Under the auspices of the*Y. M. C. A., by request, and 1 will tell you that it was hard work, too. I did not get home until midnight after a busy day's work. Mr. SUMMERS. You understand that Secretary Lane refers to these lands in their present condition in his picture of desolation? Mr. MAKSH. In their present condition; yes. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Marsh, you do not mean to convey the impres- sion that your statement, as you have just made it here, expresses the idea and 'opinion of the Y. 'M. C. A. as an organization when you state that you spoke under their auspices. Mr. MARSH. Do you find much regard for the Y. M. C. A. upon the part of the soldiers? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I do. Mr. MARSH. I do not, as a whole. Mr. WHITE. So do I. Mr. JOHNSON. I find a great deal. Mr. MARSH. I find it for those who are willing to go to the bottom of things; but. gentlemen, the time for dealing with the super- ficialities of life is past. You can read about 40 of the President's speeches to that effect, and you can read many other things along the same line. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marsh, you have seven minutes left in which to develop your plan. Mr. MARSH. Well, of course. I want to answer the questions that are asked as I go along. Mr. VAILE. I do not want to interrupt Mr. Marsh's statement, but when he gets through I want to ask him one or two questions. 406 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. MARSH. I am much obliged, because it is a little hard for me to take up the thread when I drop it. Mr. Lane points out also that there are 80,000,000 acres, roughly, of swamp lands, of which nearly 53.000,000 acres are permanent swamp lands. Gentlemen, to come down to what should be done, Australia, par- ticularly New Zealand, I understand, and Canada have suggested buying lands for the soldiers, but they have done this: They have levied in most of the Provinces of Australia and Canada an addi- tional tax on land values, so that the Government will not have to pay the enormously inflated price which you are going to be required to pay when the Government goes into the business of buying lands for soldiers. That always happens. I never knew, or at least I do not recall, a single case where the Government has been able to buy lands for anything like their assessed value or for twice their assessed value ordinarily. Down in Australia they have this law, that the owner of lands must set his price, and he has either got to sell to the Gov- ernment at 10 per cent advance on the price he sets on his land if the Government wants to buy it or he is going to be taxed on the appraisal or valuation he has put on the land himself. Now, that is a pretty sound principle, but do we need to buy a lot of land. Is any situation like this one going to be permanent? Why should the saviours of civilization be relegated to the out- skirts of civilization? Why should the boys who put in their time digging trenches so that you and I, we are told, might be alive, why should they now go to filling in swamps or improving cut-over lands ? It would seem almost as though they were entitled to a little better treatment. Maybe they would like to live in their old homes with their friends, and it would seem as though we ought to work out a scheme which will enable these returning soldiers and sailors who want to go on the land to get as good land as there is in the United States. Way back in 1909, in his Winona speech, then President Taft said that all of the best land in the country had been given away. He was absolutely right. The question is now raised. " Why should the soldiers be called upon to pay for this land, and have they got the money to do it? " I think it was Secretary Lane, although I do not want to do him an injustice, but somebody here said that they could borrow the money from their wives' relatives. Gentlemen, what would you think if you were a soldier and had risked your all and had come back to your Government and your Government said, " God bless you, boy, here is some land, and you can borrow the money from your wife's relatives and make a living in that way." Gentlemen, that will do more to make Bolshevism than all the an- archists, or socialists, or Victor Bergers, or William D. Haywards, or Lenines or Trotskys that the world has ever produced, and the soldier is thinking along those lines. We have got to do something for them. Reclamation is a good thing, but they put convicts to work on reclamation projects. Mr. SMITH. Where? Mr. MARSH. Working on the roads, in some States. Mr. SMITH. On Federal reclamation!! projects? Mr. MARSH. Not on Federal reclamation projects, but on State projects. I do not think the soldiers ought to be asked to do that. I am saying again that we have not taken definite action on this. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 407 but I have talked with a lot of our people about it. I want to be perfectly fair with you, and they think it is vastly more important that the soldiers be given a good deal better chance than this seems to afford. I have gone into it with different people, and have heard Secretary Lane explain it at least once, and have gone over it with others. Gentlemen, why do you make them pay interest for 40 years? It is provided that they shall pay 5 per cent cash and the balance shall be paid in amortizing payments extending over a period to be fixed by the Secretary not to exceed 40 years. Paying interest for 40 years to the richest Government in the world with the most multimillionaires and with 400,000,000 acres of fertile farm lands, much of which is held out of cultivation for speculation. Mr. TAYLOR. Where is that ? Mr. SMITH. There is nothing to prevent them from paying it off in one year or in two or three years if they want to do so. Mr. MARSH. The farmers make enough to pay off this indebtedness in one or two years, or soldiers who are coming back? If the farmers were that prosperous, I would not feel justified in working for them. 1 will tell you that frankly. Mr. MAYS. Would you give them these farms ? Mr. MARSH. I think I would give them the right to use these farms and let the Government pay the interest while they are using them until the Government taxes the speculative value out of this land. Mr. MAYS. Then, you would never give them title ? Mr. MARSH. Personally, I do not believe in alienating title to land the Government now owns until you have a system of taxation which is going to prevent speculating in land; and I might cite that the National Grange advocated also such a system of taxation of land values as would stop this curse of tenant farming. Mr. FERRIS. Does the Farmers' Union organization, as such, agree with you in your plan which opposes alienation of land and home own- ership ? Mr. MARSH. Does the National Farmers' Union oppose it? Mr. FERRIS. Does any one of these farm organizations you repre- sent agree with you about your plan ? I have talked with you before and know your views about that. Mr. MARSH. We are not facing an ordinary issue. Personally, I do believe absolutely, and I think most of the farmers do I am glad you raised that question in private ownership of land. I do not believe in the nationalization of land personally. Mr. FERRIS. You do not believe the Government should pass title at all? Mr. MARSH. Here is the question. That position is regarding indi- vidual homes or farms, or individual lots in cities; but, gentlemen, we are not confronting a general economic or even an ethical question here. We are confronting the question of the demobilization of a large army in the light of our experience in the past. Mr. FERRIS. You are getting clear away from the subject. A mo- ment ago you said you were not in favor of alienation ; that you would let the soldier use the land, but vou were opposed to alienation of the title. In response to a question, you said you were opposed to aliena- tion, and I thought you were, because I have talked with you before on this subject. Xow, what I am trying to get at is how many of these 408 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. farmers' organizations .you represent agree with you on that one proposition ? Mr. MARSH. I think most of them would agree with us frankly, not all of them, but most of them as far as this specific situation is concerned, but not as regards individual farms. Mr. FERRIS. You think that the Farmers' Union, the State granges, the American Society of Equity, and the National Gleaner Federa- tion would approve of your plan here, which provides that the soldier shall be loaned the land or leased the land and become a tenant rather than an owner; do you think all of them would agree with that? Mr. MARSH. I think they would for this situation. Their plank provides that tenant farming should be replaced by a more extensive system of cultivation by owners. We want owners, but just to illustrate the matter, take what has happened in connection with the Liberty bonds. Thousands of people bought Liberty bonds and made a deposit of 5 per cent or 10 per cent, and they have not made any renewals; they could not. Xow, here, of course, you have got to guard the title, but it is very difficult to get around it. You know what happened with the other land grants and the story of scrip paper issued on those lands after the Civil War. Mr. FERRIS. This is not a scrip proposition, Mr. Marsh. This is not a land-grant proposition. This is a proposition of individual homes for these pople or try'iig to provide homes for them. Mr. MARSH. I think the word " homes " is too euphemistic a title to apply to swamp lands such as described by Mr. Lane as to most of the lands that are available. We think that there is imminent danger that this land will get into the hands of speculators, because no Congress can bind a succeeding Congress. Do not forget that. We can repeal the Constitution, and we can change parties from time to time and can change legislation. This is the question confronting us: Is it fair to put the solcVers on this least desirable land where they have got to make the most tremendous effort to make a living and pay interest for a long period of time, or will you gentlemen do what you can overnight, almost literally, enact a law levying an excise tax on the privilege of holding land, so that you can get land that is nearer to railroads and more productive and more fertile, and give a better opportunity to those soldiers? I want to say one word about Dr. Atkeson's statement here that we should have overproduction. We can not share that fear. Mr. WHITE. He withdrew that. Mr. MARSH. Did he- withdraw it? Mr. WHITE. He gave just his personal opinion. Mr. MARSH. May I give not only my personal view, but the view of our organization, because we discussed cooperative marketing and things of that sort. Overproduction never exists without under- consumption somewhere, and it would do more to restore the peace of the world if the United States Congress should make an appro- priation of several hundred million dollars or several billion dollars and we can do it and still leave altogether too many multi-millionaires and near billionaires in this country, and ship food to the starving people of Europe. ' That would do more immediately than a league of nations, I believe personally, and I have lived over there a great deal, and would do more than a peace treaty; that is, if we should HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 409 see that these folks are fed. The proposition is that we need to raise all we can and we need to export vast amounts. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marsh, your time is up; in fact, I have ex- tended it, taking into consideration the questions you have been asked. Now, I would like to ask you a question. I understand it is your position that there should be no alienation of this land. Mr. MARSH. We feel that for this specific land, not taking up the general question, that this system would be wiser for some time. The CHAIRMAN. For the Government to retain title? Mr. MARSH. For the Government to retain title. The CHAIRMAN. And you do not believe any interest should be charged the soldier? Mr. MARSH. I think that interest should be charged the soldier, frankly, only if the soldier is able to make as good a living as the average man whose life that soldier risked his life to defend. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say a while ago that the sol- dier should not be charged interest for the land. Mr. MARSH. I think it would be better not to, but if you do, then charge it on that condition. The CHAIRMAN. Your resolution Mr. MARSH (interposing). May I add also, that promptly the Gov- ernment should levy a system of taxation upon land which will pre- vent speculation, and when I said they should not pay interest I meant interest on the money invested in the land and not in im- provements. The CHAIRMAN. In paragraph No. 4 of your resolutions under (c) you state : Men not experienced in fanning, but who wish to farm, should be encouraged to do so by the adoption of a system similar to that which has proven so success- ful in the settlement of soldiers in the Province of Ontario through the provision of training tor agriculture, with adequate payment during such period. Mr. MARSH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know that the plan we have under consideration is almost identical with the Ontario plan? Mr. MARSH. I think in some respects it is similar, but I do not think it is entirely similar. I have no objection to treating our sol- diers better than the Canadians are treating theirs. The CHAIRMAN. The amount of aid granted in the Province of On- tario is "100 acres, of which 10 acres have been cleared, will be allowed each soldier without charge, and when necessary a loan not to exceed $500 will be made to pay for housing, machinery, tools, and live stock. The amount loaned is payable in 20 years with 6 per cent interest." They pay interest there. No payment of principal or interest is required for three years. This may appear a small amount, but is not so when other aid is taken into account. The (^--soldier is paid for clearing his 10 acres and also receives the assistance of his fellow settlers. Now, they are evidently settling upon cut-over lands. Mr. MARSH. You have misunderstood our program, Mr. Chairman. It refers to the training given the soldiers and not to the methods of settlement on the Land. We certainly did not advocate any 6 per cent interest or anything of that kind. 410 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. You do not approve the Ontario plan in whole? Mr. MARSH. I think we can improve on it very much with great justice to the soldier. Mr. FERRIS. Even this bill improves on that plan, because we give them 40 years instead of 20 and charge them 4 per cent instead of 6 per cent, and we will make larger allotments of land to them. Mr. MARSH. But why should they run in debt ? Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Marsh, a man starting out who has nothing either has to accept a gift or run into debt. Mr. MARSH. May I modify that statement by saying why should he run in debt for the land ? Mr. FERRIS. Do you want the Government to buy it and give it to him outright? Mr. MARSH. I think the Government might very properly take up these other reconstruction measures and pay the soldiers as they come out for specific work. And, gentlemen, this or any similar legislation will be largely valueless if we keep up with our frightful system of tenant farming, even with the Government the owner, and there will be just as much poverty and suffering on the part of the tenant as in the Scully estate in Illinois, unless you change the land system. That is basic. The CHAIRMAN. In Ontario they give the soldier a patent to the land in five years, and it is withheld for 10 years under this bill. Mr. MARSH. And he is in debt. The CHAIRMAN. Somebody has to pay for it. Mr. MARSH. Well, it is up to you gentlemen to decide how grateful you are to the soldiers. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Marsh, in that connection, were you present at this meeting at which this reconstruction policy and program was adopted ? Mr. MARSH. Yes ; I was in and out. I was not present every min- ute, because I was attending to a number of other things. Mr. VAILE. Was the benefit of the returning soldier discussed at that meeting? Mr. MARSH. The question of demobilization we realize that sound economic conditions in the country will mean that there is no prob- lem of demobilization of the Army. Would Switzerland or a peas- ant country ever have a problem of demobilization? Xot the slight- est, because there the land is not held as here, where some 1,400 people own about one-tenth, my recollection is, of all the land in America. Mr. VAILE. You regarded the problem of the returning soldier primarily from the standpoint of his usefulness in industry rather than from the view of benefit to the soldier, did you not? Mr. MARSH. Absolutely the reverse. The soldier and every other American citizen is entitled to equal opportunity, but the soldier has made certain exceptional sacrifices and it is certainly a slim reward for that sacrifice to put him out to do the rough work and do not forget that the British Labor Party is not standing for any scheme like this. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Marsh, I notice in paragraph 11 that your organi- zation is unalterably opposed to the establishment of militarism in America and a system of compulsory military training, and in para- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 411 graph 7 you advocate the repeal of the espionage law and all similar laws. I do not notice in here anything at all with regard to the sacrifices made by the soldiers, and I would like to ask if your asso- ciation was not. as a matter of fact, more interested in the con- scientious objectors than it was in the soldiers ? Mr. MARSH. I am perfectly willing to submit that to the soldiers. Mr. VAILE. I would like to have you point out Mr. MARSH (continuing). May I add this, that these delegates at this convention understood mighty well that under this economic program of justice or program of economic justice, that you would have this whole question settled, and they were not dealing in super- ficialties. Mr. VAILE. I would like to have you point out, if you can, any pro- grame or sentence in this program which refers to the sacrifices made by the soldiers or which speaks of benefits to be conferred upon the soldiers. Mr. MARSH. We would confer the benefits upon even-body that they are entitled to. and the greatest benefit to the soldier would be for Congress to stop the reign of privilege in America. We put in different words, but that is the program. Mr. SXELL. Mr. Marsh, how many real farmers attended this con- ference, and how many of them were paid representatives of some organizations similar to yourself? Mr. MARSH. I do not know; but I am sure you are not going to question the right of the farmers to select men and pay them to at- tend to the farmers' business. Mr. SXELL. That was not my question. Mr. MARSH. Do you question the right of the packers to select counsel to come before you, the most highly paid counsel in America . and I am not that, bv the way, because I am getting a salary of $3.600 a year. Mr. SXELL. My object w r as to find out how many were men similar to yourself, paid representatives, who w r ere going around organizing societies, or how many were really farmers who owned farms. Mr. MARSH. Now, 'let me go down the list. Herbert Baker, of Michigan, is a farmer. Mr. SNELL. I mean what proportion of them. Mr. MARSH. I am going to go into it in detail. C. H. Gustafson. the president of the Nebraska Farmers' Union, has his own farm and has had two boys in the service, and he is the head of a farmers' business concern doing about $100,000,000 a year of cooperative busi- ness. Now, they said, I presume: "Brother Gustafson, you will do us a whole lot more good if you will come off the farm and will organize this cooperative business so we can buck the big combi- nations of capital." It is not a question of farming. My heavens, the Department of Agriculture tells the farmer how to raise stuff and he raises the stun, and the more he raises the poorer he some- times gets. It is a question of distribution. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we have now taken up an hour and 26 minutes listening to this gentleman. I think it is all the time one man is entitled. I want to make this statement to go into the record. Mr. HERSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question before the witness gets through. 412 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. JOHN sox. Let me finish this statement first, please. The sol- diers are waiting for us to do something for them, and we are anxious to do something for them. This committee has met here for the purpose of hearing men who would throw some light on the subject we are to discuss, and the law which we hope to enact. I can see nothing gained from such statements as have gone into this record, and can see no light thrown on this matter at all. It seems to be a statement from some who are prone to agitate. It does not make any difference what legislation is enacted here, it is not going to suit certain people. Jesus Christ, Himself, could not come here and satisfy some of them, and I take it we are to go into this matter and hear men who will throw light on it and enable us to enact legislation which will be the best we can enact, and that is all we can do. Mr. ELSTON. Will you make a motion to that effect? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I will. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson, of course, as long as members de- sire to interrogate the witness Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). I took it for granted that they were all through. The CHAIRMAN. It is not within the province or the jurisdiction of the chairman to prohibit them from doing so. Of course, this is always subject to a motion. Mr. GANDY. I would like to ask the witness a question. Mr. MARSH. May I speak on a question of personal privilege before this hearing is closed? The CHAIRMAN. No; Mr. Gandy first desires to ask you a question. Mr. GANDY. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Marsh. In dealing with these cut-over lands that you referred to, in your opinion would it make any difference whether the land is to be reclaimed and ready- made homes or ready-made farms made out of it before the soldier buys it? Mr. MARSH. I think it would. Mr. Gandy, vou know, as well as 1 do- Mr. GANDY (interposing). Let me follow that up by .saying that it is the intention of this legislation to provide two things: First, work for the soldier if he wants to work at that kind of labor, and. second, that the farms shall be ready-made and the improvements made, and that they shall not constitute a desolate waste which the Secretary describes them as being now, but shall be made into a developed, growing community with modern conveniences, before the soldier is asked to buy them. Mr. MARSH. But you will admit that if these lands were desirable they would have been snapped up long ago. You will admit that, That is obvious on the face of it. Second, you will admit that the soldier may like something different. Now,' Mr. Chairman. I want to speak on the question of personal privilege. Mr. Johnson says 1 have not said anything, if I understood him, that will be helpful. If I do not suggest a better chance for the soldier, a lower rate of interest, and a better opportunity to be relieved of this enormous indebtedness of the Government, 1 will be willing to debate the ques- tion with Mr. Johnson before any group of soldiers in the United States, and I will send out a statement to that effect to every farm HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 413 paper in the United States or to every considerable farm paper in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions that members of the committee desire to ask ? Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to ask a question : Do you believe that the Government of the United States should give this land to the soldiers ? Mr. MARSH. As to the question of whether the Government of the United States should give this land to the soldiers, I would say not the title, but the chance to use the land as long as the soldier wanted to use it. That is a very different thing. Mr. SMITH. Would you give it to him for nothing ? Mr. MARSH. For nothing, or I would not charge him any interest until, I repeat, he has made not as much as a Congressman but as much as the average American citizen who has made anything like a similar sacrifice for the country. The CHAIRMAN. Under your section 5, paragraph (/). you say: Teiuint farming should be replaced by the more responsible system of culti- vation by owners. Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. I would like to ask Mr. Marsh a few questions. Do you remember the bill that was introduced and reported at the last Congress providing homesteads for soldiers? This bill was intro- duced by Mr. Taylor of Colorado. Mr. MARSH. I read it, but do not remember the details. Mr. RAKER. Have you read the bills introduced by the various Members of Congress and myself that are now pending before this committee ? Mr. MARSH. No, sir; I have read the bill that the Department of Labor worked on. Mr. RAKER. I would like for you to confine your answers to what I ask you, because in that way we will save time. You do not know the purpose of those bills ? Mr. MARSH. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. As indicated by the bills we have before us? Mr. MARSH. Except this one. I am speaking about this bill. Mr. RAKER. Then you have read the Mondell bill? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir; I have read the Mondell bill. Mr. RAKER. Are you in favor of providing homes for the returning soldiers? Mr. MARSH. I am m favor of providing homes for the returning soldiers, but in a different method from those which have been adopted in the past in giving homesteads to other people, because that system has not worked well. I do not believe that it is the part of wisdom to duplicate that mistake. Mr. RAKER. You are not familiar with the workings of the home- stead law generally, whether to soldiers or to other individuals in the Western States", are you ? Mr. MARSH. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. Then I would like for you to confine your answers to my questions, because there is quite a difference in the working of the homestead law now. You are in favor of the Government pro- viding homes, or individual homes, for the returning soldier whereby he can make a living for himself and family. 414 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MARSH. Assuming, of course, that he wants to go. Mr. RAKER. Yes; if he is willing to go and wants a home. If he wants to make a home on a farm, irrespective of its size, so as to make a living for himself and family, you are in favor of the Gov- ernment providing a method or means by which he can obtain such a home? Mr. MARSH. And be secure in his tenure. Mr. RAKER. Just answer my question, please. Mr. MARSH. I am not going to answer half a question or answer a question only half way. I say I am in favor of it provided the Gov- ernment adopts a method which will protect that soldier, as our program says, in the ownership of his home, provided he uses it. I know of no other title except use. Mr. RAKER. You are in favor of the Government providing the home and that the soldier shall own his home in fee, or that he shall be vested with his title in fee? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Does it make any difference Mr. MARSH (interposing). Pardon me in answer to your last question, I think that if the soldier could be absolutely protected in his tenure he should have the fee, but I question whether the fee should be given him under such a system as that proposed in this bill. Mr. RAKER. I want to ask this witness some questions, Mr. Chair- man, if I can have the attention of the committee. Mr. RAKER. This man has come here to help us, and I want to find out whether he knows anything about it. Are you in favor of the soldier having his title in fee after four or five years, or leaving it rather indefinite Mr. MARSH (interposing). I think it would be better for the Gov- ernment to hold the title to the land until the soldier has been able to pay off at least most of his indebtedness. Mr. RAKER. Then you answer that you are in favor of the Govern- ment providing homes for the soldiers. Now, does it make any difference where they should locate; that is, in what State or in what location in a given State? Mr. MARSH. You have raised there a question of administration. Suppose these reclamation projects Mr. RAKER (interposing). I am not talking about reclamation proj- ects. I have not been asking about reclamation projects, but I have asked you a plain, simple question about providing homes for these soldiers. Now, would it make any difference, in providing a home, where that home should be located, or in what State it should be located? Mr. MARSH. On general principles; no, sir. He should have free- dom of selection. Mr. RAKER. If you could provide that kind of a home for him on a reclamation project, and he voluntarily wants it and it can be done as reasonably as at any other place, are you for providing such a home for him, or are you against it because it is a reclamation home for him, or are you against it because it is a reclamation project? Mr. MARSH. If any soldier wants a home on a reclamation project. I think he is entitled to it. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 415 Mr. RAKER. And it would be the same thing with reference to pro- viding the home wherever he desires it, whether on reclaimed swamp land Mr. MARSH (interposing) .Yes, sir; if it is equally good and affords him a fair opportunity. Mr. RAKER. And the same thing would apply whether it was cut- over land or not ? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. So that, as a matter of fact, if you could provide homes at a reasonable cost where the soldiers want them, whether they are on swamp lands, reclaimed lands, or cutover lands, you are perfectly willing for the soldiers to have such homes ? Mr. MARSH. If the soldier wants it, but I will add this: That if the soldier wants that only because he can not get anything else I think that would be a bad thing for the soldier. Mr. RAKER. Your theory is that the Government should take a piece of privately owned land and buy it and divide it up into homes for soldiers? Mr. MARSH. My theory is much more fundamental than that. STATEMENT OF MR. J. N. COX, REPRESENTING THE GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox, representing the governor of Tennessee, desires to make a brief statement. Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as the personal representative of the governor of Tennessee on account of the fact that he is unable to appear at this time. In Ten- nessee, so far as I know, we are very much in favor of this bill. Our legislature at its last session passed a bill that was suggested by Secretary Lane that will enable us to take action on this matter in that State. We are in favor of this bill, but, as was suggested the other day by a gentleman who preceded me, we would like to sug- gest an amendment as to the loan value of the improvements and the live stock and equipment. I believe that you provide in the bill that you will loan as much as 75 per cent on the improvements and 60 per cent on the live stock and equipment. Believing that it would be hard for the soldier to secure that amount of cash, or even to work it out, we believe that it would be better to make that loan value 90 per cent on the improvements and 80 per cent on the live stock and equipment. That would require the soldier to procure only about $500, which a great many of them can do, and it is believed that that would be better for them and more in keeping with their desires. Xow, I know that you gentlemen are going through a siege here this morning, and I will not take up any more of your time, except to say that we are very much in accord w : ith this work and hope that the bill will go through, and to assure you that Tennessee stands ready to do her part when the times comes. The CHAIRMAN. Has this plan the general approval of the people of your State? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the attitude of the soldiers toward it I 13331919 27 416 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. Cox. I have heard a great many of them express themselves, and they are very much in favor of it. Mr. GANDY. Do you think that there ought to be embodied with the community idea some provision for individual locations ? Mr. Cox. I doubt it. I have heard that discussed, and I believe that this community plan is the better one, because of the fact that isolated farms without improvements around them, as these com- munity farms would have, would not be as satisfactory to the soldiers as the community plan with the road building and things of that kind undertaken by the Government. [Telegram.] J. N. Cox. Care of Cordcll Hull, 1L C., Waxliiuftton. D. C.: Big convention here indorse soldier settlement plan calling for passage of bill after speech by York. A. H. ROBERTS, Governor. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement. TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1919. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer, representing the governor of New Mexico, will now be heard. Mr. HERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish to introduce Mr. Charles Springer, of Coif ax County, N. Mex. He is the chairman of the road board of that State, and is a very active citizen of our State. He will give you his views in regard to the legislation that the Legislature of New Mexico has already enacted. STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES SPRINGER, REPRESENTING THE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the governor of our State wired me requesting me to appear before this committee chiefly, as I understand it, to urge the necessity of a cer- tain amendment which has been proposed by Mr. Hernandez, or a section of a bill which has been introduced by him. The reason for that is that our legislature passed a law creating a soldiers' settlement board, giving that board certain funds to be derived from the sale and rental of lands heretofore granted to New Mexico by Congress, amounting to 300.000 acres. The act of Congress, called the enabling act of our State, provides that no lands heretofore granted by Congress or the proceeds thereof may be used for any other purposes than the purposes stated in the acts themselves granting the lands, and the purpose of this amendment is to permit the lands and the proceeds to be used for soldier-settlement projects and to pay the expenses of the soldier settlement board. Two hundred and fifty thousand acres of those lands were granted for water reservoirs for irrigation, or that is the wording of the grant. We have sold some of those lands and the proceeds are now in- vested in bonds or in permanent funds, and the rentals of those lands have been accumulating heretofore in the water-reservoirs-for-irriga- tion fund. It has been appropriated from time to time by the leo-is- lature for various purposes, there being no apparent need of using that money by the State to build reserviors. There was another HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 417 grant of 100,000 acres of land for the improvement of the Rio Grande, and there appears to be no use for that land, or of the money for this purpose by the State, which would interfere with the use of it by the soldier settlement board. We can not proceed now with the soldier settlement board unless Congress will remove that re- striction from the former act as to the use of that fund. The CHAIRMAN. What did you say it was devoted to under the former act? Mr. SPRINGER. It says for water reservoirs for irrigation purposes. There is nothing definite, but that is the wording of the act. We still have remaining more than ample lands for that purpose. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you presented that proposition to the Interior Department, and does it meet with their approval ? Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir; it has not been to my knowledge. I do not know that it has been presented there. Mr. TAYLOR. Would it not be a good idea for you to take it up with the Interior Department, inasmuch as the Interior Depart- ment has jurisdiction over the public domain and over the dispo- sition of public lands? Mr. SPRINGER. If you will permit me, this is not a question of the disposition of the public domain. It is really a question of whether that sovereign State shall have the right to dispose of its own prop- erty for the best interests of its people. Mr. TAYLOR. As I understand it, this is something derived from the disposition of lands that were given to the State by the Federal Government ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. When the Government gives land to a State, whether for a State university, a normal school, or any other congressional purpose, or for an Indian school, as they did in Colorado, when you seek to divert that money to some other purpose, you generally have to come back to the Federal Government and get their permission. If it came out of the public domain originally, the Interior Depart- ment still .exercises a sort of supervisory or advisory control over the matter, and I was wondering whether, or not, the Interior De- partment would be in accord with your proposition to change the manner of the utilization of the proceeds arising from lands on the public domain. I think that possibly it would facilitate your proposi- tion to have this amendment put on here if the Interior Department heartily approved it and recommended it. There would be some question raised, probably, when it came up on the floor of the House, and I think you would expedite the matter a good deal by having it submitted to the Interior Department. Mr. Hernandez, of course, realizes fully the practice of the committee of referring important matters back to the departments that they originally came from. Mr. HERNANDEZ. In further answer to' that, I will say that we did not have any doubt and the legislature did not have any doubt but what these funds could be used in connection with these projects, because they are germane to this legislation. The land board, or the soldier settlement board, asked the attorney general of the State for an opinion on the subject, and he suggested that we should ask that this amendment be made before we used this fund for this purpose, so there would be no doubt about it. These are State lands that we are talking about, and they have already been granted to the State. 418 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. TAYLOR. But they were granted to the State for some special purpose. Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes. That restriction or safeguard was thrown around the legislature at the time the grant was made. These are State lands that we want to use in order to carry out the purposes of our soldier settlement law. Mr. TAYLOR. There is no question but what it is a good purpose, and I was making a suggestion here that would help you in bringing it about, because, otherwise, somebody on the floor of the House would ask what you were trying to do. The CHAIRMAN. You might get the approval of the Secretary for the proposed amendment. Mr. SPRINGER. These settlement projects in New Mexico, or most of them, will have to go on reclamation projects. The CHAIRMAN. I think that we will probably have no difficulty with the department in that matter. Mr. SPRINGER. Then, there was another matter that the governor wanted me to bring before the committee, and that was the ques- tion of giving the State board some further duty in the way of co- operation than has been proposed in the present bill either in the Mondell bill, the Ferris bill, or the Hernandez bill. I mean by that as to the actual management of the projects during the period of settlement. This provides for some cooperation or some authority on the part of the State board under certain circumstances after the settlement, as I understand, and in the fixing of the price. The CHAIRMAN. After the payment of 25 per cent Mr. SPRINGER (interposing). Did not one of the bills introduced at the last session provide that if the State should furnish the land or the title to the land that it or its board might have the manage- ment and settlement of the project? The CHAIRMAN. There may have been such a bill. Mr. FERRIS. Are the people of Colorado pretty conversant with the terms of this so-called soldiers' settlement plan ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. It has been played up in the papers a good deal ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir ; to some extent. Mr. FERRIS. As you understand it, is the proposition pretty uni- versally favored in New Mexico? Mr. SPRINGER. They are in favor of the general principle, but the people there are rather in favor of the State having a little bit more to do with the management of it. Mr. FERRIS. You mean with the administration of it ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Is it their opinion that this plan will render great relief or help to the soldiers ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Do you know of any organizations or societies of farmers and laborers, or of any sort of organizations in the State, that are actively against this plan? Mr. SPRINGER. No. sir. There is only this one thing, and that is the question of whether the community plan, as suggested and as it has lieen discussed, will be successful. That is not in the way of dis- approval, but they simply wonder whether a number of soldiers HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 419 going out upon a reclamation project, we will say, such as it would have to be in New Mexico, without any experienced farmers among them, and without any older men. and without the usual speculator, or without the usual capitalist who is interested in boosting the community, would be successful. They wonder how it will turn out ; that is all. They are in favor of the general plan. Mr. FERRIS. Do they think that Federal supervision of it will not be sufficient? Mr. SPRINGER. It is not altogether that, but they think it is an un- natural way to promote a community. Mr. FERRIS. In the arid regions where you would have to impound water and have irrigation it would have to be in a measure that way. Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir: as to the management of it, but not as to the people who would come in there and settle. This seems to be confined to soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. You would not advocate throwing this open to every- body? Mr. SPRINGER. I would certainly advocate that a portion of every one of these projects should be devoted -to other settlers or that the land should be sold to others than soldiers, so that it would not be entirely a community of soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. Do you think the Government, with the great load the Treasury is carrying on account of the conduct of the war. should at this time tackle the job of offering this relief not only to soldiers but to anybody else who wanted it? Mr. SPRINGER. It would not be a relief for them, but they would pay what it Avas worth. Mr. FERRIS. Not now, but 40 years from now. Mr. SPRINGER. It might be sold on a different basis to those who might be able to go in there and who might want to go in there and purchase farms. Mr. FERRIS. Your thought would be, then, that if you interspersed and intermingled practical farmers with the soldiers it might be a good plan? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Without offering to nonsettlers the same relief, of course ? Mr. SPRINGER. It would be giving no benefit to the nonsoldier. He would provide his own money and bring in his experience to help the community. Mr. FERRIS. I thought you intimated that you would give the same relief to the nonsoldier that vou would give to the soldier, an 1 if you did that the soldier phase of it might as well be eliminated altogether. Mr. SPRINGER. I think it would be in the interest of the soldier. Mr. NICHOLS. Outside of possibly extending an opportunity for employment to some soldiers, do you think that this provides a great measure of relief to the soldier? Mr. SPRINGER. It would lie a very fine thing for the soldiers if you could induce them to go on farms. * In that way many of them would go on farms who would not do so otherwise. Mr. NICHOLS. What measure of relief would it afford the soldier? Mr. SPRINGER. Well, as I understand it. a considerable portion of the capital necessary for him to establish himself upon ;i farm is furnished him. 420 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know how much it will be necessary for him to furnish himself under this bill? Mr. SPRINGER. A small amount. Mr. NICHOLS. How much would the initial payment amount to? Mr. SPRINGER. That would depend altogether on the circumstances, the locality, and the price of the land. Mr. FERRIS. It is 5 per cent, is it not? Mr. SPRINGER. I understood you to ask him what was the total amount of money. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that it would be a good principle for the Government to extend this relief to anybody, regardless of whether he served in the Army or not ? Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir; I do not think the Government should do that at all. Mr. NICHOLS. Then what do you mean by saying that you would open it to all of the people ? Mr. SPRINGER. A certain portion of the land might be sold at what it is worth to outsiders, so that the community, instead of being composed of one class of persons, might be a more or less mixed com- munity and have in it a number of good, experienced farmers, cattle- men, etc. Mr. NICHOLS. How long do you think it would take a soldier with- out money to accumulate enough money to make the initial pay- ment? Mr. SPRINGER. I understand that he would be accumulating that money during the time of the improvement of the land that is. he would be given a job. Mr. NICHOLS. He would be given employment to begin with, but he could not acquire the land until he had made the initial pay- ment. Now, how long do you think it would be necessary for the soldier to toil on the land before he would acquire enough money to make the initial payment? Mr. SPRINGER. During the time of the development of the project. That ought to be sufficient time if the project requires five years for the development. He could save a portion of his wages during that time and have it set aside for the purpose of making the initial payment. Mr. FERRIS. What do you think of these several plans that are being talked of here of allowing the soldier to select his farm wher- ever he desires to select it and make him a loan to buy it ? Do you think that is a good plan ? Mr. SPRINGER. That would require a great deal of money if he selected land where the price was two or three hundred dollars per acre. Mr. FERRIS. If you had a minimum price that should be paid for it, it would be subject to the same criticism that this would be. Mr. SMITH. If he is without any capital to go on except what the Government lends him, it is likely that he would be able to pay in- terest on the purchase price and make a success on his venture. Mr. SPRINGER. If he is a good farmer, he can pay for it. Mr. SMITH. But it would not afford him the same opportunity if he went on a project that was worth twice as much as it cost per acre? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 421 Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir. Mr. FERRIS. How many soldiers did New Mexico send to the war, under the draft and otherwise ? Mr. SPRINGER. Between fourteen and fifteen thousand. Mr. FERRIS. What percentage of them have been demobilized ? Mr. SPRINGER. I should say that perhaps 1,500 of them are yet in the Army. Mr. FERRIS. So that the great bulk of them have been demobilized ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. What percentage of them, in your opinion, would avail themselves of some plan like this ? Mr. SPRINGER. Possibly one-third of them. Mr. FERRIS. You think that one-third of them would avail them- selves of a plan like this ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Is that based upon your knowledge of any concerted action of the soldiers, or upon resolutions adopted by them? Mr. SPRINGER. It is just my opinion after talking with them. Mr. FERRIS. From your knowledge of the conditions in your State, it is your opinion that as many as one-third of the returning soldiers would avail themselves of an opportunity like this ? Mr. SPRINGER. New projects would have to be turned out and advertised, and they would have to be worked up. Of course, they would not rush in voluntarily to do this without some propaganda, but I think that with propaganda a large number of young men would engage in this work. Mr. FERRIS. Is there a scarcity of labor in New Mexico ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And wages are very high? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. That would, of course, make these individual farms less attractive to these people. Mr. SPRINGER. Many a man would go into this plan who would not want to hire out as a laborer. Mr. FERRIS. Even with high wages, the eight-hour day, and the clamor for labor, such is the desire to own homes that in the State of New Mexico you think that one-third of the soldiers would want to avail themselves of this plan? Mr. SPRINGER. I am not saying that one-third of the total, but I say that one-third of those who have come home would want this. You see, a great many have been discharged and have found other places. I do not think a great many of our men are going to go into one of these plans. Mr. FERRIS. What percentage would you say, when the demobiliza- tion is all completed, which is going to be very soon I have seen a great many soldiers coming from our ships the last two or three days, coming into our ports, and they all ought to be back in a little while what would be your statement of the percentage of 14,000 or 15,000 soldiers returning, from New Mexico, who would desire to avail themselves of the project? Mr. SPRINGER. Probably 8 or 10 per cent. 422 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask you this: Are many of the soldiers that have come back to New Mexico having trouble to find employment, or are they falling into their old positions? Mr. SPRINGER. We have placed some 45 men in the Council of Na- tional Defense as a part of our duties. It has been almost altogether men from outside of the State. Mr. FERRIS. You have placed men outside? Mr. SPRINGER. Soldiers coming from other States than New Mex- ico. I do not suppose we had a dozen from our own men. 'Mr. FERRIS. They have all dropped back into their own work. Of course, after the Spanish- American War men did stalk the roads for several years after that, as members of this committee remember I lived on a farm in Missouri at that time. My father had several farms. The street was lined with bleached and faded soldiers who couldn't get anything to do. Mother tried to feed them, but father couldn't hire them all. And they walked the streets in hunger with- out positions. Of course, that condition does not prevail now and probably will not prevail. With the high wages and short hours ancl labor pretty plentiful, the number that will avail themselves of these farm lands will be less in percentage than if it were otherwise. Isn't that true ? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Springer, do you believe this bill is sufficiently liberal in the aid it extends to soldiers? Do you believe it ought to be adopted as it is or amended to make it more liberal in opportunities to the returning soldiers in the matter of the aid it extends ? Mr. SPRINGER. I believe the soldier will be better off if he is not helped too much; if he is going to succeed on the farm he should be able to pay for aid. Mr. NICHOLS. That is quite true. Do you favor the provisions of this bill? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think this bill should be adopted? Is it suffi- ciently liberal? Mr. SPRINGER. As to aid extended to soldiers? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. SPRINGER. I think so. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Springer, I would like to ask you if in a caM> of this kind where the } 7 oung man has returned from the service, say. the son of a farmer, in a regiment in your own State, and he has means, possibly enough to pay on 25 per cent of the land ; he is familiar with the conditions that exist in his locality: he was born there, raised there, and he has the ambition but not the means to go into business. His father, for a number of different reasons not necessary to state any one of them, is unable to stake him. In case he could pay ^5 per cent on that land, or 40 per cent on it, a larger amount than the Government requires and yet could not go into business for himself: don't you believe, Mr. Springer, that the Government would be equally as well safeguarded if he should be allowed to purchase a segregated farm with which he is familiar, knowing its production qualities and I he possibilities of its being a revenue-producing project, with the ambition and vim that is always necessary to bring success, don't you believe the Government would be as well safe-guarded in a case of that kind as in anyone of these projects? HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 423 Mr. SPRINGER. Possibly better safeguarded. Mr. WHITE. I wanted to put that question to you. Mr. SPRINGER. Possibly better safeguarded. Mr. WHITE. I will ask another question. Don't you believe, too, that this young man with the prudent view of things that he has gotten in the tw/o years of Army experience would be as likely to suc- ceed, possibly more so, than if he would take it up with a project where he is not familiar with conditions ? Mr. SPRINGER. I do, but he would have to pay the market price for his land, whereas in the project he might get it at a price which would double or treble in a few years. Mr. WHITE. With the counsel of his friends he would be better acquainted with the market price of lands and would not be as likely to be taken advantage of? Mr. SPRINGER. Perhaps. The CHAIRMAN. Director Davis is here. Mr. JOHNSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mc- Duffie, of Alabama, has phoned and asked to be allowed to submit a statement. The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have him. Mr. JOHNSON of Mississippi. I told him the committee would soon conclude and for him to come right up. STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. SUMMERS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Chairman, the delegation from the State of Washington ask me to make a very brief statement. One-third of the State of Washington lies within the public domain. The legis- lature in March, 1919, passed legislation for the organization of the State reclamation board. They also enacted legislation which will provide $500.000 annually for the next ten years to be expended for purposes of reclamation. They have made an outright appropriation of $100,000 for an investigation looking to the reclamation of a cer- tain area within that State, and an appropriation of $10,000 to co- operate with the Federal Government in the investigation of another project. All of this vast sum that has been provided by the State of Washington was to allow the fullest coperation with the Federal Government. Our reclaimed lands are producing annually from $30 to $1.500 per acre. Speaking specifically, I will say that we have lying within one county 200.000 acres of reclaimed lands, which averaged last year $150 per acre, and that we have another area of reclaimed lands which averaged $280 per acre, and that we have several other similar re- claimed areas equally productive within the State of Washington. We have also several million acres of unreclaimed lands lying within the State, equally fertile. I bring this to the attention of the commit- tee because it has been so repeatedly stated here by gentlemen who are not familiar with these lands that we are trying to give the sol- diers land that nobody else wants. I maintain that as far as our part of the country is concerned we are offering the cream of the land, and an opportunity whereby we believe the energetic soldier can provide a 424 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. home for himself and his family. I have before me a wire from the Washington State Reclamation Board, in which they say : We have examined House hill 487, entitled " National soldiers' settlement act," and wish to urge upon you the necessity for pushing passage of this measure or similar legislation. We are ready for complete and extensive cooperation. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. In your opening statement did you state that one-third of the public lands lie in the State of Washington? Mr. SUMMERS. No; one-third of the State of Washington lies within the public domain. The CHAIRMAN. AVe will be glad to hear now from Mr. McDuffie. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McDTJFFIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ALABAMA. Mr. McDurriE. Gentlemen, I have the opportunity of making a few general observations before this committee. I have come here on several occasions just to get an idea what you propose to do, and I have been convinced, if you please, with the earnestness with which you gentlemen are trying to work out this proposition, and it is a big proposition. Your first thought, regardless of this suggestion by certain individuals that it is a proposition on foot to reclaim cer- tain particular sections of this country, your first object, I take it and I know it is, is to try to get Congress to show its appreciation of the service of our soldiers. I put no credence in and have no patience with the man who is trying to be a stumbling block in the way of this legislation by saying it is a particular scheme for some particular locality. I know you are not thinking even of that. You are all trying to do something for the returning soldiers. The question before you is what is the most feasible plan. I want to go on record, and while I could not bind the Alabama delega- tion in my remarks I can go so far as to say the whole delegation is in favor of legislation of this character to aid the returning soldiers. Now, this is a great piece of legislation. The question of getting the man on the farm or getting him into some work where he can be satisfied and where his mind will not become a field for the sowing of the seeds of propaganda that would be inimical to the best in- terests of this Government, it is a good solution for that, in my judgment. The average soldier coming back feels that the Government owes him something. The Government does owe him something. There is no question about it. In order to settle him on a farm I do not mean to put him at digging stumps or clearing land; that is not the proposition. This Government can do it and it is big enough to do it. If we can create these community settlements where it will be attractive, so he can take his wife there and start a home, it will be a great thing for the Government, and not only for the soldier but for the Government. I want to go on record as heartily in favor of this legislation. Now, the question that has been troubling me as I heard this dis- cussion here before this committee is what will we do with the man who does not care to farm. My objection to the bill is it is not big enough. I think you are mistaken about 3 per cent of the soldiers taking advantage of this legislation. I think there will be 25 per HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 425 cent in the end, probably more, and I think the bill does not carry appropriation enough and is not big enough to take care of the de- mands that will be made under this legislation. That is my humble judgment about this bill. The Government is big enough to do big things and if this Government can create these localities, no matter where, East or West or South or North, or wherever they may be, why you are doing something that really is necessary at this stage of our Government. There is more or less unrest in this Govern- ment at this day and time, and the congested centers need to be re- lieved, and if you can get these men out and get them happily situ- ated on these lands then you are making splendid citizens of them, because if you go into the rural parts of this country you will find on an average splendid Americanism. It is no place for Bolshevism; it is no place for the seeds of propaganda that would tend to destroy the principles of this Government. In the rural parts you will find genuine Americanism and the more people we can put on a project of this kind the better off this Government will be in the future. Now, as I said, the question is what will we do to show an appre- ciation for the man who is not ready to go on the farm: does not care to farm? What provision will we make, if any? It may be that this is simply a beginning, a step in the right direction, and that we do not expect all of those who wish the opportunity to take ad- vantage of it in the beginning. As I understand, this legislation is but the start, if you please, of Congress to do something for the returning soldier,' and you don't expect it to take care of all those who we wish to take advantage of it. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. McDuffie. in your opinion, would it be feasible to make this proposition to 4,000,000 soldiers? The Federal Govern- ment will approve the purchase price and approve and appraise and buy or loan to each individual soldier a sum ranging, say, from $1.000 to $2,500, as a part payment on either a farm or a house and lot any time that he would select this. Then let him work out his own salvation for the balance. Mr. McDuFFiE. That would be a good idea, provided we can safe- guard the handling of the $1,000 to $2,500. Mr. FERRIS. With legislation to restrict its alienation and compel him to keep it. Would that be attractive to a soldier and enable him to get a start for a home ? Mr. McDuFFiE. I should think so. I don't think it is well to just turn over a certain amount of money to every soldier who took part in this war, because I think in a day, a week, or a month a few might have it all. Mr. FERRIS. It might be a Saturday night joy ride ? Mr. MCDUFFIE. That is the idea. Mr. FERRIS. But if you proposed to 4,000,000 soldiers that the American Government, as an appreciation of your service, will loan you a sum not exceeding $2,500 to pay in toto or in part payment for a home on a spot that you can call your home, where would we land up with that kind of a proposition? Mr. McDuFFiE. And not say that they must go to farming! 1 Mr. FERRIS. Let it be a home in town or out of town, wherever he wants to select it, subject to the approval of some Federal board that would see he didn't pay more than it was worth and see that he got value for the money. 426 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. McDuFFiE. I don't know but that would be a feasible plan. I do not think that would have a tendency to drive them back in the congested cities, because they would not get a home there to start with on that much money. They would necessarily go to the more sparsely settled parts of the Union. Mr. FERRIS. At the most, if everybody took a $2,500 loan from the Government for the purchase of a home, it would take $10,000,000,- 000. If every soldier got a long-tenure loan at a low rate of interest to apply on the purchase of the home, that might in the last analysis cost the Government $10,000.000,000; but, again, there ought to be restrictions thrown about that so that if a man owned his own home he could not avail himself of it. That would reduce the amount. Mr. McDuFFiE. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. So far as this goes, you think this is a step in the right direction? Mr. McDuFFiE. Absolutely. Mr. TAYLOR. And we ought to urge this legislation as soon as possible. Mjr. McDuFFiE. Unquestionably. You are not going to got any sort of bill that will please everybody. If you will satisfy the soldier, and that is the main purpose of our legislation, that you are trying to show appreciation for his services, then you have done a good work. There is no question about that. The fellow that is disgruntled, if he is not a soldier, you need not worry about him. Some people will say we ought to have a settlement in our commu- nity. We ought to have these cut-over lands, or arid lands, or drain- age done, wherever it may be, but if you can so provide in this legis- lation as to satisfy the soldier, you will have accomplished your purpose regardless of the criticisms that may be made. My State legislature will meet in extraordinary session in July and they are going to make some provision to cooperate with the Government in this legislation. I do not know, I could not even give you the outline of it just now, but if the Government sees fit to use any part of that, then the State is ready to cooperate. Mr. FERRIS. What would you say to a proviso incorporated in this bill that if such States as do not have available projects and such States as do not have land available for this purpose, then and in that event we might revert to a plan similar to the one I have just suggested. Mr. McDrjFFiE. Is your idea to see that some soldiers settle in every State in the Union ? Mr. FERRIS. I have that in mind, yes; because, if I may digress enough, there is some particularly serious objection to the purpose of forcing a man in Alabama, for instance, to go to Wyoming, or a man in Wyoming to go to Alabama. I do not mean any disrespect to either State, but a man who loves Alabama would rather settle in Alabama than in Utah or Wyoming. I am thinking along that line. Mr. M( DUFFIE. I think that is a good thought and will likely meet with the approval of every one. Mr. TAYLOR. Some States, like Iowa and Kansas. where there would not bo any projects of this kind, do not relish the idoa of hav- ing their boys forced to go to some other State, and Mr. Ferris's idea is possibly there might be some amendment here that would HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 427 satisfy the objections of some of these States to this bill on that particular ground. Mr. McDuFFiE. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. He was trying to get your idea as to whether or not something of that sort could be worked out and be feasible. Mr. McDuFFiE. I do not see why it should not be, provided we can get enough money appropriated. Mr. FERRIS. If they took the maximum and everyone were a home- less soldier and everyone availed himself of it, the gross sum used for the purpose would be $10,000,000,000, and we have loaned to our allies and friends in this war $11,000,000,000. Might that, cov- ering a period of years, not be too great a sum? It would not all have to be spent to-morrow. Mr. McDuFFiE. That is my judgment. I think we may as well begin with that in view, with the idea of expanding the proposition to that extent. I think that would be the best feasible plan. Mr. GANDY. After securing this home he would still have a job out of which he could make a living? Mr. McDuFFiE. Yes, sir; that is it. Mr. GANDY. What could we do toward securing him a job and giving him a position for his time? Don't you think we are going far to undertake to buy a residence or a bungalow for all the soldiers in a city or town ? Mr. McDuFFiE. I think you would be going too far, if there were no restrictions, to say, " Here is a home in this city or town or where- ever you want it." But I understand there would be certain restric- tions with this proposition of loaning him the money, provided he wishes to take advantage of it in his home town or wherever he can make the best bargain. You have done your part. If he is not able to meet his payments and can not get it done, then he has fallen down and has not measured up. They do not want you to be giving them something. It is simply a question of giving them opportunity. You have made good your obligations to the soldier and if he can not live up to his, certainly you are not to blame. Mr. FERRIS. We could reach a beneficial result to the soldier by giving him a long tenure loan at a low rate of interest and exempt the property while it was under this legislation ; class it as Govern- ment property. Mr. McDuFFiE. Yes, sir ; I am in favor of that same plan. Mr. FERRIS. We did that with the farmers on the farms. We exempted them from taxes. Mr. McDuFFiE. I feel I can safely say for myself and the rest of our delegation that we are heartily in favor of some legislation. I take it that everybody wants to do something. The big question is, what is feasible for us to do? Mr. TAYLOR. You feel, and your delegation is broad enough to favor some legislation, although it does not like every part of the bill. Mr. McDuFFiE. I think the people of Alabama feel that way about it. I believe while they may not approve of every line of the bill, the general tenor of the bill would be satisfactory to them. Mr. TAYLOR. This legislation is not a matter of perfection, but we have got to do the best we can. The CHAIRMAN. You do not believe this will inure solely to the benefit of the West? 428 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. McDuFFiE. No, sir; Mr. Chairman, I am one of those newly elected, bewildered fellows up here, and I am not taking myself so seriously as to think I can make suggestions or reform anybody, but I regret to say that the day has not yet come when we can get along without some fellow jumping up to say something about some par- ticular section of this country. I heard a gentleman in here the other day say something repeatedly about my own part of the country. I am going to hurrah for my own country. I am for the whole country, too; I am for my own country, but we ought to be big Americans. We ought not to allow little things like that to enter into our minds. We ought to deal with this on a big scale as big Americans. I do not think it is for the benefit of any particular locality or section. I think it is intended, and I know this committee wants, to do something for the soldiers, regardless of where the land is. The idea of the soldier who lived in Alabama is that he would rather be among his own people if it is possible for you to give him the opportunity there, and I hope some plan can be arrived at by the committee and by the House that will permit us to give the soldier an opportunity at his own home. I think that is a good suggestion, because they do not want to leave home if they can help it. Some of them would do it, and I believe you will find that my prediction is right, that more than 3 per cent of the soldiers, and much more than that, will seek advantage of this legislation. Mr. BAER. That is, no soldiers would seek advantage of the farms unless they could really own those farms become home owners. They would have to have the right of tenure. Mr. McDuFFiE. How is that? Mr. BAER. The soldiers that seek them will want to own them. Mr. McDuFFiE. I do not like the idea of the Government taking hold and saying we must do this and that, and I do not want us to approve any measure along that line. I think it leads to too much control. Mr. BAER. Do you know that one-third oi' the people live in the country and two-thirds live in the city ? Mr. McDuFFiE. I didn't know it was quite so great. Mr. BAER. Consequently, every time you make a farm you are making opportunities for people to become machinists and barbers and butchers in the near-by city; every time you do that you are building up an opportunity for two people to live in the city or town. Don't you think that part will take care of your proposition to give an opportunity to all the soldiers ? Mr. McDurriE. Probably so, and I want to ask for information here, if you please, whether or not you propose to make any provi- sion in this bill or any changes to affect the soldiers of the Spanish- American War. Do you propose to include them in this legislation ? The CMATIJMAN. That is a matter before the committee which was advocated by some of the witnesses. Mr. McDuFFiE. I would like to see it done if it is at all possible. T think it would be very wise legislation. Of course, that war was not as big a war and not so much involved. I think it would be well to give them consideration, if possible. T will leave it to this com- mittee to give them all that is fair, for I know you men are really trying to do your full duty. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 429 The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your coming before the committee. Mr. FERRIS. Before you call the next witness, is it the purpose for Mr. Davis to go on and complete his statement ? The CHAIRMAN. I was in hopes he would complete it to-day. Mr. GANDT. I suggest that Director Davis ought to have a fresher audience and it is not doing him justice to ask him to address us now. The CHAIRMAN. It is evidently the wish of the committee to hear Mr. Davis to-morrow, at 10 o'clock. Mr. SUMMERS. I move that with the testimony of Director Davis the hearings close. Mr. RAKER. Let us not take action on that to-day. There are some other members that are figuring on being here, and we will hear from Mr. Davis. Let us hear from Mr. Davis first. Mr. FERRIS. Might we have an executive session for a moment or two? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. BAER. Here is a soldier boy just come from overseas and he says they are all enthusiastically in favor of this. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order and go into executive session. (Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee went into execu- tive session, after which an adjournment was taken until 10 o'clock Wednesday morning, June 11, 1919.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, June 11, 1919. The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sin- nott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We have Director Davis before us this morning, gentlemen, whose testimony was interrupted last week. Mr. Davis, will you resume? I might say, Mr. Davis, that Mr. Atkeson in his criticisms upon the Reclamation Service referred to certain data in the June Reclam- ation Record of 1919, and criticized the showing set forth on page 276 concerning the King Hill project in Idaho; also the Lower Yel- lowstone project, Montana-North Dakota, referred to on page 278 of the June Reclamation Record; and also the report upon the Lower Yellowstone project, Montana-North Dakota, referred to on page 279 of the June Reclamation Record. You have seen the testimony of Mr. Atkeson, and I would like to get your views upon those reports that Mr. Atkeson referred to. STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF THE RECLAMATION SERVICE. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have the abstract of Mr. Atkeson's testimony before me, and I find that he was somewhat confused no doubt honestly so as to the meaning of the figures he quoted, which is an illustration of the danger of being misled by a half truth. 430 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. It is true that on page 276 of the June Reclamation Record the statement is made that the wheat upon the King Hill project yielded an average of 4 bushels per acre. There were only 125 acres of that altogether. Evidently that was a crop failure. If he had read the footnote of the same table that is printed, just under the table, he would have read this : Low yield due to irregular flow caused by breaks in canal. This project was built under private auspices and the Government is undertaking its reconstruc- tion. Operation and maintenance are handled by the settlers through an irriga- tion district. The CHAIRMAN. And his testimony was inclined to give the com- mittee an erroneous idea I suppose* inadvertently by not reading that explanation. Mr. DAVIS. The fact is that like other human venture the attempt to irrigate arid lands does not always succeed. In the case of King Hill, in Idaho, very great difficulties existed, and not sufficient effort or capital was available to carry the project out successfully by pri- vate enterprise, and the project failed financially. The CHAIRMAN. That was not a Government project at all ? Mr. DAVIS. It was a private project, a private enterprise, and after some time its works were sold at sheriff's sale and were bought by the State. Then the State asked the United States to take it up and gave the United States clear title for nothing, and the United States is now undertaking the construction work there. Not only is the construc- tion work incomplete and never has been completed, but part of that which was completed was very insecurely built, and it happened last summer, while the reconstruction of a portion of it was under way, a portion of the old part broke and interrupted the water supply at such a time as to cause a failure of the wheat crop, and of course 4 bushels to the acre is a crop failure, and Mr. Atkeson is perfectly correct in saying that the income from that would not pay for the water, but that is not any fair illustration of what irrigation can do. The CHAIRMAN. When did you take over that project and start to reconstruct it ? Mr. DAVIS. The authority to take it over was given by Congress last year, and we began the reconstruction last year. Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, was not the failure there, Mr. Director, due to engineering mistakes and also to the failure of the corpora- tions furnishing the money to have money available just at the time it was necessary ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The United States has never operated and does not now operate that project; it has no contract for operating it. In fact, it is specifically relieved from any such possibility. The reconstruction is all that we are undertaking, and that is now un- der way. We were greatly hampered last year by lack of labor dur- ing the time the War was in progress and shipbuilding was going on at a great rate, but that difficulty is now passed. The CHAIRMAN. But even with that irregular flow and the break- down in the canal they raised alfalfa per acre amounting to $32.94, as shown at the head of the itemized statement. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. In regard to the statement concerning the Lo\ver Yellowstone, Mr. Atkeson was evidently confused, for he HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 431 In the Yellowstone project in Montana and North Dakota it is in both States in 1918 the wheat yield of this project was 15 bushels an acre, which is the average for the country, but the total acreage, which includes the pro- duction of alfalfa at $33 an acre and alfalfa seed at $66 an acre, the total production of those acres in that project was $31.85. The crop on the Yellow- stone project in Montana and North Dakota that seems to be the same proj- ect was $11.39. That seems to be the same thing. It would naturally occur to one to investigate the cause of the dif- ference between $31.85 and $11.39, and if he had looked he would have seen that one headed " Irrigated land," and the other was headed " Nonirrigated land," and that accounts for the discrepancy. Mr. SNELL. It was $33 an acre where it was irrigated and $11 where it was not irrigated ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; $33 where it was irrigated and $11.39 where it was not irrigated. The CHAIRMAN. He did not call to the attention of the committee the fact that the $11.39 was on the nonirrigated lands? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. SNELL. How much does the water cost; do you remember, offhand ? Mr. DAVIS. The annual charge for water on the Lower Yellow- ston project is 75 cents per acre-foot. Mr. SNELL. What does " per acre-foot " mean Mr. DAVIS. An acre-foot is a unit of water, just like a quart or a gallon would be sufficient to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep, or 43,560 water that would be sufficient to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep, or 43,560 cubic feet of water. That is an acre-foot, and 75 cents is charged for that, and 2 feet to the acre would cost $1.50. Mr. SNELL. What is the average amount used on an acre on that project? Mr. DAVIS. I presume about 2 acre-feet, or a little less than 2 acre-feet, probably. To illustrate the difference we have statistics of the yield during the year of 1918 for the entire counrty, the average yield of all the crop. The gross is $32.92. That includes the entire United States. The CHAIRMAN. For what year? Mr. DAVIS. For the year 1918. On the reclamation projects, taking good, bad, and indifferent, all of them, the average is $63.95 per acre, almost exactly double what the yield of nonirrigated land is, taking the country over. Mr. HERSMAN. Does that include orchards? Mr. DAVIS. It includes orchards, but there is but little orchard work done on the reclamation projects. Mr. HERSMAN. $32 includes the orchard work? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HERSMAN. And the orchard returns? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir: as a matter of fact, agriculture in the coun- try at large is so much older than that on the reclamation projects, built by the Government, that the percentage of orchards is prob- ably greater in returns, and there are only two of our projects that have anv considerable acreage in yielding orchards, Yakima and Salt River. The CHAIRMAN. You heard the testimony of Mr. Atkeson about abandoned projects, irrigation projects, in Colorado. Are there any abandoned Government reclamation projects in Colorado? 13331919 28 432 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; we have two projects in Colorado, both ol which are prosperous and operating. Another statement that Mr. Atkeson made, was undoubtedly made honestly, but I think it is open to question. That is the statement that Mr. F. H. Newell, former director of the Reclamation Service, whose experience in settlement work and in colonization in the West would, of, course, carry great weight he claimed that Mr. Xe-vve.ll was opposed to this bill, as I understood it, or at least to the plan and he submitted, in support of that statement, an article Avritten for the Vocational Summary, by Prof. Newell, headed : "What are we to do with the returning soldiers and sailors? Shall Ave send them back on the unutilized farms, as many persons advocate?" The article covers a page, and is mainly a series of questions Avithout ansAvers, which throw some doubt upon the wis- dom of the project, undoubtedly. The strongest statement that he does make is that with which he closes. He says this : Until it can be demonstrated that farming is. in the long run, as profitable to the farmer as it is to the community, or yields returns comparable to those obtained from mechanical trades, it is unwise to urge the returning soldier or sailor to assume the new duty and responsibility. Now, if this bills is a bill to urge soldiers and sailors to go onto the farms, and if it is true that farming is less profitable than mechanical trades, then that statement of Mr. NeAvell's might be construed to mean opposition to the bill. But I have a letter from Mr. Newell, at a later date, beginning as follows: Herewith is a copy of a letter I am sending to Secretary Lane. While I was disappointed that the soldiers' settlement bill did not pass, I was not at all surprised, as my acquaintances outside of the Reclamation Service were very positive at all times that this scheme would not go through. That is the first paragraph of his letter to me. It inclosed a copy of a letter to Secretary Lane, which began as follows : DEAB MR. LANE: The failure of Congress to act on the soldier settlement bill has been very generally commented upon, and it is needless for me to ex- press to you my regret that your efforts have not been thus far more successful. Those letters are very much more to the point and direct regarding the plan of Secretary Lane. The article is of a general nature, and deals not only with the suggestions made by Secretary Lane, but with others, and is not positive in opposing this particular legisla- tion or this particular plan. There have been before the committee four diflerent witnesses and I do not know but more, but four that I remember who have opposed giving title to the soldier Avhen this scheme goes through. Now, that, I think, in the minds of all those gentlemen Avhom I heard, is founded upon a theory that the benefits of the increase of land \ T alues caused by the presence of population and the demand for land, and not caused by the efforts of the owner, should go to the community which creates those values and not to the owner ; and if those people who hold those A 7 iews applied them generally there might be some argument about it, but that is a totally different thing from withholding title. It is not necessary to secure that to withhold title, nor is it promotive of that idea to withhold title. In connection with this matter we have been urged to alloAv each soldier to select his own farm and go onto that farm, and the Govern- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 433 ment finance him thereon, loaning him 100 per cent of the value thereof. I mention that now because those two propositions are very closely interlaced. We have a variety of reasons for determining, deciding upon a colony proposition. This matter was discussed be- fore the Committee on Appropriations last spring, and the fact was brought out, as we have known for a long time, that it is not by any means a new proposition. The philosophy of placing settlers all over the country wherever the individual desires to go, is an old one. It has been tried in Europe ; it has been tried in Australia ; it has been tried by private enterprise in this country to a certain extent never to 100 per cent but so far as'that proposition has ever been tried by a Government, so far as my information goes, it has alwa3 7 s failed. Let me read what is said by an experienced man on that subject. You have heard in these hearings of Dr. Elwood Mead, who for sev- eral years was in charge of rural settlement in Australia, and in preparation for that work he and the commission of which he was a member made an extensive tour in Europe to examine the rural settlements in Europe. He examined them in Germany, in Italy, in Denmark, and in Ireland, and in every place where they could find them, and they examined carefully into their different ^experi- ments, the laws and rules under which they operated, the method of doing anything, and the success or nonsuccess which had attended their efforts ; and in the document which I hold in my hand, which is " Hearings before the subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriation in charge of the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill for 1920, Sixty-fifth Congress, Third Session." Dr. Mead gave a brief account of his experience to the committee, and this question was put to him : Whether or not it would be better to settle the soldiers wherever they desired to be settled, or to scatter them among exist- ing settlement. He replied as follows: When we began to provide opportunities for settlers in Australia, this argu- ment was used : " Help individuals buy farms wherever they want to live." We started doing that. Two or three people would buy a farm formerly owned by one person. That plan was a complete failure and the trouble was this: The farm buyer had to pay for the farm in addition to making the living. Around him were people owning farms and living in a generous way. The man who had a farm to pay for would have to work harder, wear poorer clothes, and be more economic than his neighbors, and he wouldn't do it. We found that a large percentage of these isolated settlers were not meeting their payments ; and if we sent a man to see them, we would have to pay his railroad fare to and fro, as well as his salary, and oftentimes when he got there he couldn't do anything; and if the farm, was surrendered, it was hard to sell it. To make a long story short, we had to abandon th;>t plan. We had to have a certain number of people to go with the enterprise who would look after the settlement to see that the farming was done right, to help the inexperienced, and speed up the slackers. It is the conclusion of the commission that has investigated individual settlements and community settlements in England, and it is the conclusion in Australia that there must be at least 100 people in a settlement to make the thing solvent. Then the Government can afford to hire a man to look after it without the overhead becoming too burdensome. So you see, gentlemen, the proposition to settle on individual farms scattered throughout the country, irrespective of allowing WOper cent on those farms, is one that has been tried and has failed. When you see a man of prominence, who has a reputation to sustain and a future to look out for, stating in public like that, that he has tried something, and that he has failed, you can come pretty near believing 434 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. him. If somebody else said he failed, you might question it. But that is the fact, that it has failed there and failed in England, and they have adopted a similar limit in England. If this proposition is to be made solvent, that plan won't work. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Davis, now I appreciate that kind of testimony and give credence to it, but what have you got to say in regard to this man from the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad, who saj T s he has been doing the same thing in this country and has made a success of it putting men on individual farms? That was his testimony here. Mr. DAVIS. I heard his testimony; yes. I know nothing about the facts except what he stated, and you heard that. Mr. SNELL. But his testimony is almost the opposite of this of Dr. Mead's. Mr. ELSTON. To this extent, his testimony and that of Dr. Mead was the same to the extent that all of these men w r ere put upon one large tract where their condition was parallel in all respects. They were not in isolated settlements. In a way, the whole thing was a virgin proposition, and everybody that started started on a par, so there wouldn't be the comparison that Prof. Mead speaks of, that destroyed the thing in Australia. Mr. VAILE. And they started in a neighborhood where other men were starting in in the same way. Mr. ELSTOX. Exactly. Mr. DAVIS. My understanding of it was that Mr. Hunter's enter- prise was taken up on large tracts of land, and that he did settle large numbers of settlers in the same vicinity. He put them on large tracts: he discouraged less than 320 acres, and as a dry-farming proposition, I think it is right. It is a dry-farming proposition and to make that a success, you must plow all the land every year and crop it only every other year. You let it lie fallow every other year what is called " summer fallow," and to do that you have got to have a larger acreage than for intensive farming. By dry- farming methods you can't undertake intensive farming as you can under irrigation. The CHAIRMAN. Would I interrupt you there you stopped read- ing from that House document at a point where Mr. Mondell put this question : Mr. MONDELL. In other words, you nwst do your development work with considerable areas, where you would control all of the land on which you would establish these communities? Dr. MEAD. Yes. sir ; and that makes it possible to create cooperative organi- zations. We couldn't have bought material to any advantage if \ve had bought only one farm here and there, but in buying for 100 or 150 settlers, as we have been buying in California, we are able to get wholesale rates, and even better rates than that. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; I was going to expand on that a little. Mr. ELSTOX. Please expand on the proposition of the lower cost of the land, considering the improvements as well, as to whether he gets the unearned increment, I mean, on the colony proposition, and where he does not get that if he goes into a settled community. Mr. DAVIS. That is exactly what I was intending to do. That is why I mentioned those two things in conjunction. If we can, as 1 slated the other day, buy tracts of five or ten thousand acres of land, up to HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 435 Mr. SNELL (interposing). What will be the smallest amount you think will be available? Mr. DAVIS. That will depend upon the locality. I think a project of four or five thousand acres near a large city, that was adapted to trucking, could be made successful, but Avhere you have to go farther away and give a larger area to the individual, it would take more land, and I think probably the minimum of 100 families is approxi- mately correct. But I do not think that any hard and fast rule of that kind should be made, because conditions differ so. For example, in some localities they have very different county agents who might be competent in some cases to undertake the supervision of a some- what smaller colony in conjunction with other work he does, with- out jeopardizing the success of the project. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, it has not been determined or even demon- strated yet that 25 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 families would not make a success in a project, has it? Mr. DAVIS. Xo. sir; but it is demonstrated unquestionably that a colony as small as that would have a higher overhead proportion of expense than a larger colony would, if they get the same expert serv- ice and advice. Now, those expert services and advices those ex- pert assistants are very important. For example, on our project and in any settlement that is undertaken nowadays, and applying also to the individual ownerships that have been discussed take the reclamation project at present; we open enough land for, say. 100 families. Settlers go in there they come from all parts of the country. They file and take their chances on whether they get a homestead or not. A fellow goes out and pays somebody something to show him his particular tract and he looks it over and picks out a. place for his house. He never planned a house before in his life; he has to make his own plans; he has to go to some town and hire a carpenter whom he never saw before: he has to hire a painter; he has to hire a glazier; he has to hire a bricklayer to put in the foun- dation ; he has to hire a number of people in that way, some of whom may be incompetent probably will be. He has to haul them out to his place to do a little job of work that has to be done, and he has to send them back. He has to buy the little lumber that he wants in the local lumberyard, and probably he can't get the kind of lumber that he ought to have ; probably he can't get the dimensions that he ought to have, and he has to take what he can get and pay retail prices for it and haul it out and saw it up by hand on the ground. Mr. RAKER. Right in that connection now, supposing The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Xow, gentlemen, if he is going to be interrupted, I think Mr. Benham wanted to ask a question a few minutes ago. Mr. RAKER. I just wanted to supplement a question awhile ago, but go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. I simply didn't want Mr. Benham to lose his opportunity if Mr. Davis is* going to be interrupted. Mr. BENHAM. He had a certain question awhile ago that I was anxious to ask him about now. I can. however, hold it until he gets through. Mr. DAVIS. The cooperative plan that we propose would do away with all that. Instead of the farmer paying twice as much as he should, wasting a lot of his own time, paying more than he should 436 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. for his house, and having as a result a poorly built house, insanitary, inconvenient, and everything wrong, the plans will all be made in advance by experts from which this farmer can select a house adapted to his taste, his financial condition, the size of the family, and the location where he expects to live. He will have a number of good plans to select from. He will have a bill of materials worked out by experts. Those materials will be ordered for hundreds or thou- sands of houses. They will be sawed up to dimensions at the mills, shipped in by the carload or trainload. exactly the kind and dimen- sions wanted. Crews of carpenters, masons, glaziers, painters, and all the expert or skilled mechanics that are required to build that house, and the architect to supervise them all and see that it is done right will be there. Those houses will be constructed on a quantity basis. When they get through with one house they will go and build another just like it. Xow, we know what a vast difference it makes whether you are building two or three automobiles by hand, or whether you turn out 1,000 a day. The difference is between detail and quantity produc- tion, not only in the construction and provision of the house itself, but in the purchase of materials, in getting the materials sawed up by machinery in the mill where it is sawed, and purchasing it by wholesale, shipping it in by wholesale, and having everything done in a wholesale way. The same kind of advice can be exercised in the selection of stock. You can afford to employ the highest experts obtainable at almost any price to select thoroughbred cattle, thoroughbred horses, thoroughbred sheep, or hogs, or chickens, or anything else that is wanted, and every colony that the United States handles would get the advantage of the expert's skill, because he could go to half a dozen different markets in the same year and supply hundreds of these colonies with the same skill. That is abso- lutely impossible, even for colonies under private enterprise, and how much more impossible for the individual himself? So that every one of these men, even with a small farm, a small allotment close to town that only has 1 or 2 acres, and only one cow. can have the services of a high-grade thoroughbred bull, and the same way with the pigs that he has. He don't have to own a $10,000 sire to get the advantage of that sire. And the community that has had such advantages, being related to and under the same management as some other community when the time comes that they have to change that sire on account of the relation of its progeny, that change can be made without any cost but the freight. Now, that is merely an illustration of a thousand other things. These men will need more or less instruction or experience, more or less practice, and I think of these as colonies where there can be a small agricultural school supervised by the highest grade experts obtainable. Those schools will largely be established and under the supervision of a high-grade expert from the agricultural college of the State, or the commissioners of agriculture of the States can lie brought in, and so far a great many of them have already expressed a willingness to cooperate. We are right now arranging for co- operation with this in view with the University of Arizona, where they are proposing now to make investigations with State money that will be available if we should take up the project. They are going to investigate the matter of soldier settlements. HOMES FOE SOLDIEKS. 437 Now, Mr. Benham, pardon me for keeping you waiting so long. Mr. BENHAM. I can withhold my question until you get though just as well. Mr. KAKER. If Mr. Benham is going to hold his question, I want to ask this further question here. You say there would have to be settlements, you thought, of 100 families at least; from that on up, and then your illustration describes and gives the reason for it. Would it make it any different, Mr. Davis supposing you had one settlement at Alturas and one at Canby, 20 miles away, of 15,000 acres, and one over at Centerville, another 15 miles away of 10,000 acres, and then one down at Likely, of 30,000 acres, and then one off in the Pitt River in the other direction 20 miles away Mr. ELSTON (interposing). You are selecting all these in your own district. Judge. The CHAIRMAN. You might get over the line into Oregon, Judge. [Laughter.] Mr. RAKER. There is nothing like a concrete case. You have got the question as far as I have gone, Mr. Davis, without repeating it? Mr. DAVIS. I haven't heard any question yet. Mr. RAKER. I was just slightly interrupted. Mr. DAVIS. I have heard you so far. Mr. RAKER. Now, the same argument and the same reasons would apply as you have already given, and these propositions could be handled, by one farm adviser or superintendent or whatever you would call him, just as well as though it was all in one tract, to the end that you might get smaller tracts of land of 10.000 or 15.000 acres, or 5,000 acres, under projects like this, although they are 10 or 15 miles apart. There you would get practically the same results as though it was all in one tract of land, would you not? Mr. DAVIS. I think there would be some difference. Of course the proximity of the different projects would have an effect; it would have an influence. Mr. RAKER. In your view, could that be done? Because that is the topography of nine-tenths of all the land that is going to be used with reference to irrigation projects. There is a mountain be- tween and land that is not accessible of irrigation. Mr. DAVIS. I don't know of any irrigation projects that I want to tackle of less than 10,000 acres. That is enough for a colony. Mr. RAKER. Well. 5,000 acres, if it is 10 miles from the other one, would work just as well, wouldn't it? Mr. DAVIS. It wouldn't work just as well. It would probably do all right, but we haven't built any project so small as that yet in the reclamation service. Mr. RAKER. I know you have not. That is just the reason I am putting this if from your observation it could not be worked out successfully. Mr. DAVIS. It could be worked probably, but it would not be as advantageous as a large colony. As I say, the overhead is bound to be larger on a small colony than on a large one. Mr. RAKER. Even though they were 10 or 15 miles apart? Mr. DAMS. Any scattering tends to increase the cost, of course, necessarily, and it also, to a certain extent, involves the difficulty that Dr. Mead described of mixing this colony with people in more* pros- perous conditions. That is one of the psychological reasons. 438 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that in 1909 the National Irrigation Congress recommended this sort of a plan for the development of our arid West, although all the present projects were practically established, and there hasn't been unj differ- ence of opinion upon that resolution enunciated by that congress as to the method of developing the western lands, and I just wondered whether or not you had given sufficient consideration to the question of whether it would make any material difference and whether or not tracts located as I have specified, several tracts, could not practi- cally be used at the same time. Mr. DAVIS. I presume that tracts 15 miles apart, as you have said, could be worked together all right. Mr. RAKER. That is all. Mr. DAVIS. Now, I have given some of the reasons the economy of construction, preparing the farm, that the farmer has to undertake and pay for as an argument in favor of the colony. Now. there is one other equally as strong, and in some respects stronger, regarding cooperation in marketing. When I went to southern California, in 1891, the citrus industry there was practically a failure. Although they could raise oranges and lemons all right, they frequently fell down in their marketing. Since then they have worked out ;i won- derful cooperative scheme for marketing, and it has changed the whole face of things. The same kind of an enterprise is in operation for the marketing of fruits in the State of Washington and various other parts of the country. I think they have one in Colorado. They have illustrated, they have blazed the way by which we know that having larger ramifications and a larger organization, still more of that kind of cooperation could be and would be introduced by the Government, so that by cooperative marketing, cutting out a great deal of the ex- pense of handling, a great deal of unnecessary transportation, we would secure not only higher prices for the producer but lower prices to the consumer. As an illustration, take the city of Washington. We are paying more than twice as much for our milk as the producer gets. It is costing more to distribute that milk than it does to produce it. We have apartment houses of moderate size in this city through which 16 deliveries go every morning, delivering milk, when one might fill the function more promptly, more satisfactorily, with better results, and with a saving of three-fourths or nine-tenths of the cost of dis- tribution. Now, how Washington is to solve that problem for itself is not my business, but it illustrates a difficulty that pertains to almost everything that the farmer produces, more than to anything else that is produced, because the farmer's products are mostly perish- able, like milk and vegetables and fruits, such as they produce and can produce in still greater quantities, and would be consumed in much greater quantities if they could be obtained more cheaply. We will increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and milk, and that is needed in this country more than any other shortage of food that is threatened very much more. An illustration of that is what happened in England. Of course, we know the Englishman is a man who doesn't like to be interfered with. Ho believes in personal liberty, and has for generations. This war cuiue on him with con- siderable of a shock. The Government had to take hold of a great many things that the Government had previously let alone. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 439 They took over all the transportation lines and a great many things like that, and shortly after they got into the war the medical men pointed out that their milk supply was largely cut off. . They got a great deal of milk from Denmark, some from Holland shipments from the continent were stopped for one reason or another you know as well as I. They pointed out that more than half their milk supply was cut off and that the babies would die by thousands, hundreds of thousands, if that were not remedied. To remedy that, so far as possible, the Government prohibited the sale of milk except on per- mit, took possession, and issued permits only to people who needed milk, supplying first people who had children to be served and people who actually neded it. letting those who used milk more as a luxury or merely for taste and did not actually need it. go without. They kept actual statistics, as they always have, on infant mortality, and one-half the milk supply distributed in that way. where it belonged, cut dow r n infant mortality in England more 50 per cent in about two years. That is information that I got from the Red Cross Magazine. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, may I ask you this question ? It is one that has been quite acute in my mind, as to whether or not about two- thirds, or practically all of these cooperative organizations such as flour mills and stores, have not failed in the last 10 years? Mr. DAVIS. I have no statistics on that point. I know there are a great many that have been successful. There are vast cooperative in- stitutions of that kind in Europe. Mr. RAKER. I am referring now to the United States, if it is not a fact that two-thirds of them in the United States in the last 10 years have failed or gone out of business. Mr. DAVIS. I think probably that is a very conservative statement, and more than two-thirds of the men who enter any private business fail. Mr. HERSMAX. Mr. Davis, isn't it a fact that those cooperative associations that have failed, have failed because they were not backed up by sufficient capital to start with ? Mr. DAVIS. Well, I couldn't say about that. I suppose there are different causes for each individual case, probably bad management and everything else comes in. Mr. BENHAM. They are working for the public instead of for themselves. Don't that have something to dp with the failure, that the helpers in these cooperative concerns don't have the personal in- centive to succeed? Isn't that a very large element of the cause of failure? Mr. DAVIS. It may be ; that is one influence. Mr. RAKER. I was just simply/ asking that question because it has been brought home to me very vividly in the 10 or 15 that are within my own personal knowledge. I just wanted to ask you as to the community settlement, say now of 100 families on one of these proj- ects. If the Government^ secured the live stock, the sire or the bull, might they not get into a row, one would want one kind of stock, and one would want another and you would have the community in a constant turmoil as to what particular kind of live stock they wanted? You see that every day. Mr. DAVIS. I have no doubt there would be a chance for the exer- cise of tact in carrying out this law. I thoroughly appreciate that 440 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. it has got to be done tactfully and skillfully, but when the public mind becomes convinced that that is the effort, my experience is that people become very charitable toward mistakes, if they be- lieve the effort is honest. I have found that to be a fact, a principle which has led me to have a very much higher regard for mankind in general than I once had, because, knowing that squabbling is very frequently due to bad service of one kind or another Mr. WHITE (interposing). I would like to ask Mr. Davis one question. Would the colonies be eligible to membership in these marketing associations? Would there be any difficulty in getting into them, do you think? Mr. DAVIS. None whatever. The association is always, whether public or not, anxious to take in all the memberships they possibly can. The chief difficulty is to get people to come in, and I have known of associations that failed for lack of doing that. Mr. WHITE. I was speaking of the marketing of fruit, the Fruit Growers' Association as it exists in the extreme western cities. Mr. DAVIS. I know of none of those that are exclusive. They have great difficulty in getting the fruit growers to unite and join the association, and that has been the cause of failure in some of them, to my knowledge. Mr. WHITE. Are those organizations for the purpose of stabilizing and maintaining prices at fixed standards? Mr. DAVIS. They are principally for the purpose of cutting out the expenses of distribution and the expense of handling, cutting out the profits of the commission man, and the unscrupulous methods of the commission man largely. For example, sometimes a carload of citrus fruit will be shipped from California to Chicago. It goes there and it encounters a market that everybody else has rushed into at the same time, and they glut the market for a few days, and the price falls, and the oranges may be thrown into the lake for lack of a place to store them, and because there is no sale for them. The same is true of other fruits that are perishable. There are other fruits that are more perishable than oranges, but that happens some- times to them. Now, an agent that profitable skillful, will keep in touch with the market, and if a carload of oranges is shipped into Chicago and he finds that the market is bad there he can divert that car to some other market that is not glutted and avoid that condi- tion. Where one market is glutted, he will throw the shipment to another market where conditions are better. Now, without any cooperation as to what they are doing, it frequently occurs with all kinds of perishable products, vegetables, and perishable fruits, that the market is glutted. The CHAIRMAN. The Hood River apple growers keep a representa- tive in New York continuously all during the apple season, just for that purpose. Mr. WHITE. I wanted to bring that out. I would like to ask Mr. Davis this question, if I may? Do you think that in the purchase of this live stock and this marketing and distribution to the dfferent projects you could combine the duties of the agricultural instructor and the buyer of live stock ? Mr. DAVIS. In some cases. It would depend on the individual. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 441 Mr. WHITE. You know what wonderful genius and skill it takes you know it takes a man almost a lifetime to learn the stock business, to be a good judge of the different kinds of stock. Mr. DAVIS. That is absolutely true ; but the man who has acquired that genius, I might say, or that high degree of skill, might also be a good agricultural developer, and for a small colony the same man might possibly fill the two functions. It is mainly a question of the individual. On a large colony, of course, he could not do it, because there would be top much for him to do, but in a small one that might possibly be done in some cases. Now, the advantages of cooperation in construction and prepara- tion, in education and in marketing, are the advantages of coopera- tion on that side. On the other side is this point : We can buy tracts of land at $4, or $5, or $6, or $8, or $10 an acre in 50,000-acre tracts, and there are some localities where I believe this can be done, where a tract, say, 40,000 acres can be purchased in a holding that is five or ten times that large and purchased at a very low price because of the advantage there would be to the landholders to have their adjacent land increased in value, and it is the purpose of the department, if this is done, if this bill goes through, to exercise every possible influ- ence and pressure to obtain this land at a reasonable price and pre- vent profiteering, and such influence can be used in that way. Now, the reason this land is so cheap is because it is somewhat isolated, although it may have, as some of the tracts have, two great trunk- line railroads built right through them. There are practically no settlements there, and by putting a settlement of one or two or three or four hundred families there w T e create a value mainly in that tract itself, and these soldiers get the advantage. There we have by this arrangement provided that the increase of values caused by the pres- ence of the individual accrues to those individuals themselves, be- cause they themselves are the settlers. Now, if you go into a settled community and buy one farm that individual either has to take a farm where he has no neighbors and has no community advantages or he has to pay 'for that advantage in the value of the farm; one or the other. In these colonies we propose that all the community advan- tages shall be put there by the men themselves. They form the com- munity, and the single taxer's dream of having the value of land that attaches by reason of the presence of the community go to the com- munity, will be accomplished in that way without abolishing title. Mr. SNELL. Won't it cost as much to build up a community, to build up all of the things that go into a small village, churches, schools, roads, etc. won't as much be distributed on the farms suffi- cient to pay that increment if you went out and bought an isolated farm 3 miles from the village in a settled country ? Mr. DAVIS. Those particular functions that you speak of would cost just as much, probably not quite as much on account of the cooperative reasons that I have mentioned. But those things do not alone create value. It is the presence of the population that creates value, and one individual can only imperceptibly affect values by going to the community or leaving it. The things that he does, of course, do contribute, but those things would themselves lose value to the people left. If all the people left New York on account of a pestilence or the presence of an enemy, anything like that, not 442 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. only the land would be without value but the improvements would be almost without value. Mr. SNELL. Has your department made any special investigation on anv special project that they would be ready to start this on at the present time? Mr. DAVIS. We have made investigations in the West to a point where we are ready to begin work, but the law at the present time, up to the present time, has not been such that we could carry them to that point of completion in the East. We have not had the au- thority. Mr. SMELL. How many projects have you that you are all ready to start work on, provided this should become a law ? Mr. DAVIS. I could not answer that offhand. I should say that we could, within a few months, start work on not less than a dozen projects, and probably could double that within a year. I don't think there are any that we could start right away on. We would have to buy rights of way and would have to make contracts, adver- tise for bids, and make some detailed investigations, perhaps, in any case. But in some cases we would be able to begin work within a few months. Mr. SNELL. Would this be a proper question to ask now : Where the most feasible one is the first one : ? Mr. DAVIS. I could not answer that question. Mr. SNELL. I didn't know whether that was a proper question. Mr. DAVIS. I couldn't answer that. Mr. VAILE. In that connection, Mr. Director, some gentlemen seem to be infected with the fear that this plan of this soldier set- tlement bill is to develop large reclamation projects in the West and South to the exclusion of other parts of the country. That is the statement, but do you have in mind any territory in the eastern part of the country or the northeastern part of the country where these plans could be carried out where this plan contemplated by this bill could be carried out? ^ Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir ; there are many of them in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey that we know of. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Are there any of them in the Mississippi Valley? Mr. DAVIS. There are large areas of undeveloped lands in the Mississippi Valley. You mean the valley in Illinois and Iowa? Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. I am not able to designate specific tracts in those States, but we know there are about 200,000 acres in Illinois and about 400,000 in Iowa. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Are there any in Indiana ? Mr. DAVIS. I am informed there are. Our funds and our time have been so meager that we have not been able to get around over- all the country and we have not covered those States thoroughly at all, but two of my associates, Dr. Mead and Mr. Cory, have assured me that colonies of this kind can be established in Indiana, and they are both Indiana men and I think they know. Mr. VAILE. Now, still further along the same line, would the de- velopment of lands in the central part of the country or the East, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 443 by fertilizing them, be analogous, in your judgment, to the ex- penditure of similar amounts for irrigation of western lands? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Reclamation, as used by this bill, I inter- pret to be irrigation of arid lands, drainage of wet lands, or their protection by diking, the clearing and leveling of cut-over lands, the application of lime instead of water, if that is the thing to do ; the application of phosphates, if that is what the land needs; the application of nitrates, if that is what the land needs and, in fact, most land will need two or more kinds of treatment out of that list of methods of reclamation. Practically all of the western lands need not only irrigation but the addition of nitrates. Nearly all of the eastern lands, so far as it is not in limestone regions, need the addi- tion of lime, and much of it needs the addition of phosphates. Some of it needs water taken off and some does not, and even the land that is to be cleared of stumps, much of that needs drainage also. Mr. VAILE. I merely wanted to bring out the point that the term " reclamation " does not apply solely to the irrigation of arid lands. Mr. DAVIS. Not by any means. There are large areas that I have seen myself that looked feasible to me for reclamation in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Some of these areas need some leveling, and some of them need drainage, and some need clearing of brush and stumps. Mr. RAKER. Would the provisions of this bill authorize the de- partment to take over, say, 50,000 or 75,000 acres of developed agri- cultural land to-day and subdivide this land for farms for soldiers, which did not meet either of the three conditions ? Mr. DAVIS. So far as the wording of the bill is concerned, it would. I think there would be few cases of that kind, such as you have mentioned, because where land is properly developed it is generally ver}*" high priced. Mr. ELSTOX. You instanced one case in New York, Mr. Davis, when you were here before. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Neglected land that needs drainage, phos- phates, most of it, and nitrogen, all of it that land needs reclama- tion, in my judgment. Mr. RAKER. Under the provisions of this bill the department would not be prohibited from taking a tract or tracts which would aggre- gate 75 or 100 thousand acres of good farm land? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. And dividing it up into tracts of 20 to 100 acres, and improving it in the way of fencing and putting houses on it, and then throwing it open for settlement by soldiers. Mr. DAVIS. There are instances that I know of in the Middle States where there are large areas held by landlords, alien or otherwise, and farmed by tenants. Those lands' are generally going down in fer- tility as the result of tenant farming. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is that true of Kansas or Nebraska, do you know ? Mr. DAVIS. To some extent it is, and I know it is true in Illinois. That is my State. The CHAIRMAX. You mean there are projects in Illinois? Mr. DAVIS. Well, I don't know how reasonably these lands can be purchased. I am simply instancing that as a class of development 444 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. which might be carried out if it can be done within feasible limits of cost. Mr. BAKER. Mr. Director, are you familiar with the Irish adjust- ment of their lands over there within the last 10 years ? Mr. DAVIS. I can not say that I am familiar with it. I know some- thing of it. Mr. RAKER. Is there any way that you could get just the pro- visions of what was done, and how they are doing it, the manner in which the English Government bought the land where these people took land, so that you can put that in the record? Mr. DAVIS. I think so. I am not sure that I have it in raj office, but I think I can get it from the Australian commission that went over there. They examined that and published a report on the sub- ject. Probably that is obtainable. In England by the small holdings act of 1907 county councils are authorized to purchase or condemn large estates and subdivide them into small tracts to be sold. The purchaser pays one-fifth down and the balance is spread over a term of 50 years. The money to buy the land and subdivide is loaned by the public works land commissioners at 3i per cent. The average cost of land acquired under this act was less than $100 per acre. The cost of preparing them for sale to small holders has averaged $10 per acre. During 190S and 1909 60,889 acres were acquired under the act. Of this area. 34.234 acres were sold in small holdings and 26,655 acres were leased. IRELAND. The estates commission and the congested districts board are commissions nominated by the Government and have for their object the division and sale 1 of estates. The procedure is as follows : A large estate is put up for sale and appraised. If the price asked by the owner is satisfactory the estate is pur- chased and the owner is paid in Government land script, or stock bearing 3 per cent interest. Estates sold under compulsion the Government must pay in cash. The estate is then divided into tracts of 25 to 30 acres, line walls are built if necessary, a house is constructed at a cost of about $1,000, and the place is sold to a tenant. The land is sold to the small holders at a price not to exceed the purchase price. Frequently it is sold for less. The small holder pays 3 per cent interest at present on the purchase price and i per cent amortization, payable in semi-annual installments. This rate amortizes the debt in about 62 years. The purchaser is given a title to the land, pays the taxes on it, and may transfer his equity at any time if he chooses. The local authorities (county councils, etc.) may advance money for the purchase of the property which a tenant occupies to the extent of four-fifths of the purchase price, a limit of $1,600 being placed on the loan. The amount so advanced must be repaid within 30 years. Installments of such repay- ments are of equal amounts and may be weekly, monthly, or semiannual. The installments are inclusive of interest, the rate of which varies according to the rate at which the money is borrowed for the purpose by the local govern- ment, and the only charge for the service in 10 shillings in addition to the interest. SCOTLAND. The same law applies to Scotland with only minor modifications. The small holdings act is proving a great success in promoting intensive cultivation, dairying, stock raising, etc. Mr. VAILJE. Mr. Davis, one further question ; several witnesses who have appeared before this committee seemed to have the idea that there is something inherently wrong or fallacious in combining the two ideas of benefit for the soldier and reclamation. They seemed HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 445 to think there was something inconsistent in those two ideas. Do you care to make any comment on that proposition ? Mr. DAVIS. The bill and the advocates of this bill frankly combine the two things, because they are by no means inconsistent. They are almost necessarily hitched together. If we are going to over- come the crowding of the cities at all, which is practically the same proposition, it means some further rural development. The settle- ment of soldiers upon new lands may be and probably will be more beneficial to them than settlement on older lands, unless the older lands are built up to the condition that the new lands are in the state of nature. Most people know that old lands were at one time, when they were new lands, in better shape than they are now, more productive. That is true in New England lands; it is true of New York lands, and it is true of practically all of the lands of the coun- try, except the swamp lands themselves, and even they need the addi- tion nearly always of lime. But farming the land takes plant food out of the land, out of the ground, and if you don't put something back, the land is bound to deteriorate, and in the West, one of the advantages of irrigation farming is that those lands have not been leached by centuries and centuries of excessive rainfall, which percolates through and carries away the soluble plant food, and for that reason in mineral plant food the arid lands are richer than the humid lands, almost univer- sally, unless the humid lands are undrained. Now, leaching in- volves the draining away of soluble elements, and, of course, if you have swamp lands where those elements can not drain out, they don't get away as they do in the uplands, but for that reason there is more mineral-plant food in most of the arid land than there is in the humid land. For the same reason, the presence of moisture, more vegetation has grown in the East, and the eastern lands are not so likely to be deficient in humus or nitrogen as the western lands, which are almost universally deficient in humus, which must be put in there. But nearly all of the lands of the country will stand the addition of phosphates, and we have an abundance of phosphates in the Caro- linas, in Florida, in Utah, and Idaho, and various parts of the coun- try. We have a majority of the phosphates of the world, I believe, right in the United States, and there is another element of possible cooperation in the selection, the preparation, the shipping, and the application of lime and phosphates to the lands. That is extensively needed. The individual can't do that to nearly as good an advan- tage as it can be done in large tracts. Mr. WHITE. I have heard it stated by a great many farmers in Iowa, where I was raised, and where 1 have passed through fre- quently, that by a system of rotation and soiling they have made their lands more productive than they were originally. What do you know about that? Mr. DAVIS. That can be done. Mr. WHITE. The application of these progressive methods that are now in use by the Iowa farmers would be highly beneficial, would they not, all over the country? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. Wouldn't the soil generally respond to that? Mr. DAVIS. Those methods have not been very generally applied in Iowa. They are beginning it and a few people have done it. 446 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. You mean in the country generally or in Iowa, you say? Mr. DAVIS. In Iowa. Mr. WHITE. I thought it had been brought to a very high stage there. Mr. DAVIS. The reason I speak so positively is that one of my asso- ciates, who in fact had charge of all the investigations in the north- ern States under me, Mr. Hanna is an Iowa farmer, brought up on a farm and he still runs an Iowa farm and has a very fine herd of short horns, and I hope we will have his services he has just com- pleted his report and I have it here. I hope we will have his services in carrying out this law if it passes. He tells me they are beginning, that a few farmers have used these up-to-date methods. Mr. WHITE. I think in my locality, if you will pardon me, Mr. Director, that they have pursued the system to a very high degree of success. Mr. DAVIS. Doubtless there is a difference in different parts of the State. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Davis, have you any statistics that tell what pro- portion of the farm lands of the country are occupied by what we call " tenant farmers " at the present time ? Mr. DAVIS. I haven't got that in mind. I know that tenant farm- ing is growing, as every census has shown. I know some communi- ties where the excess of tenants is very great that is, I have in mind one community where two-thirds of the land is farmed by tenants. Mr. SNELL. Would you venture a guess as to the number of farms in the country? Mr. DAVIS. I would rather not from memory. According to the Agricultural Department in 1918, there were 6,717,000. Mr. TAYLOR. I think the Agricultural Department has statistics on that. Mr. SNELL. Do you know what it is? Mr. TAYLOR. No; but we are sending for the Secretary of Agri- culture, and I think he can tell us. Mr. SNELL. I think that is a good thing to know. Mr. WHITE. Would you care to say, Mr. Davis, in your opinion, what proportion of soldiers, returning soldiers, from the city as compared with the country, might avail themselves of the opportuni- ties presented by this legislation? Mr. DAVIS. The distribution of those soldiers is shown on a list that I have here. We have received, up to June 7, four days ago, applications from 57,463 soldiers on the form that the depaVtment submitted for the purpose. Mr. SNELL. What do you mean by " application " ? Mr. DAVIS. I mean that signed questionnaire (indicating paper). Mr. SNELL. They have filled out that questionnaire that says on the top of it: "Would you like to have a home of your own?" Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; that is the questionnaire. Mr. SNELL. Does that necessarily mean that they are going to want a farm ? Mr. RAKER. I would like to see the original of that if you have one? HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 447 Mr. DAVIS. The first thousand of the cards received was analyzed, and assuming 1 that that is representative of the whole, we have of that thousand 442 whose occupation was farming. Mr. WHITE. Previous to the war ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Five hundred and fifty-eight who were not; and of the thousand, 884 had had some farming experience, had been raised on a farm or worked on a farm, or something of that kind. That is the best statistics we have on it. We have been so over- whelmed by these I spoke of their being 57,000 who have returned this questionnaire with their signature attached, giving their de- sire. That was the correct number four days ago. The day follow- ing when this was made up we received about 1,100. I think the number is doubtless now over 60,000. Besides that, there have been over 12,000 individual and written letters received, written at the soldier's own initiative. We don't count them because it contains inaiiv duplicates. We would be duplicating if we did, and we don't know how many there are. We have not run it down to find out how many probably half of those people are people who have seen this questionnaire, but a large number heard about it indirectly and have written about it. Mr. BENHAM. Mr. Davis, if you had sent out a statement reading something like this in the heading, sent them out to 250,000 soldiers : "Do you want $5,000?" and then show up in your questions how it would be possible for them to get that $5,000, how many answers to your communication would you probably get? Mr. VAILE. That would be unanimous. Mr. DAVIS. It depends on how easy it would be to get. If they had to earn it, probably we wouldn't have very many not many more than we got by the other. If it would be given to them, prob- ably a large number would have been obtained. Mr. HERSMAX. Can I ask you a question there? Provided this law goes into effect, how soon could you get these soldiers to work, or offer them an opportunity to get to work, say, the 50,000 soldiers that you have applications from? That is one-quarter or one-fifth of what you have sent out questionnaires to. Now, how soon could you give these 50,000 soldiers an opportunity to really get to work on one of these projects, or a number of these projects? Mr. DAVIS. As near as I can answer that question, I would say within a few weeks. Mr. HERSMAN. Fifty thousand within a few weeks ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. SNELL. I thought you said a few minutes ago that it would be three or four months before you could get ready to start to work on one of these projects. Mr. DAVIS. Well, there is not much difference. Mr. SNELL. Three or four months as against two or three weeks. Mr. DAVIS. No; I said a few weeks. Mr. SNELL. Well, I misunderstood you. Mr. DAVIS. I would better say a few months. Mr WHITE. Do you have a force of men in the present personnel of the department who are qualified to take over some ( projects at the present time? 13331919 29 448 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir ; we have an organization now operating and continuing construction on 22 projects in the West. They are dis- tributed in 15 different States, and among those men are a large number who are competent for promotion, the principal men in the service take half a dozen of the higher men in the service have a large acquainance of men whose qualifications they know, whom they would know where to place to make successes of them, and that is one of the most difficult things, of course, to accomplish. Mr. WHITE. Could they be spared from their present work in sufficient numbers without impairing the service of the department, do you think? Mr. DAVIS. Not in sufficient numbers. It will be necessary, of course, to employ a great many new men. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. A great many of these men returning from the Army, these engineers, would be available, too. Mr. DAVIS. Many of them; yes, sir. Some of them who left our service. On the point of the ease of obtaining this, the impression has gone out that some people think that the soldier has been led to believe that he is going to be given a farm, and I have heard quotations made of the title : " Do You Want a Home on a Farm ? " But in that ques- tionnaire it contains this question : Does the Government give me this farm for nothing? The answer is: No; and you would not want the Government to do it. The plan is to arrange for you to pay for your farm home in small payments over a long term of years, with interest charges at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. How about the stock and farm implements? Answer. It is planned that the Government will also furnish you with the necessary stock and farm implements, to be paid for by you in small payments spread over several years. Where will I get the money to make these small payments? Answer. You should be able to save the amount of the first payment out of your wages while working for the Government helping to build these settle- ments. The balance you should be able to pay from the proceeds from the sale of your crops. That is the plan that has been set forth, and the number of people that I have stated are those who have stated they desire to take advantage of this. They have not any of them bound themselves to anything. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis, about that " Hey, there " poster that was sent out, do you remember during the war there was published all over the country a picture of Uncle Sam and he was pointing at every man and saying, " Hey, there ; Uncle Sam needs you ? " Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you heard any sneers about that " Hey, there " on that picture ? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. And this word " Hey, there " is quoted from that same poster. Mr. HERSMAN. Mr. Davis, could I ask you one more question? Assuming that you will have applications enough, and that this law becomes effective, how many soldiers could you take care of, working on these different reclamation schemes within a year? How many soldiers would it be possible to utilize ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 449 Mr. DAVIS. That is a very difficult question to answer. I have made some estimates of the number that can be employed with a certain investment. The experience of the Reclamation" Service in the last 16 years in which it has been operating indicates that for an annual expenditure of $1,400 we have employed an average of one man that is, we have had a man constantly employed on the average for each $1,400 spent annually. Now prices are a great deal higher. We can't do that any more, and how much higher they will be when this work is started we can only conjecture. But on that basis I mean on that principle reasoning from the same point. I should think it would take $2.000 or $2,500 as the divisor; divide that into the total appropriation and the quotient would be the number of men to be employed. That is by and large on the average. Mr. BEXIIAM. On the basis of $2,000 or $2,500 a year for each agri- cultural worker, what would probably be the price of wheat to the consumer ? Mr. ELSTOX. He don't mean that that is the wage. Mr. DAVIS. I mean in the construction of reclamation work. Mr. BENHAM. I understand that, but that must be paid by the man by the men who are on the farms, and you are setting a price in a given community for farm work when you pay a certain price in that community for reclamation service, are you not? Mr. DAVIS. Well, the nearest answer I can give you to that, Mr. Benham, is to cite you to the price of wheat when the rate was $1,400 to the individual. Compare that to the $2,000 or $2,500 and you would have that much higher price of wheat probably from 50 to 75 per cent higher price than the average of the last 15 years. Mr. BEX HAM. Could you assume now that $1,400 is the price of agricultural labor the country over? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely not. I made no statement that could be tortured into that. My figure includes right of way, purchase of machinery, payment to contractors for building big dams, and has only a very distant and remote relation to the price of wheat. It is not'the price of agricultural products at all ; it is the amount of money required to employ certain men on reclamation work. That was given in answer to the question how many men could you employ, and the answer depends upon the size of the appropriation. Mr. ELSTOX. Mr. Davis. I think you had better explain that very fully. You mean that one man is apportioned to each $2,000 or $2,500 of application of this appropriation to work? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. Mr. ELSTOX. Including construction of every kind, employment of labor, purchase of material, and everything that goes into every item of expenditure under this appropriation, divided into units of $2,500 each will enable you to employ that many men ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTOX. It has no relationship whatever to the price paid to each individual laborer. Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely not. Mr. ELSTOX. That might be $800 or $900 a year, or something else; so I think that should be made very clear; otherwise you will have mistakes about it. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Your statement is correct. 450 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis, when you testified the other day you said you would divide the country up into three districts. Mr. DAVIS. I said I had done so in this investigation. The CHAIRMAN. What States comprised districts 1, 2, and 3? Mr. DAVIS. The western district as now divided comprises the States that are enumerated in the reclamation law, 17 States, lying, in a general way. west of the Missouri River. The southern district comprises the States lying south of the Ohio River, not including Missouri, which is attached to the northern district, but including Maryland and Delaware, which were attached to the southern dis- trict. What the organization will be when an appropriation is passed, of course. I can't predict. It may differ somewhat, but the idea that I had was to report to the committee what had been done in the way of organization. Mr. TAYLOR. That was in the expenditure that investigation that Congress authorized you to make? Mr. DAVIS. That $100,000; yes, sir. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Davis, suppose you start off with three proj- ects this question is suggested by one that Mr. Hersman asked and the bill provides that a soldier who works on a project should be given a preference now suppose you locate your first three proj- ects, for instance, one in Louisiana, one in Indiana, and one in Arizona. Now there is a man in New York State w r ho wants a farm on one of these projects, but you are not ready to start work up there, but he is willing to go to work, and suppose he should go and work on the Arizona project; then after the New York State project is started and carried through to completion and ready for settlement, could the New York man exercise his preference on the New York project, or would he be confined to the project which he had worked on? Mr. DAVIS. He could exercise it wherever he chose, undoubtedly, under this bill. There is no doubt in my mind on that point. Mr. ELSTOX. That would be subject to the preference of the indi- vidual workers on a particular project to have the first call on the units in that project ? Mr. DAVIS. That is a detail that could be controlled by regulation. I would say that it would be proper and fair to allow a man to ex- ercise his option wherever he chooses. If he goes to one that is par- ticularly popular, he takes his chances with a larger number, and of coruse he hasn't got as good a chance to get a farm. Mr. BARBOUR. I understood it was entirely a matter of administra- tion, but I wanted to get your idea on the subject. Mr. DAVIS. I think it i's entirely a matter of administration, but offhand, that would look fairer to me. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis, do you travel around much investigat- ing these projects, and if so, what was the sentiment you found and what experiences did you have with public sentiment? Mr. DAVIS. I traveled around to some exten, and met but little op- There was an interesting occurrence in New England. Dr. El- wood Mead. Mr. Hanna, and I visited Boston on the invitation of a committee that has boon appointed for New England, and there in- spected several tracts of land that were suggested for soldier settle- ments, and the committee made an appointment for us to meet the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 451 leading men in the city of Springfield. We went to the city of Springfield and met with about 20 of the leading men of that vicin- ity, mostly members of the chamber of commerce and other promi- nent men, and when we explained the purpose of our visit, the chair- man suggested to his companions: This is a very important matter and this meeting is not sufficiently representa- tive to give it proper consideration, and I suggest that we urge these gentle- men to come back sometime in the future when we can have a representative New England meeting and thrash this thing all out. After some parley, we finally agreed upon a date in the month of January. Unexpectedly Dr. Mead was called back to California and Mr. Hanna and I went to Springfield to meet these people. I got there the day of the meeting. They had taken care to have a very representative meeting, inviting all the State granges, the com- missioners of agriculture, and the leading manufacturers and the leading journalists of the State, and they had a meeting of about 70 people or more. They met the day before our arrival. We arrived on time, but they wanted to get together and talk it over themselves first, and they did so. The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you mean by " they " ? Mr. DAVIS. The representatives of the New England interests, various people. And if my information is correct, all of the State granges of Xew England were represented, I think most of them by the masters of the grange; and the commissioners of agriculture were nearly all there, I think. There were various journalists and manufacturers and the account they gave me of the meeting they had the day before we arrived was that there was almost universal oppo- sition to this Lane plan. They thought it meant the reclamation of two or three hundred million acres of land and the farming of that immediately the location of millions of soldiers thereon, whether the men wanted to go on it or not, and the glutting of the market for farm products, and all of the other things that you have heard charged here against this bill. Those were all charged and honestly believed there. The one or two friends of the movement present could not do more than to beg them to give a hearing on it, and the men who came the next day had denounced it almost universally. I occu- pied about three-quarters of an hour when the meeting was held in the City Hall, and had an audience of over 100 people and they lis- tened attentively. I explained the plan as you have seen it explained in the literature' and as I have explained it here on the floor, and Mr. Hanna followed, giving some of his experiences and detailed obser- vations in his travels, making these investigations which he had been engaged on then for about four months. When we got through we were followed by, I presume, 15 different speakers a large number of different speakers, only two of whom opposed the plan one of them, I think, was master of the State grange of Massachusetts he was at least master of a grange, and I do not remember his name he said that he had violently opposed the plan the day before, but was now in favor of it. and that his opposi- tion was based wholly upon a misconception and misinformation. After the meeting the chairman, who is the State forester. Mr. Rane, who was very friendly from the first to this project, told my that the tone of that meeting was absolutely opposite to what it was 452 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. at the meeting before ; that instead of there being any commendation, as we had received that day, there had only been opposition the day before, and that the situation was entirely revolutionized, due to the fact that now they had the information. The representatives of the grange particularly flocked around Mr. Hanna and me and I think all of the granges were represented there all those who talked to us privately told us that their opposition was based entirely upon misinformation, and they showed us the newspaper articles which had misled them to the effect that the soldier was to be sent on to a farm without any experience; that he was to be sent there, whether he wanted to go or not; that a man was to be dragged from Now York and sent into the sAvamps of the South, and that it was a scheme for reclaiming hundreds of millions of acres of land that would be thrown into competition with the New England agriculturists and put them into a worse position than they were at the opening of the homestead act, to which some of them referred. The tenor of that meeting was an appreciation of the condition that the agriculture of New England does not supply more than 25 per cent of the demand of New England for agricultural products, and that it is a very serious handicap upon all the industries of New Eng- land to have to ship most of its supplies from the far West or from Canada. They import milk from Canada, and they import a good deal of milk to Boston from up and down the coa>t. both south and north, some from Maine. And their idea was that the plan as out- lined, with the appropriation then proposed, which was $100,000,- 000 as you will remember, $100,000.000 for the first year and I pointed out to them that if that appropriation, the same appropria- tion, were kept up annually for a period of ten years, which would be double the amount provided in this bill, it would not supply the de- ficiency in the farm area that the census from 1900 to 1910 showed. That census shows that the population increased 20 per cent; the number of farms increased only 11 per cent, and the cultivated urea increased only 15 per cent, showing a shortage of 5 per cent in agri- cultural area.* Now, $500,000.000 may add 4.000.000 acres to the culti- vated area, part of which is now partly cultivated, of course, if you take some of these partially developed areas, as we expect to do. Now that increases the cultivated area only about 1 per cent : it only supplies about one-third of the lack of the growth of asrriculture to keep pace with population. To the extent that it applies, it also tends to overcome the rush to the cities and to make country life more attractive, thereby attracting people to that line of industry. But if that is not undertaken in some form, the tendency to city congestion is growing right straight along, it lias been throughout the past, but the indications all are that it will go along until the cities congestion in the cities and congestion in other occupations, where people like to flock together is going to be such ns to create a great shortage of farm products. Some people are alarmed at it already. Mr. WHITK. I would like to ask you, Mr. Director, if you find any strong sentiment of jealousy anywhere :unong pieces of project land were sold, aggregating 1,240 acres. Of this there was irrigable GHG acres, of which 202 are under the gravity system and 394 tinder pumping system. The total sale price of this land was .S.~>2,2 14. is. an average of S-12.1. 1 ', per acre. One 4 per acre. The high average price is regarded as very significant of conditions on the Mindoka project, OS this land represents the tag ends that have been left over a Her several sales and does nut by any means represent the average quality of the lands mi the tracts. Every piece offered at the sale was sold. HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 465 Now, that is not any land speculator misleading settlers; it is the State, under the operation of the State law, selling lands open to all, advertising th >m in advance and selling it all in one day. Mr. VALLE. I had one question that I wanted to ask a little further along this line of cost of Government work. We will probably have to moot the same argument in the House, and, perhaps, the case will be there cited of the high cost of Government work on the various large- plants, such as the plant at Nitro, W. Va. I have heard that one in particular criticized. Now, isn't the difference in those cases due to the system of paying the contractor on a percentage of the cost of the work which was done, on account of the ne essity of speeding up for the war, and does that apply to work by the Gov- ernment on a reclamation project? Mr. DAVIS. No contract that offers a reward for wastefulness and extravagance will ever be approved by me, and I think it is a per- nicious practice. Mr. VAILE. You would not approve of a contract price which would compensate a contractor on a basis of so much of the percent- age of cost? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; becausa that offers a reward for wastefulness. Mr. HERSMAN. Mr. Davis, may I ask you a question, and that is this you probably have gone into it, of estimating how long a young man will work on these projects from one and a half to two years, I believe you intimated before he could go onto his particular farm. Have you also estimated what it would probably what he would probably save save in that time? Because most of th se soliders go onto these projects, I assume, without any money; and what proportion of the amount of money he would save before he would get to working on the farm would he have to invest in that farm, the 5 per cent payment, also in the payment on his house, also in the payment on his live stock, and what condition he would be in when he finally gets things started to do general farming, buy- ing seed, etc. ? Have you made any estimates of where the young man would be along that line, and whether we are safe in assuming that he can carry these payments through ? Mr. DAVIS. Your question refers does it not, to how he would get the initial payment? Mr. HERSMAN. Yes; how he would get all these initial payments, and whether he would be safe and whether the Government would be safe, and whether we are properly safeguarding that soldier in this investment that we are proposing for him now to undertake. Mr. DAVIS. I think certainly we are safeguarding the Government, for under the circumstances that are contemplated in this bill and by the executive office, the margin of safety that the bill provides for the Government, I think, is ample. Mr. HERSMAN. I think so, too ; but do you think it is safe for the soldier? Mr. DAVIS. From the soldier's end it means that only such soldiers as are energetic and prudent can take advantage of it. If it is class legislation at all, it is class legislation in favor of that class who are energetic and prudent: and if a man can not save enough in a year and a half, he can keep working two years, or three years, or more. This is going to take at least five years to complete, and if there is any physical reason why in four or five years he can not save enough 466 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. to make his payments, he will have to be dropped out. But as a rule, that is the length of time that a man ought to have in order for you to become acquainted with his moral character; make him what the bankers call a good, moral risk and we have been told by the leading bankers in Xew York that the moral element is five times as important as the financial element. They give five times the weight to a man's character as an indus- trious man, knowing his business and wanting to pay his debts, as they give to the financial status back of him. Now, I think that same rule should be applied by the Government, and I think right there is one of the greatest goods that this law will do; it will offer a reward lor the virtues that we want to instill in all people, that we all need ; and the law that holds up to the man a prize to be attained by in- dustry, by prudence, and by self-denial, and by improving his own abilities, so that he can draw more pay, either on a project or in other Avork all of those inducements are inducements in the direction of making those men what we would like to make them, to make them what we all would like to be and all ought to be, and it will have a very strong moral effect. It will be one of the strongest elements. I think, to accomplish what this bill is designed to accomplish, to make men, to put men on these projects who will succeed. Mr. HERSMAN. I think that is right, but I was wondering if you made any investigations along the line, where the young man has these attributes that we are looking for, how long is would take him by saving to arrive at a position where he was safe to go on this project and operate it himself? Mr. DAVIS. That would depend on the man. Mr. HERSMAN. Take the average man. Mr. DAVIS. Well, the average man w r ould probably take at least two years. I have heard people say that the Secretary said he was going to pay these men $4 a day. He did not say anything of the kind. He took that as a basis, and probably $4 a day will be some- where near the average payment made. Some men' would get $10 a day because they are worth it, and can't be hired for less. Wo propose to pay the going wages, and we know that wages are high, and that is the reason we figured the basis high, and counting 300 working days for the year, a man can earn about $1,200 in a year; and if he is the right kind of a man he can save half of that. If he has a family to suppot, some men could not do that. Those men who are unfortunate in that respect might have some other legis- lation to look after them. But if a man can't do it in two years, he can do it in three. Mr. BEXHAM. You would, of course, pay the same wages for the same kind of work in all parts of the country? Mr. DAVIS. Well, that would be a matter of detail policy. I don't think the wages are the same in all parts of the country. Living expenses are not the same in all parts of the country they prob- ably would not be the same. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You would pay the wages of the locality? Mr. DAVIS. It is proposed and provided in this bill that a portion of these allotments will bo what are called " farm worker allot- ments.'' whciv n man who is not physically, or otherwise equipped to become a farmer, can handle 100 acres, or 80 acres, as the case may be, may take an allotment of 2 or 3 acres near town, and make. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 467 the most of his living working at something else, either as a me- chanic in the village, or working for the farmers around there blacksmithing, perhaps, at the crossroads, or working as a farm laborer. Men do prefer to work that way because they know that they couldn't manage a farm. That is actual experience. The CHAIRMAN. That is in operation now in California. Mr. DAVIS. That is in operation now in California and Australia and in all European countries, and that allotment will be very much cheaper than the rest, and under this legislation it would not re- quire half the money for him to start with. In California they don't require him to have any money. This law will. He has to have a certain percentage of his improvements. Now, that man would have a cow; he would have a few pigs and a few chickens, and his family could take care of them when he is away. If he has no family, of course, he would not have them, and of "course, if he does have them, he would have somebody to take care of them, and this allotment would be big enough to raise a garden and give him some employment when he is out of work in other places, and it would make a home for him, and the farm laborers in that commu- nity become home owners and good citizens, and men who frown on all sorts -of anarchism, rather than the hobo that so many of them now are, because they don't have constant employment and don't have any home, nor family ties. Mr. HERSMAN. Just one more question to get my mind clear on one phase of it. What amount of money will this young man need to get the kind of home that you under this bill propose for him, and to pay his initial payments on his land, on his live stock, and on his build- ings ? How much money would he have to have saved up to accom- plish that on what you would say is the average farm? Mr. DAVIS. From $1,000 to $1,500. Mr. JOHXSON. Wouldn't that, Mr. Director, depend on where he was located ? In some sections of the country you would get land at very low prices : in others very high prices. Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; there might be a wide margin. Mr. HERSMAX. Would $1,000 or $1,500 provide his seed and assure him a living for a year until his harvest comes in? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I didn't include that. Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to have you give me a general idea what is would be necessary for the young man to have in order for him to be safe over that first year until the harvest ? Mr. DAVIS. That would mean something more. Probably you would have to add $200 or $300 to what I said. Mr. HERSMAN. Provided that man might have a family, a wife and maybe a child, do you think that $2,000 would make these initial pay- ments and provide for the first year and secure his seed that was necessary for planting for the first year, until his first harvest came in? Mr. DAVIS. I think so. Mr. HERSMAX. You think that $2,000 would be about the average? Mr. DAVIS. Well, I would put that amount to be required that would be the maximum necessary. Mr. HERSMAX. Si>,000 would be the minimum? Mr. DAVIS. That is, the average case would require that much minimum. There are two averages in there ; one is the average case 468 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. and the other is the average man. Now, many of these men will have several thousand dollars. Many of our settlers are going to have three or four thousand dollars. Mr. HERSMAX. I was just arriving at something where I could make an estimate of what this man would need in order to carry him over the first year. Mr. DAVIS. Why, perhaps $1,800 would be the average needed. That, of course, you will understand, is a very rough estimate. Mr. HERSMAN. Now, Mr. Davis, the Government wants to take this young man to this farm and the object of this committee, and I think the object of every man who has appeared before this com- mittee has been to protect the soldier in his investment as well as to protect the Government, but the first object is to give the soldier an opportunity. Now, we will say he has saved $2,000 and he has pro- vided for the first year of his efforts. He has gotten in his crop and he is ready to harvest it. Now, don't you think that the Government should provide that soldier against a possible loss of that first year's crop, which would mean a loss of four years work, which would'mean a failure of the Government with that particular man on that par- ticular farm, and don't you think that the Government ought to go one step further and assure that soldier in some way that he has pro- tection, since he has got all his money, $2,000, invested in his farm, money that he has saved up with care and frugality? Don't you think the Government ought to, in some way, protect the soldier against the loss of all of his investment? Mr. DAVIS. I think this bill does do so. Mr. HERSMAX. How does it do it? Mr. DAVIS. This bill permits the transfer, if he fails and has to quit, by consent of the Secretary of the Interior ; and in such case, of course, the Secretary would consent. But I don't see what other protection the Government could properly put around him. It pro- tects him in the value of what he has paid for. Now, there is a value that is higher than the amount that he has paid, because if the work has been economically carried out the coming of the population has added to his value and he would be permitted to sell all these to a new settler, and the Government would be in a position to bring him a new settler and buyer if he were desirous of that, and under meri- torious circumstances the Government would consent to the sale. Mr. HERSMAX. This young man might not desire to sell ; he might want to stay there, but under circumstances of failure in crops he might be forced to sell. Do you think it would be at all inconsistent for the Government to carry on an insurance scheme for the first year, like they have insured our soldiers' lives, to provide that soldier proper protection, provided he has paid the ordinary rates that such insurance would cost the Government? Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; that would be a very good idea, I think. There is a private institution for crop insurance already. Mr. HERSMAN. Yes, but the Government carried on life insurance at a very much lower rate. Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. HERSMAX. And don't you think it would be a good thing to insert in this bill some protection for that soldier, because I think the thing we want to do is to protect that soldier against eventuali- ties that he has no control over. HOMES FOR SOLiUERS. 469 Mr. DAVIS. I can see no objection to giving the Secretary some authority of that kind in this bill. I rather hesitate to say that be- cause I don't want to be misunderstood as committing the Secretary of the Interior. He may have some objection, I don't know, but I can see none myself, speaking for myself, personally. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, will the boy soldier be required to set aside a certain percentage of his wages or a fund to pay for his home- stead ? Mr. DAVIS. The bill as now drawn does not require that. Mr. RAKER. Well, would it be advisable or inadvisable to have such a provision ? Mr. DAVIS. I think it would be inadvisable. Now, I am not saying that with any great emphasis, because I would not see that either was objectionable, but I think that you would, to a certain extent, destroy the incentives that I have tried to describe here, as being one of the advantages of the plan of this bill. If that man hasn't the qualities to make this saving to his own advantage without compul- sion, he is not the same caliber as the man who has, and we are not going to be able to provide for them all. Mr. RAKER. 'isn't it a fact, demonstrated by human life, human conditions in America, that the boy who can in a year or two years save from $500 to $1,000, needs no help from anybody, and will make a success and can go and buy a farm or a place wherever he wants to, or go into any business he wants to ? Mr. DAVIS. There are some people who can do that. Mr. RAKER. Now, what percentage of the soldiers what percent- age of those provided for in this bill would be able to save, or would save, in your judgment, from $500 to $1,000 in from one to three years working on these projects? Mr. DAVIS. I think all of them, excepting those who are unfortu- nately situated in their family relations, who have a burden of some kind, parents or large family to support out of their wages. I don't say they all would, by any means. Mr. TAYLOR. Isn't this a good deal true, that if a man can't save anything, working out on a project of this kind at $4 a day, or some- thing of that kind, he isn't going to make very much of a success farming any place ? Mr. DAVIS. That is exactly what I think. Mr. TAYLOR. A man has got to be thrifty if he is going to make a success on a farm. Mr. RAKER. Interpolating a question there, can you tell me how many of the young men to-day, from 21 to 35 average, we will say, from $100 to $500 in two years ? What percentage of them are doing it to-day, single men, out working for wages? Isn't it a fact that the percentage is almost nil ? Mr. DAVIS. It is small. Mr. RAKER. Will we change the attitude and the conditions and the character of a man in the way of saving by simply putting him to work on a project ? Mr. MAYS. In the country, I think, there is a very much larger per- centage that saves that amount. Mr. DAVIS. If you give them an incentive, they will. I think the operation of this bill will do that very thing. 470 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. I am putting these questions entirely for information. Mr. DAVIS. I think the operation of the bill will do that very thing. Mr. WHITE. Those are deep, philosophical questions, Mr. Davis. Mr. MAYS. There have been several suggestions here that the re- quirements of this bill, the financial requirements, should be re- duced. What do you say as to that? Mr. DAVIS. I think that it might be safe to reduce them a little. I would not recommend any reduction in it, but the thing that might be safely done, the thing that probably would be equivalent to it, would be to increase the upper limit, what the Government might do in individual cases. I would not think the average should be any higher than the present bill provides, but I do think it would be safe to go a little higher, provided the same proportion of value was required from the soldier. Mr. RAKER. Could such a thing occur that you let out the work on a project on force contract, with the provision that the contractor must employ soldiers; that they would strike for higher wages and insist upon ten or twelve or fifteen dollars a day, and under his contract and under the Government's arrangement, they would have to be raised and be paid that amount, and after they had worked a year they would say: "This project is costing too much," and they would quit. And as a matter of fact, the cost of the project would be too much and there would not be any chance to sell it for what it cost? Could such a thing occur? Mr. DAVIS. It is conceivable, but I think there is no danger of such a thing occurring. The wise thing to do would be to suspend work unless other laborers could be obtained at reasonable wages. The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Davis is through, I wish to add without his permission or knowledge that when the sundry civil bill was before the House last July, Mr. Sherley, Swager Sherley, was chair- man of the Appropriations Committee, and there has never been a more careful, conservative, and, perhaps, parsimonious chairman of a committee than Mr. Sherley, and he was not given to throw- ing bouquets, as we all know who know him. He said this concerning Mr. Davis on the floor of the House : " We have built up a splendid service in the Reclamation Service, and the head of that Service is a man of very level-headed judgment." I think all of you who have heard Mr. Davis to-day will agree with that statement. Mr. RAKER. I have known Mr. Davis longer than that, for about 15 years, and I want to corroborate that and to say a good many more things in his favor showing that he is competent and qualified and capable of doing actual work. The CHAIRMAN. I have a very brief witness, gentlemen, a Maj. Littlejohn, who has just come from the other side. He did not come here as a witness ; I happened to meet him this morning, and if it is convenient to the committee I should like to have the major step forward. This is Maj. Littlejohn, of the Engineers. Major, I wisli you would give us your views upon this legislation and what views you have, gathered from the men and tell us something about your ex- perience abroad the length of time you have been over there and the opportunities you have had to discuss this matter with the men. HOMES FOE SOLDIEKS. 471 STATEMENT OF CAPT. K. S. LITTLEJOHN, UNITED STATES ENGI- NEERS. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. This comes to me entirely as a surprise. I did not expect it at all. I have not come with very much information in the way of statistics or figures; but about the majority, I have only been told that I would get it; I haven't got it yet. I am still called a captain. I was with the Sixth Engineers, Thirtieth Division, Second Batal- lion, about 800 to 1,000 men. The CHAIRMAN. How long were you on the other side,. Major? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. I was over there 10 months. I joined the Sixth Engineers on the 14th of July and left them on the Rhine on the 15th of January. We had in the Second Batallion men from about 42 States, if I remember rightly. Most of them, as you would suspect, are engineers, either because they have had engineering ex- perience or because they like that work, and a great many of them were farmers who called themselves engineers because they could run a tractor, a pump, or something like that. I spoke with some of them this bill had not come up then. I think, but we got word that there was some such project under consideration over here and I asked the men of the Second Batallion what they thought of it. They were all very much in favor of it for one or two reasons. One was that they wanted to get back when they got home they wanted to get some work that was away from a desk. I know a great many of them had become more or less fond of out-of-door life, and a number from the towMS, who are now living in towns, talked to me about going West. I coming from Arizona they asked me for that reason, possibly, some questions about the West, and so I imagine that a lot of the men will want to go on farms. Now, there were a good many men that are going back to their job not so much in the Sixth Engineers as in the One hundred and fifth Engineers, which is a National Guard unit, and those men came from jobs into the service. Now they are going back to their job. I offered some of them positions in my contract business told them to apply to me but I got very few from the One hundred and fifth Engineers, but quite a number from the Sixth, who were men about high-school age, say, 18 16 or 18 to 22 or 23, and who had never had jobs, or if they had they Avere very short jobs, and those men all wanted at least a great number of them wanted to go West. So I think that that would apply a little on the fairness to Eastern States, or, rather, the unfair- ness *to Eastern States and the unfairness to Western States, that I heard discussed here, that the men will go West anyway they want to go West and that those who stay will have so much more oppor- tunities of positions in the cities. The CHAIRMAN. What is your native State, Captain? Capt, LITTLEJOHN. My native State is New Jersey. I have been out West for the last 15 or 20 years, in Mexico and the Western States. The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any experience m farming your- self? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes; I have had some experience in M>xi<-o and some in California. When I left Mexico I took a position in the 472 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. San Joaquin Light & Power Co. We all came out of Mexico pretty well broke when the revolution started. The Laredo Land Co., near Bakersfield there were two projects there that would possibly be affected by this. The Laredo Land Co. has developed and put on lands and owns a patent for its water. I believe we paid $8 an acre there, and the cost of the land was $150. Then the Kern County Land Co., right adjoining us, put some land on the market for $75 an acre, and they just put down a test well, and it seemed to be a better proposition and they sold better than the Laredo Land Co. at least they have made more sales. We had a lot of people down there, soldiers from the Army, who had not done fanning- before, and I noticed that there were a great many young people, and the biggest trouble we had was that maybe the first baby or the first sickness that came along was usually about the time the first big payment was due, and very often it was necessary to defer that payment because he didn't have the money. There were a great number of them that had to be put over. I think that was on account of their having expected to somehow or other, without any reason, get water for less than $8 an acre, which the company had stated. Somebody started the rumor that it would be $4 an acre, and I think they all believed it in spite of the statement of the company. Mr. BARBOUR. Was that $8 a year? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. That was $8 per acre per year. Mr. BARBOUR. Just where is that project located? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Twelve miles north of Bakersfield, in the San Joaquin Valley. It was called the Laredo Land Co. Mr. BARBOUR. Is it near that little station of the same name on the Southern Pacific?- Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes; near the station called Laredo. I am sorry I haven't got any more statistics in the way of the number of men who want to go to work, who want to go out there, but of the men that I asked, the most of them wanted to go of the men in my command, I mean. The CHAIRMAN. You had about a thousand, you say ? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. I had about a thousand 800 to 1,000. Mr. FERRIS. Were they pretty conversant with the terms of the bill? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. No, sir; we were not. We got very little in- formation. Mr. FERRIS. You were just in favor of the general plan ? Capt. LITTLE JOHN. Yes, sir; the general plan. I picked it up through one of my wife's letters, I believe, and went right out and told the men about it. Mr. TAYLOR. Did they understand that it was somewhat along the line of the reclamation law that had been in operation for 17 years? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. I can't say that either ; I know so little about it. The CHAIRMAN. They understood that they had to pay for the land ; that they were not getting it as a gratuity ? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes; they understood that. That was what 1 understood and what I told them. I don't believe those men of course, they would take anything that was given them, but I think they would be thoroughly satisfied with paying for the land. They are most of them men that want to pay for what they get. HOMES YOU SOLDIERS. 473 The CHAIRMAN. And they understood that they had to pay for this land? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, as I say, that was what I told them. None of them understood any of it very clearly, but I never thought anything was going to be given them. Mr. XICHOLS. Did you explain to the men, Major, or did you un- derstand yourself, the initial payment requirement; the amount of money the soldier had to put in to begin with when he took the farm ? Capt. LITTLEJOHX. No, sir ; I did not. I have gotten all my infor- mation that amounts to anything right here. Mr. XICHOLS. Did you hear the director to-day say that it would cost approximately $2,000 rather that the initial payment would amount to approximately $2,000? The CHAIRMAN. $1,000 to $1,500. Mr. NICHOLS. I believe he increased that to about $2,000. Mr. HERSMAN. To provide for the stock and seed, etc. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think yourself with that information do you think that this affords an opportunity to a majority of the soldiers if they have to make an initial payment of approximately $2,000? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. I think it does. I listened very attentively to every word of Mr. Davis's talk, and I agree with all of it very much; and I agree, looking at it from the soldier's point of view, if I was going out there to live on it. with what Mr. Davis has said. The only thing, of course, that a soldier will want to know take, for example, Arizona, where I come from that is the security of the water ; that there is going to be a guarantee of water; or if not, will he be relieved from payment ? Now, that is the big question on arid lands. When I was in Mexico it was a question of getting water over the land, of putting water on the land, and I think that would be very fair to the soldier to guarantee that in one way or another. That comes in with the failure of the crop. I suppose that might apply to that also, whether there would be a failure from the act of God or failure of engineering. Mr. FERRIS. Major, isn't this a pretty large amount to assume that a laborer, a man going to work at day's labor could save in this time ? Isn't that a pretty large amount to expect him to save and apply to the purchase of a home? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, it is. There are very few of us hardly a man. a young man, that has saved $100; but then he has been living in a community where he has been called upon to spend, to live high or treat, or keep up his end. Now, if he gets out there, I don't think there is anybody \vho is going to set a pace which will cause them to spend very much money. They are going to spend most of their time at work, and it will be an' example for steadiness. Of course, that is only my opinion, but it looks to me as though that would be reasonable. Mr. FERRIS. Do you think that soldier colonies with no experience, with no one to superintend their activities, would be a success? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Not at all. I believe with Mr. Davis about that. That was the trouble in these projects you have talked about. Mr. BEN HAM. What do you think would be the attitude of the average soldier boy toward this Government overseer? 474 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, that would be all right. I think the average soldier has learned a great deal. He has been studying. He has had lots of time to think, and he is mighty well interested in the United States now, and he is coming back with the idea of getting into things and not just living from hand to mouth any more. What was that question you asked me? Mr. BENHAM. I say, what is the attitude of the average returned private soldier toward having a Government overseer over him ? Capt. LITTLE JOHN. He will help him out, but he won't stand Mr. RAKER (interposing). He has had enough of orders, hasn't he? Mr. FERRIS. But the point that Mr. Benham was trying to get at. Major, was would this excessive supervision on the part of some Government agent become irksome to the settler ? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. No ; because he would not have to have it. If you force it on him, yes ; but you have got to have a supervisor there that will help the soldier. He is not there to order him around, and that soldier, in my opinion, is nine times out of ten going to hunt that man up and going to get the information from him. Mr. FERRIS. You think that will be the attitude of the soldier? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes. Mr. VAILE. It is not contemplated that this soldier supervisor AVI 11 regulate the hours of pleasure or throw the soldier in jail if he is ab- sent without leave for halt an hour? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. No; he will have to be on the job. He will have to be a father, a big brother to the soldiers. Mr. TAYLOR. He will have to be the same as the county agent. There aren't any of the farmers in the West that think they are under a slave driver or anything of that kind, because there is a county agent that advises them as to the thousand and one things that the modern, up-to-date, scientific farmer needs information about. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. No. Mr. TAYLOR. He isn't a boss, and he isn't a dictator; he is an adviser. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. He is an adviser. Another thing, I don't think they would treat him as a hired employee of theirs either. I think they will be apt to be very anxious to help him as much as possible. Mr. RAKER. It takes a peculiar kind of a man, of peculiar charac- teristics and of some age as well as actual practical experience in farming to be a father to these men ? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes, indeed. Mr. RAKER. You take a young man from 25 to 35, he wouldn't be very much of a father to these boys on a project of that kind, would he? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, it would be pretty rare and hard to get a man of that age. He has got to have been through the mill himself to be able to understand the men and to keep his temper and to help them, which he must do, if, as Mr. Davis says, this thing is going to be a success. Mr. UF.KSMAX. I want to ask you this question: Now, assuming that the average young man can earn $1. % 200 a year and that if he is a Dingle man. lie is able to save $700 a year, what would it be possible for a married man with, say, one child, to save, in comparison to the single man? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 475 Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, a man that is married and has a child, he has got all his work cut out for him. Mr. HERSMAN. Now, assuming that this man is on the scheme and that he saves his money so that he can make his initial payments. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. He will get that first of all from his salary. Mr. HERSMAN. Say he got $1,500 a year. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. He is going to make more money than the single man, on the average. Mr. HERSMAN. Why? Capt. LITTLEJOHN/ Because he is going to be a better man, ordi- narily. If I have got a single man and a married man, and they are equally capable, the married man is usually the man that makes good a little better than the single man, so far as being on the job all the time and using his head, and I think he will ordinarily. That is the case with the married man having to make good, and I think he will make good a little bit more than the man who is not married. Mr. HERSMAN. Do you think that at the end of the year he will be able to have saved up more money than the single man? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes; I think he will work much harder that that extra child won't make any difference. Maybe he won't save quite as much but I think he will make enough so he will be safe. Mr. HERSMAN. Supposing the single man is able to save $600, which has been intimated here, what could the married man with a wife and one child be able to do? Capt, LITTLEJOHN. Well, I am not able to say, but I would always think I would almost guarantee that he would come out equally well. Mr. HERSMAN. Equally well with the single man? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Unless he had a great big family. Mr. NICHOLS. Major, in what way would you think that the Gov- ernment is extending more aid to a soldier who has $2,000 to invest than he could obtain without the assistance of the Government? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, he is independent. He has the oppor- tunity of accepting this or leaving it. This is not forced on him. This is for the man who has nothing. Mr. NICHOLS. What is the Government doing for the man who has $2,000 to make this initial payment? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, the man with the $2,000 has the same opportunity as the man that hasn't got a cent, hasn't he, on this deal? He is $2,000 ahead, that is all. That is his pass. I don't think that that should apply to this at all. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, this man must earn the $2,000 to invest. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. He earn that. That is his investment in the land. Xow, in what way is the Government giving him anything more than it is giving any man, any soldier, that has $2,000 to invest, any more than he could get from private enterprise? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, I don't know that he gets any more than he gets from private enterprise, but he has got this big extra enter- prise open to him. He don't have to go down to the city and work by the day for maybe a year or two ; he can go right there and go to work. Mr. NICHOLS. The Director of the Reclamation Service made the statement to-day that so far there is not the apparent shortage in 476 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. the labor market that was anticipated, and therefore it is not a great question of providing employment. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Well, at the same time, whether that is true or not, that doesn't interfere with he fact that his is an oppor- tunity for the man that hasn't got a cent and who can see a proposi- tion ahead of him without any new lights of his own. Mr. NICHOLS. According to the Director, a man can find employ- ment anywhere now. Capt. LITTLE JOHN. Well, if he finds employment, that is all right. I don't think myself that he can, because I think that what the director said at the end was true, that there is going to be a great number of men coming in here at the time when the harvest is ended and who will want to start on construction work. Now, private enterprise is not going to at least, we are not sure that private enterprise is going to go ahead. That is, you and I are not going to start putting up our buildings, or our dams, or the other things. Here is something that has started, something definite, and that will take care of a great number of men. Mr. NICHOLS. In your opinion, there will be a great many soldiers who would be glad to avail themselves of this opportunity, this kind of employment? Capt. LITTLEJOHN. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much for your statement. Captain. Capt. LITTLEJOHN. I am very glad to have been of any help at all. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, I would like to have attached to Mr. Davis's testimony the testimony of Dr. Elwood Meade on this matter. We are unable to get him here. This testimony of Dr. Meade was given before the Appropriation Committee of the House at the last session. Mr. FERRIS. I think it ought to be done. We would like to have it. The CHAIRMAN. Then without objection, that will be done. Without objection we will adjourn now until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon at 1 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, June 12, 1919.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES. Washington, D. C., Thursday, June 12, 1919. The committee this day met, Hon. N. J. Sinnott (chairman), pre- siding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. Mr. Lay! on, of Delaware, will favor us with a statement before Mr. Davis goes on, as he is in a hurry. STATEMENT OF HON. CALEB RIDLEY LAYTON, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE. Mr. LAYTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. 1 have nothing specific to offer, but my observations will be necessarily of n j-eneral character. I think we are all agreed that we owe some- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 477 thing to the soldier, and the idea has been to find out how we should discharge that obligation. I have made it a point before I came down here, with my own constituent soldiery, and I have made it a point every time I have been on a street car, if I got the oppor- tunity, to speak to a boy in khaki to find out what his idea was. These seems to be two different general plans. One is a sum of money in cash, another is this land proposition. Of course, I am unhesitatingly against the cash proposition for this reason, that, in my judgment, any sum of money that the Government could afford to tax the country for, whether it was $500, $600, or $1,000, would be lost in six months, in my judgment, to 90 per cent of the recipients of that sum, whatever it might be, and would do no good, but you would be doing a moral and mental harm, in my judgment, to the soldier. The other proposition also, to my mind, has its disadvantages. I do not believe it will work out in the fullest sense of the concep- tion, for this reason, that 50 per cent of all of the soldiers, no matter what form of service they were in, came from the cities and have no knowledge of country life, and no desire, really, for country life. Mr. MAYS. Two-thirds of them came from cities. Mr. LAYTON. I am trying to be moderate, as I always am when I make a statement. Fifty per cent of the balance will go back by choice to their homes, to their father's farm, or to their own land. I am speaking now from the knowledge that I have of the rural district where I live. There will be at least 50 per cent of that 50 per cent that will have land to go back to, homestead land of their own, or their families. That will leave only about 25 per cent, a problematical 25 per cent, to take advantage of this proposition. On the whole, after looking it over, I have come to the conclusion, however, that this is the most feasible way of meeting a public de- mand, because the money, if expended, will do a great public good, whether the soldier takes advantage of it or not. It will bring into the production field, so to speak, hundreds of thousands of acres of land which will furnish this country with foodstuffs which we do not seem to have enough of now, with the prices as they are, and help to do that one thing which, in my judgment, lies at the basis of peace among any people, and that is cheap living. In my judgment, to-day the greatest problem in the country is to break down the prices of the cost of living. It lies at the basis, in my judgment, of all of the unrest in the country, and lies as a funda- mental problem in the adjustment between capital and labor. There is no such thing as bringing labor down to a proper condition where the industrialism of this country can live, unless you make living cheaper. As long as you are paying 65 cents for bacon, and paying what you are paying for wheat and everything in proportion, you can not bring labor down and you ought not to bring it down. That is all there is about it. The farmer, to a certain extent, is opposed to this proposition, because he thinks it is going to be a factor in reducing the cost of his products. Well, that would be so, in my judgment, if all of these hundreds of thousands of acres of land were to be dumped suddenly in the productive field, but a thought will disclose that this will go along, and it will be a long time before all of this laud can l.o brought into competition with land that is already producing; it 478 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. will be a long time, and it will come in gradually, and will not dis- turb, practically, in my judgment, taking into consideration the fecundity of the race, the necessary increase of population it will not disturb it at all, in my judgment, as he apprehends. I have only one more thought. This is a little personal that is personal as far as my representative character is concerned and that is this : If this bill goes before the Congress, I hope it will be so drawn that the little State that I represent can get more equity than it has gotten before. There was a bill, if I understand it, and you can correct me because you are more au fait than I am in the matter, which provided for good roads recently, divided among the States; is not that true? Mr. TAYLOR. Two or three years ago. Mr. LAYTON. Two or three years ago? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. LAYTON. Well, was there not a bill up before this last session of Congress for the same purpose? Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know. Mr. TILLMAN. In the post office appropriation bill $200,000,000 was provided for public roads in this last session. Mr. LAYTON. That is what I am referring to. In that appro- priation Delaware was to have $400,000, which would only build about 10 miles of road, yet Delaware was paying more income taxes, where that money was coming from, by $100,000 than nine South- ern States put together. The CHAIRMAN. That money had to be matched, Mr. Layton, by State money, as I understand it. Mr. TILLMAN. Fifty-fifty. Mr. LAYTON. Yes; that might be true in a way. We could match it, as far as that is concerned, but what I am trying to get at is that I hope that the bill will be equitable, and if Delaware is paying into the Federal Treasury more money than nine Southern States put together, it ought to have a net return on her swamp-land improve- ment, because that is what it is going to amount to, gentlemen. I say to you frankly that this measure can go through, and I am going to help put it through, because it is the best that I have got as an alternative, but really this land will go to the general public, and it will not go to the soldier at all. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you have available lands in your State and available projects? Mr. LAYTON. Yes; they have got 30.000 acres of land right in my county now that is not under cultivation, nothing but swamp land, and it would be a glorious thing under the sun if I could get it- drained. I must confess I have not been able to do it by the State of Delaware alone. Our legislature refused this last winter to create a drainage commission for the purpose. I have been fighting for drainage for the last 30 years, I expect; it is a kind of a hobby of mine. With that remark, that I hope the bill will be so drawn as to approximate equity according to the amount of money that the little State of Delaware is contributing toward this great and all other enterprises, I have concluded. The CHAIRMAN. The bill provides for the construction of a project in each State. Mr. L AVION. Yes; in each State. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 479 The CHAIRMAN. In each State one or more projects. Mr. LAYTON. How is the selection of the projects and the size of the project to be determined? The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Secretary of the Interior, in consulta- tion with the governor of your State and a member of the Federal P'arm Loan Board, will determine. The terms of taking over the project have to be approved by the governor of your State and a member of the Federal Farm Loan Board. Mr. LAYTON. Well, that will be perfectly satisfactory. Mr. B ARBOUR. In talking with several Members of the House. I have found that there is a good deal of hostility to this bill, for the reason, as stated by them, that we are attempting to provide for only the farmer soldiers who may return, or the soldiers who want to be farmers, and we are not attempting to provide for the fellow who does not want to be a farmer, and therefore w r e are not playing fair; that instead of benefiting all the soldiers, we are only benefiting a small percentage, and some of the Members of the House are against it for that reason. I would like to have your opinion on that. Mr. LAYTON. I stated that, did I not, practically, in my remarks, that 50 per cent w r ould be in the cities and have no predilection what- ever for this project, as far as their personal desires are concerned? I think that hits it. Mr. BARBOUR. What do you think of that proposition? Do you not think that we indirectly benefit the man in the city who does not want to go on a farm? Mr. LAYTON. Yes; you indirectly benefit him, and I will give an- other answer to that, and that is this, if you attempt to segregate these two interests, the urban and the agrarian interests, you will leave a good many of those who would naturally have an agrarian interest to be damned by the cash proposition handed out to them and defeat the other. You can not separate them, and you ought not to try. God Almighty does not do it. WTien He rains on my cabbage patch that needs a nice rain, and rains on my neighbor's hay adjoin- ing, He is not treating us both right, and you can not do it in legis- lation or anything else. Mr. SUMMERS. Does not the vocational training that is being given to all disabled soldiers, during which time they are allowed $60 per month for maintenance over and above their educational advan- tages, partly answer that question? Mr. BARBOUR. Possibly, yes. Mr. LAYTON. If you will excuse me on that, I will just detail a little conversation I had less than an hour ago coming down on the car with a soldier. He was a stranger to me, and I did not know any- thing about him, but he had a nice, bright, clean face, and I brought the subject up. Unhesitatingly, he said, "I am opposed to the cash proposition. The good, decent soldier does not want any money in that way. It detracts from his patriotism and the glory that he has gotten out of this war." I am in favor of this land proposition, whether it ultimately works out as it is desired, so that the boy goes upon the land. I do not know whether it will do it or not, but that proposition, in my judgment, will safeguard the Government and will not cause ultimately any increase of taxation, because it will come back to the Government sooner or later, and m the meantime the good soldier boy who is sober and industrious will have an op- 13331939 31 480 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. portunity to go out on these various sections all over the country and be employed, and in that way you will let things down gradually from a war to a peace basis by taking care of a multitude of sol- diers by jobs that they otherwise could not get in industrial life. I just give you that thought. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. Mr. LAYTQN. I am much obliged to you gentlemen for the hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Director Davis is here this morning, and Mr. Taylor desires to ask a few question of Director Davis. STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF THE RECLAMATION SERVICE. Mr. TAYLOR. I want to say, Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the committee, that I apprehended that if this bill comes up for con- sideration on the floor of the House, there are some of the people who are opposed to the measure, and there are going to be a good many of them, especially some of those that have always been opposed to the Reclamation Service, who are going to hold up as a bugaboo the cost per acre to the Government, or, rather, to the settlers, under those 30 odd reclamation projects, whether it is $50, $75, or $100, and I wanted Mr. Davis to state, not only for the benefit of this committee, but for the benefit of the record and the House, a parallel between the reclamation projects as they have been developed dur- ing the last 17 years, and this proposed reclamation project of aban- doned lands, or partially abandoned lands, and cut-over lands and swamp lands of the South, the North, and throughout the entire country. It is my rough estimate that probably 90 per cent of all of the cost of the reclamation of the public lands in the arid country is by reason of the necessity of irrigating them, and there is no necessity of that on any of these lands, outside of the West, that we propose to handle in this bill. The great expense that the Reclama- tion Service has caused to the settlers under our projects in the Western States we are not here complaining about, but if anybody else, w y ho does not have to push the bill is complaining about it, I want to know the difference between what we are undertaking in this bill, so far as the rest of the country is concerned, and what wo are undertaking in the West. If we have had to pay $100 an acre, or $75 an acre for the land, it is because that money has gone into tremendous dams, the biggest dams in the world, and gone into canals 100 miles long, and gone into hundreds of latterals, and gone into the buying of water rights, and all sorts of things, the concreting of whole canals for 50 miles, possibly, and I think the Reclamation Service ought to show a par- allel between that expense, as compared to that involved in the reclamation of these cut-over lands, for the benefit of this bill ^lu-n it, reaches the House. That has not yet been done, and I think it ought to be done. The CHAIRMAN. You have stated the cost a little bit too high, I think. Mr. TAYLOR. Possibly I have; but suppose they say that is the fact? They are going to try to make it appear to the House that the Reclamation Service is probably going to put as big a cost on a piece of land here within 10 miles of Washington, as we have to pay HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 481 out in the West, and we do not want to have to combat that with a lot of argument. This committee is not an irrigation committee, Mr. Chairman, you and I and the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Raker have been sitting on the irrigation committee for years and years, but this committee has never had anything to do with irrigation before, and it is not an irrigation committee. This is a public lands committee, and for that reason I feel that this com- mittee, which has never yet had anything under heaven to do with irrigation, ought to start by getting right with the irrigation matter that is coming before them. I feel that is something that ought to go in the record here in a way that we will not have to defend the Reclamation Service on the floor of the House. Xow, with that little preliminary statement, Mr. Davis, I wish you would give a brief description in the record, for the record and for the House, as well as for this committee, as to how the work that the Reclamation Service has heretofore been doing in developing the West for the past 17 years will compare with this reclamation work, of swamp lands and cut-OA^er lands and abandoned lands throughout the entire United States, and show wherein the cost will be different and wherein it will be the same, and show wherein your machinery of the Reclamation Service will apply, and give us some estimate as to what, in all probability, will be the expense per acre that these boys will have to pay in 40-year payments at 4 per cent back to the Government for this land. I think that is something we ought to have in the record, so that the House and the country will know something about what we are really figuring on. Mr. JOHNSON. Just one question, Mr. Taylor. It is not my under- standing, from a close reading of the bill, that the boys are to pay for the expense of putting this land under cultivation and the improve- ment of the land, but to pay as near as practicable the market value of the land, and if it should cost the Government a good deal more than it is really worth, it is not my understanding from a reading of the bill, that the boys will be required to pay the expense of it. In fact, the bill does not say that. It says to pay as near as practicable the reasonable market value of the land. Mr. TAYLOR. Supposing, Mr. Johnson, that we buy this land for $6 an acre or $10 an acre? We are going to get it very cheap in most cases, but supposing it is covered densely with stumps? That land has got to be cleared by removing the stumps, and whether it costs $6 or $10 an acre to blow out the stumps and level that ground and put it in shape, my understanding is that that necessary expense on that land, whether it is in clearing it, or whether it is in draining it, is to be added to the original purchase price and to be covered back ulti- mately into the Treasury of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; as near as practicable the reasonable market value of the land at the time it is sold to him. Mr. TAYLOR. Surely, but that market value will include the ex- pense of clearing it. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is not the general market value, because this land may cost $40 to put into cultivation. The general market value of that land might be $80. It is not contemplated that the soldier will have to pay the general market value of the land, but there is some vague language in the bill that ought to be cleared up. 482 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Johnson, you do not mean that he will have to pay the market value of the land, because the market value, we figure, will be four times what it cost. We want to include some reimbursement, but we want the soldier to get the benefit of the increased value that is occasioned by the community, by the settle- ment, and by the development of the project. Mr. JOHNSON. I have no disposition to argue it. I just wanted to make that statement. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Davis, I think, has the idea. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this bill, section (> provides as follows : That sale prices shall be fixed with a view of repaying the total cost of each project, and the price fixed for each farm, tract, or lot shall represent as nearly as practicable its relative and comparative selling value. Mr. JOHNSON. Line 7, section 6, is what I have reference to. Mr. DAVIS. I read only one sentence, and the sentence, of course, lias to be considered as a whole, and it appears to me to bo the purpose of this bill to have the total cost of each project repaid, and as to how that cost shall be apportioned among the farms, it shall be done in accordance with the relative value. Mr. ELSTON. They shall be graded according to quality. Mr. DAVIS. They shall be graded according to quality and location with reference to the project. That authority is also in the recla- mation act. The reclamation act provides for the return of the cost of the projects, and provides that the lands shall be assessed equitably. The language here is a little more specific than in the reclamation act, because the gentleman who drew the bill desired to have it a little plainer, and I think it is very clear, as I understand it. I do not see how there could be any very great difference of opinion on that, especially as explained by Mr. Mondell, who appeared before the committee. Mr. BARBOUR. Right along the line of your statement and the sug- gestion of Mr. Taylor, would it be possible to furnish each member of the committee with a copy of the reclamation act? Mr. DAVIS. Surely. Mr. BARBOUR. In pamphlet form, so we will not have to dig it out ourselves ? Mr. TAYLOR. If published it will be published in pamphlet form. Mr. BARBOUR. That is what I referred to. The CHAIRMAN. Will you have sent to each member of the com- mittee one of those pamphlets ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahead, Mr. Davis, and give us a kind of parallel picture, taking the average form of stump land or of swamp land, as to what will be the difference between the reclamation of that, in cost to the settler, and what it has been to the people in the West. Mr. DAVIS. In general, the cost of reclamation by other methods than irrigation, and there are many which I have enumerated in former testimony, will be considerablv less than most of the reclama- tion by irrigation. Reclamation by irrigation involves a great deal more expensive works than the other classes, and has been in progress for two generations in this country; and. prior to (he passage of the rerlamalion ad, all of the easy, cheap projects had been constructed, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 48 3 and in doing that private capital had been in th? main invested. As the easy projects have been developed and the harder ones tackled, the district system was invoked, and large corporations also, to furnish financial assistance. Very few irrigation investments, have been profitable to the investors. They have be?n very beneficial to the country and to the settlers in most cases, but the heavy ex- penses of large engineering works, as undertaken by larg. j aggrega- tions of capital, has been such that the interest would usually eat up the profits before the land was completely developed. That was the reason for the passage of the reclamation act, so that the public funds and the public interests could be brought in for the purpose of developing those lands, so that the public benefits that flow from this should be stood by the public in the matter of interest. Now, interest charges are to be paid under this bill, with the re- clamation as carried on. That is one thing we must take into con- sideration; and, so far as the physical work of reclamation is con- cerned, there are large opportunities in all of the States that I know of in the eastern part of the country, where irrigation is not required, there are large opportunities that can be carried out much more cheaply than future irrigation and recent irrigation works can be carried out, because they are simple. Not only do new irrigation projects require heavy engineering works in placing water upon the land and in operating those works every year, but in many cases, probably 50 per cent of the area, requires also drainage, and drain- age works of an expensive character have been, and are now being, constructed by the Reclamation Service. We have large works of that character going on along the Rio Grande in New Mexico, in Texas, in Idaho, and in various other parts of the country where the rise of the water table caused by irrigation has produced conditions such that drainage works have to be provided, and that is the rule witli irrigation throughout the world. I know of no large irrigated valley in the world, that has been irrigated for any length of time, but what has encountered this drainage problem. Mr. TAYLOR. Those are expenses that are not incident to the cleared land and the swamp land either, are they? Mr. DAVIS. The swamp land will have to be drained, but the water is already there and the irrigation expense will not be added. A great many of the lands which will be available under this bill will require drainage. Some of them would not be classed as swamp lands, but they should be drained in many cases, and that, as a rule, will be cheaper than irrigation, and even where they have to be both cleared of timber and drained, as a rule, it will be cheaper than ir- rigation. Mr. SMITH. Do you mean to say you could clear off stump land cheaper than you could reclaim land by irrigation ? Mr. DAVIS. Some of it. Mr. SMITH. That certainly is not true except where the timber is very small. Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; that is true. Mr. SMITH. It costs up in northern Idaho, for instance, $100 an acre to take stumps out of the land. Mr. DAVIS. Yes; and in northwestern Washington it costs $200, $300, and sometimes $500 an acre. 484 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. You probably would not undertake to clear such land? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. There are in the East and South and North, other than arid lands, plenty of lands that would be very expensive for clearing and draining. Those are not the lands that would be selected for reclamation, of course. But there are large areas, and the opportunities throughout the eastern States are such that we have a chance of selection that is much superior to the present choice of selection of irrigation projects. The problem of clearing is one that grades all the way from $5 or $10 up to a sum which is entirely beyond the bounds of feasibility, and it means a careful, judicious selection of the projects, after due examination. Mr. TAYLOR. In that connection, have we not our disposal at the present time from the War Department a large quantity of T. N. T. that may be used for that purpose ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And is not that enough to be available for this pur- pose at a very nominal expense? Mr. DAVIS. It will be available under whatever law it can be trans- ferred. I understand the law provides that the materials and the equipment on hand in the War Department, no longer needed by that department for war purposes, may be transferred, and must be trans- ferred, if needed, to other departments at a reasonable price, and I understand that that is an executive function to determine what is a reasonable price in each individual case. Mr. TAYLOR. Are they not right now turning over a large amount of road equipment and trucks and all sorts of things from that de- partment and shipping them out now to the various States ? Mr. DAVIS. They are offering such equipment to us for sale. I pre- sume it will be as cheap or cheaper than we could buy it in the open market, but the policy, as I understand it now, and the provision of law, as well as an executive order, provides that it shall be transferred at a reasonable price. Mr. TAYLOR. You do not know what the T. N. T. is going to cost the Reclamation Service ? Mr. DAVIS. No; but it probably can be transferred a little bit cheaper than dynamite; I do not know. It is of about the same value. It is in some respects safer, and in some respects a little harder to handle. Mr. TAYLOR. Have they not methods now of connecting up stump land, for instance, by using one of these compressed drills and put- ting in a stick of T. N. T. and connecting it with a wire and blowing up a whole acre or more at one time, and doing it comparatively cheap. Mr. DAVIS. That can be done. There are many methods of re- claiming stump land. In one place one method will be advisable, and in another place another, and each problem of clearing will have to be considered on its own merits. For example, to illustrate, one scheme in the handling of cut-over lands that I described the other day in Massachusetts, many portions of that, probably 95 per cent of it, can be cleared by a large tractor simply pulling a large, powerful plow, and plowing that brush up. It is bigger than the sagebrush of the West, but not much bigger. Of course, the tops would have to be cut out of the way to get the machinery through, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 485 and some of it has been cleared in that way, with not great suc- cess, but I am satisfied that larger and heavier and more powerful machinery would make that method the cheapest in that particular case. We would leave a number of the stumps that would have to be pulled by the stump puller or blown out, but the smaller stumps would be pulled by the tractor by hitching it directly on, and the larger ones it may be advisable to blow up, and still larger ones, making a great deal of expense in excavation, and so we have all grades, from those costing a great deal more than the land will be worth after it is cleared to those that are not much harder to clear than the western sagebrush, which you know can be done for $3 to $5 an acre. Mr. TAYLOR. I wish, Mr. Davis, that you would make it as posi- tive as possible in this record that this is not a sectional measure, and will not be looked upon or treated by you, as the head of the Reclamation Service, if you are put in charge, as a sectional matter, but that it is a matter for the entire United States, and to be made readily available for every boy that served in our Army, as far as they want to go.. Mr. DAVIS. TThat is the way I view it, absolutely, and your sug- gestion is in line with the (question asked by the gentleman from Oklahoma, who I am sorry is not here now, the answer to which I desire somewhat to amplify. He made the suggestion that in States where feasible projects, under the plan outlined in the bill, were not found, it should be provided that loans could be made on individual farms, and my answer was that, of course, was in the discre- tion of Congress, but if that were to be done, it was so closely in line with the existing machinery and function of the Federal Farm Loan Board that they should have the handling of it and have the authority, so we would not build duplicate organizations for the same purpose. But I want to amplify that to this extent : We have plenty of information to know that there are feasible projects in every State in the Union, provided we have proper and reasonable local cooperation, and that is one reason, Mr. Chairman, why I specifically oppose and object to any legislation restricting the places where this money is to be spent any more than this bill does, which requires that there shall be one or more projects in each State, if feasible projects can be found. Xow. if there is an absolute restriction that we must spend money in a certain State, we will not have that local cooperation, because they will say, " The law requires you to take this up, and you have fot to do it anyhow." That was our experience, and it was the mis- Drtune of Oregon that that provision in the reclamation law was incorporated by a Representative from that State, requiring a ma- jority of the funds received in any State to be spent in that State, if feasible projects could be found. Every community has all kinds of people in it, and any project of this kind or any other kind can not be taken up unless it has reasonable local cooperation, and in many cases there is strong local pressure to prevent those who have the power from standing in the way of public development. An illustration of that is what we had in the Yakima Valley in Washington. There, as you gentlemen know who are acquainted with our work, we have a very fine development, two subprojects of 486 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. that Yakima project, and the land is highly developed now, although it was formerly very bad. Mr. HERSMAN. What State is that ? Mr. DAVIS. Yakima, in the State of Washington. When we went in there the State, as a State, was in a very cooperative attitude, and so were the public-spirited people. The State passed a laAv giving the Government exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of that basin, and the right to build reservoirs on the lakes which belonged to the State, but an additional difficulty stood in the way in the matter of water rights. There were in many western valleys a large number of diversions of water, where, in nearly every case, the filing ex- ceeded the amount of water that had been put in use. All those claims were supposed to be more or less valid and would be prior to any filing the Government could make, and, of course, the State could not set aside any legal rights, and it became inadvisable to take up any project there without the cooperation of the interests that made claim to those rights. There was at that time not an adequate law in Washington for the adjudication of those rights, and any way it would have been impossible in this job that wo h:id undertaken to do, and would have greatly delayed and probably defeated the work, as the results of litigation are sometimes almost prohibitive or destructive so that the Secretary of the Interior took the stand that he would not begin development in the Yakima Valley until those rights were settled in some way, and the only possible way of settlement was by common agreement. The great majority of those claimants, of course, desired the local advantage to be derived, and the advantage to the State, to the West, and to the whole country, and the great majority of them were will- ing to limit their right" to what they had already put to beneficial use, or to the capacity of the ditch, which was usually about the same. We had a careful determination of all those things, and the general concensus of opinion was that that was the reasonable way to settle it, that previous beneficial use was to be a measure of ex- isting rights, and other rights would be waived, so that the Gov- ernment could know where it stood, and know that additional water developed could be used for the new project. As I say, the majority of the water users agreed to it, but some did not. We had great difficulty in a number of cases, and they brought tremendous local pressure, of a moral character, of course, against them to be reasonable, and the general concensus of the val- ley was that this basis upon which nearly all had agreed was a rea- sonable basis, and finally they all came in voluntarily and signed this agreement, which, on its face, did not bind anybody legally, and for years there was some fear that litigation might be opened, but the works were started, and millions of dollars were expended, and under them the land brought under cultivation, and water rights initiated to the extent that later, when one of these individuals desired to break that covenant and to establish an old claim to water that they had long before that covenant was made, the court ruled that by silence during the construction of these works they had tacitly waived any additional right, and now that agreement stands with the court authority behind it. That is an illustration of the kind of moral pressure that can be brought to carry out a public work, and is necessary where the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 487 local laws are inadequate. That can be done either by moral pres- sure of that kind, or it can be done by State legislation, and the only doubt that exists as to the presence of feasible projects in every State in the Union is the doubt of the reasonable price of land. There is an abundance of undeveloped land in every State that we know of. In the State of Illinois, which has been mentioned as one of the doubtful ones, there are 700,000 acres of undeveloped land, classified as woodland in the State of Illinois. We know that there are plenty of places where, if a reasonable price commensurate with the present value of the land can be obtained, we would have an attractive project and could settle thousands of soldiers. Mr. SMITH. Is that undeveloped land in large tracts or scattered? Mr. DAVIS. In tracts large enough for colonization. Mr. SMITH. But all in private ownership? Mr. DAVIS. All in private ownership, and the price of that land is the only thing in the way. In the West there is a great deal of public land, but where there is not enough public land for a project we have some difficulty there. We have got to acquire this land, and the Government has got to own it in order to make a soldier settlement out of it, but if the communities or States will bring the proper kind of pressure on the owners of the land and have an ap- Eraisement somewhere commensurate with the present value of the mcl, there is no doubt but what I can get a feasible project in every State. That is what the bill contemplates, and what we will try to do. The bill attempts to safeguard the price by prohibiting purchases except under appraisal approved by the Federal Farm Loan Board and approved by the governor and approved also by the Secretary of the Interior, but thatTdoes not necessarily mean that the price is one at which the land could be made a soldier settlement, If they can prove that the land has changed hands at that price, that might settle it and permit the marketing at that price, but that does not neces- sarily prove that that will be the price that should be paid. The price at which vacant land is held depends upon two things. One is the demand for the land, and the other is the cost of holding it out of use. If it becomes too expensive to hold that land out of use, it becomes cheap. The colony of New Zealand undertook and did very successfully meet that. I am not suggesting anything experimental. They passed a law providing that any tract of land exceeding a certain size could be purchased by the Government at 10 per cent advance upon the rate at which they had been paying taxes, unless that amount ex- ceeded 250,000 in value, and then they could purchase at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent advance of the rate at which they had been pay- ing taxes. Now, gentlemen, that is perfectly fair. The rate at which a man pays taxes is, according to the law in most of the States, the true value of the land, and to give 10 per cent more than that true value means either that you are paying the fair value of it or that the owner has been reaping an advantage in violation of the land laws. If that kind of an exappropriation act were passed by any State in which this doubt arises, showing proper and necessary local cooperation, there is not any doubt in my mind but what we can find 488 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. tracts in every State which would be available for this soldier settle- ment. Mr. ELSTON. You mean a provision that if the owner asked a higher price than the assessed valuation, that thereupon that shall become the valuation for taxation purposes? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTOX. The land is not taken away from him, but he has that alternative ? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. Mr. SMITH. Do you think, Mr. Davis, that a law of that kind would be constitutional to compel a man to sell if he did not want to sell? The land may be in tracts of such extent that he would not want to sell, and I doubt if you could compel him to sell. Mr. DAVIS. That is another method, at least, by which you might secure cooperation. Mr. ELSTON. That does not compel him to sell; it merely puts a valuation on his land, which raises his taxes. If he wants to have the higher valuation, he has to pay taxes accordingly. Mr. DAVIS. Answering the question of the gentleman from Idaho, it is merely a method of applying the principle of eminent domain w r hich all the States have and all the States apply whenever they want to. Mr. TILLMAX. Let me ask you in that connection : Will you not get up against another constitutional proposition, unless you raise every- body's taxes, or the taxes of all who own real estate, to approximately the 'same level ? Most of the courts have decided that you can not assess A's real estate at 50 per cent of its value and assess B's at 25 per cent of its value. You have got to have a uniform assessment plan, by which everybody's taxes will be uniform, before you can en- force anything of that kind in this country. Mr. DAVIS. This would not be changing any existing requirements of law. The existing requirements of law are that land shall be assessed at its true value anyway. Mr. TILLMAX. It is not done in this country at all. Mr. DAVIS. I am speaking only of the provision of law. Mr. MAYS. You believe the taxing power of the State ought to be used to make men sell their property whether they want to sell or not. or destroy it? Mr. DAVIS. I think that that is the proper way of handling land something a man does not make himself or at least unused land needed for public purposes. Mr. MAYS. This would apply not only to unused lands, but would apply to a man's farm when he is working it. Mr. DAVIS. If it were uniformly applied it would not be any hard- ship to tax land at its true value. It is merely a way of enforcing the present law. Mr. MAYS. What would you do with the money that you raised by taxes if you increased everybody's taxes so that he would have to sell'? Mr. DAVIS. You would not do that. It would not increase taxes in general, but if it raised the assessment it would lower the rate pro- portionately. Mr. MAYS. Then, there would be no hardship whatever, and a man would not have to sell ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 489 Mr. SMITH. I think your idea is all right to compel the beneficial use of land just as you do of the water in irrigated States, but it is just a question of how you can reach it. Mr. HERSMAN. Has the law any right to condemn property that is held in use for public purposes" when the public wants to use it ? Take unimproved land that is held in great quantities in some States that we all know about. Can the law enter in and say, " We are go- ing to condemn and put a valuation on this property, and you will have to sell." Can they do that? Mr. DAVIS. In many localities unused land is assessed far below the price at which it can be bought, while land in use is assessed at nearly its full value. The New Zealand law simply equalizes this and places the correct value on the various tracts. The CHAIRMAN. That can only be exercised where the use is for public purposes. Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. Mr. HERSMAN. Do you mean to say that the laws of Australia are such that a man has to sell at 10 per cent more than the assessed valuation of his land? Mr. DAVIS. New Zealand. Mr. HERSMAN. At 10 per cent more than the assessed valuation ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. HERSMAN. If the price he puts on the land is more than 10 per cent over the assessed value, then the land has to be taxed at that rate? Mr. DAVIS. In other words, the owner fixes his own value for tax- ation and in doing so he incurs an obligation to sell for 10 per cent more. Mr. HERSMAN. And that fixes the price for it at the time when the Government takes it? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HERSMAN. If they are willing to sell that land out? Mr. DAVIS. That is the way I understand. Mr. TAYLOR. That is only for Government purposes ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, not to everybody ; it is only for public purposes. Mr. MAYS. Do you have statistics showing the average cost of land per acre under the irrigation projects so far completed? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. About how much does that run? Mr. DAVIS. It runs, on an average, in the neighborhood of $60 per acre. Mr. MAYS. That includes the perpetual water rights. Mr. DAVIS. That is all it does include, water rights, which is the cost of the construction work which has been done. It usually in- cludes drainage also. Mr. MAYS. Do you have any record to show what that land is worth at the present time, on an average ? Mr. DAVIS. It varies widely, but I think, in general, on an average it will be nearly double that price. That would not, of course, be a universal rule, but much of it is worth several times the cost of reclamation. I have in mind the Idaho project where the charge is $30 an acre, $55 on one side of the river and $30 on the other, and the average price is over $50 an acre, and those were raw lands. $50 an acre was the average price paid. 490 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MAYS. I had reference to the value of the land after devel- opment. Mr. DAVIS. This has water rights still to be paid for; the water right is in addition to the price mentioned. Mr. MAYS. What I am trying to get at is whether or not the settler has made a profit out of his investment. Mr. DAVIS. On the average, yes, sir. That, of course, depends, too, on the individual, as to how profitably or wisely he has con- structed his improvements, because his investment has been in his improvements, but so far as the water right is concerned, I think there is practically no exception to the rule that he has made a profit on that worth more than that cost him. Mr. MAYS. Ranging around an average of 100 per cent? Mr. DAVIS. I think probably nearly that. Mr. MAYS. On the cost of his water right ? Mr. DAVIS. I think nearly that. Mr. TAYLOR. Would $20 an acre be an average? Mr. DAVIS. Much more. Of course it would be a very wide guess. Mr. GANDY. Do you happen to have that kind of figures on the South Dakota schcol-land sale this spring, on that project? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, I do not. Mr. GANDY. I think that is directly in point to this question. The school lands on the project have not as yet been developed, and the State held its first sale this spring. When the project was built they were raw, dry lands. There never has been anything done on them. The project has been developed around them, and it is my under- standing that those lands sold for an average of about $75 an acre. The CHAIRMAN. Uncultivated ? Mr. GANDY. Uncultivated, unimproved, raw, and on top of that the purchaser will have to pay the water charge. Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. GANDY. So that the State of South Dakota, as a State, and as an idle-land holder, has profited in the sale price of its land, be- cause before the project was built I doubt if those lands would have brought $10 an acre. Mr. DAVIS. And the cost of the water right is $40 an acre ? Mr. GANDY. The cost of the water right on the State land was $40 an acre. Mr. ELSTON. When you estimate that $60 do you include the initial value of the raw land? How do you arrive at that cost of $60 an acre to bring that 1-and under cultivation ? Do you include anywhere the value of the raw land ? Mr. DAVIS. No. As a rule, I think, with a little exception, the value would be under $10 an acre. There are a few projects in the eastern arid States, where the dry land has a higher value than that, for farm purposes, perhaps up as high as $30 an acre, but usually the acre value is under $10. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Davis, can you not give us a little concrete state- ment as to what are the benefits, if any, of this bill, over and above the present reclamation act? Start, for instance, with some of the provisions of the reclamation law, for instcance, that they have to pay for the land in 20 years, and under this bill they have to pay for it in 40 years, and under the reclamation law they do not pay any interest, and under this they have to pay 4 per cent. HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. 491 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Can you parallel the distinction, if there is any, and state what are the distinctions between this and the present reclama- tion law, and what are the beneficial features? Mr. DAVIS. This law is an improvement over the reclamation law, in my judgment, in several respects. The first is that it applies to the entire country, and you know the benefits of that as well as I. The next is that it places the settler on a going concern, where he can make crops the nrst year. It puts the land in shape to be culti- vated. It assists him in supplying what he needs for the cultivation of the land, in the way of stock, implements, and buildings, so that the man can actually operate that farm and receive results the first year. That, to my mind, more than offsets the charge of interest, because it puts him in shape so that he can begin paying just as quickly as he gets into operation, if he knows how, and he will be instructed how, if he desires or needs instruction. Mr. TAYLOR. Is this instructor to be a taskmaster or boss that is going to control everybody, or be the bugaboo that some seem to think he is ? Mr. DAVIS, Not at all. The idea is to have the cooperation of the agricultural colleges in the selection of men and provision of the instruction, usually, on a large project, by the establishment of local schools or demonstration farms where they will show what can be done and how it can be done, and anybody desiring instruction can come there and get it, and it will be given free and made accessible to everybody. There will not be anything operating to enforce any authority on the part of these instructors, except the indirect pres- sure that will come when a man wants an extension of his pay- ments, or anything of that kind, or desires some leniency or a fur- ther loan. Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, if he is one of these fellows who thinks he knows it all and does not need any instruction, he does not have to take it? Mr. DAVIS. He does not have to take instruction, but he has to make his payments, and that is where the test will come. Mr. GANDY. If he does make his payments there will be no pres- sure of any kind at all ? Mr. DAVIS. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. We have now on a project in Oregon an ex- perimental farm at the present time. Mr. DAVIS. There is on many of our projects, carried on, some of them by cooperation of the State, and some by the United States, through the Agricultural Department, and it has been beneficial. They have shown what could be done, and usually have developed different problems, such as raising alfalfa on refractory soils. The CHAIRMAN. And the farmers seek the advice of the agricul- tural experts on the demonstration farms? Mr. DAVIS. The successful ones, especially, do, and there is no effort to force them out. There is no objection to their presence, but they are glad to have them there. Mr. TAYLOR. He is no more than a county agent that goes to the various counties and acts as an expert adviser to the people that want his advice ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 492 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. GANDY. I want to correct the record. Mr. Davis did not get my question, because lie made an erroneous answer that I do not want to stand. I said if the man makes his payment there is not any pressure of any kind at all. You understood me to say if he did not. Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I misunderstood you. That is true. There is no kind of pressure at all on the man who makes his payments. If he does not, the pressure is for the collection of the money. Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahead and tell the distinguishing characteristics of this measure and the other. Mr. DAVIS. One of the strong points of this bill is that it authorizes work where the development will be beneficial to existing commu- nities which have now to incur immense railroad hauls to get their supplies. That applies particularly to New England and eastern New York, where intense manufacturing is in progress and where agriculture is in decadence. That country requires reclamation in the same sense, though it is not as difficult as in the western country. It requires clearing usually, sometimes some leveling, sometimes a little drainage, and always the application of some kind of fertilizer, gen- erally lime, sometimes phosphates, and nearly always humus or nitrogen. The eastern lands, while they require that, are not so deficient in nitrogen as the western lands. In all the States that can be done to-day at less expense than has been incurred for the larger irrigation works for the irrigation of land, which will be necessary forever in the future for any large development in irrigation. The CHAIRMAN. On the reclamation projects heretofore there has been no wholesale or general buying of material for building and im- provement, and that is contemplated in this act. Mr. DAVIS. That is the great contrast between the two. This act provides the farmer with a going concern, and if he is industrious he can take hold of that and make it a success and make his payments from his product there. That is not now true with the western farmer. Under the reclamation act that man takes the water right and the raw land, and he has all the rest to dp himself. He has to do whatever clearing is necessary, and in irrigation a great deal of level- ing is required, much more than on a nonirrigated farm, and he has to provide his own farm buildings, his own stock, and his own im- plements and money. Mr. TAYLOR. It takes two or three years before there is enough humus in the soil to produce a crop, does it not ? Mr. DAVIS. It takes two or three years more work to put enough humus in the soil to make it pay. In the arid countries the soil has has very little nitrogen in it, and it has to be incorporated by putting in humus and truning them in, and sometimes years are required to bring the land into a productive state by this method. I do not mean to cite this as a thing that ought to be done, but there are cases, and one that I will cite in the Huntley project in Montana, where a man went there with just enough money to pay his filing fee and get on the ground and have $35 left. That is all he had. He had to start to work and had to rent teams and had to work out and invoke all the various devices that a man would under those circumstances, and he made a go, and has one of the most successful projects there, a very highly developed 40-acre unit. This project was referred to by one of the speakers before when he said it was a case where the Government had made a mistake by HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 493 the creation of too small a unit. That was in Montana, about the same latitude he was talking about, but he said that in order to make it a success we had to enlarge the unit. I do not know where he got his information, but that is entirely contrary to the facts. The aver- age unit there was 43 acres of irrigable land, and the project has been one of the best successes, and there has been practically no delin- quency in payments, and very few applications for any lienency or anything of the kind. Mr. GANDY. What do they raise there ? Mr. DAVIS. The staple is alfalfa. They raise sugar beets also. There is a beet sugar factory about 20 miles away. But that is not the main product. The main product is the alfalfa, and they raise a good deal of grain. Mr. TAYLOR. Can you tell the committee approximately how much will be repaid to the Government of the United States by the various reclamation projects throughout the West this year and from now on cash return to the Federal Treasury? Some intimate that we are not paying back here. Mr. DAVIS. The amount which will be paid this year is between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000. Mr. TAITLOR. I want what will be repaid by the settlers back into the Federal Treasury. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTON. What is the general estimate when the repayment period is passed as to the percentage of repayment of the total amount outlaid by the Government? Mr. DAVIS. Will you repeat that question? Mr. ELSTON. Will the Government get 100 per cent back of the money outlaid on these reclamation projects over the period you ex- pect these payments to occur? Mr. DAVIS. That is a very deep question, and requires some prog- nostication, of course, but was gone into thoroughly by the board of cost review that Secretary Lane appointed a few years ago to ex- amine all of these projects, and they figured that the return will be in the neighborhood of 90 per cent. Mr. ELSTON. In the present case that is covered by this bill you expect the return to be greater by reason of the Government getting the interest added to the amount? Mr. DAVIS. Yes ; the interest will make it very much greater. The CHAIRMAN. The return this year will be 10 per cent over your total expended? Mr. DAVIS. No. The CHAIRMAN. Not quite that? Mr. DAVIS. No; the returns for this year are estimated at $1.500,- 000. That is for the next fiscal year beginning the 1st of July. Mr. ELSTON. In addition to that, of course, this estimated return of 90 per cent of the total investment is due in some measure to the initial payments in the field, and then to the percentage of values by reason of the want of figures such as you put in this act. You are going now on the experience of nearly a generation to perfect this act in order to get around a good many of the difficulties that have been experienced in the reclamation Avork business ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir : that is true. The principal cause of the lack of a 100 per cent collection was the requirement of law that the 494 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. project be taken up in every State that had public land. That required a project in North Dakota, and that project has not been a success. It is one that the board of review cut off. It is in a semi- arid region. Mr. ELSTON. Could that argument be carried back against you, that this bill provides for a project to be established in each State? Mr. DAVIS. Where feasible. Mr. SMITH. Was that project in North Dakota taken up against the recommendations of the engineers? Mr. DAVIS. It certainly was. Mr. SMITH. It was actually taken up against the recommendations of the engineers ? Mr. DAVIS. I can not speak for others, but it was against mine. Mr. TAYLOR. You said a few moments ago that the average cost of settlement of land under the reclamation projects throughout the West was about how much per acre ? Mr. DAVIS. The Government reclamation projects? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. About $60. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you feel that you have sufficient data from which you can give this committee an approximate estimate of what will be the cost to the soldier per acre of the lands outside of the recla- mation and irrigation projects of the West? Take the average cut- over land that you would locate and the average swamp land that you would locate, and land that needs draining in part and is abandoned or idle, or used to-day for pasture, etc. What would you estimate will be charged to the soldier? Would it be more than a quarter of that amount ? Mr. DAVIS. Oh. yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Why? Mr. DAVIS. One reason is that you are providing improvements and equipment and the services of experts that we do not provide on the reclamation projects. I think I misunderstood that question. I understood you to ask regarding lands that had been opened on which they are now paying. You referred to the projects when completed ? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes ; practically. Mr. DAVIS. That will be higher. Mr. TAYLOR. What will that be? Mr. DAVIS. I presume that will be in the neighborhood of $75 or $80. Mr. ELSTOX. You are speaking of the reclamation projects in the West? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Taylor wants to know, exclusive of those, what you estimate will be the total price per acre of projects under the present act we are now considering, as applied to cut-over lands, woodlands, and PO on. Mr. DAVIS. I understand the question perfectly. Mr. TAYLOR. I would like for you to give an approximation. If it costs $75 or $80 an acre, which I think it does to the settler, without question at least it does in Colorado what would be the cost of the acreage, other than the cost of building barns and things of that kind that they can? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 495 Mr. DAVIS. Simply reclaiming the land. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes ; what will that land itself be probably put in to the soldier at? Mr. SMITH. It will depend on the locality. Mr. TAYLOR. I am trying to get a general average. Mr. SMITH. You do not want a general average to apply in some States where the land is going to be very cheap. Mr. TAYLOR. There is a wide difference in the lands in the West. We are just making a kind of estimate. I do not believe it will cost the soldier $20 an acre, and it cost $75 or $80 in the West. What I am trying to get at is some estimate that we can give to the people as to what these soldiers will probably have to pay for this land. Mr. SMITH. But you would not want to give the average; in a locality where farm values are away down, you would not want to give the average ? The CHAIRMAN. Let Mr. Davis answer it in his own way. Mr. DAVIS. You mean the average cost of reclamation ? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. The average cost of reclamation I have already stated. Mr. TAYLOR. Including the purchase price ? Mr. DAVIS. The cost of reclamation is going through a wide varia- tion, and it is impossible to make any very close estimate of what that will average; but I think we are perfectly safe in saying that it will be less than it has been for reclamation by irrigation. Mr. TILLMAN. Exclusive of the land ? Mr. DAVIS. Exclusive of the original cost of the land. That orig- inal cost of the land is a very uncertain thing, and it widely varies. Mr. NICHOLS. You do not include the purchase price, Mr. Davis ? Mr. DAVIS. No; nor did I make any estimate, except I am sure it is lower than the cost of reclamation by irrigation. I do not believe that any closer figures will be available, because we have not made enough 'investigation. Mr. SMITH. Is not this true, Mr. Director, that in some localities you are going to drain land and be able to put it on the market for probably $15 or $20 an acre? Mr. DAVIS. I do not believe there will be any case of that kind ; I do not know of any. Mr. TAYLOR. You think it will be more than that? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I am sure of that. There are very few States where we can buy it for less than that. Of course, there are vast areas in some States where we can buy it for less than that, but if you take the average State, it will cost more than that for first-class land, exclusive of any reclamation. Mr. HERSMAN. From your knowledge of these reclamation projects, and the total cost they may stand the Government, is it not reasonable to suppose that they will increase in value after the soldier settlement is on these different projects as much as the irrigation projects of the West have increased in value, which you have said to be about 100 per cent ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes : I think that is a conservative estimate. Mr. HERSMAX. That is a very important thing. Mr. DAVIS. As a rule; but that depends again on what its first cost is. If we have to buy land at $75 or $100 an acre anywhere, which I hope we will not, that puts a very different aspect/ on it. 13331919 32 496 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to ask you one more question about tlie irrigation of land in the West. You said the Government reclama- tion projects had been uniformly successful. Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. HERSMAN. Did you not say that ? Mr. DAVIS. No,- sir. Mr. HERSMAN. I would like to have you tell me what proportion of them have been a success. Mr. DAVIS. I stated that the estimate by the Board of Cost Eeview, which went into this matter very thoroughly, was that about 90 per cent of the fund would be returned. . Mr. HERSMAN. No; I mean a success as far as the settler was con- cerned, to make money for him. Mr. DAVIS. Well, that is about the same answer. An illustration is the North Dakota project, where they refused to use the water. Of course, the settler did not benefit there. In taking up work in a semi- arid region, where people do not have to take the water, and the land is in private ownership, without authority to acquire the land, we can not always succeed with irrigation. Mr. TAYLOR. A number of years ago they took up a reclamation project clown in Kansas. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. They might just as well have taken it up in New York. And they tried to take up one in Oklahoma, and they took up one or two there that they never ought to have taken up. Mr. DAVIS. We could make an irrigation project pay in the State of New York, if we owned the land, but we do not own the land and have no authority to acquire it. Mr. HERSMAN. Have the reclamation projects you have passed on been a success, the ones that you have reported on favorably? Mr. DAVIS. You refer to me personally. Mr. HERSMAN. Yes, sir; you, as the head of the Reclamation Service. Mr. DAVIS. I would consider so. There may be a few cases where there is a unit here and there where there might have been a mis- take, but the information of the Government is the estimate made by the Board of Cost Review, 90 per cent. Mr. HERSMAN. In regard to private reclamation projects of the West, can you give me a little estimate of the proportion of those which have been a success, so far as the settler was concerned on those projects making good and increasing the value of the land that he settled on? Mr. DAVIS. I do not know that I could give you any closer estimate that would be of any value. I know that, in general, it has been a success, and I know of a good many places where they have under- taken projects without sufficient water supply, and some things of that kind, but that, of course, is a matter we try to avoid, and usually have avoided. Mr. HERSMAN. One more question. In regard to phosphates, what portion of the expense in some of these lands of the East would be required to be expended for the purchase of phosphates to reclaim these lands where phosphates were necessary? Mr. DAVIS. I could not answer that question, as it varies widely. It will not be a large element in the expense, in my judgment, but HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 497 we have not made soil surveys. We simply have general informa- tion. I could not make an estimate on that. Mr. HERSMAN. Where do we get our phosphate supply from? Mr. DAVIS. Phosphates can be had in the Carolinas and Florida, in Idaho and in Wyoming, and I think there are some other beds of less extent, but those are very large, extensive, and valuable. Mr. NICHOLS. Under the reclamation plan, what would the average price of each project be estimated at? What do you estimate as the average price of each project, under the reclamation plan ? Mr. DAVIS. How much per acre ? I did not understand your ques- tion. You mean the present value of land ? Mr. NICHOLS. No; I mean what do you estimate to be the average price of one of these farms under the present bill that we are con- sidering ? Mr. DAVIS. Oh, to the soldier? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. About $5,000. Mr. NICHOLS, in the reclamation scheme what would be the aver- age price ? Mr. DAVIS. For the water right, you mean? Mr. NICHOLS. For what? Mr. DAVIS. For the water right ? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. Between $3,000 and $4,000. Mr. NICHOLS. Under the reclamation plan a period of 20 years is allowed for payment ; under this bill the period is 40 years. Will you please tell me why the difference, why 40 years is allowed instead of 20? Mr. DAVIS. On account of the requirement of interest repayment. Under the reclamation act no repayment of interest is required on the part of the settler, and this bill requires interest. Mr. NICHOLS. Is it really considered by the department that it will take a soldier 40 years to pay? Mr. DAVIS. Many of them, doubtless most of them, will pay in a shorter time, but under this bill the Secretary can fix a shorter time. Mr. NICHOLS. If it takes a soldier 40 years to pay for it would you consider it a success? Mr. DAVIS. If he did it successfully, I should say so. Mr. NICHOLS. If he paid for his project in 40 years it would be considered a success? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. The long time is intended as a privilege to the soldier? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, Mr. Smith; but I am suggesting this: That it is not such a wonderful opportunity if it takes a man 40 years to- pay $5,000. Mr. SMITH. But he can pay it sooner if he wants to. Mr. NICHOLS. I know he can pay it sooner, if he can, but the law says 40 years. Mr. SMITH. He can pay it in less than 40 years if he wants to. Mr. NICHOLS. I am simply suggesting that it is not such a wonder- ful thing if it takes that long to pay for it. 498 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ELSTON. If a soldier goes into an irrigation project and has allotted to him 40 acres of very good land, with an overhead, so far as repayment of interest and principal, of only one-fourth, which is very slight, and with the proper amount of industry, is it not per- fectly possible for him to get $50 per acre, or $2,000 a year, and to repay the purchase price of that land in 2 or 3 years, if he is a good farmer? Mr. DAVIS. Very likely. I have known cases where the price could be paid back in one or two years. Mr. ELSTON. If the projects are selected carefully. The 40-year privilege is for the case of a man with a very large overhead, such as a man with a family, etc., but the goal of every man with any industry is at least a 5-year privilege to pay for the farm and clear up the whole business, and then ask for a release and have the 35 years taken off. Mr. DAVIS. Well, I do not think the average could do it in five years. Mr. ELSTON. Ten years would about cover the average? Mr. DAVIS. I think so. I am inclined to think, though, that I or anyone else having this privilege w T ould rather go ahead and improve the farm, bring it to a high state of improvement and comfortable state of living as long as he could carry this debt at 4 per cent, be- cause he can not borrow money from anybody else at that rate. Mr. NICHOLS. What has been the average term of years it has taken to make payment under the reclamation plan ? Mr. DAVIS. They have no interest payment at all, and I think only 2 per cent or 3 per cent have paid out before the time allowed by law. Mr. NICHOLS. Twenty years? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; a few have made payment in full. Mr. ELSTON. Is that because they have not been able to pay out in the specified time, or because they are prudent business men ? In other words, would not a man be foolish, when he is only paying 4 per cent on this obligation, to take the earnings of his farm and pay it off when he can put those earnings out and get 8 per cent? Mr. NICHOLS. Why does the Government extend the length of time? Mr. DAVIS. To take care of the poor fellow. Mr. NICHOLS. To take care of the fellow who can not do it, not to take care of the fellow who can employ his money in other ways ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. In the first place, the soldier pays $2,000 as an initial payment on the project? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I figure $1,200 as the average initial payment, Mr. NICHOLS. That is the initial payment? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And the 40 years' provision is to take care of the re- mainder of the $5,000, or $3,800 ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. He pays so much each year. Mr. DAVIS. When he gets through these 40 years Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). He is dead, probably. Mr. DAVIS. If he has been reasonably wise and prudent, instead of having a $5,000 farm he may have a* $25,000 farm. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 499 1 Mr. NICHOLS. It would be a good thing for his children, would it not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir ; it would be a good thing for his children and for him. I wish I had a $25,000 farm. Mr. ELSTON. I wish I could buy a farm with 40 years for repay- ment. Mr. MAYS. Comparing this bill with the reclamation act, where we charge no interest, what would you say about it? Mr. DAVIS. So far as the beneficiary is concerned the soldier or settler I think it is better than the reclamation act. That is, for the poor man. Of course, the man with plenty of capital has a great advantage under the reclamation act, but for the average poor man that we are trying to help, I think it is a better proposition, or just as good, to say the least, as the reclamation act. He can get started with at least a small initial outlay and he has a greater chance of succeeding, because he has the wise expenditure of this early invest- ment supervised by experts, and the advice of other experts as to how to secure the money to make his payments, and he has a better, chance of getting his money back than under the reclamation act. Mr. MAYS. You propose to do more under this act than you do' under the reclamation act? Mr. DAVIS. For the very poor man. To a man who has $5,000, of course, the water right without a long-time interest is a great ad- vantage, but for the man who has no money to make the necessary payments this bill is better. Mr. MAYS. What has been the average payment that the settler has had to make under the reclamation act? Mr. DAVIS. The law divides the settler into two classes, one of which makes the settler pay an average initial payment of 5 per cent and the other an average initial payment of 2 per cent, according to whether he has prior rights. Mr. MAYS. Then, he has to make his improvements himself? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. Mr. MAYS. You have no provision for any loans to make im- provements ? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. If they negotiate any loans with the Govern- ment, it must be through the Federal Farm Loan Board, but most of them have their lands tied up under liens and can not do it. The CHAIRMAN. Under the reclamation law the man had to do his own clearing and his own leveling ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It is contemplated under this bill that the land will be cleared for him ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HERSMAN. Of all these settlers that have taken advantage of the reclamation act, what proportion of them had a little money to start with and what was the amount they had to start with? Mr. DAVIS. Of course, I assume that all of them had a little money to start with; but I suppose you mean something over a hundred dollars? Mr. HERSMAN. Yes ; some reasonable amount to go ahead on. Mr. DAVIS. I can not give you any accurate statistics; but, as a rule, from general knowledge, I would say that at least 90 per cent 500 HOMES jfOE SOLDIERS. of our settlers had several hundred dollars to start with, and some of them had several thousand dollars. Mr. HERSMAN. On the reclamation projects? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HERSMAN. Then, there would be a difference between those men and soldiers that are starting with practically nothing? Mr. DAVIS. Well, when you speak of the soldier starting with nothing, that means just as he comes back; but, of course, he must have something to make an initial payment. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Davis, why does this arrangement permit a period of 40 years to make payment for the land? What might occur that would take a soldier 40 years to pay for his land ? Mr. DAVIS. There are many misfortunes that the soldier might go through, or he might be burdened with an invalid family or some- thing of that kind; he might himself be sick or might have an un- usual loss of stock or agricultural crops. I think in nearly all cases he will carry this debt until he gets his land very highly improved, rather than pay it off with his profits if he has enough to pay it. He would rather build good large buildings, stock up well with high- grade stock, perhaps raise orchards and things that cost a great deal, having his capital furnished by the Government at a 4 per cent rate of interest, which will enable him to have a very much more highly developed farm than he would have if he had paid off his obliga- tion to the Government and then had to borrow money for these improvements at a higher rate of interest. Many of our settlers still have a debt owing the Government which draws practically no interest, or very little interest, and yet they have built up a farm worth $15,000 or $20,000. Many a farm is valued at $300 an acre, with improvements and all; and much of it is in improvements; some of it is in fertilizing and things of that kind. I think a large majority of these men will probably take advantage of the full time allotted because of those reasons. Mr. NICHOLS. How much do you think, as an average, the soldier could save in a year of employment on the project? Mr. DAVIS. I made an average guess at $600 in answer to a ques- tion by the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. NICHOLS. Did you hear the major's statement yesterday re- garding married men being able to get along just as cheaply as single men and save just as much money, and perhaps more? Mr. DAVIS. As I recall it, his statement was that married men, as a rule, were better employees. Mr. NICHOLS. As I remember, he said the married man would prob- ably save more money, or at least as much money, as a single man. Mr. DAVIS. I do not agree with that statement exactly; I think there is a great deal in what he said about the married man being more steady and prudent, but I do not think there is enough to off- set the increased living expenses as an average. Mr. NICHOLS. When Mr. Mondell was before the committee he sug- gested that most of these men would be married men. Is that so in the Reclamation Service? Mr. DAVIS. I presume the majority are married men. I do not suppose the same rule would apply to the soldiers, because the great bulk of returning soldiers are unmarried. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 501 Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Mondell suggested that if they were not married they should be married before they go on the project. Supposing they follow his advice and raise a family; do you think that a man raising a family on one of these projects at $1,200 a year would save $600 a year? Mr. DAVIS. Probably not. It might be something less than that. Mr. SMITH. If he had a cow, and chickens, and hogs he would probably be able to get along on $50 a month. Mr. NICHOLS. How much do you think a newly married man rais- ing a family during this period from three to five years could save ? How much do you think he will save a month? Mr. DAVIS. My idea would be that he could save on an average this is a very rough guess, and a prediction as well about $40 a month or $480 a year. They will not all do that, of course; some will do better ; but if they do average that much it will mean that in about three years a man will be able to make the necessary initial payments to get his loan from the Government and begin as a going concern, but not more than that. Mr. MATS. There is a question that occurs to me now that goes to the administrative features of the bill. I was talking with a Con- gressman from Pennsylvania last night and he raised an interesting question. He said, as a legal proposition, how can the Government enter into a contract with a soldier who has not reached the age of 21 years, and I could not answer the question. The CHAIRMAN. Anybody can enter into a contract with a minor. Mr. MAYS. Yes; but the minor can disavow it when he comes of age if he wants to. The CHAIRMAN. The Government permits them to make entries. Mr. FERRIS. If there is any difficulty about that, I suggest we confer majority on these soldiers for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. We can give the authority to make the contract, and that will control in all the States. Mr. DAVIS. There will not be many of these soldiers who will be under 21 when they come to take advantage of this act. There were none under 19 when they enlisted, were there? Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, yes. Mr. FERRIS. I have a nephew who is 20 now and he has just come out of the Army. The CHAIRMAN. If we are authorized to draft a soldier under 21, we are authorized to enter into a contract with him. Mr. FERRIS. We could confer majority on a very small portion for the purposes of this law. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Davis, have you an estimate of the amortization period after the five years lapse when he will not have to make any installments ? Have you made an estimate of how much that yearly amortization payment is? Mr. DAVIS. That computation has been made. What this means, as I understand, is to require a payment of interest and principal ach year, and those payments will be equal through the 40 years. Mr. ELSTON. There is a five-year period that will be taken off, which will make it 35 years. I think it would be a good idea to have in the record the yearly amount that the soldier would have to pay 502 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. as a minimum over the 35-year period. If anybody will supply us with that estimate, it will be very helpful. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE, Washington, D. C., June 17, 1919. Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Chairman House Committee on Public Lands, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SINNOTT : You will recall that at the time of rny last appear- ance I was requested, at the instance of Mr. Elston, to supply a statement re- garding the amortization payment that the soldier settler would be called on to make under the plan outlined in H. R. 487. I have had this computation made and am inclosing herewith a small table which you may wish to incor- porate in the hearings. The discussion regarding it occurs at the end of my testimony sent herewith. Very truly, yours, A. P. DAVIS, Director. Equal annual payments necessary to meet costs of $4.000, $5,000, and $6,000 farm icith down payment of 5 per cent and interest of 4 per cent, payable annually, on deferred payments for periods of 20 to 40 years. Cost of farm. Cash payment, 5 per cent. Annual equal installments. 20 years. 25 years. 30 years. 35 years. 40 years. $4,000 5,000 6,000 $200.00 250.00 300.00 $279.43 349.29 419. 15 $243.22 304.03 364.84 $219. 75 274.69 329.63 $203.03 253.79 304.55 $191.93 239.91 287.99 In case of a farm costing $5,000, under the terms of H. R. 487 the settler would make a down payment of $250 and pay $239.91 each year for 40 years if that period be used for repayment. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. W. I. Drummond, chairman of the board of governors of the International Farm Congress, of Oklahoma, is here. Mr. Ferris has requested that he be given an opportunity to present his views before the committee. STATEMENT OF MR. W. I. DRUMMOND, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FARM CONGRESS, OKLAHOMA. Mr. DRUMMOND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the International Farm Congress, which now also in- cludes and has incorporated with it the Dry-Farming Congress and the Irrigation Congress; At the last annual session of these com- bined organizations, held at Kansas City last October, the plan of soldiers' settlements, which we then knew as the Lane plan, was given very thorough consideration. The plan was indorsed, I think unanimously. If there were any objections they were not recorded. The congress was truly representative, I believe I may say, of the actual farmers of not less than a dozen States, principally west of the Mississippi River. I find that I do not have with me the resolu- tion that was adopted at that time, so that I will have to ask you to take my word for it, or I could furnish the resolution later if it is of enough importance. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 503 Mr. FERRIS. "Would you mind supplying it to the committee? Mr. DRUMMOXD. I could mail it to you; it will take a few days. Mr. FERRIS. I wish you would. Mr. DRUMMOND. Now, as we understand the proposed legislation, the bill of Mr. Mondell very fairly represents the ideas that were in- dorsed by the delegates to and the members of the International Farm Congress at Kansas City last October. We see nothing in this bill that will endanger the interests of agriculture if it is passed as it now stands. The point that concerns us at this time is what amendments will be made to this bill and what will be the effect of those amendments? We believe that bill is a good one ; that no harm can come to anyone from its passage. It may fall short of taking care of all the soldier boys in the way they want to be taken care of. but we can not see how it w T ill prevent additional legislation being enacted to take care of the soldiers who will not be taken care of by this bill. I claim that the farmers of the United States are as patriotic as any other class of people. They will welcome to their ranks as many of these boys who come back from Europe and who want to reenter business life, as can be received into the vocation of farming without upsetting economic conditions. But if you change this bill so that even 20 per cent of these soldiers, or those who have not been doing farming and have no farm to go back to, are induced to take up farms and given possession of farms which are not now in cultivation, we fear the result. We do not believe it will be fair to the farmer, to the present agricultural interests, nor to the soldiers themselves, because you gentlemen are too familiar with the result of a little overproduction of any commodity not to know what the effect will be. Almost invariably a large crop of any commodity sells for a less number of dollars than a small crop. Overproduction would not only play havoc with the farmers now in that business, but would also work against the soldiers w r hom we want to put on the farms. Under this bill we do not believe a sufficient number of farmers will take up this proposition to make it serious in that way; but if, as we have heard, the bill is going to be changed so that you will ad- vance the soldier 100 per cent or make the conditions of 'these larger projects so attractive that they will all rush there, it will not be fair. If you were to offer any of these soldiers who wanted to take ad- vantage, of it a bank on 40 years' time and make it possible for him to go into the banking business, the bankers would protest. If you tried to make bricklayers out of all of them, the bricklayers would protest. So the farmers whom I represent here to-day present this thought : That however this legislation comes through, do not let it be in such a way as to disarrange or overturn the present economic status of the farm. Mr. SMITH. What percentage of the soldiers dp you think could be absorbed in agricultural lands without disturbing the agricultural condition of the country with reference to farm products? Mr. DRUMMOND. That depends on what percentage you consider. Now, a large number of soldiers came from farms and can go back to farms without any disarrangement ; but it is the soldiers who have no place on farms that is the element that we have to contend with 504 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. from an economical standpoint. As we look at it, there are two dis- tinct problems involved : One is an economic problem, the reclama- tion of waste places, which is something that the country is up against ; the other is a patriotic and sentimental proposition involv- ing taking care of the soldiers. The farmers will go the absolute limit in doing their portion toward paying the debt the country owes to the soldiers, but we thing it is well to sound a note of caution at this time not to overdo this matter, speaking from the interest of agriculture and from the interest of the soldiers whom we expect to put on farms. The CHAIRMAN. This measure would only increase the farms 1} per cent. The population is increasing on a much lager ratio. Mr. DRUMMOND. You mean the bill as it now stands? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. DRUMMOND. Well that bill has the unqualified approval of the International Farm Congress. I am only speaking of the amend- ments that we hear are going to change it. Mr. JOHNSON. What are some of those changes? Mr. DRUMMOND. For instance, requiring no advance payment and furnishing the soldier with 100 per cent money. Mr. JOHNSON. On land? Mr. DRUMMOND. On both land and improvements. Mr. ELSTON. And letting him take a segregated farm ? Mr. DRUMMOND. No; that is not the thought. It is that agri- culture can not be expected to absorb all of those men. That is the fundamental thought I wish to record. Mr. SMITH. The census report shows that the population has in- creased 20 per cent during 10 years, and agriculture has increased only about 11 per cent during that same period. Mr. DRUMMOND. We are familiar with all those figures and wo are not here to record any protest against this measure as it now stands. We are here to lend our unqualified indorsement to it. The International Farm Congress wants to be read into the record as approving this plan of taking care of the soldiers, and stating as far as it is able to state that agriculture stands ready and willing to absorb a maximum amount of these soldiers and put the boys on the farm. Now, there is another amendment I think it was suggested by Mr. Morgan and I believe it is carried in his bill to take care of some of these soldier boys in urban homes, in homes in town. I do not know whether it is practicable or not, but if that is done then every soldier who is taken care of in that way would be a customer and not a competitor of the man on the farm. I simply bring out that thought. Here is another point : If you can arrange this measure so as not to force all these boys to go into a prescribed district, but give them an opportunity to replace a tenant somewhere in their own States or in their locality, I think it would be a very fine thing and would have a tendency to solve the tenantry problem. There are other farms that might be used for soldiers. There are big farms that could be cut into smaller ones and take care of several soldiers, and let those soldiers replace a retiring farmer or a tenant. Mr. FERRIS. Right in our own State, Mr. Drummond, suppose it developed that there was not a feasible project; suppose then 1 was HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 505 not an area large enough to place a soldier colony on it. In your opinion, should not this measure be enlarged to the extent that we could make some arrangement to take care of that situation, even through isolated tracts interspersed through other settlements? Mr. DRUMMOND. If the purpose of this committee is to provide for soldiers, undoubtedly that should be done, and I do not see how any harm could come from it. But, as I say, the International Farm Congrass looks at this thing as two distinct problems the economic problem of taking care of waste places, and the other problem of taking care of the soldier boys and we think you ought to do a little more in view of the economic problem than you would have done if there had not been one. It seems to me you can merge the two and carry out and build upon a foundation that has been laid on the reclamation service, and in time to come, when we are all gone, this country will find that the foundation laid by the present Reclamation Service will be a safeguard against food shortage. Mr. FERBIS. The farmers in our State, then, are all in favor of this bill? Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not speak for the farmers of Oklahoma par- ticularly, but for the fanners who compose the International Farm Congress, including the Dry-Farming Congress and the Irrigation Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that takes a broader scope. Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. I do not believe there is a fair-minded farmer in my State or any other State who will make a protest if he understands 'this whole matter, and I would be ashamed to represent a farmer who would register a protest against this bill or something along similar lines. Mr. FERRIS. While I know that your testimony has weight here, and I appreciate what you have said and I know the committee has, your testimony has been along the side of the interest of the farmer, has it not? Mi-. DRUMMOND. Well, I speak for the farmers. I suppose when a banker appears before your committee he speaks for the bankers. Is not that perfectly natural ? Mr. FERRIS. Certainly. Mr. DRUMMOND. Well, I speak for the farmers, and when you analyze it, this is what it amounts to taking care of the soldier. We have 4,000,000 men who have been carrying guns and working in the different branches of the Army and Navy, and we have to absorb them into the different branches of industry. The question is, How can we do it ? Do you want to put them all on farms ? I do not be- lieve you do. The CHAIRMAN. If you did it, it would increase farms 50 per cent. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not believe it could be clone as easily as it could be worked out on paper, but if you tried it I think enough soldiers would go there to play hob with prices. Bear in mind, how- ever, the anticipation of overproduction has just the same effect on prices as actual overproduction. Mr. NICHOLS. Was this particular bill, the Mondell bill, submitted to the International Farm Congress? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir. The Mondell bill was not drawn at that lime, but I can say this : That I feel safe in saying for the Inter- national Farm Congress that the Mondell bill very accurately repre- 506 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. sents the ideas that were indorsed by the International Farm Con- gress, and that this bill as it now stands would have met with the approval of that gathering. Mr. MAYS. You had the general plan before you ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Did the International Farm Congress adopt any resolutions ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Have you a copy of them ? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir ; not with me. I did not come to Washing- ton to appear before this committee. I am here by invitation. Mr. MAYS. Can you tell what States were represented in that congress ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Every State west of the Mississippi River and some east of the Mississippi River. Some States like Kansas. Mis- souri, and Oklahoma were represented more heavily than those far- ther away. Of course, it naturally resolves itself on a delegate basis. There were 40 from Utah, 35 from Washington, and several hun- dred from each of the near-by States Kansas, Missouri, and Okla- homa. Mr. MAYS. Delegates? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Our work has not stopped Avith this annual International Farm Congress. It is a permanent institution. It keeps an office open all the year round. It has regular representa- tives and agents who keep in touch with farmers, and it has a regu- lar publication. I have investigated from 50 to 100 wheat fields in the last week. The CHAIRMAN. How long has your organization been in exist- ence? Mr. DRUMMOND. The Irrigation Congress started 25 years ago; the Dry-Farming Congress started in 1906; the International Farm Congress was incorporated under the laws of Colorado in 1915. They have all been brought together under the name of the Inter- national Farm Congress and as such have been carrying on this work. The CHAIRMAN. How many delegates attended your last meeting? Mr. DRUMMOND. There would have been well over 5,000, but, if you recall, the influenza epidemic was on at that time and we were not permitted to bring all our delegates together. The influenza ban went on at 9 o'clock in the morning on the day of the first meeting. and the health authorities gave us permission to assemble a suf- ficient number of delegates in the hall to make it representative and go ahead with the business. This resolution was printed and given the widest publicity in our monthly publication and published throughout all the territory that we covered, and, so far as I am able to determine, it met with universal approval, except that they did not want to go too far. The CHAIRMAN. Approximately, how many were present at the last convention ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Over 2,000. The CHAIRMAN. Over 2.000? Mr. DRUMMOND. I should say 3,000; yes. Mr. JOHNSON. Did you all consider in your meeting the welfare of the returning soldier ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 507 Mr. DRUMMOXD. Absolutely, and we are ready to go the limit. Under no circumstances do I want to be recorded as standing here and throwing anything in the way. We are for the soldier to the limit. Mr. XICHOLS. Mr. Drummpnd, you say if too many soldiers take advantage of this opportunit}", it would be a bad thing for the farmer and also for the soldier? Mr. DRUMMOND. Certainly; because what is the use of putting a soldier out on a farm under conditions where the price will be so low that he can not pay out? Mr. XICHOLS. I agree with you there. Then it would necessarily have to be limited ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. XICHOLS. To what extent do you estimate it would have to be limited? Mr. DRUMMOND. That is hard to tell. I think this bill as it stands, unless it is materially changed, is absolutely sound and sane, because it affords an opportunity for a soldier who has anything in him to work out and pull through. Mr. XICHOLS. You mean that the restrictions in this measure would cause a great many soldiers not to take advantage of it ? Mr. DRUMMOMD. I think the restrictions would deter the man who simply wants to make a speculation of it. My thought is this, that the restrictions in this bill appear to me to have the effect of discour- aging the insincere man or the man who is thinking lightly of it, but will give ample opportunity for the fellow who is in earnest and wants to do the pioneering, if pioneering is necessary. It will strengthen the reclamation work and be a good thing all around. Mr. BENHAM. If your organization was preparing a bill, would you limit this proposed Government aid to these projects? Mr. DRUMMOXD. Xo, sir ; I think not. I do not believe that is fair to the States, to the localities near to the soldier. I think where there are soldiers who have opportunities in their own neighborhoods to replace tenants they should be allowed to take advantage of them and be helped to do so. Mr. SMITH. If you are going to pay the market price for farms, you would have to have a 50 per cent basis for a farm, would you not, or 60 per cent or 70 per cent? Mr. DRUMMOND. My understanding is that the Government pro- poses to buy this land for the soldier. Mr. SMITH. Yes; but the soldier must have something to pay down if you are going to buy the farm at the market price. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not think that is to be seriously considered. If a soldier has absolutely nothing and can not get anything, the best thing for him is a job. I*f he is worthy, he can accumulate something, or. if he has relatives, they can help him. Xow, getting away from the reclamation proposition and taking up the individual farm propo- sition, the relatives of these men can help them, of course, but it might be wise to divide this into two sections and make a provision whereby you could extend 50 per cent, 60 per cent, or 70 per cent help to' men who want to buy a farm in their own neighborhood or in their own State. There are undoubtedly a lot of soldiers that you are not going to get on these reclamation projects unless you give them the land and make it so attractive by propaganda that they 508 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. will flock to it. Then, the first thing you know you will have a cam- paign on for free homes. Mr. NICHOLS. In what way do you think this is an attractive measure to the soldiers? Mr. DRUMMOND. You mean as it stands now ? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir. Mr. DRUMMOND. It is attractive only to a small per cent of them r in my judgment. Mr. FERRIS. What per cent? Mr. DRUMMOND. I will fix the per cent. We have, say, 3,500,000 soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. We have 4,000.000. Mr. DRUMMOND. Well, a lot of them will not come back; a lot of them will reenlist. Mr. NICHOLS. I will say 3,000,000. Mr. DRUMMOND. If you have 200.000 soldiers who will go 011 these reclamation projects and work this thing through as business men ought to work it, you will have fully as many as we expect you to have. I will say there are many men in our organization who have given much thought to this matter, and if they thought this bill would result in a million men wanting to get on these projects they would be against it, in the interest of the soldier as well as in the interest of the farmer. Mr. NICHOLS. Or 500,000? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. Do you not think the other bill vou suggested would add 500,000? Mr. DRUMMOND. I know it would add a good many. I know per- sonally of a good many boys who want a farm, but not one on a reclamation project. I also know the other class, restless, vigorous fellows who want to scrap with the wilderness, and this bill will help them. The CHAIRMAN. You confine your suggestion of segregated farms solely to supplanting tenants ? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir. I did not confine it, but I say that is the way it will work out. Now, when you supplant a tenant or a farmer going out of business, you do not upset the economic balance. That kind of man will have some money or some relatives who will furnish him with money. My suggestion is that when a man is willing to go on these projects and wrestle with the conditions he finds there, you ought to go the limit to help him out. But do not stop there. Give a little help to these other fellows who want to replace a tenant or replace an old farmer who wants to go out of business. Then a lot of them will want to go into different trades in town, and if the primary thought you have in mind is to take care of them, you can very easily provide homes in town. I see no- reason why a project could not be cut out of 40 acres at Indianapolis or Kalamazoo or anywhere else. You have got a cinch on the finan- cial value of the land because the value will increase and you can never lose. Mr. NICHOLS. That is just the point. The reclamation feature is incidental. The title of this bill is " To provide employment and homes for those who have served with the military and naval HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 509 forces through the reclamation of lands, to be known as the ' national soldier settlement act.' " Mr. DBTTMMOND. Well, I apologize to the committee if I have got- ten off the subject. Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, no; I am glad to hear what you say. The bill is to provide homes and employment for the soldier on these lands. Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. I am speaking only of the soldiers. Mr. NICHOLS. In what way do you believe this bill provides unusual aid to the soldier? Mr. DRUMMOND. Unusual -aid ? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes ; more opportunity than it would extend to any- one else except the soldier? Mr. DRUMMOND. Well, it is confined to soldiers, is it not? If it has any benefit at all it would certainly go to the soldier and no one else. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Nichols wanted you to outline what advantages it would give the soldier over the ordinary citizen, because the ordi- nary citizen can get a homestead or borrow from the farm-loan bank, and Mr. Nichols wants to know what does it provide in addition to that, especially for the soldier? Mr. DRUMMOND. Well, I repeat, if it does anything for anybody it does it for the soldier. If you have a reclamation project from w T hich the ordinary citizen is excluded it certainly gives the soldier an advantage; it furnishes him with an outlet for his energy if he is an upstanding and aggressive fellow, and tens of thousands of them \vill go out and wrestle with the wilderness, performing a great service to the country and doing a good thing for themselves. Mr. FERRIS. Let me refresh your memory a moment. Mr. DRUMMOND. Perhaps I did not understand the gentleman. Mr. FERRIS. It does give them an opportunity to acquire a home for the first job, does it not? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir; it seems to me that is the way it goes. Mr. FERRIS. It does give them an opportunity to acquire a home for the first job, does it not? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir ; it seems to me that is the way it goes. Mr. FERRIS. Second, it gives them an opportunity to acquire a home on long tenure 40 years? Mr. DRUMMOND. I assume the members of the committee are fa- miliar with the bill and realize that it offers a job to the soldier. Mr. FERRIS. But it does authorize that, does it not? Mr. DRUMMOND. Sure; but I am not here to interpret the bill. Mr. FERRIS. And, third, it does authorize the soldier to borrow $1,200 for improvements? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And $800 for stock and tools? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir; and, so far as I know, no other man has that same privilege. Mr. FERRIS. And many other citizens do not have that oppor- tunity? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. I think that answers the gentleman s question. I did not quite get it before. Mr. MAYS. There is not much money available for the settler out there at 4 per cent, is there? 510 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not know of any. I believe this is a very valuable bill for the soldier. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that the initial payment provided in this bill is too large? Mr. DRUMMOND. Five per cent? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not think that makes much difference. I do not see why a soldier can not pay 5 per cent. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, the total amount would be about $1,200 aver- age initial payment, according to the Director of the Reclamation Service. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not believe so, gentlemen, if the Secre- tary of the Interior will protect a man in his selection until he can accumulate the money. I believe it has a bad effect to go too far, whether you are talking to a soldier or not ; } T OU can carry the mat- ter of welfare too far, to the detriment of the man himself. But, as I understand this bill, if the Secretary of the Interior will pro- tect the soldier in the selection of his land, he takes a job of work on this project and works there three or four months, which I believe is a wise provision, because in that time he might decide that he does not want to have it any more. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Ferris says it affords an opportunity for em- ployment. Mr. DRUMMOND. Well, does it not? Mr. NICHOLS. The statement made by Mr. Davis was to the effect that there are not as many soldiers out of employment as was expected. Mr. DRUMMOND. I think that is true. Mr. NICHOLS. So that the soldier is employed anyway? Mr. DRUMMOND. I think that is true. Mr. NICHOLS. It is not extending any unusual opportunity, then? Mr. DRUMMOND. It is our understanding of that condition that causes us not to fear the result of this bill. I think this bill will furnish the Reclamation Service all the soldiers that it can use. Mr. NICHOLS. As a matter of fact, you do not believe there will be more than 200,000 who will want to'take up projects? Mr. DRUMMOND. I would be very much surprised if there were more than 200,000. Mr. MAYS. You think that is an advantage, however? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Even if it is only 100,000 it is an ad- vantage. Mr. FERRIS. If you can furnish homes for 100,000, or 200,000 sol- diers you will have made some success? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. If you have reduced areas of unproductiveness to areas of productiveness, you have also made a success ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. You say it might impinge upon the farmers' interest if it is carried too far? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Your thought is that it would be advisable to have the soldiers retain their residence in the several States, so far as may be, with a view to making them conversant with the conditions there ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. I do not believe we should force a sol- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 511 dier to go a thousand miles to relocate if he has his friends nearby, and if there is a tenant farm around there that you can help him buy. I do not think, however, that you should give him 100 per cent in that case; I do not believe he would want it. I would back him up on the basis of second claim, or something like that. Mr. FERRIS. With that in mind, what objection would there be to inserting a proviso in this bill that some equitable arrangement should be made in some of the States so that we would make certain that each of the several States would receive some relief for the soldiers of their respective States? Mr. DRUMMOND. I believe that would be wise, and I believe it would reduce the attack that is bound to be made on this bill, no matter how it is reported out of this committee. Mr. FERRIS. Would not that suggestion be helpful in warding off that very charge? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir; I think so. The International Farm Congress is very anxious to have this bill reported out in some shape so that it can be passed. We do not want it retarded in any way. Mr. NICHOLS. In answer to my question you heard Mr. Davis say that if the soldier paid for his land in 40 years it would be considered a success? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, I think so, for this reason : If you gave him 400 years he would take 400 years to pay it out, if he lived that long, because the interest rate is better than he can get elsewhere. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Davis said that the 40-year provision is in the bill not to give the man an opportunity to use his money, but for the man who would not be able to pay out in less time. Do you con- sider that a man who would not be able to pay out in 40 years would be a success ? Mr. DRUMMOND. He might be. There would be other conditions that would affect the situation. As I understand it, it is the prin- ciple of the weakest link in the chain. Undoubtedly a majority of these people would be able to pay out in 10 years, but you will have those who will not be able to pay out. You can not say to one man, " You pay out in 10 years " and to another man, " You pay out in 20 years," or to another man, " You pay out in 40 years." The wire has got to be set far enough away to enable every man to pay out. Mr. NICHOLS. You do not think that 40 years is too far? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir. Mr. FERRIS. You have made investigation and given us your views from the standpoint of the farmer. Have you made any correspond- ing investigation among the soldiers to determine their desire for this legislation? Mr. DRUMMOND. Not in the same way. My testimony would not be worth any more than anybody else's on that. I only know in a personal way. Of course we have quite a number of inquiries from soldiers. Mr. FERRIS. But not enough testimony to make it valuable? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir. It could not be considered representative. Mr. FERRIS. We have in our State 90,000 soldiers, and the bulk of them are just getting back and arriving down there this week. There has been no effort made to take a sounding of their views by any organization in our State to find out what they want, has there ? 13331919 33 512 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. DRUMMOND. I think not. The only information I know of would be the questionnaire sent out by the department. Mr. FERRIS. Would it be feasible to call those soldiers together and ascertain what their notions are on this subject, telling them what we are doing here ? Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not see any harm in it. It might have a good result. Mr. HERNANDEZ. Was this question brought before the convention at St. Louis ? Mr. FERRIS. They indorsed that proposition. Mr. NICHOLS. They did not indorse the Mondell bill. Mr. SMITH. No; they indorsed the general proposition. Mr. BEN HAM. They indorsed the general proposition of soldiers' aid. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Drummond represents the International Farm Congress, and his testimony is very enlightening to the committee, and I would like to ask him. if he has not already gone into them, in regard to the questions of separate title, length of time they should hold their land, exemption from debt for a certain length of time, and separate homes. Has he gone into that? The CHAIRMAN. He went into the question of separate homes. Mr. RAKER. The question of indorsement goes to the general fea- tures of providing a homestead for the returning soldier ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. But as to the question of how they should hold the title, whether or not they should simply have a right to occupy it and use it, whether or not they should live on it, whether or not there should be a preference given to any of the soldiers over the others, as to those who should have homes you have not discussed that, and you trust the committee to take care of that? Mr. DRUMMOND. Oh, absolutely. Mr. RAKER. I mean your organization has not spoken upon that subject, has it? Mr. DRUMMOND. No. sir ; but the matter as it was presented there and as it was argued quite at length, published in our publication, and discussed at other meetings is very thoroughly set forth in the Mondell bill. Mr. RAKER. You went into all its features? Mr. DRUMMOND. Oh, yes; very thoroughly. We had both sides. We had Elwood Mead and Mr. King Mr. RAKER (interposing). I mean you went into the question of prior lien and preference right and community system, separate homesteads, and separate homes? Mr. DRUMMOND. Those matters were all brought out in the dis- cussion. Mr. RAKER. Has the organization presented its views on those subjects ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Not in detail, but it indorsed the plan as presented, and my mission here is to assure the committee that we are in favor of the proposition. Mr. RAKER. But they did not indorse any bill ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Oh, no; there was no 'bill drawn at that time, but the Mondell bill is fairly representative of the things that they did indorse, if I make myself clear. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 513 Mr. RAKER. If that is the case, I would like to analyze a few fea- tures of the bill if you have done that. Mr. DRUMMOXD. That has been done. Mr. RAKER. You are in favor of the general plan of the soldier selling his home? Mr. DRUMMOXD. Xo, sir; we did not go into that, but I do not see why we should not Mr. RAKER (interposing). Now, that is why I wanted to be spe- cific as to whether or not your organization had taken up the question of giving the soldier the right to sell his home within a given period or whether the Government should hold the title. Mr. DRUMMOXD. We assumed that the policies of the past would be continued ; that the regulations would be reasonable ; that in time he could sell it. We do not believe it would be a good idea to let him relinquish it at any time he saw fit. Mr. RAKER. Every homesteader should have a certain period of time to live on his land before he could make a lien on it or alienate it. Mr. DRUMMOXD. Let us see if this answers your question. I think all of us agree that the soldier should complete his contract and make payment before he is at liberty to transfer it. Mr. RAKER. In other words, he should be in such shape as to pro- tect the Government? Mr. DRUMMOXD. Absolutely. We do not believe there is any occa- sion, with the rising value of land, both in the city and in the coun- try, for the Government to lose any money. The CHAIRMAN. Under the bill the sale, if made within 10 years, would have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior ? Mr. DRUMMOXD. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. After the man had complied with the law to the ex- tent that he would have a right to obtain a patent Mr. DRUMMOXD (interposing). Yes; certainly. Mr. RAKER. You would not want any board or officer to be a su- pervisor over him and tell him how he should sell his land, provided the Government got every dollar out of that contract? Mr. DRUMMOXD. Well, if there is too much supervision Mr. RAKER (interposing). You wo'uld not want any supervision as to the man selling his title if the Government has got all its money out of the project? Mr^ DRUMMOXD. No. sir; not if the Government protects its in- terest. Mr. RAKER. You would also be in favor of legislation providing that the land should not be subject to any debts incurred before patent? j. , ., r Mr. DRUMMOXD. You mean existing judgments? Mr. RAKER. Any debt contracted before patent should not affect the homestead, the same as in our present homestead law ? Mr. DRUMMOXD. That point was never raised because nobody pre- sumed that there would be any difference. Mr. RAKER. Well, it would be raised, because this bill does not pro- vide for it. Mr. DRUMMOXD. I think it ought to be in the legislation. Mr. RAKER. Then you think that only one tract of land ought to be in the hands of one soldier; that no soldier should own more than one home at any time ? 514 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. DRUMMOND. I think so. I do not think you should force com- munity interests on those boys. Mr. RAKER. You do not understand. For instance, one man might have enough money to buy out several other men and have 8 or 10 of these homes. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not think he should be permitted to buy anybody else out until he has completed his arrangements with the Government. Mr. BAKER. But after he has completed his home and got his pat- ent, do you think there should be any restriction, that he should not own more than one homestead at any time under that project? Mr. DRUMMOXD. That would be a matter for the committee to de- cide. Mr. RAKER. What is your organization's view on it? Mr. DRUMMOND. We have not gone into that. Mr. RAKER. All right, then. We will not go into that. Would you have all the land cleared, the roads built, houses placed on the premises, outhouses and barns, the fields seeded; or would you just simplj* have 10 or 15 acres cleared and general road building done, with a little modest house, outbuilding and barn, and then let the soldier improve his place when he went on it? Mr. DRUMMOND. I would give the soldier the utmost latitude for the exercise of his initiative in all cases. Mr. RAKER. You would not be in favor of a completed farm all cultivated and seeded? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir. I do not believe our boys would need anything like that. The CHAIRMAN. This bill does not provide for the seeding. Mr. RAKER. But, Mr. Chairman, this pamphlet does provide for it, and I wanted to see whether or not that was understood by the balance of us. The CHAIRMAN. I thought you understood the bill provided for the seeding of the land. Mr. RAKER. Well, the questionnaire did. Mr. DRUMMOND. I am only speaking of the Mondell bill. I am not talking about the questionnaire. Mr. RAKER. I wanted to know whether or not your organization went on record on the question of homesteads under legislation of this character, whether it should be a completed home all cultivated, all fenced, all improved, so that he could move right upon it. or whether or not it should be just a farm with the general work done in the way of good roads to and from it, part of it cultivated, some fenced, the rest of it raw land, and enough buildings to live in comfort. Mr. DRUMMOND. Your question is, Did the International Farm Congress consider that question? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir; it did not. Mr. RAKER. All right; that settles that point. You do not know what the organization's opinion would be on that? Mr. DRUMMOND. I think I do. Mr. RAKER. What would it be? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 515 Mr. DRUMMOND. It would be that a minimum of work should be clone by the Government, and a maximum of latitude allowed the sol- dier for the exercise of his initiative. Mr. FERRIS. You think the cedar trees and blue grass ought to be left there '. Mr. DRUMMOND. I think if the soldier prefers blue grass or Ber- muda grass, Uncle Sam ought not to say he must have some other kind, unless he should want to plant something not suited to the climatic conditions. Mr. RAKER. You know this questionnaire says it was to be seeded and improved? Mr. DRUMMOND. I know that. Mr. RAKER. I want to read it and ask the witness a question ; this is all in the record. Mr. SMITH. If Judge Raker will permit me, we have a gentleman from Idaho, Mr. R. E. Shepherd, of Jerome, who is experienced in colonization work and is general manager of a reclamation project, and I would like to have him heard now ; otherwise we can not hear him at all. as he must leave the city tomorrow. The CHAIRMAN. AVe will hear him after Judge Raker is through with Mr. Drummond. Mr. NICHOLS. AA'ould you mind sending to the chairman of the committee a copy of the resolution adopted by your organization? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir ; I will do that. * The CHAIRMAN. That is already understood. Mr. Ferris brought that out. Mr. RAKER. Here is what I want to call to your attention, reading from page 31 of the hearings before this committee, an extract from the questionnaire sent out by the Interior Department : Q. Now, how about getting a home out of this? A. After you have helped build the dams and canals, or cleared the cut-over land of stumps, or built the ditches to drain the swamp land ; after you have helped to erect houses and barns, built fences, constructed roads, and laid out town sites, built creameries, canneries, warehouses, schools, etc. ; after you have in fact actually reclaimed the land the Government will allow you to pick out one of these farms planted in crops. Xow, I am very much interested in this legislation and want to do everything I can to aid its final enactment and make it workable; but do you believe that kind of farm would be advantageous to the boys, or one that was just in shape so that he could work it himself? The CHAIRMAN. Judge, let me clear up a point right there. At the conference in Secretary Lane's office the planting feature was eliminated from one of the original bills that contained it. Mr. SMITH. It is not in the present bill. Mr. DRUMMOND. I see nothing about it in the present bill. Mr. RAKER. Do you understand my question? Mr. DRUMMOND.' Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. AA T hat is your answer to it? Mr. DRUMMOND. I understand the substance of it, but will you please restate it? Mr. RAKER. You are not in favor of putting the farm in shape and planting it before the boy takes it ? Mr. DRT:MMOND. AA T e do not believe it would be necessary to do all those things. 516 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. Now, in regard to the preference right, do you believe any distinction should be given to a young man who has been in the service and the law should provide for his taking a home, whether or not he was a fanner or blacksmith, druggist or dentist, before he made his application? Would you treat them all alike if they are healthy, competent young men? Would you give them all equal opportunity to take these homes ? Mr. DRUMMOND. That is a question The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think he went into that question before you came in, Judge. Mr. DRUMMOND. I could not answer for the International Farm Congress. I could only give my individual opinion, if you care for that. Mr. RAKER. Yes ; I will take that. Mr. DRUMMOND. I do not see how you can consistently discrimi- nate against anybody. Because a man has not been a farmer does not mean that he will not make a success of farming. If he has carried a gun and performed his duty to his country I would hesi- tate to shut him out from the benefits of this act. If I were on this committee and had to vote on it, I believe I would hesitate to confine this bill to a man who had had actual experience on a farm. Mr. MAYS. The bill does not so confine it. Mr. DRUMMOND. I understand the gentleman's question is not on matters directly in this bill. Mr. RAKER. Oh, yes; it is in the bill, and I will read it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Drummond will be here a week, he suggests, if you want to ask him any further questions. Mr. RAKER. I will put this question now. This gentleman is here and has given us some enlightenment on these matters and I want to ask a few questions along this line. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Drummond will be here to-morrow. Mr. Smith's witness is here now and it is almost 1 o'clock and he wants to leave to-day. Mr. MAYS. I move we hear Mr. Smith's witness now and recall Mr. Drummond. Mr. SMITH. It will oblige Mr. Shepherd if this arrangement may be made. Mr. RAKER. Oh, certainly; all right, then, I will yield to my dis- tinguished friend from Idaho, Congressman Smith. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. R. E. Shepherd, of Jerome, Idaho, is here and will be pleased to answer questions and probably make a statement. (Mr. Shepherd's statement will appear hereafter.) STATEMENT OF MR. W. I. DRUMMOND Continued. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Drummond, Mr. Raker desires to ask you a few questions. Mr. RAKER. Are you in favor of excluding a man from the benefits of this proposed legislation, one of these soldiers, because, perchance, he should nave a house or lot or home in some place? Would you say to him : " Because you have a little home I will not give you this farm " ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 517 Mr. DRUMMOND. You understand that any answer I would give to that would have to be on my own responsibility; that question has not been before the International Farm Congress. I could only an- swer it from my own standpoint. Mr. RAKER. That provision is hitting you right in the face in this bill ; 3'our congress has discussed the subject of this bill. I want to know whether or not your congress was in favor of that proposition, or whether it should be thrown open to every soldier who wanted to take advantage of it, regardless of whether he already had a home ? Mr. DRUMMOND. A number of those minor questions were not dis- cussed in detail. It was assumed that that would be taken care of in the right way. Mr. RAKER. But that is not a minor question. For instance, here ifc a soldier living on a little ranch and can not make a living on it, and this bill would prevent him from going out and taking a home- stead and getting a start. You do not believe that should be in the legislation? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir; I do not believe anything should be in the bill which would work injustice to the soldier, and I believe that would be an injustice. Mr. RAKER. In other words, whether a man has a home or not, no matter what the size of it may be, if you are going to extend this aid to these soldiers who have served in this war, and treat them all alike, you believe that anyone who wants to go on these projects under the rules and regulations that may be adopted should be given a home of his own free choice? Mr. DRUMMOND. I believe anything else would violate the estab- lished policy of the Government. Do we refuse a man a pension be- cause he has got some money? Our people have not discussed that point, but I feel that if they had discussed it they would say the same thing. Mr. RAKER. You think they all ought to be treated alike ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. That is right, is it not? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir; that is what I think about it. The CHAIRMAN. I want to direct Mr. Drummond's attention to the exact language of the bill just on that point : " That soldiers who are not the owners or proprietors of farms or rural homes shall be eligible as purchasers." The idea of that was to supply a farm to a soldier who did not have a farm or rural home. Mr. DRUMMOND. I will say this: That no matter how you settle that phase of the question it would not alter the indorsement of the International Farm Congress of this general proposition. I think that explains it. The CHAIRMAN. You indorse the general proposition, irrespective of little changes in detail one way or the other? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir ; leaving it to the judgment of the com- mittee to work those things out. Mr. RAKER. Now, because a man owned a rural home or a farm, you would not exclude him from getting a home under one of these projects, would you? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir: I do not believe I would, but I do not think he would want one. 518 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. BAKER. That is not the question. Leave it up to him. Are you in favor of this special legislation? Mr. DRUMMOND. No, sir ; personally I am not. Mr. BAKER. Would you be in favor of giving a preference to one class of soldiers over another simply because they worked on the project? Mr. DRUMMOND. We would prefer to leave those matters to the wisdom of this committee. As far as I am concerned, as one mem- ber and a representative of the congress, I would prefer not to discuss that. Let the legal talent and brains represented by this committee work it out. We consider that a detail. We consider everything a detail except the measure itself. Mr. BAKER. You consider everything a detail except the measure itself? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir; such features as you have mentioned. Mr. BAKER. Do you believe a man should live on his homestead under this proposed legislation? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. BAKER. Now, we find in there at least seven of the funda- mental principles of this bill that have not been discussed by your congress and which you think should be left to this committee ? Mr. DRUMMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. BAKER. That is all ; thank you. (Thereupon the committee adjourned until Saturday, June 14, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF BEPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, June 14, 1919. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Gentlemen of the committee, we have with us this morning Secretary Baker, who has kindly consented to make a statement concerning the bill and whether or not he approves of the plan or disapproves of it. Mr. Secretary, will you present your views now ? STATEMENT OF HON. NEWTON D. BAKER, SECRETARY OF WAR. Secretary BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I feel some embarrassment in coming before you because I have not been able to get any expression of soldier sentiment for your information. Col. Woods, who is re- sponsible for the whole question of finding places for soldiers, is out of the city and immediately on his return I will get from him what- ever facts he has acquired *in his contact with the soldiers and send it down for the information of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have it. Secretary BAKER. Col. Woods is in touch, I think, with every agency that is finding places of employment for soldiers and with every group of soldiers seeking places of employment and avenues of occupation, so that it is entirely likely that he has some infor- mation supplementary to that which the Secretary of the Interior has HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 519 put in his letter to the chairman of the committee. Beyoud hat I do not know that I can be of any servece, except in two particulars. A copy of this bill was sent to my department, I think, perhaps by the chairman, with the request that certain phrases be examined to see whether they would be interpreted by our law officers as in- cluding certain groups of persons. I have sent to the chairman a rather long letter suggesting some modifications of phrase, purely in the interest of clarifying the intention of the bill, and not deal- ing with the questions of the policy of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. That relates to how comprehensive this language is in the first sectional suppose? Secretary BAKER. Soldiers, sailors, and marines, }^es. That letter, Mr. Chairman, ought to be in your hands now. It came down yes- terday and your clerk probably has received it. It is the work of the Judge Advocate General and his assistants. The CHAIRMAN. I don't think it has been received yet. Secretary BAKER. It doubtless will be here to-day,' then. Generally, on the subject of the purposes of the bill, of course, the War Department has a very deep interest in the repatriation of the soldier, and particularly in his opportunity of access to the land if it can be secured for him. I have read over the bill. Farming is a science about which I know very little, but it is of fundamental in- terest to the country, of course, and if the soldiers can be supplied with opportunities to begin rural life and farming life in an inde- pendent way, it is very greatly to be desired and it should be done. So, I would like the record to show that I express the heartiest con- currence in the purposes of the bill, and the only doubt I have about it and I venture that with very great deference is as to whether the provisions in the bill are sufficiently elastic in the matter of giv- ing these young soldiers an opportunity to learn how to farm. I am inclined to think that if the discretion of the Secretary of the In- terior were somewhat enlarged, so that he could employ competent farmers as general guides and directors and instructors of these projects, that it would be a wholesome thing, because I have just a little fear that some of these young soldiers in their enthusiasm may go out on a project and imagine as some people imagine that do not know anything about it that farming is easy. Of course, farming is a science. The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose of the Secretary, as I under- stand the bill, to do just that thing that you say should be done. Secretary BAKER. I read the bill with that particularly in mind, and it seemed to me that the discretation given him was rather limited, and if by widening his discretion there, competent instructors could be provided, it would, of course, be very desirable. The committee may be interested to know that in the University at Bonne in France, the American Expeditionary Force University, which is perhaps the most remarkable educational institution in the world anywhere and at any time; a university which was set up in shacks that were built for a hospital and were not occupied as a hospital the university was set up immediately after the declara- tion of the armistice and 11,000 students are in attendance at that university. It has 11 colleges, divinity, law, medicine, veterinary surgery, art. painting, drawing, sculpture, music, languages, modern 520 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. languages, higher mathematics. I saw a doughboy teaching integral calculus to a group of 15 or 16 men, some of whom were majors and captains, and this private was giving these superior officers lessons in integral calculus. It is a most remarkable educational institution, quite the most remarkable in the world. One of its 11 colleges is a college of agriculture, in which not only ordinary farming is taught. but the adaptations of soil to crops, 'theories of fertilizing, farm economics, marketing a very elaborate and intricate course in farm- ing. When I was at Bonne I went to the agricultural college, which is separated from the main body of the university, perhaps six or eight miles, and I found it much the largest of all the colleges in its attendance. So, there is that evidence of interest on the part of soldiers in acquiring a practical and scientific knowledge of farming. The CHAIRMAN. Do our soldiers attend there? Secretary BAKER. Yes; they are all our soldiers 11,000 of our soldiers. And I have no doubt whatever that the graduates of the college of agriculture in the American Expeditionary Force Univer- sity will be very much interested in any plan which will enable them to become farm oAvners and operators. It is a very large body of men. I think I can add nothing further, Mr. Chairman, unless the mem- bers of the committee wish to ask some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Do any members of the committee desire to inter- rogate the Secretary ? Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Secretary, has there been an effort made to take any expression of any sort from any considerable number of soldiers as to their desires after the war? Secretary BAKER. Not through the War Department. Mr. Lane has made some such effort, and he has, as I understand it in. his reports, received favorable expressions from about 50,000. Those are doubtless stimulated by some kind of a questionnaire. Mr. FERRIS. I think 'his testimony is that he sent out 250,000 ques- tionnaires and that 52,000 replies came back. Secretary BAKER. Col. Woods may have made some such inquiry, Mr. Ferris, but he is out of the city now. Mr. FERRIS. He handles the demobilization and repatriation fea- tures of it in your department? Secretary BAKER. He handles the entire employment feature. He is in touch with the chambers of commerce and with every agency throughout the country that is interested in getting the soldier back to his job labor and all. Mr. FERRIS. Could a hasty sounding of sentiment be made through the different commanding officers, generals, etc., to get at what is in the minds of the soldiers ? Secretary BAKER. It would be very difficult to get an accurate one, because the Army is 67 per cent now demobilized, and those who have disappeared from the Military Establishment and have been dis- charged, of course, it would be very difficult to get at. It would be very easy to take a division like the Thirty-sixth Division, which is not yet demobilized, and make an inquiry there. Mr. FERRIS. Well, they are in process of demobilization now ? Secretary BAKER. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. They are going down to the demobilization camps now? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 521 Secretary BAKER. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. I think they passed through New York yesterday, and will be in Texas in the next day or two. Secretary BAKER. At every demobilization camp there is an office through which the men go, and one of the features of that office is an employment section; and every man who hasn't a job to which he is going and knows about goes to that employment section and states what kind of a job he wants. Mr. FERRIS. How effective and how successful is that, Mr. Secre- tary ? Secretary BAKER. It is very effective and very successful in most parts of the country. But. of course, it would hardly be fair to judge the desire of the soldier to get land by any inquiry he made there, because he doesn't know of any opportunity to get land. Most of them say : " I would like to work in an automobile factory as a salesman, as a stenographer/' or whatever the business is. Mr. FERRIS. So any of the activities that you are displaying would in no wise complicate or run counter with Secretary Lane's plan. Secretary BAKER. Not in the least. Mr. FERRIS. And as to the feasibility of it, and as to any knowl- edge of what the soldier really wants in connection with the Lane plan, you think Col. Woods would have more information on that? Secretary BAKER. Col. Woods would have very much better judg- ment on that than I. Mr. FERRIS. Would it be practicable even yet and I ask this question having in mind a lot of testimony we have had here in the last two or three weeks to gather through the commanding officer, or have the commanding officer explain this bill to the soldiers, this plan, with the view of getting some idea of their position? Secretary BAKER. It would be entirely feasible in all undemobilized divisions. There are perhaps three or four divisions in the country now that are either being demobilized or are about to be. Mr. FERRIS. They would be very easily assembled, of course ? Secretary BAKER"! Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Because only recently we met the Thirty-sixth at New York and they were assembled, and it could have been very easily done there. A keen fellow who was in touch with the men could MTV quickly explain the salient features of this bill and say to them: "Do you want it?" And obtain expressions from them. It could have been done with the Ninetieth when they came back. I met the Ninetieth and they were assembled, and we went in and welcomed them. Of course,' we didn't take time to talk to them about this proposition, but I have been thinking, when I heard you were coin- ing up here, as to the feasibility of having some man thoroughly conversant with this thing assemble these men, just on the eve of their stepping out of military life into civil life, and put the salient features of this bill before them and see if it appeals to them. Secretary BAKER. It would be a very dangerous thing to do. Mr. Ferris, unless it were well done. For instance, if you were to get a group of soldiers together and say : " The Government has in mind the reclaiming of arid or swamp lands, and is willing to employ a lot of you to do the reclamation work and then to locate you on the farms/ How many of you want to do that?" The mental picture presented to the mind of the soldier would be the Everglades or some 522 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. arid country that he doesn't know about, and he would say : " Oh, that is too far away; too indefinite." But if it was carefully ex- plained that these areas are to be in each State, and the cooperation of the State is to be employed so that a man would not necessarily have to move away substantially from his own native environment, I think you would get very different answers. Mr. FERRIS. That is the very point, Mr. Secretary. They are get- ting a great deal of misinformation about it. I have talked to several of them privately myself, and I know that different people, through different avenue, are presenting this thing in as different a light as it could be presented, and telling the soldier, as you suggest, that they are going to put him in some frog pond or sand dune, and that he is going to perish before he can ever get away from it. That the next soldier may figure that he is going to have a beautiful home and a lawn in front and a baby carriage and a hammock in the backyard, and grapevines and trees, and everything else. He has that kind of a picture of it, and my thought was that inasmuch as the President has come out in his message about it to Congress, and inasmuch as Secretary Lane, who has to do with these plans, has displayed a great deal of activity about it; inasmuch as Mr. Mondell, the Republican floor leader, has introduced this bill and we are having hearings on it, I thought that the diversity of knowledge that was being sent out might better be supplied by something real and substantial. Secretary BAKER. I venture to make this suggestion : Col. Woods, I think, will be back on Monday morning. I will get him to come down and tell you all he knows, and then if it seems to the committee that the question should be addressed by telegraph to the command- ers of any divisions which are as yet undemobilized, to get additional information, he will send the message and get the information for you. Wouldn't it be a wise thing, Mr. Chairman, to put in this bill some- where my mind is thinking along as I talk some sort of provision authorizing cooperation by the Department of Agriculture? They have a system of farm agents, as I understand it, in the Department of Agriculture, by which they send out a large number of agents who go about the country and talk rotation of crops and explain soil con- ditions to the farmers. It might well be that that would be a ready- made body of instructors and aides that could be used in conjunction with this plan. Mr. FERRIS. You mean these county agents and field demonstrators of the Department of Agriculture? Secretary BAKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, concerning your suggestion about securing additional information, that recalls to my mind that Maj. or Col. Bashure was before the committee, a demobilizing officer, and he stated that he made inquiries, and out of some seven or eight hundred men, 87 per cent signified their desire for this plan; that 87 per cent out of 800 men signified a desire to take advantage of this plan. Secretary BAKER. Plainly, that was not the Seventy-ninth Division. The CHAIRMAN. No. Secretary BAKER. That percentage would vary very much. The Seventy-ninth Division is from New York City,' and those boys, of course, all want to get back to the city environment to which they are HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 523 accustomed, but if you get a division like the Eighty-ninth, one of those from Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona that part of the country doubtless you would find a very large number of them. The CHAIRMAN. Some of these men were from Kentucky, as I re- call it. Well, I think the committee would like to have Col. Woods, if we can get him next Monday. Secretary BAKER. Will you meet on Monday? The CHAIRMAN. I think very likely the committee will meet Mon- day morning. Secretary BAKER. I will ask Col. Woods to put himself in com- munication with your office, Mr. Chairman, and find out when it will be convenient to hear him. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, have you any figures on the proposition of how many of these soldiers actually want any- thing done for them at all ? In other words, how many of them are going back to their old channels of occupation, their old jobs, and how many need a job at all? Secretary BAKER. I have complete statistics of that. I haven't it with me. Mr. FERRIS. Is there a large percentage of them that want new jobs, or are most of them drifting back to their old places? Secretary BAKER. The number who applied for aid in securing employment is relatively small absolutely large, but relatively small to the total number demobilized. But, of course, Mr. Ferris, what we have is just their initial impulse as they are being demobilized. Those boys think : " Well, when I get back home, somebody will find a job for me," and they don't make any request, but when they get back home and find that jobs are not so plentiful, they begin to apply to chambers of commerce, boards of industry, and things of that sort, or they get a job through the Camp Activities Service, which they don't like, and they drift out of 'that and become seekers for employ- ment. So the record of the camp would not show the actual number of men who want assistance in this way. Mr. FERRIS. They sometimes find that the positions they had have been taken up by others, and when they get back the situation is not as rosy as they thought it was. Secretary BAKER. That is it in some cases, and then, of course, I think we have to recognize that the returning soldier is an entirely different man from the man who went away. He is matured and is very much older than the intervening lapse of time would suggest. He has gotten a lot of education that" he didn't have before, and he feels himself fitted for more expert work than he did before, so that they are all seeking a higher type of employment, or for the most part seeking a higher type of employment. It isn't any dissatisfac- tion with old labor conditions, but it is a new sense of dignity and qualification in the man. He is looking for something more worthy of his new acquirements. Mr. FERRIS. Of course, that is very laudable for him to expect that, but that may lead to disappointment to him, too. becau-e they can't all find the Utopias they dream of. Secretary BAKER. Of course, that is perfectly true, mid yd 1 want to say just as earnestly as I can. that my <.\vn contact with that disposition in no sense shows a mere feeling on the part of the sol- 524 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. clier that having saved the country, somebody has got to carry him around in the hollow of his hand. There is none of that less than none but there is a very earnest feeling on the part of the soldier that by reason of these qualifying experiences he is able to do more in civilian life than he did before. Mr. TAYLOR. I am glad you expressed that particular point. Mr. Secretary. You think, then, that he don't imagine he is a demigod or a superman, or anything of that kind, by reason of the excellent record he has made across the water ? Secretary BAKER. As a matter of fact, he is so amazingly modest that you can't get one to tell you what he did. Mr. TAYLOR. That is a very gratifying statement. Xow let me ask you another thing. Do you think any considerable number of them expect the Government to give them large sums of money as a gift ? Secretary BAKER. No; they do not. Mr. TAYLOR. Don't you think they resent that idea ? Secretary BAKER. I haven't heard any resentment of that. I haven't heard any particular interest in it, one way or the other. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, there are a number of people advocating that soldiers be given the same amount of money that they were receiving when they quit their jobs to fight; for that amount to be given to them in a lump sum. There have been a number of pa;x ,- ;stab- lished, I would say, advocating that particular proposition. They have no sympathy 'for that plan, have they ? Secretary BAKER. I don't think they have any very ke-n sym- pathy with it; but, of course, you can get up a paper based on the idea of giving any group of people something for nothing, and it will be very popular with that group of people if you keep at it long enough. Mr. TAYLOR. Is it popular with the soldiers? Secretary BAKER. It is not popular with them yet. The inspira- tion doesn't come from the soldiers. Mr. TAYLOR. You don't think. Mr. Secretary, that the soldiers want to be paid a straight bounty for what they did in the war? Secretary BAKER. No; I don't think so. I think not. I think that the soldier's feeling is that provision for his necessities between the- time of his demobilization and the time of his finding a job is a just assistance during the readjustment period. But I have heard soldiers repeatedly repudiate the idea that they were to be taken care of or mothered by anybody, the public or anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. The letters which Secretary Lane sent out, or rather postal cards, specifically stated and informed the soldier that he was not getting something for nothing; that the land would have to be paid for and paid for with interest. Secretary BAKER. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Secretary, have you any figures showing the percentage of unemployed soldiers returned ? Secretary BAKER. Yes; Col. Woods has those figures. He has no figures that are accurate to date, because that number is shifting all the time, for the reason that men try jobs and give them up again and switch from employed to unemployed and vice versa, but he has a very accurate account a fairly accurate account of the number of men in each city of the United States who apply for assistance in HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 525 securing jobs and who are placed in jobs. Those figures are rather mystifying to me, because in some cities they show about 120 per cent placements. That is, they place 20 per cent more than apply for jobs. I don't know how they work that out, but I have seen those figures a number of times. Mr. TAYLOR. Probably they place some of them twice? Secretary BAKER. Probably, and then if he makes two applications they only credit him with one, but if they give him two jobs they call it two jobs. The CHAIRMAN. The Monthly Labor Eeview of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, April, 1919, has this statement: .The net surplus of labor in the country during this session has been rising at the average rate of approximately 100,000 a week. Secretary BAKER. What is the date of that, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. That was in April, 1919. Secretary BAKER. Well, that whole situation is changed now. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Secretary BAKER. The whole situation is changed. The opening up of the spring with the public improvements that are possible to be carried on out of doors, and the opening up of farm occupations has changed that condition entirely. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Secretary, do you believe that a constructive program of this kind is needed in addition to the emergency methods you are using to place the soldiers in employment when they are demobilized ? Secretary BAKER. I can't say how far it will be necessary to carry this work forward. It may well be that the Secretary of the Interior will find that he will not have to go as far as the authority of this bill authorizes him to go. This is a great constructive program, and to that extent it is good. It seeks to reclaim arid or swamp lands, or otherwise unavailable land, and it has the advantage of building up the national opportunity both against the present demand and the future demand. Mr. ELSTON. It has sort of a double value, public benefit, and at the same time it gives the soldier an opportunity to acquire a home. Secretary BAKER. It has a double advantage. Now, it may well be that by the time the Secretary is ready to administer this bill, general industrial conditions of the country will have become tem- porally or more or less permanently such that he won't find it neces- sary to go very fast or very far into it. Mr. ELSTON. You understand this is a very elastic proposition, and is designed to fit only the needs as they appear, and of course there is no waste in it, inasmuch as the money is not carried in the bill, but onty the authorization. Secretary BAKER. That is what I understand, that he is given the right to go' as far and as fast as the necessity justifies. llr. ELSTON. Do you think it is a good thing, in the way of decen- tralizing our population and increasing the number of farmers, and that as a matter of policy and philosophy, it is well grounded. ^ Secretary BAKER. Well, I hardly think I would be willing to jus- tify it on that ground. I clon't believe that you can artificially de- centralize population. But that is a remote and speculative opinion. 526 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The only way you can decentralize population is by carrying the conveniences of centralized areas into decentralized areas ; 'building good roads, motion-picture shows, and trolley lines : improving river- transportation. a nd all that, so that the man who lives in the country has the advantages of the man who lives in the city, so far as civili- zation is concerned. Mr. ELSTON. Of course, the community center idea involved in this bill will fill that requirement. Secretary BAKER. Undoubtedly it contibutes in that way. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Secretary, are you indorsing this bill, the idea of it? Secretary BAKER. I am indorsing the idea. Mr. NICHOLS. You are not indorsing the details of this particular measure ? Secretary BAKER. No; I am not commenting on that, because T don't know enough to know whether this is the way to do it or not. I am perfectly willing to rely upon the wisdom of the Interior De- partment and the committee to do that. Mr. NICHOLS. Have you examined the details of this bill sufficiently to give your opinion as to the aid extended to the soldier in the bill'? Secretary BAKER. No ; I can't say that I have. I have gone on the assumption that this bill provided it put in operation an oppor- tunity for the soldier to work on the land, making provision for settlement; and second, to settle on the land under economical and financial terms which were both possible and advantageous to the soldier. Now, if it does that, then it contributes to the welfare of the soldier, in which I am interested. Mr. FERRIS. The high wages that prevail in the country of course lessened the necessity for a measure of this kind, don't you think, Mr. Secretary? Secretary BAKER. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. In other words, after the Spanish-American "War wages were very low and men walked the streets in idleness ; so that it would seem to me that now, with the demand for labor and the high wage scale that prevails, there is less necessity for a measure of this kind now ? Secretary BAKER. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. But even so, other countries are offering opportuni- ties to their soldiers; and it is really up to this country to offer something to the soldier, to give him a chance to work out, first, a livelihood, and then a home, if he desires. Don't you think so ? Secretary BAKER. Yes ; it is highly desirable. The most fortunate countries in the world are those that have unconsumed agricultural opportunities to offer to their people. Mr. FERRIS. And of course, as you suggested a moment ago. this has two legs to it an economic leg and a patriotic leg. In other words, if we can reduce unproductive areas to productive areas, we render the country a service. Secretary BAKER. Undoubtedly we do. Mr. FERRIS. And if we can offer the opportunity to acquire a home on a businesslike basis, so that the Government 'may get its money back in days to come, that, too, would be an advantage. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 527 Secretary BAKER. It would be very much better than some sort of a gratuity offered to them. Mr. FERRIS. There are some bills here, Mr. Secretary and we have had some very good men come before this committee who have advocated the feasibility of making loans, either through the farm- loan banks or through a lump-sum fund which would be provided for, of, say, 100 per cent, to the soldier and let him buy the farm wheresoever he would, and let him pay that back in 40 years' time or 50 years' time at a low rate of interest something along the line of the farm-loan bank and they have thought that that was prefer- able to any colonization scheme or soldier-colony scheme. Would you care to comment on that phase of it? We have had a good deal of testimony along that line. Secretary BAKER. No; I don't know enough to comment on that, Mr. Ferris. Mr. FERRIS. You get my thought ? Secretary BAKER. Perfectly; but I think it would depend very largely upon the quantity of available land suitable to purchase. Mr. FERRIS. Well., for example, now in a given State, we will say that under the Lane bill a feasible project, or a feasible area of land, on which .a soldier colony could be established can not be found; then you are face to face Avith the alternative of having the soldier leave that State and remove and go to a State where he can find a feasible project, or offer him something within that State. Secretary BAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And, if you don't propose to loan him the 100 per cent, it becomes then prohibitive to the soldier who hasn't anything. Secretary BAKER. This bill does not give him 100 per cent. Mr. FERRIS. Well, it gives him 95 per cent of the land value and about 75 per cent of the improvements, as I recall it. Secretary BAKER. So that he has to make a down payment? Mr. FERRIS. He has to make a down payment. And there are bills, and there are some very able Members of Congress, and some V;-ry able people out of Congress, who have been before this com- mittee, and who have been writing us to the effect that we ought to present an alternative of some sort in States where there is no feasible project, so that the soldier might not be forced to move out of Oklahoma or Ohio or some other State in order to avail himself of some other opportunity that the Government puts forward. You have not given enough attention to that feature of it to care to ex- press an opinion on it? Secretary BAKER. No; I have not. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Secretary, the provisions of this bill, as agreed upon here, would make it necessary for a soldier to pay approxi- mately $1,200 initial payment for the land. Secretary BAKER. $1,200 initial payment? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. That is the land and the improvements. Mr. NICHOLS. That is the initial payment, $1,200, on the whole proposition, improvements and stock and everything. A soldier without any money, a penniless soldier, would be given employment, according to the terms of this bill, estimated at about $1,200 a year average pay to a soldier. It is also estimated that it would take a soldier three or four years to save enough to make the initial pay- 13331919 34 528 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. ment on the farm. Do you think that is a sufficiently liberal aid to the soldier ? Secretary BAKER. I am not sure that I understand it. He would be employed at approximately $1,200 a year for three years? Mr. NICHOLS. No; he would be employed at approximately $1,200 a year. It is estimated that he possibly could save the amount of the initial payment in three or four years. Secretary BAKER. I should think that was very generous. If I understand it. it takes a man. who has nothing, and gives him em- ployment at approximately $1,200 a year and places him under cir- cumstances of living such that he can probably save one-third of his earnings. At the end of three years with his savings he is in a position to make the initial payment and to borrow the rest from the Government and go on a farm under his own ownership. The CHAIRMAN. The initial payment would vary with the project and the desires of the men. Secretary BAKER. Undoubtedly, and according to the improve- ments he wishes and the amount of stock. Mr. ELSTON. And the rate of progress with which he improves his property. Those were maximum figures given to you. Secretary BAKER. I think that is fairly generous. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that a man making $1,200, a man with a family, could save $600 a year ? Secretary BAKER. I think he could have it in three or four years. Mr. BEN HAM. On the basis of 300 days' labor and it is to be supposed this will be outside work that has been figured all along by the members of this committee as the number of days a man would likely work. Now, what about that proposition, Mr. Secre- tary? You are acquainted with the general climatic conditions in the United States; is it probable that a man could work on a farm project 300 days in a year on an average throughout the United States? Secretary BAKER. Not in farming. He could in digging trenches and putting up fences and that sort of thing. Mr. BENHAM. Would you assume that he would want to work in the rain? Secretary BAKER. In the rain? Mr. BENHAM. It would be necessary for him to work in rain or in snow a good part of the time, if he were going to get in 300 days a year. Secretary BAKER. He might have to work in the rain, but I don't think that would hurt him. Mr. FERRIS. He has been working in worse than that over in France, hasn't he? Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think it would be a more equitable propo- sition to extend aid to the soldier to buy a home wherever he pleased to buy it? Secretary BAKER. Well, that is the alternative proposition which I understood Mr. Ferris put. I think the answer to that is that it depends entirely on the locality and as to whether there are avail- able lands to be purchased individually. Mr. NICHOLS. They might loan not only on a farm but on a home in town or a city. They might extend a loan to him at certain interest to get himself a home in town. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 529 Secretary BAKER. Of course any plan which extended Govern- ment aid to a man to buy a home, whether it was a house in a city or a farm, would be wider in its effect than a plan which limited it solely to farms, because a great many discharged soldiers will in no case go on farms. Mr. NICHOLS. Then you believe that such a proposition would be more equitable, so far as the great mass of the soldiers returning are concerned? Secretary BAKER. Well, I don't like to say yes to that. Mr. NICHOLS. You mean that you don't think that is a wise thing to do ? Secretary BAKER. No; I don't mean that at all. It may well be that Congress ought to follow this with some legislation of some- what similar character, addressed to men who want to acquire homes in cities where they are going to do industrial work. Mr. TILLMAX. Mr. Secretary, that is an entirely different propo- sition from this. You wouldn't advise that the two propositions be brought together in the same bill, would you? Secretary BAKER. I think not. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I was asking the Secretary, as the head of the War Department, whether he thought that an opportunity ought to be extended to every soldier who wants to avail himself of the oppor- tunity to have a home and to be aided by the Government to have a home wherever he wants it, whether in New York City or out in the arid lands of the West. Mr. TILLMAX. Everybody understands that, but I simply suggested that the two propositions should not be combined in this bill. Secretary BAKER. Every soldier should have an equal opportunity, no matter where is going to live. Mr. TILLMAX. The two propositions are entirely different, though, are they not? Secretary BAKER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You are taking care of soldiers in a vocational way, are you not, Mr. Secretary, assisting them to learn trades? Secretary BAKER. Wounded" soldiers ; the well soldier is not being assisted. Mr. NICHOLS. Not all soldiers, though ? The crippled ones you are giving a vocational education. Secretary BAKER. All the wounded men and sick soldiers; yes. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much. Secretary BAKER. I am very happy to have had the opportunity of addressing^ you. Without objection, the committee will now stand adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon at 11.10 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Monday. June 16, 1919.) HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. COMMITTEE ox PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, June 17, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, Mr. Wood of Indiana, is here and desires to make a statement with reference to the bill. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM R. WOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA. Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Indiana delegation had a meeting the other morning for the pur- pose of considering what is known as the Mondell bill. I think that was the only bill that was called to their attention. I will state very briefly that* it was the consensus of opinion among the members of the Indiana delegation that the so-called Mondell bill did not meet with their approval. Every member of the delegation is heartily in favor of doing something for the soldier. They are in favor, how- ever, of doing something that will be agreeable to the soldier pri- marily and not secondarily. It occurred to us that the Mondell bill is prim aril}- a reclamation project and, so far as it interests the soldiers, that is only secondary. There have been projects of reclamation for many years, and in- dividually I am in favor of reclamation projects, but I believe, and I think I voice the sentiment of our delegation, that a reclamation project should not be made the basis of furnishing homes to return- ing soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wood, do you prefer to finish your state- ment before any questions are asked you ? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; I would like to finish my statement first, In other words, that the reclamation projects should not be mixed up with any project which might be evolved for the purpose of helping re- turning soldiers, or if it is to be mixed up the reclamation project should be the incident and not the home for soldiers the incident. In my opinion this project would not be practicable in our section of the country. It would be hard, indeed, to find any large acreage of land that could be subjected to making homes for the soldiers. This project might be all right in those countries where they have large areas of unoccupied lands and where they could be obtained for nominal prices, and where the settlements, such as indicated by this bill, might be made feasible. I do not think it could be done, how- ever, in our section of the country, and I do not think it can be done in any of the old States that are now thickly settled. 531 532 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. To my mind whatever is clone for the soldiers should be done with reference to the States and the States should be taken into considera- tion. Every State in the Union performed its part in this war and performed its part well. They have some interest in the future of their citizenship and the young men of their respective States. Some- thing should be done so as to enable the States, so far as possible, to keep within their own borders these young men and to furnish them this benefit within the State rather than without the State. In other words, it is not to the advantage of the State of Indiana to subscribe to any scheme that is going to take her citizenship away from her confines. I believe a more practicable scheme would be, first, to agree upon the amount of money that is going to be devoted to the purpose of assisting the soldiers, and then take and apportion that to the States in proportion to the number of soldiers furnished to this war. Then let each State formulate its own plan for helping its soldiers. I do not think it is going to be popular with the masses of the soldiers to say that only a scheme shal be evolved that is to help a soldier on a farm, because that will only appeal to a very few of them. We know- that whatever percentage this scheme would appeal to would be the farmer boys, and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands, to my mind, of these boys who went from the farm to the war will not go back to the farm again. That was the history of the Civil War and it was the history of the Spanish-American War, that while the country furnished a very large percentage of the soldiers who partici- pated in those wars, a very large percentage of that very large per- centage did not go back again to the farms. Now, there are lots of soldiers who would like to buy a home in a town, who would like to buy a home adjacent to the place where he is working in a shop or factory or something of that character, and it occurs to me that it would be an unjust discrimination to dis- criminate against that character of soldier who is desirous of being helped and who is as much entitled to help as the other man. and say to him that you can not get this help unless you go to a farm. I do not think that that is advisable. Now, upon this settlement proposition, my observation and my reading has not been such as to convince me that it is very prac- ticable. It has been tried in this country time and time again, and has failed every time it has been tried. Robert Daley Owen "was one of the earliest men to establish a settlement of that kind, and he tried to establish a socialistic settlement down in southern Indiana. Mr. BEXHAM. New Harmony. Mr. WOOD. Yes; New Harmony, and it failed. There have been several of these socialist settlement propositions tried out in tho West and they have all failed. There have been some of lesser mag- nitude tried out in the South and they have failed. I dp not know of one that has as yet proven a success. Perhaps that is no argu- ment that such a thing can not be done, but I do not believe that we should bend our energies here in taking advantage of this psycho- logical situation in projecting a scheme the primary purpose of which is reclamation, and to my mind, that is all that this Mondell bill is, because the giving of a home to the soldier is simply an inci- dent. Now, that is the attitude our people occupy. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 533 I suspect you gentlemen have read many of the articles that have been submitted from time to time by Mr. Myron T. Herrick upon this proposition. I think one of the best things this committee could do would be to get a man who has had the experience and who has made the observation and has studied this proposition like Mr. Her- rick has done and get the benefit of his experience and judgment. There are several others, I believe, whose testimony would be very edifying. This is a wonderful project that is being undertaken, and whatever project is undertaken ought to be undertaken intelligently and after consideration and the formulation of a scheme that comes from experience as far as it can be ascertained and from those who have studied this thing at close range rather than upon the advice of anybody who has introduced a bill which is the fulmination of some . pet scheme of his own. There is another man, by the name of Mr. RAKER (interposing). What is Mr. Herrick's scheme? Mr. WOOD. I do not know that I can speak intelligently about it, but I have in mind that while Mr. Herrick was abroad he studied the German scheme over there which had been tried for years and proven a failure. Now, what his exact scheme is I do not know, but I simply cite the fact that I know he has given it a great deal of thought, and as perhaps some of you gentlemen know he is a man of very good judgment. I suspect he is one of the most successful busi- ness men the United States has ever produced. He evolved a banking scheme in Cleveland which is unparalleled so far as efficiency is con- cerned. It was a savings-bank arrangement, which was to provide homes for the poor in the city of Cleveland and throughout Ohio. It has simply spread all over the State of Ohio. There is another man by the name of Wolf who is now located in New York at 53 Chambers Street, who has tried this settlement arrangement in Los Angeles and throughout that country, and has made two or three attempts which have failed. I remember some time ago reading some article written by him in which he was set- ting forth the reasons why it failed. I do not know now what publication that was in. Mr. RAKER. It was a private scheme, was it not? Mr. WOOD. If I remember correctly, it was private in the respect that it was through an organization of a lot of private individuals, philanthropic in their character, trying to evolve some plan for the purpose either of finding homes or preparing homes or farms for Jewish people. I may be mistaken about that. Mr. Leonard Robinson, w r ho is the president of the Federal farm loan bank at Springfield, Mass., has had considerable experience in this respect, and there is a man who has written a book on this proposition, and perhaps you gentlemen have read this book Dr. Thomas Carver, of Harvard University. It is a textbook. Whatever scheme is evolved, I think it ought to be after very great deliberation and thought. I can not think that the scheme which is proposed by this bill and which has for its purpose the reclamation of overflowed lands or cut-over lands or arid lands will ever appeal to the soldiers. You will not get one out of 10,000 of them to ever undertake such a project. Mr. RAKER. Just to interrupt you right there, is it not a fact that the reason some of these schemes were not a success was on account of the people who formed this "wolfish" scheme? 534 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. WOOD. Xo; I do not understand that to be the case. I do not understand that to have been involved in any way in that scheme. I know it was not so far as the Robert D. Owen scheme was concerned, because if there ever was a philanthropic scheme in the world that was one of them, and I suspect it was tried out under the most advantageous circumstances, because it was in about the richest country in the world, and all they needed to have done in the first instance was to turn over the ground and plant the seeds. While it had a mushroom growth and seemed to flourish for a time, it went just like all these other schemes by and by. Mr. SUMMERS. May I ask when that Owen scheme was tried out? Mr. WOOD. It was 100 years ago. Mr. SUMMERS. Do you not think conditions may have changed very greatly since then? Mr. WOOD. I think they have, and if they have changed. I think they have changed for the worse so far as such an undertaking is concerned. Mr. SUMMERS. And did not that scheme have a religious or a moral philosophy embraced within it and as a part of the scheme? Mr. WOOD. That is true to a certain extent. It was not so much a religious spirit as it was an educational spirit, and out of this thing, I may say, the first concrete form for a free-school system in the United States was evolved and came from Robert D. Owen. Mr. SUMMERS. So some great good came from it, any way? Mr. WOOD. Certainly. Mr. ELSTON. Most of these schemes have a socialistic or a com- munal proposition behind them, where the land is held in common and there is what you might call a head or chief who assigns occu- pations and who has a sort of peculiar position in the cult around which this settlement is centered. Mr. WOOD. That was true so far as the Robert D. Owen scheme was concerned, and this is a paternalistic scheme you are trying to evolve here. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wood, there is not any communistic or general ownership of the land scheme in this bill. Is not this for separate, individual homes, as you understand the bill? Mr. WOOD. But I understand it is to be on the community plan. I do not discover anything of a socialistic proposition in it, but I do discover much of a paternalistic proposition in it. Mr. RAKER. I have been trying to analyze that feature and have asked many questions on that subject. Do you think there is really a community plan in this scheme? Mr. WOOD. It so states, and you take the hearings all the way through, if I have gathered anything from them, it is the purpose to establish a project here, there, and yonder, wherever they can find enough land to establish a project, where there shall be a community settlement of from 20 to more families. Mr. RAKER. That has not been done under any of the projects so far. For instance, take the Orland project in California, where they used to be about 40 families on 15.000 acres, there are now 750 families all owning their private homes, just like any other place. Would you not think a scheme like that would be workable and would bring good results, if you can put 700 families on a tract of HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 535 land of 15.000 acres where only 40 families lived before, and lived poorly at that? Mr. WOOD. It would depend largely, in the first place, on the kind of land you put them upon. That might work m California. It might not work in Indiana, or it might not work in Illinois, and that is one of the things I am objecting to in this scheme. If there are any places where this might be feasible, you are going to take those who are entitled to receive the benefits away from the places where they would desire to stay. My idea is that whatever help we are going to give, we should take to the soldier where he is rather than to take him away from his environments and associations of his friends and family, and so forth, or at least give him the opportunity of staying there. Mr. MAYS. How would you get the land, Mr. Wood, unless you went where the land \vas ' Mr. WOOD. That is why I say it is impracticable, because of the fact you can not find the land in large bodies. That is the reason Avhy I say there ought to be something more in this scheme than the mere helping of a man to get a farm. For instance, take a man who is working in a town and is a mechanic. He was. perhaps, a mechanic before he went to war and wants to follow his vocation. Now, then, you say to that man, " In order for you to receive any of this help you have got to quit your job as a mechanic and go out and commence something that you know nothing about at all." Now, I say that that is not a fair proposition. Mr. MAYS. Your opposition, then, to this bill is mainly that it is not broad enough and does not comprehend the entire number of soldiers. Mr. WOOD. That is one of the very great objections to it and that is one of the reasons why it will not prove popular. Mr. GANDY. Let me ask you a question following the question of Mr. Mays. Then, so far as It goes, based on our experience with the reclamation projects, it does very well? Mr. WOOD. I do not believe in the reclamation project at all as it is embodied in this bill in connection with furnishing homes to sol- diers. If my scheme which I suggested awhile ago was carried out, I would make an allotment to the different States of their propor- tionate share of this money in proportion to the soldiers they fur- nished to the war, and then in those States where they have large bodies of land that can be reclaimed, let them reclaim it and make homes for the soldiers out of that land. In those States where they have no large bodies of land that need reclaiming, but where cheap lands may yet be obtained, if it is their desire, let them use those cheap lands. In other words, the people of each community know best what to do rather than people who are scattered all over the country know better what they should do. I suspect you would think it presumptuous were I to undertake to detail here what would be a good scheme for California or what would be a good scheme for Arkansas. Xew Jersey, Florida, or South Carolina. Mr. RAKER. Why not? Mr. WOOD. Although I might know something about what would be a good scheme for Indiana. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wood, I was just reading last night that we have 60.000 people from Xew York and, I think. 40.000 from your State 536 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. in California who have gone there to make their homes. Why should we not get the benefit of those people ? Mr. WOOD. You would get the benefit. Indiana is like Ireland; we have more citizens outside of the State than we have inside the State. We populated your country,, and the people w T ho went to California, \vho have made that their home, have made their con- tribution as residents of California to this war. They contributed their sons to this war as residents of California, and that ought to be taken into consideration. Those who did not go to California or elsewhere but who remained in Indiana ought to have the oppor- tunity at least of keeping their boys in Indiana. Mr. MATS. Mr. Wood, what is good farm land worth in Indiana? Mr. WOOD. On the average, good farm land in Indiana is worth from $350 to $450 an acre. Mr. MAYS. How is a young man without means going to get one of those farms? Mr. WOOD. He can not do it. It is proposed in this bill to establish in each State, if feasible, one of these projects. Now, it would not be feasible in Indiana. Mr. MAYS. Is that the reason you oppose it, mainly ( Mr. WOOD. No: it is not the reason. Even if it was feasible I would say it would not be fair to the other States where it is not feasible, because of the fact that I think the State has got something involved in this thing. The State has got something involved in any question that has to do with the welfare and the continued welfare of her citizens. Mr. MAYS. Should the State insist upon holding the young men within the State* when they could do better outside the State? Mr. WOOD. No ; and we can not hold them beyond a certain limita- tion, but we ought not to be deprived of an equal opportunity to hold them. That is the thing I am complaining about. Mr. RAKER. Is it not true, Mr. Wood, right in that Indiana, with its dense population, and these other Eastern States which have contributed so largely and so beneficially and I can not accent the word " beneficially " too strongly to the West, have they not aided in making this country great and even improving your own State, and should we not continue that ? Mr. WOOD. Yes; I have no objection to that if you proceed upon the theory that what helps any one section of our country helps the whole country. What I am trying to get at, and what I am trying to impress upon you gentlemen, is that you should not devise any scheme here that is going primarily to have the effect of tearing down rather than building up each individual State in proportion as its demands should be respected. Mr. RAKER. Is all the land in Indiana which is cultivable under cultivation, generally speaking? Mr. WOOD. No; there are some lands in the northern part of the State along the Kankakee River which are overfloAved lands which might be good for trucking purposes. It never will be good for agricultural purposes because of the way the soil is constituted. Mr. RAKER. In addition to that, is the land which is now under cultivation cultivated to its highest capacity? Mr. WOOD. No ; that is not -true anywhere in the United States. HOMES FOK SOLDIEKS. 537 Mr. EAKEE. Now, that being true, would you object to a project whereby you could put 1,000 soldiers in your State upon some of this land by dividing it up and letting them make their homes there, even if it was expensive land, because you would get returns that would be commensurate with the value of the land ? Mr. WOOD. No; I would not object to that at all, but that is not what would happen under this law. Mr. RAKER. That is the purpose of it, Mr. Wood. Mr. WOOD. That is the theoretical purpose of it, but the practical purpose of it would be to take them away rather than to keep them there. For instance, I do not know how large a farm you have in your mind, but under the old homestead law at the end of the Civil War we gave them 160 acres, and that has been enlarged as the food lands have been taken up and nothing left but the culls until think the last homestead provided for a section of 640 acres, and it would take several sections at certain times of the year to get a living off of Mr. RAKER (interposing). I will just say in that connection, and to add to my question, that in addition to the 160 acres this same soldier was given 640 acres as a desert claim in some places and 320 acres in others and 160 acres of a timber-culture claim and 160 acres of a timber claim and 160 acres as a preemption. You see he was not confined to a 160-acre home. He could get all of this land adjoining. Mr. WOOD. Those opportunities are now gone. Speaking with reference to the feasibility of anything of this sort in Indiana, you could not do that in Indiana because there is not anything of that sort left. But suppose you should give them 160 acres in Indiana, and you were going to form a community of 20 soldiers in one com- munity, you would have to have 1,600 acres of land. You can not get that anywhere in Indiana unless you move somebody off of his place, and you can not do that. I understand some one has proposed here condemnation proceed- ings. That would be absolutely impossible. Eminent domain is for public purposes and not for private purposes. You can not take my home and give it to somebody else for his home. You can -not do that in Indiana or anywhere else. Mr. RAKER. I do not like to interrupt you, but you are talking about a very important phase of this matter, and I think it is the very crux of this bill. If you took 20.000 acres in Indiana where there are now, say, 25 homes, and if you could get those people to dispose of their land, and then put it in shape so that you could make homes, say, for 200 of the returning soldiers, would not that be a good scheme? Mr. WOOD. If you eliminate the " ifs," I would say yes ; but those "ifs" there are absolutely destructive of your (proposition. It could not be done, because you take a person who has a home on a farm in Indiana, he wants to stay on his farm. Patriotism goes so far and then stops, and our selfishness begins to assert itself, and that will be true in that case. I agree with the gentlemen that this is a wonderful scheme, and it strikes me that before we go into this venture at all we ought to give something to the soldier that means something and not give him simply an empty shell. This s-heine means nothing to the soldiers except a very, very small percentage. 538 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JOHNSON. What would you suggest, Mr. Wood? Mr. WOOD. My suggestion was that if we were going to be at all equitable in this help to the soldiers, it would be a fair proposition to first agree on the amount of money we feel the Government can give for this purpose; and. then, after having agreed on that propo- sition, to take out and apportion it among the States in proportion to the number of soldiers they sent to the war, and then let each individual State determine what is best for them to do to help the soldiers in their community. Mr. ELSTON. Would you limit that to the soldiers from that par- ticular State or would you have it apply to all soldiers who might flock in ? Mr. WOOD. I would have it apply to any who might want to com 3 in, so that if a man desired to go away from Indiana to your new country and take up a farm there, he might do it; or the man who lived in your country might want to come to Indiana and establish his residence there. Mr. MAYS. Would you permit the State to turn this money over in cash to the soldier and let him do anything he pleased with it? Mr. WOOD. Xo; I would not. I would have it fixed so that the soldier would have to understand that he would have to do some- thing himself, because any help to a man that does not encourage that man to help himself is worse than no help at all, and I would have it arranged in that way. I believe it would be feasible to have this money come back again to the United States Government. I think the 'States should guarantee the United States that at .some time, under some arrangement that could be formulated, this money should be returned after a long number of years. Mr. ELSTON. Would you have all advances made in all the States on a uniform basis or would you allow the States to decide on the amounts to be advanced and the rates of interest and terms, etc.? Mr. WOOD. I would leave that to each State because ot~ the fact that these projects would vary and the conditions in the different States would be different. Conditions that might fit and be work- able in the congested countries of the East might not be workable in the AVest. Mr. MAYS. After making an allotment to one State, would you permit the soldiers of that State to go to another State and get an allotment from that State ? Mr. W T OOD. Yes; but I would not permit them to have both. Mr. FERRIS. I do not think Mr. Wood understood the question. Would you allow 7 him to get an allotment from one State and then go to another States and get another allotment? Mr. WOOD. Xo; I just stated I would not permit him to take ad- vantage of both. Mr. WHITE. Might not that disturb the equilibrium of the divi- sion? Take a good State like Oklahoma, everybody might want to go there and settle, and that State would not have money enough to go around. Mr. TAYLOR. And might not the States begin bidding against eaH< other and bring about an unfortunate condition in that way ? HOMES FOR SOLDIEES 539 Mr. WOOD. That is the very objection I have to this scheme of yours because of the fact that it is giving a certain section of the country a bidding chance against other sections of the country when they, in turn, have nothing to offer. Mr. MAYS. Does not that very fact tend to relieve the congested conditions in this older settled country ? Mr. WOOD. It has ; yes, sir ; and I firmly think that we should, in so far as we can, keep up the equilibrium and encourage back-to-the- farm propositions. Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Wood, referring to the price of land in Indiana, is it not a fact that you can buy whole counties out in Indiana at an average price of $50 an acre in some sections of the State ? Mr. WOOD. No; it is not. Mr. BENHAM. I think that is so in the southern part of the State. Mr. WOOD. You say a whole county ? Mr. SUMMERS. Yes ; at an average price of $50 an acre. Mr. WOOD. If that is true at any place at all, it would be in the hills and hollows along the Ohio River; but who would want to send a soldier down there? Mr. SUMMERS. They make mighty good fighters down there. Mr. WOOD. Certainly, they make mighty good fighters, but they can not raise very big crops of wheat down there. It may be brought into use later, because we are discovering that we can raise some of the finest kind of fruit down there. Mr. BEXHAM. They do raise crops of tobacco down there that bring $400 an acre. Mr. WOOD. Yes ; they raise about one crop, and that is about the end of that piece of land. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wood, you were speaking of providing for the soldiers after the Civil War. We really did not make any provision for them any different from anybody else as to the right to get public land, with the exception that they were authorized to use the time they were in the war to comply with the provisions as to resi- dence on the homestead, and in a few instances we gave them scrip. Is not that all we did for the soldiers of the Civil War? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; but, as some one suggested, conditions have very materially changed. At that time our country was very largely agricultural. I have forgotten just what the percentage was, but I think it was about 80 per cent; and conditions have absolutely changed since then. Here is another thing: At that time the United States Government owned large areas of the best land to be found anywhere in the United States. Mr. RAKER. And it was disposed of in this way, not only to the soldier but to everybody else: First, he could make a preemption upon 160 acres by living there six months, and after having com- pleted his final proof, and as soon as he could get a certificate of purchase, he could then file a homestead of another 160 acres, at the same time or after he had completed his preemption. There is no limitation except in the proving up on his homestead. After he had proved up on his homestead he could secure a desert claim of 320 acres, a timber claim of 160 acres, and a timber-culture claim of 160 acres, while in certain counties of the West he could get another desert claim of 640 acres, making a total of 1,280 acres. 540 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. That is the way we treated all of them when they went to the West- ern States, whether soldiers or nonsoldiers. But now things have changed. Mr. WOOD. Yes ; there is no comparison that can be made between the conditions that are presented to us now in connection with the disposition of the soldiers and the condition that was presented to us at the end of the Civil War. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you given any attention to the drafting of amendments to this bill of any kind that would embody your ideas ? Mr. WOOD. No ; I have not. I thought that I would come and voice the sentiment of the delegation from Indiana and offer the sugges- tions that I have made. They may or may not be worthy of con- sideration. Here is what I expect you will find : You will find that there is about as large a contrariety of opinion upon this subject as there has been on any proposition that has confronted the American Congress for a long time. This difference of opinion is based upon the difference of conditions in the different sections of the country, and each one, of course, is apt to be more or less selfish about this thing. We are anxious to see what the effect of this will be upon our own particular locality. Yet, at the same time, as I suggested a while ago, I can not conceive of but very few out of the 4,000,000 boys who would be entitled to receive benefits under this bill who would take advantage of them. I think there would be a very small percentage of them who would take advantage of these benefits. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wood, suppose some of these soldiers would like to go outside of many of those prosperous towns in Indiana, say, at a distance of from 3 to 10 miles, for homes, and we should say to them, " You can get a home of an acre or 3 acres of land where you can live and go back and forth to and from your work as a mechanic, blacksmith, telegraph operator, etc." If provision were made by which he could secure such a home at a cost of, I suppose, from $2,000 to $3,000, don't you think it would be a good thing ? Mr. WOOD. Yes; I do. Mr. RAKER. That can be done under this bill. Mr. WOOD. No ; it will not be done under this bill. Mr. RAKER. I know that you are mighty keen on these things, and I want to get the benefit of your good judgment and experience. The question is, if it can be done and it is a good thing, then, it would not be a bad idea to try it is that right ? Mr. WOOD. If that w r ould be feasible, but who knows where that would be feasible ? Here is another propositon : It would be a good scheme if you would fix up some sort of measure that would help the man who did not want 3 or 4 acres of land, but who would only want a town lot to live on with his family. Suppose he has no use for 3 or 4 acres of land. What would you do with that man ? Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Gandy asked a question some time ago, but I think the question was lost in the general discussion, and I would like to ask the same thing: Do you approve of this bill as far as it Mr. WOOD. No ; I do not approve of it at all. I do not approve of it because the prime object of this bill is reclamation. That is tin- prime purpose of this bill. This bill contains a lot of things put into it to make it fit the soldier proposition, but it is what I have understood as a layman to be a reclamation scheme. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 541 The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by reclamation? Mr. WOOD. I was once a member of the Flood Control Committee, and the reclamation scheme I am most conversant with is the scheme to reclaim the overflowed lands on the Mississippi River, which is a wonderfully worthy project. There is another scheme to-day known as the Newlands scheme which is fashioned a good deal after the fellow's cat farm, which was a sort of automatic farm where the cat would eat the rat and the rat would eat the cat and the owner in turn would get the fur. The Newlands scheme was for the purpose of impounding all of the waters on those overflowed lands and using them for watering the desert lands. Under that scheme they would take water from the overflowed lands for the purpose of watering the desert lands, and if that was done everything would be rosy and practicable. Then, there have been various reclamation schemes with reference to cut-over land and with reference to a lot of Michigan land up there that will not raise beans and will not raise anything in the world. I have read these hear- ings, and I call your attention to the very first part of this bill. By the third section of the bill this provision is made : That the Secretary is authorized through such agency as he may provide to engage in such undertakings and to do and perform such work as in his opinion is necessary for the permanent reclamation or development of the lands of projects, and when he deems essential to place them in condition for use and cultivation, including the building of essential public roads. Now, what would the present Secretary of the Interior do under that? He is so thoroughly wedded to reclamation projects that he has been preaching and advocating them all over the country in speeches, and the authorization given by that very clause would be used for those reclamation projects. Mr. RAKER. Then, you are not so much opposed to the proposed bill in the main, so far as its execution is concerned, but what you are afraid of is the enforcement of it? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; that is what I am afraid of under this bill, as sure as you are born. Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you one other question : We have all voted, and I believe you have voted, to appropriate money for the improve- ment of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers? Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. That is a long way from the East and a long way from the West. Now. if some of these benefits came to Idaho and resulted in the improvement of that State, then it would not be a had thing ? Mr. WOOD. Xo, sir; I want some benefit to go to Idaho, some to California, and some to Indiana. Mr. BARBOTJR. Are you opposed to the bill because of its reclama- tion provisions? Mr. WOOD. I am opposed to the bill because reclamation is the prime object of the measure. I think that I can see in this bill till that there was in the original reclamation bill, or the reclamation bill that was introduced into Congress some time ago. The CHAIRMAN. For the reclamation of arid lands? Mr. WOOD. That is one of them. I can see in this bill all that there was in the others, except for the camouflage that is put about this 542 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. bill for the purpose of making it appeal to the people of the United States as being a help to the soldiers in securing homes. Mr. MAYS. If the lands at present being cultivated are so high priced that it is impracticable to get enough of them for soldiers, how are you going to get land except by reclamation or by using land that is not now in cultivation? , Mr. WOOD. That would be all right. Out in your State you would get a certain amount of money from the United States Government for the purpose of assisting soldiers to get homes, and it would be feasible in your State to use it for the purpose of reclaiming those lands for the soldiers. But we could not do that in our section be- cause we have not the lands to reclaim, but we might take our propor- tionate share of that money, and procure farms here and there with- out having the community idea involved in it. The soldier boy could be placed on it where he could have a home and farm, and we might help the soldier boy who is living adjacent to a factory and who wants to continue work as a mechanic to get a home. You might help him, too. The environment and problem of each State may be peculiar to itself, and the conditions as to land are such that there is practically no one set of rules applying to one that would be absolutely applicable to another, and whatever help is offered by the United States Government ought to be equitable so as to help the people of ever}* community in the same degree. Mr. MAYS. When you had up the proposition to improve the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, you received the help of the entire country, and our Western States did not make any question of it, although we did not get any benefit from that. Mr. WOOD. No; but I will tell you what you did have: They in- cluded California in that bill that provided for the Mississippi River improvement, and the only appropriation made was for the California project. The war cam'e along and stopped all of the other work. I am in favor of the continuation of that work, and I am in favor of a reclamation scheme backed by the United States Govern- ment to have effectively reclaimed those overflowed lands on the Mississippi River. That would be a success on the basis of an in- vestment, and the figures show that it would bring in a valuable return in a short time. However, I am not in favor of making a reclamation scheme the prime object, with a secondary object of providing homes for soldiers, because the soldiers may not want that. Mr. MAYS. If he does not want to, he does not have to. Mr. WOOD. Of course not. Now, I think that we are big enough, or ought to be big enough, to separate those projects. I do not think that one of them ought to be confused with the other, for the reason, as I have stated before, each State will have the same interest in the allocation of this money, and the United States, as the United States, will, of course, be interested in this problem. Mr. MAYS. After reclaiming this land, would you object to giving the soldier a preference right to a piece of land? Mr. WOOD. Absolutely not. Mr. MAYS. That is about all that this bill would do. Mr. WOOD. No ; I think not. If this thing should broaden out in its scope, as it could do, then your $500,000,000 would not be a drop in the bucket, because of the fact that the most of this scheme that I have mentioned is for the reclamation of waste land. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 543 Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you one other question: Assuming that your objection would be good, that certain States can not get tracts of land that can be operated as a workable project but that in other States there are feasible places or feasible projects where land, water, and climate combine to make them workable so as to provide homes for at least 100,000 soldiers who are ready, willing, and anxious to go upon that land, would you not think that would be a good thing? Mr. WOOD. I know it would be good for the West. If we have that sort of idea, why not take the United States and divide it up into sections? Mr. RAKER. I am opposed to sectionalism. I am opposed to zone systems of all kinds. Mr. WOOD. I did not mean to propose to make of it a sectional mat- ter, but I was referring to the sections for the purpose of distributing this money. You ought to know as practical men that this reclama- tion business or settlement is not practicable in all sections under this scheme. It is not practicable in the State of Indiana ; it is not prac- ticable in the State of Ohio ; it is not practicable in the State of Illi- nois, and I do not think it is practicable anywhere in the East, al- though it may be practicable in this entire western section of the country. If you want to do this thing, why not draw your line some- where and work out a practicable plan that would apply to each respective section. Mr. FERRIS. We are informed that about 67 per cent of the soldiers have been demobilized and that the rest of them will be demobilized very rapidly. Now, it is your thought that it is up to the Government to show some appreciation of those soldiers in the form of a bonus or reward, is it not ? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. And it is your thought that there is a feeling among the soldiers that something ought to be done ? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Now, your thought is and I confess that I have been somewhat worried along the same lines your thought is that this plan for the colonization of the soldiers in groups on particular tracts of land would not be feasible in sections where high-priced lands exist ? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; that is true. Mr. FERRIS. But your thought is that that might work in the Western States? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. And, perhaps, in some of the sparsely settled sections of the Southern States, where lands can be bought for three, four, five, and six dollars per acre? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Speaking now for the benefit of the committee, why would it not be possible to preserve the good there is in this bill for the Western States, and then provide an alternative proposition along the line of your suggestion that would be applicable to States where this colonization plan seems to be unsuitable ? Mr. WOOD. That is the suggestion I offered to Mr. Raker that is, if you can draw the line or if you can figure out on the map a plan whereby it would be possible' to apportion or allot these benefits among the various sections of the country, it should be done. Then, 13331919 35 544 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. in the territory where it is feasible to apportion it it should be done so that they can apply it there to suit themselves. Mr. FERRIS. Would not this be a better plan than to turn over a lump sum to the several States and let them administer it ? Mr. WOOD. It might be. The only difference is that this last sug- gestion is only enlarging the unit. I admit this, that the general conditions throughout Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and all that sec- tion Mr. TAYI/)R (interposing). And Iowa. Mr. WOOD. Yes, Iowa. I expect they are concerned with reference to this thing. I think I can see how some scheme could be evolved to cover all sections of the country, but it would be quite a different scheme in all this territory where you have the least area of unoccu- pied land. Mr. FERRIS. The soldier proposition being a national proposition, would it not be an error to turn it over to the several governors of the States? Mr. WOOD. Some mistakes would be made, but to my mind they would be infinitely small as compared with the mistake that you would make if you adopt this general scheme. Mr. FERRIS. Why could not an alternative plan be incorporated in this bill, preserving the colonization plan of settlement for the West- ern States and making a practical enlargement of the farm-loan plan with a view to lending to the soldier in Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Iowa a sum sufficient to enable him to acquire a home isolated or segregated from the rest or outside of the colonization plan 1 Mr. WOOD. That might be done. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask you one other question and I do not knoAv whether it has been already injected into the record : What do you think of the proposition of authorizing the Federal Government to make advances for 40 years at 4 per cent, tax exempt, of $2,500 to each of the 4,000,000 soldiers who desires to avail himself of the privilege, the soldier to apply it to the acquisition of a home, with a restraint upon the alienation of it for the soldier's own protection? The proposition, stripped of all details, would be for the Government to advance to each soldier $2,500 for 40 years at 4 per cent interest^ provided the soldier should apply it to the purchase of a home, such loan to be tax exempt? Mr. WOOD. What would you do with reference to security ? Mr. FERRIS. The Government would hold the land as security, and would place restrictions on alienation for the soldiers' protection. Mr. WOOD. That might be feasible, but it would take an awful lot of money. Mr. FERRIS. I have figured it out, and if every one of the 4,000.000 soldiers should avail himself of this $2,500 loan with which to make a payment on a home, wherever it may be, whether in Indiana, Idaho, California, or Maine, the total amount would be $10,000,000,000, and that is not as much as we have loaned the Allies. That does not scare me. I will state for the record. Mr. WOOD. It does not scare me. I am in favor of any scheme which would make each man coming back from Franco a homo owner in the United States. That is the best guarantee we have agaiu>( unrest. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 545 Mr. FERRIS. Would not that be an equitable proposition? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. MAYS. After paying $2,500 for a home for the soldier, what would you do about giving him a job? Mr. WOOD. Of course, that is another proposition. Any proposi- tion that is going to be suggested is going to be fraught with many difficulties. Mr. MAYS. A city home is not much of a source of income. Mr. WOOD. That character of home, of course, would be for the benefit of the soldier who wanted to live adjacent to his work. Mr. FERRIS. It has been suggested by Mr. Smith that that might not bring about the object of making unproductive acres productive, and that might be subject to criticism, but I do not think that is necessarity true, because why could not a man in Idaho borrow $2.500 from the Government for the purpose of improving a section of land, or why could he not acquire the land if he wanted it? The CHAIRMAN. Would you favor that $10,000,000,000 proposition that Mr. Ferris spoke of? Mr. W T OOD. Of course it is like the old maid who was asked to marry, it conies pretty sudden, and possibly this might work out all light. I am in favor of making home owners of the soldiers of this country. Mr. FERRIS. Every soldier would feel that he had a chance to get something. Mr. WOOD. Yes, and there is this advantage in that proposition,, that there would not be the objection that would arise from those boys who do not want to go out and build homes on reclamation, projects. Thousands of them would be heard to complain about that, because it would not be giving them a fair chance. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of those settlements on reclamation projects. Have you ever been on one of those settlements? Mr. WOOD. Yes, I was on one in Florida that I thought would be- a happy consummation of one of the finest undertakings ever sug- gested in our section of the country. The CHAIRMAN. Where was it? Mr. WOOD. It was near Dupont, in Florida. It was in two or three counties. The CHAIRMAN. Was that a colonization plan? Mr. WOOD. Yes, but it did not work. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever been on the Greeley settlement in Colorado, or on a Mormon settlement in Utah ? Mr. WOOD. No; I have never been there. I do not know anything about it, except in a general way that the Mormons do make effective their undertakings in the establishment of colonization concerns, but we do not want our soldier boys to be Mormons in order to be successfully colonized. The CHAIRMAN. You do not know anything about the Greeley set- tlement in Colorado ? Mr. WOOD. No. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the settlement that Mrs. Lunn has referred to in her statement ? Mr. WOOD. No. 546 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of the Meadowbrook Farm, but the trouble there was that they had more poets and philosophers than potato diggers. Mr. WOOD. No; that was not the case. It was because of dissen- sions. They went along very well for a certain length of time, and it bid fair to be a great success, but there were dissensions that arose and it simply went to pieces. That was on the community plan, with community storehouses and everything else. The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, they have made a great suc- cess in Colorado and in Utah, and on everyone of those irrigation projects there is a community settlement. It is perfectly natural Mr. WOOD (interposing). That is why it succeeds. It must be done naturally. That sort of colonization plan is quite a different sort of colonization plan from this. The CHAIRMAN. Your main objection to this bill, I take it, is on account of its being a real reclamation proposition, or a proposition to remove stumps, drain wet lands, and irrigate arid lands ? Mr. WOOD. That is one of the objections, but the chief objection is that it will not do for the soldier what the Government intends should be done or what the people of the country desire to be done for the soldier. The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, that is not the sole purpose of the bill. Let me explain to you that the Secretary of the Interior and every man who has appeared before this committee, and every writer upon this subject refers to lands in the Eastern States, North- east, and North, aside from the West. Those States have been re- ferred to as containing idle lands and tenant farms. It is the pur- pose of this bill to take up such places, and the Secretary of the In- terior has repeatedly referred to a great area that can be taken up in the Northern States. He spoke of land within 50 miles of the city of Washington. It is an absolute misrepresentation to dub and stigmatize this bill as being solely for reclamation purposes. Mr. WOOD. In answer to that, I will say that all of the working machinery for the purpose of carrying out this project is left in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. BARBOUR. The governors of the States are named and the Farm Loan Board, and they are to approve and select each one of these projects for the purpose of fixing the price and determining the method. Mr. WOOD. I think that is after it is selected, and, after all, it is ultimately left to the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether or not a project shall be selected in any State. That is what I am objecting to. The CHAIRMAN. Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, was before the committee, and he stated that the projects that could be taken up the earliest and the cheapest lay in the Eastern States. Now. you say it ultimately rests with the Secretary of the Interior, but you should bear this in mind that this bill merely provides for an authorization, and the Secretary of the Interior can not spend one dollar of the amount authorized to be appropriated here until the following steps are taken: He has got to select some project, that project must be approved by the Federal land bank and by the governor of the State, and then he must run the gauntlet of the Ap- propriations Committee, and after that the matter must be approved HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 547 by the House and Senate. The Secretary of the Interior has no- carte blanche in this matter. Mr. WOOD. We know from very recent experience the disadvantage under which the Appropriations Committee labors in contests with. the various heads of the executive departments with reference to any character of these projects. We ought not to delude ourselves with the idea that, if this thing is established according to the plan sug- gested in this bill, the chief or head of this department, and I do not care who it is, will not be the dominating influence in the carrying out of the scheme. Mr. RAKER. Is it not a fact that in none of the projects in the Reclamation Service, to which you directed some slight criticism, has there been any community settlement or what you would call a community settlement? Mr. WOOD. Yes; that is true. Mr. RAKER. All of them are on the open, individual, separate farm basis, just as prevails in every State of the United States. Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. RAKER. It has not been done, and there have not been any community settlements. Xow. take these various projects : Are there any of them that, to your mind or knowledge, are not making a, success to-day? Mr. WOOD. I know of one or two that I have been connected with that did not make a success. Mr. RAKER. I am talking about those under the supervision of the Government. Of course, I know there have been many individual schemes whereby somebody has started out to make a fortune at the expense of poor people, and those projects have failed. Mr. WOOD. The Government has never undertaken any settlement or community scheme. The Government proffers a chance to you. or to anybody that comes along to take up a homestead claim, but the Government has never undertaken any colonization scheme. Mr. RAKER. Then, under the reclamation law and as you say this has reclamation in it, and that must be true, and also the drainage of swamp lands and the improvement of cut-over lands there has. been no community settlement about them, but they have been made a success or a success now. Now, if that is a fact, why should we say that this scheme as presented to the committee might be a failure, when everything we have done up to date in the way of reclamation has been a success? Mr. WOOD. Xow, admit your premises, and admit that the Government might undertake to reclaim the overflowed lands ad- jacent to the Mississippi River, in the Mississippi River country, and establish them so they will be perfectly safe against overflow, and then you take and apportion that land among the soldiers who came back from the war, have you not done an injustice to the man who* does not want to go onto 'those lands? That is, if that is the only project you establish. Mr. RAKER. But suppose you have five times as many soldiers as you can provide for on this very land : if you can provide for 100.000 of those soldiers on the Mississippi Valley land as designated by you, would it not be a good thing? Mr. WOOD. Of course, it would, but would it not be an equally good thing to provide for the soldiers in the cities and in the manu- 548 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. facturing centers, who are entitled to as much help as these boys .going on the farm? Mr. MAYS. Do you not see the benefit of relieving the congestion in the cities, along with the other benefits in the bill ? Mr. WOOD. Absolutely; that feature is all right, but you can not discriminate entirely against the cities, and you can not discriminate entirely against the soldier boy who does not want to go to the coun- try ; and wherever -you do that you are going to cause bitterness and liate, whereas by some scheme properly Avorked out that would give all at least a chance to participate, you have removed that difficulty. Mr. MAYS. The cities have been increasing in population much fas- ter than the country. Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. MAYS. Is it not necessary to relieve that tendency at least to some extent? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; but do not relieve it through this kind of a scheme. Mr. MAYS. What would be your scheme which would relieve that situation ? Mr. WOOD. My scheme would be a general reclamation scheme that would stand on its own bottom. PO not make the boys a party to this scheme because when you do, where you are going to satisfy 1 you are going to cause dissatisfaction to 100. Mr. MAYS. Would you be in favor of a general reclamation scheme independent of the relationship of the soldiers to it ? Mr. WOOD. Absolutely. Mr. MAYS. I think I asked you practically the same question be- fore ; but would you object to giving the soldier a preference right in getting a home? Mr. WOOD. I would be in favor of that, too. Mr. BENHAM. Mr. Wood, it has been stated by the author of this bill that it would probably not afford aid to more than 1 per cent of the soldiers. Assuming that to be true, what would be the effect of that on the mental attitude of the 99 per cent who are not helped ? Mr. WOOD. It would make the 99 per cent who are not helped feel Tery much aggrieved. Mr. SMITH. Judge, do you not realize that building up waste places, starting new communities, and opening up great tracts of land to cultivation will make a market for the things these other soldiers living in the cities will manufacture, and in that way will be of benefit to them? Mr. WOOD. Yes; but that is so very indirect that you would have a good deal of trouble convincing the soldier who did not get any -direct help that he was being helped in that way at all. Mr. SMITH. Is it not true that 1,000 farmers will support a city of about 10,000 people? Mr. WOOD. Yes. If you had one scheme to develop 30,000 acres of undeveloped land by the soldiers, and another scheme to develop a town which would satisfy the wants of those men living in the country and help that many more men Mr. SMITH (interposing). I want to say that on yesterday T was over in New York welcoming home from France about 600 Idaho boys. I talked with them about this proposition, and I find that the professional men and the mechanics were just ;is enthusiastic .about it as were the farmer boys, because they realize that there HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 549 would be employment for them in connection with building up set- tlements, following their trades and engaging in mercantile activ- ities. I think you are mistaken when you proceed on the theory that the soldiers who are not farmers are going to be dissatisfied with this sort of legislation. Mr. WOOD. This may have the effect of changing human nature, but I do not believe it will. Mr. SMITH. It has been demonstrated out in the western country that when you establish one of these projects, only a comparatively small proportion of people go on the land and the others go into the community and start stores and manufacturing interests of different kinds, and then we send great sums of money east to buy the things which vou manufacture in Indiana and other States in Middle West and East. Mr. WOOD. That is a natural saturation by individual efforts. That is not a project of governmental aid. Mr. SMITH. But in order to undertake these great projects you must have the Government behind them. Mr. XICPIOLS. Mr. Smith, do you think there are any great number of soldiers who have not had farming experience who will take ad- vantage of this aid? Mr. SMITH. I think it is quite true that a good many of them will, because they have become accustomed to out-door life while in the Army and prefer some business out in the open. Mr. XICHOLS. I do not think so. Mr. SMITH. They have been accustomed to out-door life for the l^st two years, and a great many of them will want to get into agri- cultural pursuits. Mr. MAYS. As I understand it, one of your chief objections to this bill is the fact that it will not appeal to the soldiers ? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. MAYS. And that very few of them would take advantage of it ? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. MAYS. If this bill were to provide an opportunity for all that wished to take advantage of it, then the others who did not wish to do so. would riot have any bitterness in their hearts, would they ? Mr. WOOD. Yes; they would. Mr. MAYS. Why? Mr. WOOD. Simply because some scheme was not offered to them. They would say that you have simply picked out the farming indus- try of this country. Mr. MAYS. The opportunity is offered to them if they wish to take advantage of it. Mr. WOOD. Yes; but they are not farmers. I want to say to you that the gentleman here says he thinks a number of boys who are not farmers will take advantage of this scheme. I think the per- centage would be very small. A farmer is made from the time he is 3 years of age, when he grows up on a farm, to 17 years of age. Mr. MAYS. Mr. Wood, we find from actual experience that on these reclamation projects which have been provided by the Government that a great many people who know nothing about farming have taken advantage of the opportunities and have made good farmers. Mr. Smith will bear out that statement. Mr. SMITH. That is absolutely so. 550 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. Is that the general rule or the exception? Mr. MAYS. It is not the exception. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Wood, are you familiar with the attitude of other governments with regard to the treatment of their returning soldiers ? Mr. WOOD. No; I am not; and that is the reason I thought it would be a good suggestion for you gentlemen to get somebody who is to tell you about that. Mr. Herrick could give you some very good information on that proposition. Mr. RAKER. Do you know, from the history of this country or any other country relative to prior wars, of a country doing anything for its soldiers except giving them a pension and authorizing or giving them grants of land? Mr. WOOD. I have understood that Germany tried some coloniza- tion scheme and that it was a failure. Mr. RAKER. Outside of Germany, are you familiar with what this country has done relative to giving its soldiers tracts of land? Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with anything except in a general way with what our country did and what I have heard with reference to Germany. Mr. RAKER. This country has never attempted to do anything for its soldiers of prior wars except to give them a pension and authorize them to take up tracts of Government lands under better conditions than someone else. Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. RAKER. If that is true, and if nc other means can be devised, is it not a fact that where the land is located and where the Govern- ment has it, if the soldiers think it is right and if everybody has thought that it is right, the man must go from where he lives to where the land is located. Mr. WOOD. Yes; if you admit that premise, but I am not going to admit that. I am not going to admit that this is the only scheme that can be devised. Mr. RAKER. None other has been thought of by the mind of man up to the present time except to give tracts of land to returning sol- diers. Mr. WOOD. Well, but we have not reached our limitations, I hop-,', in ingenuity, and I believe this committee, if it will simply get down to brass tacks, will work out some suitable scheme. Mr. RAKER. In order to carry out a similar plan to what has been done following prion wars, namely, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the War of 1861-1865, and the Spanish-American War in regard to the ronation of land, we have to let the men go to where the land is istuated : is not that true ? Mr. WOOD. That is true; but that can not be any criterion at all for this situation, because the whole topography of the country has been changed. We have changed from a desert, practically, into a thickly populated country. The economic conditions have changed, the social conditions have changed, and all those things have got to be taken into consideration, and what you did to satisfy the soldiers of prior wars can not be taken for comparison now at all. Mr. RAKER. If that law works all right, and if the people were sat- isfied with it, and if they realized that when they took a tract of Government land they had to leave, their homos and go to whero the land was, and nobody has claimed that if to-day we have 10,- HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 551 000,000 acres of Government land that can be put under cultivation and good homes made for these soldiers by giving them a proper grant and proper assistance, that we ought not to do it to-day. Mr. WOOD. You ought to do just as much as you can to help the farm boys who were soldiers, and you ought to do just as much as you can to help the boys who were not farm boys but were soldiers also. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wood, will you give us your concrete plan ? Mr. WOOD. I have not worked it out. The suggestion I made as a basis upon which a plan might be worked out so that it would be equitable at least, would be to take and first agree upon the amount of money that you are going to give to the soldiers, then apportion it among- the several States, and let them provide their own schemes for its application, or adopt the scheme suggested by Mr. Ferris, and divide the country into areas and apportion the money to one scheme which is actually possible for the purpose of developing the lands in that area, and apportion the money to another that is not agricultural; in other words, allow them to make a choice and have an alternative, but give every fellow a chance to be helped. That is what I am after. Mr. WHITE. Did you mean to use the word " give " in speaking of the amount you would give the soldier? Mr. WOOD. What I meant to say was, first agree on the amount of money that the Government is going to expend for the purpose of helping the soldiers. Mr. TAYLOR. Advance to him, you mean. Mr. WOOD. Yes; and apportion that among the several States. I am not in favor of giving the soldier anything with the idea that you are giving him something that he is not going to return. Mr. TAYLOR. You are not in favor of a bounty proposition, are you? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wood, you spoke of the failures in Germany. This bill is the result of an investigation made by Mr. Elwood Mead and other commissioners in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and all countries providing any kind of a project. We had the fruit of his ripe experience and knowledge of that investigation covering nearly two years, and his ideas are incorporated in this bill. You have quoted from Mr. Merrick. Have you read his articles ? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; I have read Mr. Herrick's articles but it has been some time ago. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think he has been fair in his explanation of this plan ? Mr. WOOD. Oh, I have not read his articles with a view to being critical on this subject. The CHAIRMAN. Was your viewpoint colored by the propaganda he is putting out? Mr. WOOD. No ; I have not seen anything he has written for a long, long time. This business has been a fad of Mr. Herrick's for years. The CHAIRMAN. Every member of the House has received a letter from Mr. Merrick and I have it here. Mr. WOOD. I refer to Mr. Herrick. Mr. SMITH. Who is that gentleman, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merrick. 552 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH. Who is he the editor of some farm journal? The CHAIRMAN. I think it is the most misleading stuff I have seen It absolutely misstates the purpose of the bill. Mr. TAYLOR. Who is he? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merrick. Mr. WOOD. I do not know anything about Merrick. I am talking about Mr. Herrick. I never heard anything of that other fellow. Mr. RAKER. You are talking about Gov. Herrick. Mr. WOOD. I am talking about Myron T. Herrick, who at one time was governor of Ohio. I do not know anything about that other man. The CHAIRMAN. I want to call the attention of the committee to the stuff this editor, Mr. Merrick, is sending out. Mr. RAKER. I was sure that Mr. Wood referred to the ex-governor of Ohio. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to call the attention of the committee to this stuff. Here are newspaper clippings that people are asked to cut out and send to Congressmen, entitled, " Vigorous protest to Con- gress against the Lane bill to spend $500,000,000 reclaiming distant swamps and deserts for soldiers," and so on. It is dubbed and stigma- tized as a swamp plan and an arid-land scheme, and nothing else. I supposed that was the man you were referring to. Mr. WOOD. No; and I do not want to be understood as confusing that gentleman witli Mr. Herrick, because Mr. Herrick is a very high-class gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman you refer to was formerly gover- nor of Ohio? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Who is this fellow that gets this literature up? Where is his paper published? The CHAIRMAN. It says " Farm and Home Paper," and it is pub- lished at Springfield, M'ass., and Chicago, 111. Mr. NICHOLS. May I ask Mr. Wood a question? Do you think that under this bill if 50 per cent of the soldiers who participated in this war sought to avail themselves of the opportunity, this bill would take care of that many ? Mr. WOOD. I do not think so. I do not think it would take care of 10 per cent of them. Mr. NICHOLS. Is not this bill necessarily limited? Mr. WOOD. Yes; I think it is limited. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Wood, I understand your opposition to the bill is largely because it does not take care of all the soldiers, especially those in Indiana, for instance. Now, you have not any project, evi- dently, that could be made available in Indiana under this bill. Do you not think it would be proper and wise legislation to enact this bill so as to start these reclamation projects in States where they would be feasible? Mr. WOOD. I think it would be a splendid idea to start your recla- mation projects as reclamation projects. Mr. SMITH. And give the soldiers the preference right? Mr. WOOD. Absolutely. Mr. SMITH. That is all there is to the bill, Mr. Wood. Mr. WOOD. Now, that is not all there is to the bill, because you arc offering nothing to any one else. HOMEo FOR SOLDIERS. 553 Mr. SMITH. But when you build up a community are not other peo- ple going' to get a benefit from that? Mr. WOOD. But you are saying to everybody who wants to take .advantage of this situation, " You must go on a farm," and that is an unfair proposition. Mr. SMITH. We can pass another bill to benefit soldiers in other activities in life. Mr. WOOD. I think you had better put it altogether and not start something that is going to array one class of these soldiers against the other. That is one thing you should avoid. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Wood, I want to ask you a question or two sug- gested by a question that was raised by Mr. Ferris. You made the statement here a moment ago that the training of a farmer began from the time he was a boy 3 years old until he was 17, and I heartily approve that statement. Now, there will be thousands and hundreds of thousands of those soldiers who are sons of farmers and who, as you have suggested, will not care to go to any projects, or who will not care to leave their homes, but who are riot able to engage in farming because they have not the capital, but under the proposition suggested by Mr. Ferris, under an agency established by the Secretary, it would be possible to lend those men certain sums and then allow them to select segre- gated tracts. They will be absolutely familiar with the conditions; they would have had training all of their lifetime, from childhood up, on the farm, which would be a good guarantee of success. Don't you believe that from the standpoint of solvency, the Government would be as fully safeguarded in an investment of that kind as it would be under any reclamation scheme ? Mr. WOOD. Yes ; I think that is true. Here is what you will find true of every settlement: I remember when I was a little boy there used to be great wagon trains going from our country to Kansas and Nebraska. There was always a very considerable percentage of those who left who became dissatisfied and came back, just as there would be a very considerable percentage of those that would go on these projects that you are proposing here, but they would not be- come dissatisfied if they had the money with which to establish themselves in their own communities. Mr. WHITE. That question is well answered, and I thank you. I want to ask you another question: Is it not your calm judgment that the value of the lands in the United States, including stump lands, swamp lands, etc. although I do not know that this will apply so well to lands susceptible to irrigation but is it not true that "the value of lands available for agriculture, but not used in all of the great farming sections of the United States has been pretty accurately gauged by the genius of investment? Has not the genius of investment pretty accurately gauged the value of those lands at the present time ? Mr. WOOD. That would be my opinion, and I think that is true. Mr. WHITE. Don't you think that the investment or segregated investment and, of course, this committee knows that I am in favor of segregated investments I do not know how they found it out, but they know it don't you believe that many thousands and tens of thousands of soldiers, who, on account of early associa- tions or home associations, and on account of the fact that they 554 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. would have the advantage of the counsel of their parents and others who are directly interested in them, and on account of having the confidence of the business men and bankers who know their quality, would, from the standpoint of prospective success, have a better opportunity to succeed by remaining in their own communities rather than living in communities with which they are not familiar ? Mr. WOOD. That is my judgment. With the same conditions, existing in both places, the man at home among those who know him, and among those with whom his character itself would be an asset, would have a considerable advantage, over the man or boy who left home and established himself among strangers where his charac- ter would not be an asset to him. In other words, with the same op- portunities otherwise, the boy who remained in his own community would be likely to get along a great deal better than one who went into a strange country. Mr. WHITE. Do you know, Mr. Wood, that in all the count it\s in agricultural sections of the United States there are farm agents? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. WHITE. In my State that is the rule. Those farm agents are employed for the reason that they are thoroughly familiar with the methods of agriculture, the qualities of soil, and everything of the kind, in the county where they are giving service. Now, don't you believe that those men are fully as competent, or more competent, or are likely to be more competent, to advise those young farmers thau men who are doubtless supervising what is, in a large sense, a prob- lematical proposition Mr. WOOD. That is manifestly true. To give a concrete example of that, we have some lands in our State tKat appear to be the most fertile lands in the world. At first blush you would think that they were, but when you begin to farm them, they prove to be a fraud and delusion. A lot of land frauds have been committeed in our section- in the sale of such lands. Land agents have taken men from dif- ferent sections of the country and sold them these lands upon the strength of their appearance. Mr. SMITH. Did I understand you to say in answer to a question by Mr. White that you are in favor of buying segregated sections of land at the present market value and then lend Government money to the extent of 100 per cent of the value of that land ? Mr. WOOD. No. Mr. WHITE. No ; I did not say that. Mr. SMITH. What percentage of the value would you propose to- loan? Mr. WHITE. I am not making any proposition, but I will make this announcement; that I will prepare an amendment to this bill at the proper time, and the committee can consider it. Mr. SMITH. In two or three years land values might go down 25 per cent, and, if so, where would the Government's security be? Mr. WOOD. I was out in Indiana during the vacation, and the land people told me that they were selling land at $300 per acre in several counties, but I tell you that the men who bought the land were getting the best of it, because they were paying ~>0 per cent less than it was worth, as compared with its value before the war commenced. Mr. WHITE. You seem to be familiar with land prices, and I want HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 555 to ask you whether there are any more cautious investors anywhere than the land people are ? Mr. WOOD. We have some experts at that business. Mr. WHITE. They number by the million. Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. WHITE. Not only those who are land agents, but the farmers themselves understand the business. They have given the matter of land values a lifetime study. Mr. WOOD. Yes; I contend that farming is the greatest science in the world, with the least known about it. STATEMENT OF ME. R. E. SHEPHERD, OF JEROME, IDAHO. Mr. SHEPHERD. Gentlemen, I am not going to occupy very much of your time at this hour. I came here more to listen to your deliberations than to have anything to offer, but one thing was brought out this morning that I can say something about which may be of interest to you. The question of the agency to employ in giving effect to this law. You have been questioning Mr. Davis as to whether or not the Reclamation Service has rendered a good stew- ardship in the work heretofore entrusted to it in the matter of reclamation of arid lands in the West. I come from the same dis- trict as Mr. Smith the Twin Falls territory. Fifteen years ago that was nothing but sagebrush desert; there was hardly a single white person living there. All the work that has been done in that territory has been accomplished since that time. Large dams have been built and hundreds of miles of canals and ditches have been constructed. Much of this has been the work of the Reclamation Service. In this short time more than 7,500 farms have been de- veloped in the Twin Falls country, from which over 5,000,000 bushels of wheat was sent to help feed the Allies and the East, about 30,000.000 pounds of beet sugar was produced, 5,000,000 pounds of wool and over 400,000 fat sheep and lambs were shipped to the eastern markets wheat, sugar, wool, and meat; all most essential product for eastern trade. In exchange for all this we were liberal buyers of eastern manufactured products. In response to the call of the Government for money that terri- tory has returned to the United States Treasury in subscriptions to liberty loans. Red Cross activities, and all the various kinds of war work more than twice the money the Government has expended out there. It seems to me that is a view of the question that you ought to consider. It is a broad question of public policy in establishing the. Reclamation Service. It has been a most important factor in this work and is now better qualified than at any previous period to undertake the great work contemplated by this bill. While I do not expect all these returning soldiers to go to Idaho, glad as we would be to have them come, I appreciate the fact that there will be equal opportunities elsewhere and the working out of the measure will open the door of opportunity in all lines of work. We want the boys to have any kind of job they can handle. The railroad will prosper, the eastern manufacturer will have new markets, and all lines of trade and business will feel the good growing out of this proposition. The Reclamation Service has proven already a mighty 556 HOMES FOR SOLDIEKS. good thing for the people of the East as well as the West and for the people everywhere, particularly during the recent crisis that the Government has gone through. Now, I well remember hearing one of the leading men of the United States a few years ago say that the one great indispensable industry of the United States which was not systematized and was largely left haphazard was this great industry of agriculture; that whether a man farmed his land in the proper way or advantageously was left to luck and to the farmer's discretion. One of the great things the Reclamation Service has done is to form an agency through which the farmers can get in touch with the Agricultural Department of the United States. I think there is more intelligent farming in the communities where the Reclamation Service has done its work than in other sections of the country. I want to say to you that food production in the United States has not kept pace with our growing population according to the records of the Department of Agriculture. You know how short we are in dairy animals as well as in meat animals. There must be some intelligent leadership, and I can see in this measure an opportunity for the Department of Agriculture to work out some of its ideas and bring them directly to the people. I remember some years ago when the question of pure seed was first discussed and someone asked the question as to how much it would mean in the course of a year if there was one more kernel on each ear of corn, and the man who worked it out said it would mean over $75,000 a year in freight alone for just one more kernel of corn on each ear. One of the results of this measure will be to extend the work of the Department of Agriculture all over the country, through the agency of the Reclamation Service, in bringing out good practice in farming. I believe it is the agency that you can trust for the carrying out of this measure for the benefit of the whole United States. Of course, there are lots of soldier boys who are not going to take these farms. It is not to be expected; but a large number will, and in time will make a market for the product of the boys that go into manufactur- ing. They will help make traffic for the boys that go into railroad work, and so on. Keep in mind that there is no more land than originally created, you can multiply manufacturing plants, railroads, and commercial enterprises indefinitely with increasing population, but not so with land, the area is fixed. We must, as a matter of public policy, set in motion the agency that will increase agricul- tural production, making habitable and productive the w r aste lands of our country. Remember the value of home builders to the country; remember the value of the man who owns his own home and his own farm. They are generally among the substantial people our country can depend upon in times of distress. Now, with regard to the 40-year provision, it is only the man who can use money to advantage that will stay in debt 40 years. There are certain people who have a horror of debt and will pay up long before the 40-year term expires. The proposed terms will give an opportunity to acquire better live stock and better buildings, educate their children, and so on. You will find that there will be more men paying money back too soon than keeping it to the end. You can HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 557 well afford to have the farmers of the United States using 4 per cent money. It will be of great advantage to the East, Mr. NICHOLAS. What are you connected with? Mr. SHEPHERD. The Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co. It is a Carey Act company. The land was opened to settlement some years ago. Mr. NICHOLS. Under this bill do you believe that the soldier should be privileged to have more than one farm ? Mr. SHEPHERD. No, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. How do you mean that the soldier who owes the Government money could use that money instead of paying the Government what he owes ? Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, 50 per cent of it will go into better stock, better horses, better cattle, better sheep, better hogs. Mr. NICHOLS. Did you hear the statement of Mr. Davis? Mr. SHEPHERD. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. About the reason for that 40 years being in the bill ? Mr. SHEPHERD. I do not think it will take any man of ordinary ability 40 years to pay out. Any man who was good enough to fight in France will be able to pay out in less than 40 years, as far as that goes, but he will have the advantage of 40 years' credit, which will be better than a pension. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that a man who would take 40 years to pay out would be considered a success, in your opinion ? Mr. SHEPHERD. Your question is unfair, 'it depends on what he does with his money. Mr. NICHOLS. How 7 do you mean my question is unfair? Mr. SHEPHERD. You may have an occasional man w T ho will never pay out, but I want to say that under the provisions of this bill the average farmer, so far as his ability to pay is concerned, will be able to pay off in much less than 10 years, but there are men who can advantageously employ that money because of the low rate of interest. Mr. NICHOLS. But that is not the purpose of the bill at all. Mr. Davis said that was in the bill for the purpose of extending that credit to a man who has to have 40 years to pay it. Now, do you believe, as Mr. Davis does, that a man who would take 40 years to pay out would be considered a success in farming? Mr. SHEPHERD. I know Mr. Davis well enough to believe he would like to qualify that statement. I do not think he meant it that way. Mr. NICHOLS. But I am asking you. Mr. SHEPHERD. No, sir ; I do not. Mr. SMITH. It is not assumed that because the term is fixed at 40 years that the entryman will take that length of time. He may want to build a new house and barn or send his children to college, and he might like to take advantage of the long term and utilize his profits for these purposes instead of applying it to the loan. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Davis said he could conceive of a case where a man could not pay it in 40 years because of things that would occur in the running of the farm during the 40 years. Mr. SHEPHERD. Oh, of course, in case a man broke his leg, or his house burned down, or his wife went crazy, cases of hard luck, but they will be a minor exception. I assume the purpose is to grant 558 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. liberal credit to these boys, which will be of great advantage in many ways. Thank you, gentlemen. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, June 18, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, June 18, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF MRS. HAVILAND H. LTJND, WASHINGTON, D. C., SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL FORWARD-TO-THE-LAND LEAGUE. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, please state to the committee your full name and residence, and whom you represent. Mrs. LUND. Mrs. Haviland H. Lund, New York, and I am secre- tary of the Forward-to-the-Land League. Mr. Chairman, I am going to state first, because I am a Avoman and they are not usually supposed to have very definite ideas about matters of finance and economics, that the plans for the work in land settlement and colonization have been investigated and indorsed by bankers, economists, land dealers, and railroad colonization men. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, I do not like to interrupt you, but so we may get it in the record, will you state something about this league of which you are the secretary, its organization and membership? Mrs. LUND. Yes. Perhaps this statement which I have written here will give that. Shall I read it? The CHAIRMAN. Just as you please. If you can state it briefly, you may do so. (The statement referred to is as follows:) NATIONAL FOBWARD-TO-THE-LAND LEAGUE. The Forward-to-the-Land League is a nonprofit-making but self-supporting or- ganization to make unused land productive and profitable to the individuals who cultivate it, and who become owners of the land through their own efforts. It will establish on land, carefully selected with regard to its particular capacities and its nearness to markets, carefully selected colonies which will be cooperative but not communistic. It will give the colonists the benefit of the best scientific advice and the best business intelligence. The colony will be con- ducted so that the individual members shall be able to pay for their homes and the land under expert advice and direction, and the colony is established on a sound, permanent basis. The colony idea is almost as old as civilization. Some have succeeded. Most of them have failed. The reasons for the failures are logical. On the com- mercial are these : WHY SOME FARM COLONIES HAVE FAILED. The initial high cost of the land, including exorbitant selling cost, which ranges from 25 to 45 per cent. The exploitation of colonists to make money for the land owner. The character of the land itself and market inaccessibility. Leaving the members of the young colony to work out their own salvation in fighting against obstacles they can not overcome. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 559 The chief reasons for the failure of philanthropic land colonization have been : Lack of good business judgment and insufficient capital. Unwise selection of colonists. An impractical plan of development. Lack of intelligent cooperation. The impossibility of fitting human beings into a mold, of compelling them to adjust to formulas, restrictions, laws, rules they do not like and will not endure. Lack of participation, and, therefore, responsibility, on the part of the colonists. It is much easier to get human beings back on the land than it is to keep them there. THE HUMAN NEEDS OF COLONISTS. A plan that can make the mere business of agriculture profitable but which fails to consider all human needs of the colonists and to meet these needs can not succeed. Therefore it is obvious that the civic center must receive as much considera- tion as the industrial and commercial problems. The Forward-to^the-Land League is unique in that only the fundamental principles, or, more accurately, the clearly defined objectives, of the league are fixed. The organization is sufficiently elastic to make use of all methods developed by experience and experiment. The league will adapt its plans to human beings, instead of adopting a pat- tern and attempting to make human beings fit into a rigid mold. Broadly speaking, the function of the Forward-to-the-Land League is educa- tional, to make known the practical work, to locate the land, and to secure the colonists. MAINTAINING THE STANDARDS OF THE LEAGUE. The business management of a colony will be under the direction of a com- petent and responsible organization ; but in every instance the league will have supervisory direction to make sure the standards of the colony are maintained, not only with regard to economic administration, but education and the social needs of the colony. In every instance it is desired to have the community in which the colony is established, and which must benefit enormously from it, to subscribe to the stock and bonds of the colony, so that it will have a vital interest in its suc- cess, particularly with regard to providing the best possible transportation and communication. In certain counties there are likely to develop a group of colonies allied by a common interest. Investigation checked by experience establish that from the beginning a colony must have under cultivation at least 50 farms as a minimum 100 is better with the kind of soil required for the type of agriculture contemplated. THE MINIMUM FOB EACH FARM. There should be additional land included in the colony holding to take care of future growth in the number of colonists. The minimum requirements for each farm are: Five acres of cleared land immediately available for tiling. A house of four rooms. A barn. One horse or mule. One cow or goat. Twelve chickens. ^wo pi ITS. Agricultural implements. Wells, fences, and roads, as well as modern sanitary provisions. A community center with school, church, town hall, library, store, blacksmith shop, etc. Agricultural instructor and market expert. Each colonist should have a certain sum of money from $100 to $600 as an evidence of responsibility and good faith, but this is elastic. Character and capacity will be considered more important than capital. 13331919 36 560 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. LONG-TERM PAYMENTS PROVIDED. Payments for the land and improvements will extend over a period of 20 years, with optional cash payments at any interest amortization date. An officer of the league will establish the colony on the land and will remain, until its machinery is working smoothly. While the activities of the forward-to-tlie-land league are defined as securing the land and the colonists, this covers a broad field of activity. It includes nation-wide publicity, persistent, cumulative campaigns of edu- cation, with distinct offices in important centers, bureaus of information, and a national clearing house for cooperative development, and for the vast stores of agricultural information now held in Federal and State cold storage. It will disseminate all available information far and wide. It will cooper- ate with the extension department of the State agricultural colleges. THE BROAD PLAN OF EDUCATION. In connection with the land information bureau there will t>e free classes in agriculture and home economics. A permanent land exhibit, supported cooperatively by the different States, will be maintained. This will logically develop into a national agricultural museum and become one of the most important institutions in the United States. Because the league is an educational nonprofit-making institution, all avenues of publicity are open to it ; newspapers, periodicals, moving-picture companies, the international Young Men's Christian Association, and the Chautauqua cir- cuits will give aid. The United States Commissioner of Education and cham- bers ol commerce are ready to cooperate. The educational publicity, which will take advantage of every opportunity, must make the league and its work known from one end of the country to the other. It will attract prospective colonists in larger numbers than we can CAREFUL SELECTION OF COLONISTS. This makes possible a wise selection and grouping of individuals from the different colonies. Customs, habits, what the scientists call the " mores " of racial groups, will be considered as carefully as their character and quality and the kind of agri- culture they prefer. The individuals for a particular colony will be chosen with care. Each will have made clear to him the privileges and obligations of citizenship in the com- munity and in the Nation. Here is a practical, direct, effective way of combating the destructive radi- calism of which Bolshevism is the symbol. As against the promises of the agitator, the forward-to-the-land league gives actualities visible property ; a home and land, which makes him independent and a chance to earn both. Furthermore, the colonist is protected while he is paying for his house and farm and equipment. No one stronger than he can take it from him. PRACTICAL WORK FOR AMERICANIZATION. It is the most practical method of real Americanization yet devised not only in its immediate but in its enduring results. It gives every man the chance to be free and independent. OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SOLDIERS. Particularly does it offer opportunity for the returned soldiers, and they will make wonderful colonists, for they have learned the advantages and obligations of real cooperation, of accepting scientific direction and good loader- ship, which, in the case of the foreigner colonist, and often the American, will have to be taught. It will be made clear that each colonist must participate in all the activi- ties, particularly in the government of the colony, and that he must share llu v responsibility for their activities. Of course, all business questions, such as the methods of payments, will be made perfectly clear in advance. In fact, the individuals will be organized as a self-governing unit before they move onto the land, which will be selected and improved for each particular group. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 561 COOPERATION ALL ALONG THE LINK Just as each colony is cooperative, so will the different colony units be co- operative in so far as they have a community interest; as, for instance, in the buying <>f machinery and supplies, the marketing of their products, the direc- tion of amusements, the system of education. Every proven experiment in a particular colony or outside of it will be employed for the benefit of all the colonies, to make them more progressive, to make them happier, to make them eager to improve that which is already good. The 50-colony farm is merely the starting point. Provision for additional land is made for those who become acquainted with the colony as farm laborers and other workers whether in the colony or outside of it, to own their own farms. Thus the league will oppose in the most effective way the evil farm peonage system which is the inevitable concomitant when capitalists operate large areas under scientific management, and which pay big profits if the owners are suc- cessful in mobilizing the labor. Intelligent cooperation can yield even larger returns under the Forward-to-the-Land League direction. SCIENTIFIC BUYING OF THE LAND. As to securing the land itself, the league provides wide latitude. The league, through a subsidiary, may buy the land outright, issuing bonds in payment. A local group may organize and provide the land because of the manifold advantages of having a colony near a population center. Or the league may enter into a contract with an existing land company which will provide for a general supervision which will insure the standards of the league are maintained. In every case the land must stand the most rigid tests as to its value, its productiveness, and its convenience to markets. The Forward-to-the-Land League will make sure the land is purchased at its actual worth, under a scientific system of appraisement. The actual capital invested in a colony would pay interest because money is as worthy of its day's wages as surely as the laborer is worthy of his hire. Agricultural bonds, bearing interest at 5 or 5^ per cent, with the land and im- provements of the colonies as security, would have a fixed value. Moreover,, they would be in demand in the communities whose land values ind commercial prosperity would be tremendously increased by the colony. PROTECTING CAPITAL AND COLONIST. The same care, foresight, and business judgment must be exercised to protect the invested capital as is employed to protect the colonist. The initial value of the land increases as it is brought under cultivation. Each colony's original assets would be quadrupled by its success. The savings alone, through scientific agriculture and cooperative effort, would more than pay interest on the indebtedness, while expert marketing would further increase the profits. Group insurance of the colonist gives further protection to the investors as well as the colonist. The insurance, as well as the amortized credit of 20 years or more, also protects the colonist. Furthermore, the colonist has the privilege of relinquishing his original land and taking developed land to the amount of money he has paid in. Evea should he wish to leave the colony, the colonist is secured against any actual loss. Mrs. LUXD. Connected with the league are E. J. Parker, of the Salvation Army ; Dr. A. E. Eoberts, of the Young Men's Christian Association; Dr. Thomas N. Carver, of Harvard, who is the author of the textbook on rural economics which is used in all of our agricultural colleges I have a list of the names here, but like all my other papers it has become lost in this bag Dr. M. T. Scudder, of the National Play Ground Organization ; Dr. Henry R. Segar, poli- 562 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. tical economist, of Columbia University; Senators W. G. Harding, John W. Weeks, Wadsworth, Calder; Charles Schwab, Myron T. Herrick I can furnish that list a little later, gentlemen, if you want it for the record, but perhaps that is enough. I endeavored to put on our board a member of every important church and welfare organization in order to give confidence to the people that this was not a land-selling scheme. It was part of my plan to establish this confidence of the people. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "I endeavored to put on our board"? I did not understand that expression. Mrs. LUND. I endeavored to put on the board of the Forward-to- the-Land League people who were prominent in church and welfare organizations and economists as well as business men so as to give confidence to the general public, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You made up the board? Mrs. LUND. I worked out all of the plans and formed the organi- zation. The CHAIRMAN. Do you knoAV Mr. Walsh of Massachusetts? Mrs. LUND. I may say that when I was in Boston Mayor Fitzgerald called a special meeting for me in Faneuil Hall and presided at the meeting and he and Gov. Walsh were familiar with my plans and expected to help put it across in Massachusetts. Mayor Fitzgerald said I could count on Mr. Walsh. That was some time ago. As I started to say, I had important men in both the Democratic and Republican Parties spend from one to two weeks' time investi- gating the business connected with this work. A detailed explana- tion of them would perhaps take more time than you care to go into this morning, but that you may know I have given a great deal of stud}' to this subject I mention this careful investigation. I empha- size this point because my plans have been called impractical and impossible of realization especially have they been called imprac- tical by those who have wished to and sometimes succeeded in financ- ing these same ideas in organizations of their own after convincing others that I ought not to have support. Very especially this has been the case where the critic wanted it to seem that the Government must do this great work. Moreover, they have been proved practicable ; that is, each step in the plans has been proved, and for that reason you may feel that my criticism of the Mondell bill is entirely a friendly criticism ; that I want this movement for soldiers on the land to succeed. I intro- duced the first bill in the Congress for putting them on the land immediately after war was declared. Senator Curtis introduced a bill in the Senate for me. I also w r ant to say that I am a western woman ; that I believe in reclamation ; that I hope soon to live again in the West and die there when my time comes The CHAIRMAN. I hope you will live there but hope you will not die there. Mrs. LUND. That is nice of you; I do not want to decamp imme- diately. I feel we have gone about this whole matter of soldier settlement wrong end to, and there is not a man on this committee who is in the slightest degree responsible for. that. I want to put the responsibility for our delay in taking hold of this measure at the proper time and in the proper manner exactly where it belongs, and I also want to be understood that in stating who is responsible HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 563 for this delay I do it with a full appreciation that these people might very well have thought as you and I think that our plans are the best plans. I believe that everyone should have his hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mrs. Lund, so that we may keep the record clear. You spoke of your bill introduced by Senator Curtis. Is that Senate 2696, introduced by Senator Curtis, by re- quest, July 24, 1917? Mrs. LUND. Yes; creating a board of administration, and after we used that word " administration " it was decided at a caucus of five or six Republican Senators, held in Senator Weeks's office, that they would change the word " administration " in committee and make it a commission appointed by Congress to develop a prac- ticable standard for rural colonies and to establish the same for dependent families of soldiers of the United States and to make a national colonization survey. We felt that a commission to study these matters should be established, that we might be ready for the soldiers when they returned. Other countries appointed a commis- sion as soon as war began, and we could read into our record here with great advantage to ourselves the British findings from their study, because they put experts on their commission of many shades of opinion and studied it thoroughly from all angles. And that is what we wanted to bring about in this Curtis bill. We planned to have this vast subject studied. Mr. WHITE. What is the number of that bill? Mrs. LUND. S. 2696. We planned after the study of this subject in all of its ramifications to bring out through the hearings on the bill all the salient facts so the public would be informed through pub- licity. I planned to call experts on the different things that make up this great big problem of colonization not alone for the informa- tion to the committee, but to inform the people. I went to the maga- zine editors and to all the newspaper syndicates and arranged for them to carry these hearings. The subject is very little understood. We stumble so over words. Many do not know what the word " so- cialism " is in contradistinction to " State socialism," nor what " com- munities " means in contradistinction to " communism and socialism and cooperation." There are many words that bother us. and it was my idea to have people of national consequence whose opinion could not be gainsaid in their own special field define these things in no uncertain terms, so we might all know about them, then let the legis- lation grow out of this comprehension and have the legislation pre- pared in time to be ready Avhen the boys get home. I have had a very peculiar experience with the State socialists in the present administration, and may I define here what I consider the difference between State socialism and socialism, and I will say my authority for the definitions is Karl Marx. Ferdinand La- Salle and William English Walling, all socialists, and I think con- sidered authorities on socialism. The socialist wants all of the property in the world and all of the tools and equipment owned evenlv, divided evenly, and managed by the people themselves. The State socialist and Bismarck evolved State socialism, and the first State socialism began in Germany wants the Government to engage in business, especially in financing business enterprise. Bismarck was a wily old gentleman and saw that the cooperationists were get- ting away from him. He had persecuted them for twenty-odd years 564 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. and they continued to grow, and he saw that the really democratic, cooperative organization throughout Germany threatened their mili- taristic regime, so he then started to finance them. He could not kill them out, so he said, "We will buy them; we will give them all the money they want from the public treasury," and that is where our State socialism began. For many years we have admired Germany, and before the war who did not admire Germany, especially all the people sympathetic with the underdog thought "that Germany was most efficient and had worked out plans that had done away with poverty, and we were all copying her. . Col. Roosevelt was the Kaiser's friend, and many of his progressive ideas were admittedly borrowed from Germany; but Col. Roosevelt was among the first to see the peril when the real nature of the State control showed itself during the war. He started to lead his progressives (who sometimes did not take time to see where they were progressing, so intent were they upon altering things they thought wrong) to see that they were leaping from the frying pan into the fire and that you can not change human nature through legislation. When private capital gouged and cheated we thought to stop gouging and cheating by taking the business away from them and letting the Government do it unmindful of the fact since illustrated that we may wake up to find the same men running the Government bureau who were running the private enterprise and with no re- sponsibility or capital involved. If individuals want to cheat and waste, they will, no matter what the form of government or of business organization. We simply have to prove that it does not pay to do it. I mean pay in dollars and cents. Capital faces the issue squarely and has for years, though it would not recognize the fact that unless it (capital) gave a fair deal to the world and arranged easy credit and opportunity for housing, farm settlement, farm mortgage, labor conditions, etc., a dissatisfied people would get up and take it one way or the other. The angle of Bolshevik development in this country we need to fear is not the violent lower strata who read their own primitive nature of direct action into the formula that the college man and parlor agi- tator read into action on their own plane. The formula is the same. Take business out of the hands of private enterprise and let the Government do it. Each wants to be the Government that does it, and each destroys democracy by so doing. It makes no difference whether it is the capitalist class that grasps all the power and refuses representation to the other class or the I. W. W. class. The danger to representative government is the same. We are in danger of alienating our aliens by putting all blame on them. Better look to our intellectuals who seek to overthrow democracy by the ballot. Prior to the war most of the reformers and church people who wanted to make things better in our country looked upon Germany as their model. In their present repudiation of things German they have not, unfortunately, stopped to remember their previous attach- ment for German ideals which have made part of their own program. They have forgotten. I want them to remember. I wish to be understood as appreciating the sincere purpose of the individuals who are clamoring for State socialism, but I must point out the dangers I see through their organized effort. Much HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 565 of this organization is so subtly distributed and much of it is under the guise of church work, welfare, and educational organizations. Xow, our first great departure from the American idea was in the rural credit bill. I believe in fact, I know it was fostered in the beginning in this country directly by those interested through Ger- many; we have since found out Germany has been undermining everything pertaining to an individual, democratic form of govern- ment for years, because they saw that just as far as you could get the Government interested in going into business and establishing bu- reaus, was it easy to control politically. Where we saw the begin- ning of it was when the American commission went abroad under the auspices of the Southern Commercial Congress. Mr. Taft appointed the first commission to investigate rural credit at the suggestion of Mr. Herrick and Ralph Ingalls, and Mr. Herrick tells me he got his first idea of agricultural credit sitting at a banquet next to Kaiser Wilhelm, who asked him what he did for agricultural credit in this country. That question set a group of bankers here studying better forms of agricultural credit. They had not gone very far in that study before they found that the man who started the very cooperation that Germany was remarkable for was a man named Carey, over here in Philadelphia, and that what was then known in Germany as the landwirtschaft, and the whole German idea of taking care of all this agricultural credit and of colonization through State aid was Bismarck's buying up, you might say, the opposition or pure cooperation and financing it from the State treasuries so he could control it, and that is the thing that fooled us. This hurried report of the American commission that studied three months to investigate. Mr. Herrick took the position that we should follow along the lines of pure cooperation, not State aid, and was trying to get the bankers in this country to see that they must establish long-term mortgages with better forms of credit and interest and cooperation. But the Democratic regime came in, and, unfortunately, the men W 7 ho carried on the work in the Southern Commercial Congress in sending the American commission abroad saw only well, they were only over there three months, and did not have as much time to spend investigating as Mr. Herrick's people, who stayed there four years; but these people in three months saw the surface things being done and saw all these different govern- ments doing things for agricultural credit and colonization. Xow, when they saw that, they came back here, and you all know 11. e story of the Federal farm loan act which was evolved out of that. Xow. all of this time those people who were concerned in this idea of world domination were trying, through the governments of all coun- .tries, to make us see that the German ideal of government was the right ideal, and that for the Government to do it all and go into all lines of business, giving them control through all these bureaus, .simply made it easier for them to control things from Berlin. There is not time to go into all I know on that subject, but it is a great, big subject, gentlemen; if you follow it down, you will find that investi- gation will prove my statement. Xow, if the hearings on the Curtis bill had gone ahead this whole matter would have been cleaned up. I took great pains to make the -matter bipartisan in all the publicity that was sent out, and I put 566 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Senator Sheppard's picture right next to Senator Curtis, and put Dr. Carver, of Harvard, on the page with them; and I was not mani- fested in the publicity. I talked with the Senators on the Senate Agricultural Committee and told them I would send out stories for each one of their statements. I was going to use the Senators on that committee because of their prominence to carry the message to the people as to what we were trying to work out, so the people would understand what we were trying to do, and all were agreed to it. Senator Gore was very much my friend on the whole matter, and, finally, one day, after the hearings w T ere set The CHAIRMAN. You prepared the publicity, you say? Mrs. LUND. Yes ; I helped to prepare it. The CHAIRMAN. Is this one of the articles in Sea Power of April, 1919? Mrs. LUND. It is one of the articles which Senator Harding made up from data which I gave him. The CHAIRMAN. You furnished the information in it? Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Did you prepare the article? Mrs. LUND. No. The CHAIRMAN. The Senator himself? Mrs. LUND. The Senator prepared it from some of the material I gave him. Mr. ELSTON. Is that the Senator Harding article? Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; entitled, " Rooting Valor in American Soil," by Senator Warren G. Harding, of Ohio, in the Sea Power for April, 1919. Mrs. LUND. I went to Senator Gore's office and asked his secretary if the hearings would begin on the day they were set, and his secre- tary, who knew me very well, said, " Well, Fred Howe has been over here and wants them postponed." That was Frederick Howe, the immigration commissioner at Ellis Island. He has been a member of my own board and he has never yet resigned from it, yet he has worked against me all of the time on this proposition, because Mr. Howe believes the Government should do it all, and I showed how the Government did not need to do it, how credit could be mobilized in the communities. The CHAIRMAN. Who is this Mr. Howe? Mrs. LUND. Frederick Howe, the commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island, in the Labor Department. He is an appointee of Louis Post. Mr. Howe had been over before the committee and had asked them to postpone the hearings on the bill; evidently he did not want hearings on the bill. That was as much as the sec- retary told me. I walked over to see Senator Gore and Senator Gore was all fussed up. He said, " Mrs. Lund, I am not going to have these hearings." " Well," I said, " what is the matter? " " Well," he said, " I have been told it is nothing on earth but a demagogic move on the part of the Republicans to secure the soldier vote." He did not mention Mr. Howe. The CHAIRMAN. That was in reference to a hearing on Senate 2686? Mrs. LUND. Yes; that was a hearing he had already arranged for and was just as much pleased about as anybody. I said, " You know HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 567 I have kept this thing bipartisan." He said, "I know you have, and you are all right." ""Well," I said, " You know how hard I tried to Work with the administration, and you know, Senator Gore, that you were just as mad about it as I to think that the Socialists in the Labor Department ditched us, and we could not go on with our plans.'' He said. " I know I was, and they treated you rough, but I don't! know about this hearing." He said, " The other fellows the Republicans will take advantage of it if -you don't. I "know that you do not care about the Republicans or the Democrats, but the Republicans will be glad to get this over on us." I do not remember the exact words, but that is the gist. Now, gentlemen, the hearings were never called. Benjamin Marsh was also a caller at the com- mittee who tried to keep this hearing from going on. They were not held at all. Later Senator Weeks put in a bill. Mr. JOHNSON. Did Marsh try to keep them from going on? Mrs. LUND. I inferred that. I was not told so. I was not told who said these things, but I know what Marsh always says when he talks about this work. Mr. JOHNSON. Is that the same Marsh who appeared before this committee the other day? Mrs. LUND. Ben Marsh. I suppose so; he appears before almost every committee. Mr. WHITE. Did I understand you to say that Howe, commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island, is an appointee of Louis Post? Mrs. LUND. Yes. He is a friend of Louis Post and he selected him. I suppose Secretary Wilson appointed him. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Post would not be in position to appoint him him- self, would he? Mrs. LUND. No: except, as you know, Secretarj 7 Wilson when Mr. Post first came there I do not know how it is now leaned very heavily upon Mr. Post. I spent a great deal of time in the depart- ment, and the department took up my plans at one time and read from them verbatim in reports to the 'Secretary, and Mr. Post came out with statements to the press, which I still have, saying they were going to cooperate with me. The CHAIRMAN. What department took up your plan? Mrs. LUND. The Department of Labor, the first year of the Wilson administration, and pretty nearly the first month of the year. The CHAIRMAN. Are they represented in the Grosser bill? Mrs. LIND. They took all of my plans exactly as I outlined them, the magnificent coordination which I had worked out for Bureau of Immigration use in the night schools, so as to educate these immi- grants into better citizenry and to put those that belonged on the land where they could get on the land, and link it up with various cham- bers of commerce so that those who belonged in industry would go there, and we would havp n sort of interlocking bureau of informa- tion about the, matter. That was all put in under the head of "Americanization," all of my educational plans, and all of the plans that were outlined in the Grosser bill were my colonization plans, with this difference. Mr. Chairman, that they wanted the Govern- ment to do it all, and I said that it should be done outside the Gov- ernment with the Government cooperating; that the Government should set the standard, should regulate, should assist business men to understand how they could mobilize the credit in the local com- 568 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. munities through cooperation, so that it might become an actual long- term credit to the would-be settler who had very small means; and that the standard that should be set should be a standard so that peo- ple who did not understand farming could have instruction and could have the proper kind of rural schools and social life in the communi- ties, because the reason people leave the farms is because they fail to find that social life they want and fail in general prosperity. This is bound to be true when the individual small farmer attempts by himself to meet this vast disorganized marketing system which is ours. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, I do not like to interrupt you, but I should like to get the matter developed in a logical sequence. Are you familiar with the Kelly bill, supported by the Department of Labor ? Mrs. LUND. No; I do not know the Kelly bill. The Grosser bill is the first one I know, except the building and loan bill and the housing bills. The CHAIRMAN. I think the Kelly bill supplanted the Grosser bill and has been supported by Mr. Post, who appeared before the com- mittee last year in support of the Kelly bill. Mrs. LUND. I missed the Kelly bill. I had such a hectic experi- ence regarding the Grosser bill I am sure you gentlemen will pardon me for thinking that the administration is interested in keeping me away from committees. Mr. JOHNSON. Who do you mean by the administration? Mrs. LUND. Well, that is a broad word. I should say the Socialists in the administration. That would be the best way to define it. Mr. ELSTON. Does that include President Wilson and Mr. Tum- ulty? Mrs. LUND. I do not think President Wilson knows anything about it. I know that Col. House was very much interested "in the plan. I had a letter of introduction to Col. House from Senator Sheppard, and Col. House said, " I like you plan very much. I think we ought to take that up, but it is reconstruction work. Why don't you take it up with Secretary Wilson? " I said, " Thereby hangs a tale," and I told him about my experience in that department, in the Southern Commercial Congress and Southern Settlement Development and that there was a very great difference of opinion among the men. They believed that the people-getting agency is entitled to a profit on the land and whatever business they handle, and I believe that a people-getting agency should be organized not to sell land and not to make a profit. Coif House said, " You are right, and I am going to help you. I will speak to Secretary Wilson," but, as you know, he has since then been a very busy man. Later he wrote me he could do nothing about it. Mr. WHITE. May I ask you one question for my own information ? Is this Louis Post you refer to the Louis F. Post that wrote a very illuminating book, as he supposed, probably, on the subject of single taxation, taking up the Henry George theory? Mrs. LUND. He is the editor of The Public, and an ardent single taxer, and in the last few years has become a State Socialist. Mrs. Post has been a Socialist for a long time, but I understand Mr. Post did not come over to the fold until recently. When I first talked with HOMES FOR SO r,r>iBS. 569 him he said one of the things he liked about my plans was that they were wholly democratic without being too paternal, and that they were not socialistic, and did not make the Government do things, but afterwards he evidently changed his mind, because he dropped this plan and took up the other. I want to make clear to you what the Committee on Labor did on the hearings on the Grosser bill. I asked the committee to heard Carl S. Vrooman, then Assistant Sec- ret ary of Agriculture: Dr. Thomas N. Carver, of Harvard, who certainly is a national figure on this subject. Mr. WHITE. Who published a book on " social justice." Mrs. LUXD. Yes ; and his book on " rural economics " is a text- book in all our agricultural colleges, and he organized the work in the Department of Agriculture which is being carried on all over our -country the whole system of rural organization he outlined in his book on rural economics I asked them to hear him. I asked them to hear Leonard G. Robinson, who was for 11 years manager of the Jewish agricultural societj 7 , and who has had more experi- ence in this settlement work than, perhaps, anyone else; and then I asked them to hear Mrs. Lund, who has been trying to bring these people together. They would not call any of those men and they would not call me. Finally when, through the influence of sev- eral Republicans, I got a hearing there was no quorum present that morning. There were two people who came in, and they adjourned; and they said they would not call it up again, but I could send in anything I wanted to have printed in the record; and it stopped there. I did not send my statement. And I had the same experi- ence, as I have told you, on the Curtis bill; and when the Weeks bill came along, which provided for a concurrent resolution estab- lishing a commission to get ready to do the thing not hurriedly but wisely that, too, was buried in committee, and you could not get it out" of committee by any possibility ; so we are now not ready for farm settlement. The CHAIRMAN. The Weeks resolution, to which you refer, is that Senate concurrent resolution Xo. 21? Mrs. LUXD. Yes; Senate concurrent resolution 21, September 27, 1918. Mr. ELSTOX. Mrs. Lund, I came to the hearing this morning a little late. Are you going into your theory and what you believe to be the proper method to handle this subject? Mrs. LUXD. Yes: I should be very glad to go into that. Mr. EIVSTOX. Is it strictly a colonization proposition and not what they call an infiltration method? Mr~. LUXD. Mine is a strictly colonization method, including in- dustrial housing with garden plots the so-called garden city idea; small tracts of land for people to live on when they work in factor- ies, iisinsr that garden plot to augment their wages. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, 'Senate resolution No. 21 refers to a great many other subjects. Mrs. LUXD. Yes; the soldier settlement bill is down toward the bottom. The CHAIRMAN. And includes almost everything within the range of our war and peace activities. Mis. LUXD. Yes: it was to be a reconstruction measure, and, of course, reconstruction means a great many things. 570 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. And it was not devoted solely to this soldier set- tlement plan? Mrs. LUND. Oh, no; No. 16 refers to the allotment of lands to- returned soldiers and sailors, and their establishment in homes on the public domain. Now, it might interest you to know that Senator Weeks was willing to finance a colony in The CHAIRMAN. When you refer to No. 16. you mean line 16, on page 4. Mrs. LUXD. Yes; that is what I mean. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to get that straight in the record. Mrs. LUND. I am glad that you call me back, because I have just passed through a siege of sickness and have been in the hospital two or three times suffering from nervous prostration. My doctor has told me that I should be in a sanitarium now. One thing I have lost on account of this long strain is my memory, and it is sometimes difficult for me to pick up the thread of what I have said. I am only about 50 per cent efficient now, because I am in need of rest and should have relief from strain resulting from what I have been going through with, caused by repeated interference with my plans. The CHAIRMAN. You said that the Curtis bill was prepared by you? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Was the Weeks resolution prepared by you? Mrs. LUND. No, sir. Senator Weeks said that it ought to be a part of the policy of the Republican Party to show the capitalists of this country generally that there must be a different method of financing and housing farms, otherwise, we must expect the (Jov- ernment to do it. In other words, we must have an adjustment of credit facilities to extend this sort of aid to home purchasing, just as we have to alter credit facilities to South American conditions. If we go into South America and do any business, we must give long- time credit. I have spent a great deal of time with the so-called conservative group, because, as I have said, the others do not need converting to the idea. The conservatives have not thought the plans of reformers practical and so have not advocated them, I wanted to gain their indorsement, because, if they approve, capitalists will finance the plans. A bank president once told me that bankers wanted to help as much as any, only reformers always brought some plan that would not work and so nothing was accomplished, that remark set me thinking, and the result is now indorsed by many bankers. I wanted to show them the sound finance of this thing that we call cooperation. In that endeavor, I was very fortunate in having such men as Myron T. Herrick and Mr. Ingalls to back up what I said about cooperation. Their book, Rural Credit, tells all about cooperation. They studied six years, and their expenditures have been something like $60.000, I "believe. At any rate, these gentlemen, Senators Wadsworth, Smoot, and "Weeks, and others I have mentioned, were prepared to help with information before the committee hearing the Curtis bill, and they have given me permission in magazine articles and news articles to say that they believe that the financiers of this country must concern themselves with financing the development of such natural resources as require long-term in- vestments and low rates of interest and land settlement and housing HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 571 on long terms and at low rates of interest, and they are prepared to help the financial world to understand how that can "be done without any departure from what they understand as sound economics. It may mean something to you when I say that Mr. George E. Roberts, of the National City Bank, took considerable time inves- tigating these different details, and he has told me that he would pass out statements to the financial journals over his desk in order to help the financiers to see this need. He will do that because he is deeply interested in this matter of land settlement, and he wanted very much to have Mr. Vanderlip interested in it as soon as he re- turned. That answers the question, I think, that perhaps may be in your minds as to why I selected for the work that I have in mind those men who have not usually been associated in the public mind with so-called progressive ideas. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean Senator Weeks and Senator Hard- ing? Mrs. LUXD. Yes, sir; and Senator Wadsworth, Senator Smoot, Senator Fernald, and Senator Watson. The CHAIRMAX. Is Senator Weeks helping to finance your plan? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir; Senator Weeks has given a good deal of money to it. The CHAIRMAX. He has given a good deal of money to it? Mrs. LUXD. Yes, sir; and he has recently subscribed $5.000 to our fund of $100,000 to carry on this work. I was with Col. Robert Bacon only a week before he died, and he said that he would give a dinner to the capitalists, which Senators Wadsworth and Weeks and others would attend, and at which they would advocate this plan to the capitalists. Then I had the news of his death from an operation the following week. Col. Bacon said there was no question about being able to raise money according to my plans. The CHAIRMAN. Did Senator Wadsworth and Senator Harding .subscribe ? Mrs. LUXD. Yes, sir; Senator Harding not Senator Wadsworth. The CHAIRMAX. Who are the others who have subscribed? Mrs. LUXD. Col. Robert M. Thompson, Senator Curtis, and others. Mr. JOHXSOX. How is this money used? Mrs. LUXD. I have a letter from Senator Weeks which you may see. Senator Weeks subscribed $5,000 to be used when the other $100,000 was secured. Mr. BEXHAM. You spoke of your board. Are we to understand that you selected anyone you wanted on your board without having lir-t consulted with the people who were appointed? Mrs. LUXD. Xo. sir. We are a legal entity organized as a non- profit-making association under the laws of New Jersey. We did not have a committee on finance or a president for the reason that it took me a long time to make big-brained busy men see the impor- tance of this work, and I knew that lesser minds could not carry it. Therefore I left the presidency and the finance committee vacant so that these big-brained men could have the officers and finance com- mittee as they wished when they would be persuaded to take it. We have a committee on direction, composed of Col. Parker, of the Sal- vation Army. Dr. Carver, of Harvard, and five or six others. I have 572 HOMES TOK SOLDIERS. the names here in a little booklet. The committee on direction is a sort of steering committee, and any name that I wanted to propose for this board was put up to the committee on direction and voted on at a regular meeting. I conducted my work for nearly a year at Fourteenth Street and Second Avenue in Xew York City, but I ought to tell you about my plan before I tell you that. This commit- tee on direction meets and passes on any matter or names that are brought in and they determine what they will do. I have made no attempt to get up a membership or to go out and raise money, except as this aid has been offered to me to help me to conduct the work until we could get credit mobilized and interested enough to take it up and to see that this matter of land colonization and housing must be financed at a low rate of interest to the people, That work, as I say, because of the death of Col. Bacon, is still waiting. Mr. JOHNSON. You stated a moment ago that Senator Weeks and Senator Harding had contributed to this fund, and I want to know how that money is used. Mrs. LUND. They are contributions in one sense of the word, and to make that clear I will read a letter from Senator Weeks to our treasurer, Mr. Walter H. Fahy, of 34 Pine Street, New York City. The letter is as follows: DEAR SIR: I am glad to pledge $5.000 to a fund, to be paid when the balance of $100,000 has been subscribed, to be furnished to the Forward-lOrthe-Land League and to be used to hasten its work. I think the plan is practical and American. It should make unused land productive, give homes and independence to those who want to possess them through their own efforts, and insure for this reason their prosperity. It will become a powerful factor in combating the spirit of disorder and rebellion typified by Bolshevism, and the- curtailment of human freedom and progress which socialism seeks to impose. The land league, nonprofit making but self-supporting, needs only lo be understood to command the support of thinking, responsible people. It can contribute much to Americanization, to the development of a free and powerful people in accordance with the best traditions of our Government, while increas- ing our industrial and national wealth. Therefore I regard my subscription as a contribution to our national well- being. Very truly, yours, JOHN W. WRKKS. The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that letter > Mrs. LUND. May 21, 1919. Mr. JOHNSON. How much did Senator Harding contribute to this fund? Mrs. LUND. Senator Harding and a number of gentlemen con- tributed smaller amounts of money from time to time. Three or four of them made contributions simply to cover my living expenses while I was working. Because there are State Socialists in both parties, people who think that the Government should do all these things, it has been difficult to handle my work. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you represent the Socialists ? Mrs. LUND. No, sir; I do not represent the Socialists. How could you get any such idea ? Mr. JOHNSON. I am simply asking that for information, I am trying to learn. Mrs. LUND. I have been trying to make it clear that they are the people who have been antagonizing me all the time. I want to- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 573 make it clear that it is not at all partisan, because there are many people in the Republican Party who believe that way, as well as in the Democratic Party. The Socialists in the Republican Party work quite closely with the Socialists in the Democratic Party in their efforts to have the Government to do these things. They would like to create a condition where each farm would be a Government farm: they would pass this bill and that bill, and bills covering a thousand different things until we would have a million bureaus operating, and the Government converted into a bureaucracy. I do not think we should have that without fighting against it. It would simplify matters if all these State Socialists would get a party of their own. Mr. MAYS. You said that Senator Weeks thought the financiers should handle these undertakings? Mrs. LTTND. Yes, sir. Two years ago, when I first got Senator Weeks's attention, he called several Senators into his office and said to them, " This is a thing that is very important, because, as Mrs. Lund has pointed out, this radical wave is gathering impetus, and the only way to meet it is by showing that the capitalists of this country are^ concerned with 'their economic well-being, and this matter of assisting people to proper homes is economically sound and basic. It is a thing that we must give attention to." I said to him. " The thing to do is something that will show that capital is willing to do it; that it is willing to provide long terms for pay- ment: that it is willing to provide community organization and in- struction, and all at a low rate of interest. It is not enough to say that we are willing to do it, but actually to do it is the important thing." He said, "I should like very much to do that myself up in Massachusetts." He said, " I want a colony up there. There are some of my friends who will go in with me, and we will get some- thing ready for the soldiers when they come back from Europe." He then said, " You go and see Charlie Hatfield. and he will help you." Well. I did go to Boston to see Mr. Hatfield; and I found Mr. Hatfield like a great many other bankers who have the idea that things are very well as they' are. There are a half a dozen bank- ers, perhaps, who see we must do something; the rest are so busy adding up figures that I do not get their attention long enough tp interest them. Mr. Hatfield said, " Yes ; I will attend to that right away " ; but he never did. Senator Weeks is a very busy man. I spoke to him about it two or three times, and he said, " I will write to Charley Hatfield about it." At the end of the session, or when Congress adjourned this year, I said to Senator Weeks in regard to this Massachusetts movement to help the returning soldiers, " There is no time now to reach the soldiers or to take care of them in the regular way, but if we rush we can take care of most of the unemployed soldiers in vaca- tion gardens. We may take care of the work in that way this year and get ready by fall for the permanent housing." He said, " How can you do it? " I said, "We will provide barracks and tents and make a vacation proposition of it until we can build permanently." He said, " Run up to Boston and see what can be clone while I am down in Florida. I am going to Florida, and then I will come up there and see what can be done about it." This was to be according to the standard of the Forward to Land League on long-term credit, 574 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. with 6 per cent profit on the undertaking. When I called on Mr. Hatfield on the second trip he was very helpful and regretted that he had not taken it up before. The CHAIRMAN. Six per cent profit for whom ? Mrs. LUND. For the men who buy and equip the land. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the promoter ? Mrs. LUND. As I was the promoter and did not get anything, I guess the promoter does not get anything. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean 6 per cent profit for those who finance it? Mrs. LUND. For those who finance it. That is an important point that you can not have anything of lasting consequence in this world if it can not pay expenses and pay enough profit to keep business men willing to devote time to it, knowing that it is a good business invest- ment. It would have been a perfectly simple thing to induce philan- thropists to take it up on a charitable basis. They would finance it without any thought of profit, but that would not help the problem at all. I prefer the method that was used 30 years ago in England, when philanthropists and the public-spirited people were so alarmed about the social conditions and about the crime and bad health incident to the bad housing conditions. They organized garden cities and estab- lished suburban housing and garden plots, and they established many small farms on the basis of 6 per cent profit to those who financed the undertakings. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you consider Senator Harding as one of the financiers of this project? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir; Senator Harding is interested. Mr. JOHNSON. Does he want 6 per cent profit? Mrs. LUND. He did not say anything about profits, one way or the other. He was interested in marking the argument to show business men that it could be done. I think Senator Harding would be called a contributor to working fund bearing no profit. I am firmly set against charity. We do not need charity for our people, whether soldiers or working people. Anybody that starts out to do anything on the basis of charity sets us back. Charity interferes very mate- rially with true progress along these lines. The CHAIRMAN. You believe that small profit to the promoter or financier is necessary to the success of the project? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir; so that they will stay in it and pay attention to it. We need strong men to run these things. We require the best brains in the country to carry on such undertakings, and you can not get the best brains to engage in business continuously unless it is profitable. The bread-and-butter problem is always with you, and we want to show business men how they can do these things profitably and right. The CHAIRMAN. It was not your understanding that Senator Weeks was to raise $100,000 ? Mrs. LUND. He had nothing to do with the $100,000, except to help start the subscription. His letter shows that he subscribed $5,000 to be paid when the balance of the fund of $100,000 had boon subscribed. Other money he gave was a contribution to a working fund, and there was no profit expected on that fund at any time. That contribution is to the fund to carry on the educational propa- ganda that we need. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 575 Mr. SMITH. I do not understand why you fail to realize that there are plenty of opportunities in this country, and places to be improved in the West and other parts of the country that the Government might take up, and at the same time let your plan be applied in other sections of the country. There is plenty of room for both. Mrs. LUND. There is no question about that. Mr. SMITH. You do not need any legislation to carry out your plan. Mrs. LUND. No, sir. Mr. SMITH. Are you antagonizing the plan proposed in the bill that is pending before the committee? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. For what reason? Mrs. LUND. In the first place Mr. SMITH (interposing). If there is plenty of room in the coun- try for both plans, I do not see why you would be concerned. Mrs. LUND. In the first place, we are facing a situation in which the Government needs every cent that it can get, and the purchasing power of the dollar is less than it ever was before. We have more than one and a half million acres of land already connected with our irrigation projects, 1,641,699 acres to be exact that is, land that is under water and can be used. Then we have something like 500,000,000 acres of unused agricultural land all over the coun- try. We have plenty of it even in Indiana, Ohio, and some of those States not supposed to have it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say there are waste lands in In- diana ? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir ; there is some waste land in Indiana. I have not made a personal investigation of it, but the reclamation people who have investigated it, have told me so. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if the lady does not require legislation in order to carry out her plan, I think she should devote her atten- tion to the bill that is pending before the committee. Mrs. Lund, I think you are making a splendid statement and are contributing a lot of information to the committee, but we have a concrete propo- sition here, and if you do not need any legislation to carry out your plan, we are not concerned with it. Why not tell us wherein we are in error with regard to this bill pending before the committee? Mis. LUND. I will be glad to do it, but other questions were asked me first. Mr. WHITE. Do you confidently believe that for that profit cap- ital could be induced to finance this situation in order to meet the present exigency? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir; and I will say that I have been assured that there was no question whatever but what we would get all the money we wanted. Mr. WHITE. Will you state to the committee approximately how much you think it would require to meet the exigencies as they arise during the next three or four years ? Mrs. LUND. Well, will that'be confined to the matter of the return- ing soldiers? Mr. WHITE. I said the exigency. Mrs. LUND. Do you mean the soldiers that are registered? 13331919 37 576 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. i Mr. WHITE. I would not use the word " registered," because I do- not pass any judgment on that. Mrs. LUND. No, sir; but do you mean the registered men who want farms ? Mr. WHITE. Those that might want to farm. Mrs. LUND. I understand that they have a lineup on them in the Reclamation Bureau. Let us talk about them. Someone asked me a while ago what was my plan, and where it may be carried out. When you say, " your plan, 5 ' I think, perhaps, you mean to refer to my method of mobilizing capital and showing capital how this can be done. In the first place, you are familiar with the land business, and you know that the chief expense connected with it is in getting the- people to the land. The chief expenses in connection is advertising, the hire of automobiles, salesmanship, etc. Then, the people who are placed on the land do not stay put. For every three or four placed on the farm, there is only one who stays and finishes the thing up as a farmer. That is a matter of his- tory and statistics. Now, I devised this Bureau of Information idea r and it is, perhaps, the only thing that is really original in my plan r because thousands of people have devised plans for communities and have organized communities. If we were to have in every principal city bureaus of land information, where it would be understood there was no land for sale, but where a man who wanted to buy land could come and have a tract of land looked up to find out whether the title was right, or whether the contracts were honest contracts, whether the prospective farmer had capital enough, and, generally, where he could get information as to how he should proceed with his farm operations, it would be a valuable thing. I have lived in the West long enough to know that much money is squandered because there is no direction. I know practically all of the big land operators in the West and the colonization men who are connected with the railroads, and they tell me that our people waste every year almost enough to keep themselves going because they do not know how to direct their purchasing power. If we could have bureaus of information estab- lished in all of the principal cities, and have the extension depart- ments from the agricultural colleges come into the cities to teach classes in agriculture and home economics and rural economics, it would be a great blessing to the working people. In other words, if we could bring to the prospective farmer and instruct him as we in- struct the man actually farming Mr. WHITE (interposing). Would you teach the housekeepers, or mothers, or the children ? Mrs. LUND. Yes ; the mothers, and especially the children. Mr. WHITE. I want to ask another question : Don't you think that the mothers have the art of housekeeping down pretty fine, gener- ally? Mrs. LUND. If you were in the East Side of New York, where I have been, you would not think so. Mr. WHITE. I am talking about the West. Mrs. LUND. No, sir. Mr. WHITE. I am not speaking of the cities. Mrs. LUND. I am speaking now of the cities. Mr. WHITE. You are speaking of the large cities? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 577 Mrs. LUND. I confess that my mind right now is mostly on the large cities. I am thinking more of the industrial mother. Mr. WHITE. I do not want to divert your attention from your main statement. Mrs. LUND. That is an important question, because I know that there are housekeepers through the West who really do not know how to feed their families and do not know how to prepare the most simple food. We have too many frills on the domestic scienc idea The CHAIRMAN. If you will allow me to interrupt you, in this article by Senator Harding, of Ohio, in the April number of Sea Power, is that statement, and I think you could give us some valu- able information in regard to this : Somewliat strangely, the torch that burrs brightest in these dark cellars of America though where land policies languish is that which has been held aloft by a woman. Mrs. Haviland H. Lund developed her theories of getting people on the land, when a decade ago she edited, in Los Angeles, a publication known as Little Farms Magazine. Upon her theories was built the Forward- to-the-Land League, a national organization. To her the proper solution of the land problem has been a Holy Grail which she has pursued ever since. She has preached her gospel from door to door, from office to office. From this it appears that you have been working on this question for 10 years. Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you inaugurated any projects in that 10 years ? Mrs. LUND. I am glad you asked that question, but may I finish my other statement before I answer it ? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mrs. LUND. By bringing these extension workers into the cities, and by the formation of night classes, they can teach these prospec- tive farmers what to do on the land, and it has this effect, that instead of having to do as a land company has to do, that is, advertise in order to get the lands before the people at great expense, the people in the cities seeing the announcement in all of the daily papers that Prof. So-and-so will teach these classes at night, those who are rurally-minded come from all parts of the city to hear him. They register on cards that I have made out, that gives full information as to the number of working members in the family, the amount of education and capital they have, what their religion is, and such other information as would be useful. These people would be classi- fied, and this matter of classifying, as every practical colonization man knows, is, perhaps, the crux of the problem. The immigration leaders and labor leaders all said that there was no question but that through registration we could get the people who were frightened because of the exploitation that had been theirs at the hands of com- mercial colonization men would have confidence in us. The religious element is an important one, because it has been the history of these movements that the colonies that have accomplished anything wbrth while have had some sort of religious tie that held them together. Therefore, I would take these matters up with the religious organiza- tions, and get them to put rural education or agriculture in their missionary instructions, so that the clergymen or missionaries would have practical knowledge of farming so 'that they could advise and 578 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. instruct those in their parish. That religious principle is an impor- tant one. We found that those people in the cities who registered, 75 per cent had had fanning experience here or abroad. In other words, it illus- trated forcibly that the deplorable exodus from the country to the city were the very ones wanting to get back to the farm. Our regis- trants wanted to go where they could live close together, and they demanded schools as good in the country as they had in the city. As you know, the rural schools are not as good as they ought to be. I asked the newspapers to help me get this idea across to the people and explained there was no profit they helped loyally, as my scrap- books testify. This publicity helped me interest commercial organi- zations because it showed them how we could get the people with far less cost. I spoke to commercial organizations, such as chambers of com- merce, bankers' associations, etc., and I said, " Now, gentlemen, you want settlers ; you have been giving a lot of money to this organiza- tion and that organization to bring you people, and you say the money is wasted, and they have never brought you any settlers, or if they brought a few they did not stay," and I outlined to them this system of lectures and publicity which I had in the cities and showed them where I could go and get the people ; but I said, " That is only on the condition that they have the tools to work with." I said, " You do not expect carpenters to build a house unless you give them the tools. If a man has had hard luck and has pawned his tools, you would expect to put up the money to get those tools for him before he built the house, and you would expect to deduct the advanced money from his wages. Farming requires a good deal in the way of tools. A man can not live on a farm unless he has a house and a few chickens and pigs and farming implements and seeds, and things of that sort, and those things have to be supplied. They can put the little money they have on the first payment, and if you standardize this and say we will take at least 50 families that grouping of 50 or 100 families insures you a sufficient number of settlers so that the over- head of furnishing that group of settlers scientific direction is a busi- ness proposition. You can not afford a scientific director for 1 man or for 10 men, but if you are bringing 50 or 100 men you can afford to give them a special adviser and director to help them with their problems." The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, how does Secretary. Lane's plan differ from yours? Is not that what he is aiming at? Mrs. LUND. Absolutely the same. They took my plan, and Mr. Newell, then director of reclamation, was on my board. Mr. Blanch- ard promised every possible help. We talked for weeks in Secretary Lane's department about these plans. There was, of course, the usual pull and haul as to whether it would be in the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture or Labor. The CHAIRMAN. The only difference between you Mrs. LUND. There is not a bit of difference. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). The only difference between you is this : You do not believe in the Government taking this up, but you believe it should be inaugurated as a private enterprise ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 579 Mrs. LUND. Absolutely. I am not going to say a word about tax- ing everybody to take care of a certain class. That is true, but it makes no difference, in my argument. It is not necessary and I have proved that it is not necessary. You can get all the money you want in localities wanting settlers to do this work and do it in the right way without asking the Government for it. If you do put it under the Government, then it means this interminable building of bureas and the political patronage that goes with it, and it makes no differ- ence what party is in power you can not avoid that political pat- ronage. Mr. MAYS. Mrs. Lund, you have not answered the chairman's question as to how many projects you have started. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I read from this article where you had in- augurated this a decade ago, and I was wondering whether any proj- ects had been started. Mrs. LUND. Xo ; I am coming to that. I am glad you called me back. Mr. SMITH. Mrs. Lund, did you not say a moment ago that these plans were not in conflict at all, that the Government could go ahead with its plans and you could go ahead with your plan and that there was plenty of room for both? Mrs. LUND. Surely. The only thing is people will not as readily enter into a private enterprise when they know the Government will do it all. Mr. MAYS. They have been a little slow in putting your projects into operation. Mrs. LUND. Yes; and whenever you put a plan before the people for regulating the abuses in a business which is full of flagrant abuses, and this fact the best men in the land admit, you meet with a great many obstacles. When you are only promising a man 6 per cent on his money and trying to show him that he must do this for national betterment, it is some time before you wake him up to the national necessity. The projects I had ready many times and I have the correspondence to prove this and they were in eight or ten different States the business men were ready to extend this help. Just as we were ready would come letters and telegrams and visitors from the State Socialists in this administration and other Socialists working with them that are connected with the Republican Party and land organizations. Do not think there is anything partisan in this, because we have Gifford Pinchot and Francis Kel- lar working in various organizations; they believe just as much as Louis Post and Fred Howe that the Government ought to do it all, and they have been pulling with the administration on this on all these plans, while claiming to be Republicans, and they have inter- fered directly with my work in financing these colonies. Mr. ELSTON. Mrs. Lund, you only have 20 minutes more in which to develop all your ideas, and I think we had better get down to something definite. Mrs. LUND. The chairman asked me the question. Mr. ELSTON. Can you not answer categorically the chairman's question as to how many experiments you have made and how many have been successful without explanation. Mr. LUND. I can not without explanation. 580 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. ELSTON. Have you made any at all ? Mrs. LUND. No; because every time I have had them ready and I can prove they have been ready there has been this interference, and it might be considered of some importance to the Nation if any- body encouraging a plan which showed and proved that private capital was ready to finance the establishment of homes for the people was invariably interrupted by a certain group of people in the United States, a good many of them on the Government pay roll, and so kept from carrying out their plan. Mr. ELSTON. Mrs. Lund, if you have been interrupted from time to time, what organization have you now that will take this thing up practically, will get it started in the next three months, will provide the hundreds of millions of dollars in a coordinated way to do this thing privately and practically and uniformly for the benefit of the soldiers? How do you think that can be done immediately and afford any relief and not be done 10 years hence, just as your past experience has shown it has not been done in the last 10 years ? Can you answer that? Mrs. LUND. Yes ; I think I can. Mr. ELSTON. What definite plans have you got to get the millions of dollars to work this out in a broad-gauged way from private capital ? Have you that in hand ? Mrs. LUND. Yes. Mr. ELSTON. Will you explain that to us without taking up too much time, because we are very quickly getting to the point where we will have to close this hearing. Mrs. LUND. Don't you see, gentlemen, that if a certain group of people in power can go again and again and break up the work you are doing, when you have got people and money interested, and can throw a cloud over you I do not know what they say, but again and again they say, " She has not done this, and evidently she can not do it." They do not explain that they have always been on the ground to say, " She is a dangerous woman." I do not know what they say about me, but I know that every time that anything is started the people backing me are scared away. I have an organi- zation that can work in five minutes if it can be determined what is behind this interference and stop it. Now, I have so many important people with me that we can go anyway. Mr. ELSTON. Now, Mrs. Lund, that is exactly the idea. Your point is. then, that if this bill which is now pending in the com- mittee is not passed, then you and your organization, and principally through you own initiative, because it appears here from the testi- mony that you are the moving spirit in this whole thing, then through your organization and yourself, and your own energy and experience, you expect to raise the national organization of capital and the groups of private capitalists to carry this thing out. Mrs. LUND. Yes. Mr. ELSTON. Within the next few months? Mrs. LUND. Yes; I think it could be done inside of 90 days, all you can do with the Government. Mr. ELSTON. What proposals have you in the way of getting the money which only await your word that this bill is defeated for them to come right in and pour out the money and go right ahead? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 581 Mrs. LUND. I will answer that question in this way : You are famil- iar with the drives that have been made for getting money in differ- ent welfare organizations that have had no investment features, just simply to be helpful. A long time before anybody began to do it I said how this should be done in order to finance each unit or hous- ing, and farm settlement, because it should all be done on the unit basis, I would organize what I call a rural colony foundation, a sepa- rate organization from the Forward-to-the-Land League, and limit the profits to 5 or 6 per cent or whatever the people when they got together should indicate was proper, and to make a drive for money in the communities wanting settlers. If the principal cities in the State of Indiana or Ohio organized a colonization company, with limited profits at 6 per cent, to operate on a certain tract of land in that State, and would make a stock company with the stock at $10 a share, so that everybody in the community could buy it, everyone would want to help get farms for the soldiers. When congestion in European cities became intolerable, when the health and efficiency of working men were threatened, public-spirited philanthropists solved the problem 30 years ago by the purchase of agricultural land near by large cities. They limited their profit in the equipment and resale of those lands and called them garden cities. They paid an unfailing dividend. Not only is congestion in America becoming a menace, but the dis- content of our people, because of unemployment and sordid living conditions, with scant opportunity for advancement, threatens the very foundations of society. During the war wages were high and the munition camps and factories were beseiged with land agents whose only thought was to get as big a first payment as possible. We should safeguard this home-purchasing power now that the hour of peace has come, the many prosperous working people find themselves unemployed, we should place those fitted in rural col- onies. Is it not time for us to follow the example of European countries and create garden homes for our working people within easy dis- tance of their city jobs, and farms for those fitted for purely agri- cultural pursuits? A home garden gives the family most of its living from the garden and thus enables the wprkingman to bank most of his wages. The improvement in the living conditions of the family is even more im- portant. " It is the divine right of every child to be reared in a garden." Those who hare left the country for the city frequently wish to return to farm life, and will do so, providing they can live in village communities where schools and social opportunities are available. They will not tolerate the lonely farm. A large percentage of immigrants now here have had agricultural training, and prefer living on farms. Almost invariably they resent the individual farm, but will live in communites, as they do in Europe. We have had no very complete survey of rural conditions as yet, but what has been discovered of causes undermining our rural life reveal two reasons for these conditions: Poor marketing facilities and lack of educational opportunity. 582 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. If farm life is a failure under present conditions, why not make conditions what they should be, since the life of democracy depends upon the upbuilding of rural America ? The British Government made an exhaustive study of this sub- ject, and is determined that all rural communities shall be equipped with proper housing, the social amenities, and an agricultural in- structor. They have voted funds to teach people cooperation, recog- nizing that as the basis of all home making and thrift. No program for national defense is practical that does not include the settlement of our vacant agricultural land upon business prin- ciples. Agriculture has been called our one unorganized business; it is susceptible of organization. The land business needs regulation, as surely did the grain busi- ness before the honest grain dealers organized to exclude the bucket- shop man. Mrs. LUND. The National Forward to the Land League advises the establishment of a rural colony foundation, its funds to be admin- istered by such a board as directs the affairs of the General Educa- tion Board of the Rockefeller bequests. This foundation should articulate with the bureau of land information of the Forward to the Land League, and the officers and directors of the league should be numbered among the trustees of the rural colony foundation. We ad- vise that this foundation, instead of being wholly financed by indi- vidual philanthropists, be subscribed to by them and the subscription list thrown open to the general public in a truly democratic way. Many want to help solve this national problem. The hearts of our people have been stirred by the war and by the suffering from unemployment. They will be glad, indeed, to respond to a campaign to put our own people on a self-supporting basis. There will be ample security back of every dollar used by the foundation. We advise that the board of trustees appoint a land committee for the selection of suitable tracts of land on which will be created rural colonies built according to the standard of the National Forward-to- the-Land League and garden cities for housing industrial workers. The standard for the social amenities will be the same in the urban and rural communities. Both will have an agricultural instructor and will be under the general supervision of the National Forward- to-the-Land League. There will be a separate fund for the two classes of development work ; contributors may choose between them. The rural colony foundation should have sums available for the purchase of land and such physical equipment as appertains to real estate. There should be a loaning fund created for the purpose of financ- ing cooperative banking associations organized and controlled of residents. Such funds to be reloaned by the cooperative bank thus organized to members thereof. Loans to be made only for the pur- chase of food, implements, stock, seed, fertilizers, etc. Such equip- ment calls for what is known as short-term credit. The form of cooperative credit organization for this class of finance is recommended by Hon. Myron T. Herrick and R. Ingalls, in their book called Rural Credit, and by Leonard G. Robinson, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 583 president of the Federal farm-loan bank, Springfield, Mass., and joint author with A. H. Ham, of the Sage Foundation, of the Credit Union Primer, and is known as the Raiffeison system of cooperative banking. Beneficent investors should specify which division of work in the rural colony foundation they wish their funds to finance. There will be a separate corporation for each fund; stock will be issued by each with a limited profit specified. Stock in this founda- tion can be recommended not alone because it finances a constructive method of helping the less fortunate to help themselves, but because it is a sound investment. Every share of stock will have behind it land that is being constantly improved. Model city tenements and suburban homes have been financed here and abroad and have paid an unfailing dividend; how much more will model rural colonies and garden homes surely succeed, since they represent not alone a model dwelling but an income-producing plot of land as well. This fund w T ould be used to assist the local capitalists in making up the funds needed for the colony, 50-50 basis, perhaps more. The valuable thing is to have the local business men get enough of their own money in the colony to concern themselves with its management. If bankers or other contributors to the rural colony foundations funds know that local men are in it and will attend they will feel safe in investing. Such a fund would cooperate with individuals and corporations ready to standardize their colony work as we indicate. In one city I almost put the thing through before representatives of the Southern Commercial Congress and the Southern Settlement Development Co. came and stayed four days. The work went to pieces. How can one prove their plan with such interference ? I had spoken to every commercial organization, the rotary club twice, and the commercial club, and all the churches and women's organiza- tions, and all appointed committees to help put a colony in their back country. The church women and the club women were ready to help in the sale of stock at this limited profit as a community interest to get this thing across. Mr. ELSTON. Do you think that this bill, if passed, will stay the success of your private scheme ? Mrs. LUXD. Ko; I do not, except it would probably hold it back somewhat because a lot of people want quick money in their State. All these land interests and commercial colonization companies that have been working to defeat in y work are boosting this Lane-Mondell bill because they know it is going to bring a torrent of money into their own States for development work. You know how everybody goes after money from Washington. You know that Mr. Lane did not try to pass his bill until he sent his people out into every one of your States and drummed up a lot of interest in it because your States and your constituents want that money, that easy money, coming back there for development. Of course, he did not try to pass the bill until he had done that. Mr. ELSTOX. And you can say with great confidence that whether this bill passes or not }-ou think you will have started within 90 days a plan to cover this whole question adequately without the aid of this bill? 584 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mrs. LUND. If a bill was passed that would in any way show co- operation 'by the Government with what we are doing, we would get money in 90 days, but I would not attempt to say that in 90 days we could attempt to put any soldiers on the land if the Government was going to do it. What we would have to do then would be to work slowly by your side to show that under private initiative something could be done, and then reach out into the housing ques- tion, etc. But, gentlemen, please believe me when I say I have refused too many opportunities to align my work with powerful interests and put me on a profitable and successful basis for me to be under any question as to my personal interest in this matter; it is the menace of State socialism 1 oppose, no matter what effect it has on giving farms to soldiers. Mr. ELSTON. Oh, no one has suggested that. Mrs. LUND. And I am going to say now that if this does not enter into the question, I could jump in and help on this Mondell bill. Why not ? I do not know Mr. Mondell very well, but Senator Smoot has always been one of the best friends of my work and promised to go before the committee on the Curtis bill to tell what the Mormons have done in this matter. I would like nothing better than to help him, but this building up of bureaus and State socialism I am afraid of; I must oppose it. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, in this article by Senator Harding in Sea Power, referring to lands available, you say, " These are obtainable in all sections of the country, within 50 miles of Xew York, Cleveland, St. Louis, New Orleans, or Washington. There are 30,000,000 acres of unused land in New England ; 35,000.000 in the Middle States," and so on. Where did you get those figures ? Mrs. LUND. . Those figures were taken from a bulletin issued by the Department of Commerce. The CHAIRMAN. And you furnished them to the Senator ? Mrs. LUND. I did; and it might interest you to know that just about three months ago I went up to Boston to arrange about land in Massachusetts, and it would interest you to know what private capital was willing to do about that. The CHAIRMAN. There are available lands in Massachusetts? Mrs. LUND. Plenty of available lands in Massachusetts. The CHAIRMAN. You heard Mr. Wood's testimony here yesterday, did you not ? Mrs. LUND. I think he was mistaken. The CHAIRMAN. He was against the colonization plan and said that there were no lands available in his section of the country. Do vou agree with him on that ? Mrs. LUND. There is not as much land available in those thickly settled districts, but there are certain tracts. For instance, there is plenty of land in New Jersey, New England, and my information about Indiana is restricted to a statement made by one of the men from the Reclamation Service, that they knew there were certain tracts of land available to establish at least one or two of these colo- nies. I do not know Indiana, or Ohio, but I do know Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and I know all the Western country and the Northwestern and the South, and New England. I have personal knowledge of all those sections. M O.MRS FOR SOLDIERS. 585 The CHAIRMAN. You do not agree with Mr. Wood as to these colonies all being a failure? Mrs. LUND. There is a word to be said about those colonies. I have prepared a very brief outline of the colonization work in the United States. It really might be worth your while to take an hour some morning and let me go over them with you. As to the matter of community organization, if you go out in any county where there are farmers you will find men from the extension department trying to organize all those farmers and make them into a cooperative organization or a community organization in order to have better schools, better roads, better transportation and better credit, etc. Now, that is a community, it makes no difference how large the farming unit is. As soon as it becomes an organized community and has its little meetings it then becomes a community. The CHAIRMAN. They are doing that all over the West, in Cali- fornia, Oregon, and Washington? Mrs. LUND. Yes; the extension service through our State agri- cultural colleges is trying to put that idea across in every State, and, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the plan upon which they are based was worked out by Dr. Carver, who is at the head of the rural organization work in the Forward to Land League. The CHAIRMAN. They are not called colonies or colonization schemes, but in fact that is just what they are doing. Mrs. LUND. That is just what they are trying to do and there will never be success in farming until we do organize, because the small farmer has not capital enough to compete with the bonanza farmer unless he cooperates with his neighbors and they buy together and sell together. It is a matter of treating their combined acreage as a business unit the cooperation of the group. Individual energy and individual initiative, and voluntary cooperation and, gentlemen, whenever we do anything to impair that in this country, we have un- dermined that thing which makes us Americans and we are likely to become a suburb of Berlin. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, what were the total contributions con- tributed by the various parties for your purposes and other purposes in Washington? Mrs. LUND. There is no money contributed except just to cover my bare living expenses. this fered with. In the beginning my magazine was to pay for the or- ganization work, I planned to do this work without any expense to anybody, but when my magazine was wrecked that left me without funds for organization: Many times I have had money arranged for and had it upset. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether a man by the name of Mr. Bolton got any of those funds ? Mrs. LUND. Mr. Bolton? The CHAIRMAN. Do you know a Mr. Bolton living in the city of Washington ? Mrs. LUND. Yes ; I do. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not he got out some press notices 586 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mrs. LUND (interposing). Yes; he wrote the newspaper stories for me. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). That seemed to have come from the Grange and which we all thought came from the grange. Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Was he paid ? Mrs. LUND. I paid Mr. Bolton. The CHAIRMAN. Did you pay him for getting out those press, notices? Mrs. LUND. I paid him, and it came out of my living this month. The CHAIRMAN. You may not understand me. Did you pay Mr. Bolton for getting out those press notices ? Mrs. LUND. I paid Mr. Bolton for writing the stories. The CHAIRMAN. For writing those stories ? Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. There were three different press notices sent out. Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Consisting of about nine pages. Mrs. LUND. I do not remember the number of pages. The CHAIRMAN. How much was Mr. Bolton paid ? Mrs. LUND. I paid Mr. Bolton $50 for that. The CHAIRMAN. What is his name ? Mrs. LUND. I think it is R. L. Bolton. It is R. something. He is a stranger to me. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is R. L. Bolton? Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What is his address? Mrs. LUND. The Press Club is all the address I have. The CHAIRMAN. If he is a stranger to you, how did you happen to secure his services? Mrs. LUND. Because Mr. Dupre here in the city has very often written stories for me. and I sent to Duprc to write this grange story and asked him if he would take the testimony Mr. Atkeson would give before you, when I knew Mr. Atkeson was coming before the committee I had known w r hat the resolution passed by the National Grange at the Syracuse meeting was, and I naturally "knew that Mr. Atkeson would take the grange point of view with regard to it. I wanted that publicity gotten out so that the people in Con- gress would know that the grange was against this thing. The grange told me that they could not get their stuff printed in city papers; that is, they have a publicity bureau up at the grange fur- nishing press matter to agricultural' papers, and they have told me in times past it was not told me with regard to this particular thing but they have told me before that they have trouble getting their stuff published by city papers. The CHAIRMAN. Was this some of the money which Senator Weeks and Senator Harding contributed that was paid him? Mrs. LUND. It was out of my little living fund. They did not know how I was going to use it. May I make the statement that neither of the Senators knew that I was using it for other than my expenses? They knew I did not have more than enough, and I had to borrow money this month to make that up. The CHAIRMAN. You did not report it to them? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 587 Mrs. LUND. No. The CHAIRMAN. You do not give them any itemized statement? Mrs. Lrxn. No; because they only give me enough to cover my living expenses. The CHAIRMAN. Did you state Mr. Bolton's address? Mrs. LUND. The Press Club, I think I gave you. The CHAIRMAN. What is his business? is a fellow up at the club named Bolton, and I will send him over if I can get him." So pretty soon Bolton telephoned me and came over to see me and wrote those stories, and, gentlemen, I had had such experiences with the labor committee and the committee on the Curtis bill in keeping me from making any statement that I expected the same treatment whenever the administration is interested. I have no grudge against any committee, but I expected the State Socialists in the administration to shut out from hearings those opposed to them. The stories that Mr. Bolton wrote, as I said, he made up from the record which he saw of the testimony given by Mr. Atkeson. The CHAIRMAN. Did he write them solely from that written testi- mony ? Mrs. LUND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And not from any suggestions coming from you? Mrs. LUND. No; he wrote those stories without any statements from me. The CHAIRMAN. Who distributed them around the House Office Building? Mrs. LUND. I did or had it done. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Chairman, is that the syndicated newspaper arti- cle which represented that Mr. Atkeson had not received any atten- tion from the committee and that he was shut off before he had a hearing? The 'CHAIRMAN. Yes; and they are the articles which Mr. Atkeson repudiated and resented. Did you tell Mr. Bolton, Mrs. Lund, that Mr. Atkeson had not received a full hearing here and was treated in a very bad way by the committee? Mrs. LUND. No. The CHAIRMAN. Where did Mr. Bolton get that idea? Mrs. LUND. I do not know, unless it was in interviewing Mr. Atke- son about it. I do not know how he got it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr, Atkeson came on here and repudiated that. Mrs. LUND. I did not attend the hearings, but my own experience before in trying to get before committees with any adverse state- ment has been such that I expected that feeling here. I did not know, as I do now. that you are willing to listen to opposition. The CHAIRMAN. You felt, then, that you were justified in telling Mr. Bolton that Mr. Atkeson had not had a fair hearing? Mrs. LUND. No; I did not tell him that. Mr. Bolton may have gotten that impression at the hearing. I did not attend the hearing. He wrote those stories himself. I have never sent out any pub- licity with a truculent note or a critical note in it before. I 'do not like it, but inasmuch as the Grange say that they can not get their stuff printed, I thought perhaps it might be well to 588 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. leave that truculency in this time. It might make it carry. That was all. I confess I did not think of there being anything in it that would cause any special resentment from the committee, and I am ready to offer apology to the committee that the article should have contained that special " slam," now you tell me it is not true, I should, perhaps, have questioned or inquired more closely, or should have cut it out, because it would have been better omitted probably. But you see, gentlemen, I thought that you probably had been prejudiced against hearing any opposition. I know the other com- mittees had been on the Grosser bill or the Curtis bill. The door was shut on any opposition hearing. That is why. Mr. FERRIS. Mrs. Lund, this committee has granted almost three times as much time to the opponents of the bill as they have to those who favor the bill. Mr. LUND. I did not know, and that had not been my experience. I have had a lot to contend with with these same Socialists over here. Of course, I did not blame you. I was a stranger to you and I simply thought you had been prejudiced against hearing any opposi- tion, and thought that this man, Mr. Mead, knew all about it. The fact of the matter is the three people who have been longest in this work and know most about it and have made the most sacrifices for it and the longest study of it, two of them, or all three of us, really, come from California George H. Maxwell and William E. Smythe, who have worked in California for years, made the first demonstra- tion of community organization. They have not had sufficient money, but if they had State money to draw from we would not be hearing so much about the Mead plan- The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You have referred to the Curtis bill, and I want to read this paragraph from the preamble of that bill : Whereas it is a solemn obligation of the Republic in this crisis " to care for him who hath borne the battle and for his widow and orphans." ' You think that is an obligation resting upon the Government? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir ; I do think so. The CHAIRMAN. You want the soldier completely guaranteed through the ownership of a farm home? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Yet you do not think that the Government should supply that home ? Mrs. LUND. As you will see in that bill, I propose to use the un- expended immigration fund, amounting to $9.000,000, to make a survey of the situation. You can not hope to get that information across this table in a few weeks, no matter how hard you try. The CHAIRMAN. On page 2 of the bill, referring to the appoint- ment of the board, it is provided Whose duty it shall be to develop a practical standard for rural colonies, and to establish such for the dependent families of the soldiers of the United States. Do you mean for the Government to do that? Mrs. LUND. You see, I knew that they had the Grosser bill, and I knew that they would take the soldier settlement bill and make use of that patriotic lever to get this sort of measure started. I s;iid, " You must have something for the Government to do, and how little can we make that ? " Here is what we proposed : " To develop a HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 589 practical standard for rural colonies and to establish such for the dependent families of the soldiers of the United States." The Gov- ernment would work out the proper standard, and then our business men of the country would carry it out. Do you see how well it would work? The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a little inconsistency between your position before the committee and this wording of the Curtis bill. Mrs. LUND. You can not possibly put all that you think into a bill, and I am trying to tell you what I want in the bill. I say that because that bill was simply an entering wedge to be followed by the real broad after-legislation. In order to provide for a thorough study by a commission, we would need all of those things. Mr. SINNOTT. You wanted to use the $9,000,000 ? Mrs. LUND. You can call it that, but suppose we had that $9,000,000 ? We wanted to use it through a commission in developing a practical standard for rural colonies and establishing the de- pendent families of soldiers upon them. We would show them the way to do it, and we do think that that is an obligation of the country. That is plainly stated, with none of the camouflage methods that appear in this Lane-Mondell bill. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you another question: In this article by Senator Harding entitled " Rooting Valor in American Soil " the Senator makes this statement : It is such homes that the United States should have had ready for occu- pancy by its soldiers and sailors at the time of their return. Now, the implication in this article seems to be that the United States should get these homes ready. Mrs. LUND. You see, what I thought was this, and the Senator you mention agreed with me, that you should have a commission ap- pointed to deal with this situation, and that the commission should first be instructed to get out propaganda and to send lecturers and organizers into the business districts and tell them how to mobilize capital and credit so as to get ready for the soldiers. We think that that is the logical function of the Government that is, to assist business in the way that it does assist through the Department of Commerce and the ^Department of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. Let me get this clear: Do you mean to say that when this article was written containing this statement, " It is such homes that the United States should have had ready for occupancy by its sailors and soldiers at the time of their return," that the United States should have had ready for occupancy these homes or that some private individuals should have had them ready for occu- pancy ? Mrs. LUND. As I have said to you, the United States should take that initiative through that commission. They should get this work started for them, and if we had had the $9,000,000 provided for in the Curtis bill, we would have been ready, because we would have used that $9.000,000 in getting the capital and credit of the United States mobilized for this work. There is quite a difference between $9,000,000 and $500,000.000. provided in the Mondell bill. The CHAIRMAN. There is the positive statement that the United States should have had such homes ready for occupancy by sailors and soldiers at the time of their return. 590 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mrs. LUND. That may have been the statement that Senator Hard- ing made. The CHAIRMAN. Is that your statement or Senator Harding's state- ment? Mrs. LUND. It is Senator Harding's statement. Mr. ELSTON. Did you prepare the manuscript of that statement and arrange for its publication? Did you prepare the statement and have Senator Harding revise it? Mrs. LUND. All of those things I get out are reports of the people who sign them. They are partly written by them. Mr. ELSTON. Is the composition of Senator Harding's article yours or his? Mrs. LUND. It is his, although a part of it is made up from my papers. Mr. ELSTON. Is the actual phraseology taken from your paper? Mrs. LUND. A good deal of it, or some of it, is from the paper. Mr. ELSTON. Did you arrange for its publication? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. Mr. ELSTON. You made all the arrangements for having it pub- lished? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir. Mr. MATS. Referring to that particular expression read by the chairman, that the United States should have had such homes ready for occupancy by the soldiers and sailors at the time of their re- turn Mrs. LUND (interposing). My understanding is that that should have been qualified, as I have stated here. Senator Harding talked to me about the proposed legislation, and in conferences we had dis- cussed this and considered how it should be done. I think I can say that Senator Harding would have qualified that. That statement was an article, and not a legal brief. It simply said that we were not ready, and that the Government was not ready. We had no commis- sions appointed on reconstruction, as other countries had. The CHAIRMAN. Following that statement, after deploring the fail- ure of the Government to do anything, this statement occurs : Now, the duty of the Government is to pull this situation together as best it can and save what it can out of the wreck of neglected opportunity. An ideal situation existed with relation to returning sailors and soldiers. Mrs. LUND. That is what we proposed to do. The CHAIRMAN. You really wanted the Government to do some- thing? Mrs. LUND. We really did. We will have a method w r orked out this week, but I hope a provision that will meet our ideas may come out of this committee, we all want the committee to have the credit for anything that may be done to put soldiers on farms. Mr. ELSTON. Who will introduce that bill? Mrs. LUND. I would prefer for the committee to bring out the de- tails of the bill. We will make the suggestions and let you do what you please with it. You should have the first chance at it. I fixed up a compromise bill, if we must have the Government do it? I do not think we need to have the Government do this. I think this bill better than the Mondell bill. May I read this bill or leave it with you for any amendment you may want to work out in connection with it ? The CHAIRMAN. You may incorporate the bill in the record. HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 591 That to provide rural homes for those who served with the military or naval forces of the United States during the war between the United States and her allies, and Germany and her allies, and who have been honorably separated or discharged therefrom or placed in the Regular Army Reserve, and former Amer- ican citizens who served with and were honorably separated or discharged from the military or naval forces of any of the nations allied against the Cen- tral Powers, and who have been repatriated, or the widows or orphans of such persons, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as soldiers, there is hereby established a fund in the Treasury of the United States, to be known as the soldiers' relief fund, to be administered by a commission of five members not now holding office, to be appointed by Congress in such manner as Congress may determine, and said commission is hereby authorized to use said fund to carry out the purposes of this act. SEC. 2. That said commission may acquire by gift, purchase, deed in trust, or otherwise, the necessary lands for soldier settlement projects and may with- draw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed, public lands suitable for such purpose; provided, however, that no lands shall be acquired unless the price to be paid and the conditions under which they are acquired shall first be approved, (a) by a representative of the governor of the State in which the lands are located, and (b) by an appraiser designated by the Federal Farm Loan Board, and (c) by the commission. SEC. 3. The commission is authorized to engage in such undertaking and do such work as it deems necessary for the proper and permanent development and equipment of the farms in jsuch projects, and in such undertakings and work in reference thereto, preference shall be given to the employment of soldiers. The commission shall establish a standard for such rural or farm settlements under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe. And in the etablishnient and operation of such standard settlements the commission may consult and cooperate with sucn agencies as it deems advisable. And the Commission is authorized to set aside for schools, churches, community centers, and for other public purposes such lands as it deems necessary. Soldier applicants for such farms must agree to live upon the same and must enter into such contracts and agreements with the commission in reference to the payment for such farms and for the operation of the same and in reference to all other matters in relation to such farms as the commission shall prescribe. And the commission is authorized to assist, upon such terms and conditions as it may deem advisable, any soldier who has had experience in farming and who is competent to conduct a farm, to acquire a farm in any part of the United States. SEC. 4. That for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act, the sum of $200,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated, and of this sum the commission is authorized to expend any amount not to exceed $250,000 in such manner as it may deem advisable in securing the cooperation and assistance of State commercial organizations and their interested bodies throughout the United States. There are several reasons why a commission could better deal with the land settlement subject than a department of the Government. First, there is inevitably jealousy between the Department of Agriculture, Labor, and the Interior. All would like this big work done with their own machinery. A commission could, therefore, draw greater cooperation from all of them than either from the others. Furthermore, a commission would probably select experts on the several subjects connected with land settlement, and these men would serve continuously irrespective of political changes. I feel that Sec- retary Lane's preference for having the Government to do all of this work has helped to keep much good from being done during the past seven years of his incumbency. When I first brought my plans to the attention of Secretary Lane, and your chairman has just indicated that the plans are identical, save that I want private enterprise to develop them, and Secretary 133319 19 38 592 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Lane wants Government action, Mr. Newell, then Director of Recla- mation, became a member of my advisory board, and both he and Mr. Blanchard were very anxious for me to develop some part of my plans in the Department of the Interior rather than in the Labor Department. Both of these men urged Secretary Lane to see me and cooperate. They promised their cooperation. But when Mr. Newell resigned and Mr. Davis took his place, Mr. Blanchard was obliged to withdraw all promise of cooperation. I have never met Mr. Davis. Mr. WHITE. Do you understand that there is any suspicion of socialism proposed in the project here, as set forth in the Mondell bill? Mrs. LUND. The Grosser bill was a Socialist bill. Both are State socialism that is, the Government is to go into the colonization business and act as employer. State socialism or Government own- ership is a far greater menace than direct socialism, because State socialism is but an extension of capitalism, and the Socialists admit that. Here is an editorial that I clipped from the New York Call the other day, and it W 7 ill take only two minutes to read it : GOVERNMENT OWNEKSHIP. We are inclined to agree with the National City Bank circular for June when it asserts that workingrnen are in error in assuming that Government ownership of industry necessarily implies any gains for them. Aside from the theoretical aspect of the question, there are the facts that are apparent to all. The quasi public ownership of telegraphs under the administration of Postmaster Burleson, his conduct of the post office itself, indicates that the Government owned or managed enterprise can become more exploitive than even the privately owned enterprise. Ownership of any kind can not eliminate the evils of capitalism until the workers themselves have mastery of their industrial life. This mastery carries with it a form of ownership that is not only social, but a form of man- agement and operation controlled by all those who contribute useful labor. This is the esseiice of industrial democracy, of labor democracy. State-owned industry is generally managed from the same point of view that privately owned industry is. That is, for cheap production and cheap service, which in turn are secured by cheap labor. Another reason, especially in the case of State-owned railways and transport facilities, is to afford an efficient ally for military purposes. It is significant that every nation with such railways that entered the war took over its transportation systems. Still another reason why the management and policies of State-owned and privately owned services are the same is that politicians of capitalist parties are selected as administrative heads of State-owned services. They can no more avoid applying the practices and methods of the capitalist order they represent than the capitalist owners themselves. So wedded are they to these practices that such administrators often permit capitalist owners and con- tractors to attach themselves in some way to public services as leeches who bleed these services for all they are worth. The National City Bank sees what the Socialist sees, though it is not quite so frank as to details. We see what it sees, and more, and have nothing to lose by pointing it out. That editorial contains the Socialist point of view as against State socialism. They regard it as an extension of capitalism and the building up of a bureaucracy. Some Socialist radicals want the Government to do things; they advise the Government to take them over, thinking that they will get them away from the Govern- ment and run them themselves. However, most of them think that it- will result in the intrenchment of capital at Washington and the centralization of vast powers in the bureaus, so that it will be really HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 593 capitalistic control. That is the fear that is expressed by the Social- ist organs as well as by the most conservative business men. The CHAIRMAN. There was an article that appeared in a magazine within the last few months by Senator Curtis. Do you know about that article ? Mrs LUND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you assist in the publication of it? Mrs. LUND. Yes, sir; it appeared in Munsey's for October. The CHAIRMAN. Has Senator Harding introduced a bill on this subject ? Mrs. LUND. He has not. Senator Harding says that whatever is done should be done by Mr. Mondell and Senator Smoot, and that whatever is done on the soldier settlement proposition should come out of the committees. We want to help you out, because we have given a lot of time and study to it. There will be no bill introduced by anybody else if we can get you to cover these points in your legislation. If you are not influenced by our judgment, we will have a bill introduced. The CHAIRMAN. You have had a little over one hour and a half. Do you feel that you have had a full and fair hearing? Mrs. LUND. I am very much pleased with what you have accorded in time and courtesy. May I make clear in your record before I go that this bill that I have given to you is my idea of a compromise. It is not my idea of what would be the best thing. My idea of what would be the best thing would be to have a commission appointed to concern itself with research and information, which should be dis- tributed through newspaper, magazine, moving picture, and lecture platform publicity. The commission should study the matter of farm settlements, 'industrial housing, and cooperation, because with- out cooperation to show how credit may be mobilized for this work we can not do any of these things. I will be very glad to give you a list of the people who I wanted to have heard. Mr. Harold Foight, director of the rural schools of the Bureau of Education, was to give an illustrated lecture and show what they have done in Denmark and the United States in the schools. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lund, I find that we must conclude these hearings. We have devoted fully two weeks to the hearings, and I do not think there is any diversity of sentiment in the committee as to the feasibility of the community plan. Of course, others think that it should be enlarged to include the segregated units. However, I do not think it is necessary to go into that general proposition. Are you aware that Mr. Atkeson came before the committee and repudiated the suggestion that he had been treated unfairly ? Mrs. LUND. If you read the newspaper article written by a man named Hall am, who puts things on the press table, in regard to this matter The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment, please. Do you know that Mr. Atkeson came before the committee and repudiated the insinuation or implication of unfair treatment or antagonism toward him? Mrs. LUND. Then, if he did he must know what he is talking about. 594 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. He said he resented it. Mrs. LUND. Well, I do not know The CHAIRMAN. Do you not feel that you are under an obligation to set the committee right, you having set in action the other pub- licity ? Mrs. LUND. Is there anything I need to do, if Mr. Atkeson has made that corrected the statement ? The CHAIRMAN. It is in his testimony. We will leave it to your own sense of right and justice, because this committee has been held up before this Congress and the country as refusing to give Mr. Atkeson sufficient time to testify, and as having been in antagonism to him and to .the Grange personally. Mrs. LUND. I did not get that impression from the newspaper article, and I think you read more into it than is there. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atkeson read that into it himself, and he stated that he would not be red-blooded if he did not resent it. Mrs. LUND. What can I do about it? If there is anything I can do to right it, I will right it. The CHAIRMAN. You can read Mr. Atkeson's testimony. Mrs. LUND. I will read his testimony and will write a statement that will set it right. If it does not, I will let you rewrite it. The CHAIRMAN. " And they lived happy ever afterwards." (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, noon, the committee adjourned until to- morrow, Thursday, June 19, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. in.) COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, June 19, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, I am authorized to state to the com- mittee that I have had word from Secretary Lane that he is unable to attend this morning, and I think, in frankness, it ought to be stated that Secretary Lane believes that unless some member of the committee wants to ask him some questions he really has stated all he desires to submit in his letter and in his previous statement here. He asked me, however, to convey the information to the committee that when he spoke here before, some two or three weeks ago, he had received in response to his inquiry cards 52,000 cards and 11,000 letters from soldiers expressing an interest in this matter and ex- pressing a desire to avail themselves of it. Since that time, and while these hearings have been in progress, he has received additional replies, making a total of 65,000 cards and 15,000 letters, which makes 80,000 communications altogether from soldiers on the sub- ject. The CHAIRMAN. How many, all told? Mr. FERRIS. Eighty thousand. He also asked me to state to the committee and for the record that he is receiving now 1,200 a day, and about 800, or two-thirds, of them are coming from overseas and 400 from the soldiers on this side. The Secretary is perfectly will- ing to come back if the committee wants him to, but he feels that in HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 595 his letter and in his statement which he made before he has said everything he could say on the subject and has not anything to add. I am reminded to state that the first returns that came from over- seas were on May 30. Prior to that time they had not had a chance to be consulted on the subject. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell is here this morning. I asked him to come over, thinking he might wish to make an additional statement. The committee will be glad to hear you, Mr. Mondell. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity for saying a few words more in regard to this bill. I realize you are wearied with your long hear- ings and anxious to conclude your hearings on this subject and get to other matters, and I would not take the time of the committee if it were not for the fact that some things said during the hearings present a situation, perhaps, requiring some statement from one of those who had to do with the drafting of the legislation ; and in view of the fact that the Secretary is not able to discuss the matter fur- ther with you, I felt as though it was my duty to do so. Whenever the committee gets tired or thinks I have talked long enough, just let me know and I will close my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Would you prefer to conclude, Mr. Mondell, before answering questions? Mr. MONDELL. Yes; I would like to make a statement without interruption, if I may, although if any member of the committee desires to ask questions that relate directly to the matter I am dis- cussing at the time I shall be glad to answer them. Other questions I would prefer, if it is agreeable to the gentlemen, that they with- hold until I conclude. The discucssion on this bill has taken so wide a range that it is perhaps important that some one again review the genesis of this movement and call attention to the conditions believed to exist which seemed to render wise legislation which would help the returning sol- diers and that means all of the men who were in the service to secure a home on the lands. Before the war closed, farsighted men and the Secretary of the Interior is one of those, gentlemen of both parties on this com- mittee who have had experience in matters of this sort turned over in their minds the situation that the coming of peace would present. Their thought was that there was likely to be a condition under \vhich the Government ought to make some special effort to take up the slack in the labor market, to insure a condition under which the returning soldier would not find himself without means of em- ployment or displace others who had secured employment. In other words, one of the important situations that we had to look forward to was that of the possibility of a condition under which it would be necessary to do all that we could properly do to find employment for our people. My opinion is that perhaps we were overanxious or unduly disturbed in that regard. It looks now as though there might not be the necessity, or as great a neces- 596 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. sity, as we anticipated to provide for employment for the returning soldier. Fortunately, the business of the country seems to be getting to normal more rapidly than we had anticipated. That seems to be true. We do not know, however. Just now there seems to be jobs for almost every one who desires employment, but we have still many men in the military service, at least 1,000,000 men, who will be added to the country's active forces within the next six months, and we can not be sure that the business of the country is going to con- tinue to return rather rapidly to the normal; and w T hile I think it is true that there may not be the necessity for legislation furnishing additional avenues of employment to the extent that we imagined there might be, still we can not ignore the fact that there are still many soldiers to return to the ranks of active civil life and that there is still a situation that lays some obligation on the Federal Gov- ernment in this regard. We have tried to anticipate that situation through large appro- priations for the building of roads. All of the legislation of Con- gress that is wise tends to create or maintain a condition in the country under which men may find employment and opportunities, so that, in a general way, we have been doing much, and hope to do more, in the way of not only providing opportunities for employ- ment directly, but in maintaining and helping to create conditions under which opportunities for employment will be widened and improved. Now, going beyond that, in those early days before the close of the war and in the days following the signing of the armistice, thoughtful men in the departments, in Congress, on this committee, and throughout the country had this in mind : Is it the duty of the Congress under conditions "now existing to legislate further than it has directly, definitely w r ith a view to affording opportunities to the returning soldiers? This is a great country of ours, and in normal times and under normal conditions the citizen asks nothing of his Government other than to be protected in his rights, to be afforded the opportunities which a well-governed land of great resources affords him. But the situation is quite different when some 4,000,000 men, having, been temporarily taken from civil life, separated for the time being from the localities and conditions under which they have been living, returning to civil life, may, some of them at least, have views and expectations beyond and differing from those they had before they went into the service. All of those who have thought of this matter to any considerable extent, or who have given it careful thought, have realized that the great majority of returning soldiers will not need or desire special opportunities of the Government Federal, State, or municipal. The great majority of them will return home, and their lives in the future will be very largely along the lines they had determined upon before they entered the service. There will be a fraction who, hav- ing gotten out into the great world and seeing how men live in busy communities, and noting the attractiveness of cities, may be inclined to enter industrial or commercial life rather than to return to the farm homes and the country towns whence they caiue. Now, those men, if conditions resume the normal within a rea- sonable length of time, will not ask or expect anything from the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 507 Federal Government or from any government that is, if industrial conditions continue good, and they are excellent just now in most parts of the country with very good wages, even as compared with the high cost of living. If they continue so, the man in industry, if he is self-respecting, and these boys are, is not asking anything of the Government except that we shall legislate wisely along gen- eral lines, all of which is helpful to the country at large and inci- dentally to him. He will receive good wages and he will live in a community where private enterprise is competing intensely with a view to serving him in every way. There is not an industrial com- munity in this country that is not full of cooperative building and loan associations, and there is not one that has not a large number of very active and very forceful and very capable men whose business it is to build and sell homes, and those men can build and furnish homes, particularly with the aid of cooperative building associations, cheaper than any governmental agency on earth can do it. There is another class of men who may not seek to go into industry, who have not been lured by the bright lights, who may actually turn from the cities, having lived in the open for a considerable length of time, to opportunities in the open, and they will go to various parts of the country. There are some public lands open; some very good opportunities for men who have sufficient acquaintance with the conditions to enable them intelligently to utilize them ; there are some sections where lands are still very cheap compared with the value of their product. The country is not without opportunities of that sort for men who seek land. There are many of them, here and there, and elsewhere, and these men, many of them, will find those oppor- tunities and they will not ask anybody to assist them in finding them. But outside of these classes I have been mentioning, there will be men who desire the opportunity to secure a home, who prefer to have a home on a farm, and who may not be able to find the kind of an opportunity that is satisfactory to them, and it is that class of men, needing employment, looking forward to a home, that those who had to do with the drafting of this bill had in mind. I think I have covered, very briefly possibly but as completely or as thoroughly as I am justified in taking your time in doing, the proposition that we are not called upon, and we are not expected to furnish, any special opportunities to the great majority of the sol- diers. We have no call or demand or request from them that we do so. The argument is made as against this particular plan of legislation that assuming for the sake of argument that we need not or should not go into the business of industrial housing, that con- fining our efforts wholly to the matter of attaching men to the soil, this is not the way to do it or the best or the fairest way to do it. Well, there are other ways of assisting men to secure farm homes, and one of them is by loans through the farm-loan banks. It may be that the farm-loan act ought to be amended. There may be some argument in favor of amending it in a way to give special privileges to soldiers or special opportunities to soldiers. I do not care to argue that question particularly, but the experience of practically everyone who has had experience 'in movements at home or abroad looking to niding men in securing homes on farms is that so far as the isolated tract or the segregated unit is concerned the matter must be ap- 598 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. preached and provided for from a purely business standpoint. The boy who does not care to leave his own neighborhood and go into the next congressional district I understand some are complaining because a man might have to go into the next congressional district. Of course it did not occur to me that we had become so provincial that we could not move across a county boundary without feeling that we were completely isolating ourselves from oiir fellows or that this plan would be opposed because it would not give the boys of every congressional district an opportunity to settle down next to the home folks or next door to their mothers-in-law. We passed the farm-loan act on the theory that it is not safe to lend money to men who are handling their own affairs here, there, hither, and yonder on the basis of more than 50 per cent of the value of the property. Now, it may be that some other committee having to do with that matter may conclude to make an exception with regard to soldiers and lend them 60 or 75 per cent. Some gentlemen have gone so far as to suggest a change in the farm-loan law to the extent of granting loans amounting to 100 per cent of the value of the property pur- chased. I have noticed that the gentlemen who have done that are mostly people who seem very anxious to hold the boys at home or in the congressional district, but there is no State in the Union, so far as I know T , that is proposing to put a single solitary dollar of its good money in any such proposition as that. I have not heard of any local community that wanted to get behind it. There may be people who assume "that Uncle Sam's money grows on bushes and who are so lacking in a sense of responsibility that they are willing to throw Uncle Sam's money in directions and for purposes in which they would not suggest that'their States or communities should invest their money. I do not think we can afford to urge that the Federal Government do anything in this regard that we would not be willing to advise our municipalities to do, or that we would not be willing to advise our States to do. My hope is that, if this plan is successful, the proj- ects we undertake under this bill may be only the initial under- takings along these lines, the beginning of like undertakings by private enterprise, by municipalities in a small way. and by States in a larger way. Australia is the most recent example of a coun- try that tried 'buying farms for men and putting them on those farms, and then leaving them to pay out. That plan was a failure. A reasonably careful man, and one who is anxious and expects to meet his obligations, ordinarily does not care to assume that sort of burden. I think I am a fairly good farmer, but I doubt if at any time in my life I would have been safe in acquiring a farm on a loan amounting to the entire cost of the farm. I do not believe I would have had incentive enough. I would not have had sufficient stake in the enterprise to support me in the struggle that would have been necessary to pay for the farm under those circumstances. I roali/e that it would be very helpful for men who have farms to soil in the country to have a lot of Federal money lying around loose for the purpose of buying those farms and paying for thorn at a high price. We can not look at the matter from that standpoint. We must look at it. first, from the viewpoint of the interest of the sol- dier, and, secondly, from the viewpoint of the interest of the tax- payer, one of whom the soldier is and will continue to be. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 599 In my opinion, you do not do a man a kindness to make what practically amounts tq a free gift of a farm, and I do not know of any soldier with the right kind of training and disposition that ex- pects you to do it ; although it may be that the farm-loan act ought to be amended and made more liberal. It may be that the farm-loan act ought to be amended in a way to make its terms more liberal to soldiers as a class, but if you are to do that it is not the province of this committee, because you do not have jurisdiction over that law. I would suggest that any committee that does so should provide that any community that desires to have that done shall put up 25 per cent of the 100 per cent loan. I do not believe that you would find a community in the United States that would meet those terms. They would not be willing to put 25 per cent in the pot and then give Uncle Sam a lien on the property for the return of his money. There might be some people who would be willing to put up the 25 per cent and take the first lien, on the theory that they would at least get that much back and then let Uncle Sam carry the load. I can not think of anything that would have so unfortunate an effect upon the business morals of the coun- try as to enter upon a plan of going abroad and buying cultivated farms for men and handing them over to them. It would not be a kindness to the soldier, and it would be a most indefensible act of special privilege to certain men. Certainly we could not do that in the ca.se of all the soldiers, or in the case of any considerable number of them, out of the 4,000,000; but we would find enough, no doubt, who might be willing to accept that sort of grant to make it cost as much as the war has cost up to this time. It would not take a very great proportion of the 4,000,000 soldiers on a basis of that sort of undertaking to make the cost as great as the cost of the war has been, leaving the country in a completely demoralized condition. Xow, that being true, as I see it, with regard to aid and assistance in securing segregated, improved farms, the question arises, What can we do? Well, fortunately, the world affords us innumerable examples of what can be done, and done successfully, in the matter of giving men an opportunity to work themselves into homes on farms. When Denmark lost her southern provinces to Germany she found herself limited in productive area and threatened with bank- ruptcy as a nation. She had a lot of sandy and sour land that in the days of her larger area men did not use or utilize except in a limited way for pasturage purposes. She set about reclaiming those lands, and succeeded in making them among the best dairy lands in the world. Denmark became a greater State through her reclamation efforts after she had lost Schleswig-Holstein than she was before. That has been true also of Australia and of some parts of Germany. Our own experience in reference to reclamation projects has not been uniformly satisfactory, because we did make some mistakes in the beginning in the selection of projects when the work was new, and, naturally, some things were done that would not be done now in the light of greater experience. Yet there are two projects in my State, to use them as an illustration, which have brought people from almost every State in the Union, most of whom with very little to begin on. who are working out farm homes and very satisfactory farm homes on those projects. 600 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The history of governmental effort toward bringing men back to the land the world over, I think, makes it very clear that when you pass beyond those operations that must be based on strict business principles and business experience, as related to helping men secure isolated farms or segregated tracts, the only successful method for assisting men who have very little to begin with to secure homes and pay for them is through the organization and development of com- munities. I have been very much interested in an article that is very excellent in many respects, published in the April number of the Sea Power magazine, entitled " Rooting Valor in American Soil." Mr. FERRIS. That is the instructive article referred to here yes- terday. Mr. MONDELL. There are so many good points in this article that I do not know whether the committee has had its attention called to all of them. Mr. NICHOLS. Whom is that article from ? Mr. MONDELL. It is said to be from Senator Warren G. Harding. Mr. NICHOLS. We have heard otherwise. Mr. MONDELL. Now, let me tell you what conclusion Senator Harding came to and what a wise conclusion he came to. After dis- cussing this whole field he came to the conclusion that " the prin- ciple that underlies this whole land scheme is that of cooperation." He relates the experience of England in the matter and discusses the question of the cooperation of the many agencies necessary for success. Then he goes on to say : In the first place, this plan contemplates the development of colonies, not of individual isolated homes. To plant colonies it is necessary to acquire tracts of land of considerable area. These are obtainable in all sections of the country within 50 miles of New York, Cleveland, St. Louis, New Orleans, or Washington. There are 30,000,000 acres of unused land in New England. 35,000,000 acres in the Middle States, 180,000,000 in the Pacific States, making 425,000,000 in all. Mr. JOHNSON. Did you mention Indiana? Mr. MONDELL. I have a high regard for Indiana, because some of the men who have most informed and enlightened me in regard to these matters are sons of Indiana. The best-informed man in the world, in my opinion, upon these various subjects, including the subject of colonization and development and the aiding of men to become home owners on the land, is a famous son of Indiana, Dr. Elwood Mead. The CHAIRMAN. Permit me to state there, Mr. Mondell, that we are indebted to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Benham, for the appearance before the committee of a lady who furnished the ma- terial for the article you have just told us about. Mr. MONDELL. That is another contribution from Indiana. Mr. BENHAM. I am also proud of that distinction. Mr. MONDELL. There is a gentleman now with the Interior De- partment, a citizen of Indiana, who has given me a great deal of accurate information on this subject. Now, I have quoted enough from Senator Harding's article to make it clear that the Senator. having gone over the entire ground, and considered all these various plans, proposals, and suggestions, came to the conclusion that every man I have ever known has come to, when he has studied the matter carefully and unselfishly and without any thought of his HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 601 ional district or county or township, but thinking only of the whole country, that if we are going to do something that is really helpful and that we can defend, that we will not have to apologize for, and that we will have no regret in regard to the future, we must adopt the plan of development by communities. The Senator goes further in his article and shows how the land is to be acquired for those communities, and how it is to be divided up into small farms. He goes further than it would probably be wise to go in a majority of cases, because he would clear, fence, dig wells; would buy the horse, cow, pigs, and flock of chickens. Now, that is what this bill contemplates, except that it contemplates that when it comes to the house and barn and flock of chickens, to the pigs, and to the farm horse, the man shall make some direct contri- bution, so that he will really have a stake in the enterprise. In this article the Senator laments the fact that the boys have largely returned, and that a great opportunity has been lost by de- lay. To a certain extent all of that is true, and that is why it is important to secure this legislation as soon as possible, because time is passing. The boys are returning and they are taking up work along various lines and they are seeking opportunities. There are, however, a great many still to return, and some of those who have re- turned are only temporarily employed ; so that we are not altogether too late. The last Congress was a war Congress, and it was very difficult for that Congress with its mind bent upon the prosecution of the war to turn its attention to matters of conservation, matters of development, and matters of restoration. Now, what does the Senator finally say about this situation ? He says : Now, the duty of the Government is to pull this situation together as best it can and save what it can out of the wreck of neglected opportunity. I agree with the Senator, and that is what we are proposing to do. 'What we are proposing to do is exactly along his lines. We are fol- lowing his plan just as though we had drawn this bill after reading his article. I give the Senator full credit for it. I have always had a high regard for him, and I give him full credit for haying analyzed the situation and reached the proper determination with regard to what ought to be done. Of course, there is something in this article about doing all this by private enterprise. I understand that Mrs. Lund, who was before the committee yesterday and who made some reference to this article, suggested that this development ought to be done by private enterprise, and I say amen to that. If it can be done by private enterprise and I am in hopes that we shall so blaze the way and in- dicate the processes and prove the feasibility of development along these lines that private enterprise will extend its operations well and good. Private enterprise has been engaged since the beginning of time in work of this character, but generally on a comparatively small scale. It is not a new field, however, for public or private enterprise by any manner of means, and so far as I am personally concerned, I disclaim any special credit for the plan and purpose of this bill. A ffood Kepiiblican friend of mine said the other day, " While I advised you to draw some legislation along the lines of Eroviding farm homes to soldiers, I did not expect you to adopt the, ane plan." I do not know that I did adopt the Lane plan, though 602 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Secretary Lane has long advocated a development plan, as have others, including Senator Harding. I do not care what you call the plan, but it is in my opinion the only plan through which you can furnish farm homes to men who must begin with comparatively lit- tle except an enterprising mind and a good right arm. This is a plan by which you can accomplish your purpose without robbing the man of his self-respect and without creating a condition in the coun- try for which you would have to apologize. I have not followed these hearings except in a very general way, and I do not know just what has been stated here, but I will venture to say that practically every one who has been before this committee proposing other plans has through cross-questioning by the committee been called upon to ex- press doubt of the success of the other plans, and has been compelled to acknowledge that they involve expenditures of billions of dollars at the very least. Now, I may be mistaken about that, and, perhaps, that is not true, but this is an intelligent committee and it is familiar with the situation, and I know that is the inevitable result of the cross-examination of men who may come forward with other plans. Some people hurl anathemas at this bill because they say it is a reclamation proposition, and a dear friend of mine became so dis- turbed about that that he wanted to change the language of the enact- ing clause so as not to offend anyone who did not like the word " reclamation." It is a reclamation project, and that is one of its very great virtues. It is not proposed to displace any man who is on a farm; it is not proposed to put some other man in place of a man who is now on a well-tilled, well-cared-f or, and well-kept farm. What particular good would be accomplished through that sort of a process? What good could be accomplished by displacing some one who is now on a farm, having him move to town, and putting some oho else on the farm to whom you have loaned its full value, and who therefore has no stake in it? If the crops are all good, well and good ; and if he pays out, w r ell and good ; but if he does not he has not lost" anything and has had a good living in the meantime. This bill pro- poses reclamation projects in every State in the Union, and that is one of its essential features. When you plan and propose to take men who have saved but little and give them an opportunity to ac- quire a home, there must be along with it an opportunity of employ- ment in the acquirement of the home. You will give the man an opportunity to work a year or two years, or whatever the time may be, until the project is developed, during which period, with the hope" and expectation of a home, he will have had the necessary incentive to save. He will save, because he will be looking forward to a home, and w r ith that saving he will be able to meet the first small payment and the comparatively easy requirements with regard to improve- ments, live stock, etc. Of course, it is true that one of these soldier boys might work else- where and then come to a project as it is nearing completion, and, of course, he would be given an opportunity to purchase, the prefer- ence, however, being given to the man who had worked on the proj- ect. I have no doubt but what there would be numerous oppor- tunities for men who have worked and saved elsewhere on these projects, but primarily we want to help the man who needs the incentive and who will see the goal ahead of him. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 603 The CHAIRMAN. While you are on that subject of reclamation, I have here a clipping from a newspaper which contains the form of a protest to be sent to Congress, showing, alleging, or claiming that it is just a plan to reclaim swamps, deserts, and cut-over lands. This is from some rural newspaper the American Agriculturist. Mr. MONDELL. This is entitled: Vigorous protest to Congress against Lane bill to spend $500,000,000 reclaiming dist.-mr swamps and deserts for soldiers who prefer farms in their own State A better plan which will employ right here in the Middle States agricultural development every dollar that our taxpayers or investors may put up. This is from the American Agriculturist of June 7, and seems to be a part of a general propaganda sent out by the agriculturists. I do not know whether you gentlemen ever heard the definition given some years ago by a certain statesman of an agriculturist as a man who farmed the farmer. I think it is a very good definition. We do not have to go far to find these gentlemen : you can find some of them in the Maryland Agriculture College. There are a lot of com- fortably situated gentlemen there w^ho, I presume, are paid out of the Federal Treasury they are if they belong to the branch of that college which is supported by the Federal Treasury. Mr. JOHNSOX. What college is that? Mr. MONDELL. The Maryland College of Agriculture out here at College Park, about 5 miles from here. They have appealed to the Congress in the name of the farmers of Maryland. They are paid by the Federal Government, and they are protesting because some one is proposing, so they say, to bring other acres into cultivation to compete with the acres now under cultivation. Xow, I have heard that song ever since I can remember. A gen- tleman by the name of Buchanan sung it a great many years ago in connection with a veto of the homestead bill. Folks now and again, here and there, have echoed it every time Congress has proposed land opportunities anywhere. We heard it quite widely when we were arguing the reclamation law ; but in all that time I never heard a real farmer utter any sentiment of that sort. It was always the agriculturist, the well-paid, well-fed agriculturist, who in one way or another was farming the farmer to his benefit in some cases, no doubt, but at any rate the anxiety, the fear of additional acres brought into competition with his acres has never, so far as my experience goes, came from a man who tills the soil. Why ? Because, first, while he has no monopoly on horse sense, the man who lives close to the soil all his life, or a large part of his life, is generally distinguished above all else for his hard, common, horse sense, and 'he also has some knowledge of facts. He may not have a college education, but he has a fair notion of the size of his country and of the limitless area of its cultivated acres, and the tremendous volume of its agricultural products, and when you talk to him about bearing the market for agricultural products because you open 50.000 acres or 25.000 or 40,000 or 100,000 acres somewhere, he will laugh at you. It is the man who assumes to speak for him and who has some ax of his own to grind that talks that sort of thing. Mr. FERRIS. Is not that contention almost as absurd as for a school teacher to advocate closing the schools so that he may have a monopoly? 604 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. Mr. MONDELL. I think it would be about in the same category. The fact is, that since time began and men began to farm, there has never been a time in any land under the sun where there were too many acres cultivated, and sooner or later, the activities of every government, that has ever existed, has been invoked for the purpose of encouraging movements back to the land or movements to the land, and the development of farm areas for many reasons: First, because there is where you get your best citizenship. That is the sort of life that makes men most nearly normal, sensible, and reason- able, and it is the one industry on the face of the earth that is abso- lutely essential and the only one. Therefore, naturally, wise legis- lators the world over, and since time began, have legislated with a view to encouraging men to own land and to till the soil. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Mondell, right there, is it or is it not true that the other nations are only making efforts along this line and not for any general bounty to their soldiers? Mr. MONDELL. That is true. Some gentlemen, I think, have not clearly understood what the effect of the passage of this bill would be, and that is not to be wondered at in view of the fact that the bill itself carries nothing that indicates just the procedure with re- gard to appropriations under it. This bill carries no appropriation. If it becomes a law the Secretary would have nothing under it except authority, and he could not exercise that authority in any important respect without an appropriation. So that immediately following the passage of this legislation, or, possibly, in conference by general agreement, as the bill came to its final stages, a provision would have to be made for an appropriation of a comparatively few thousand dollars, sufficient to enable the Secretary to make his first estimate and present his first projects under this bill. Under this act, while Congress will not initiate projects, Congress will have a complete veto on projects, as it now has a veto on projects under the reclamation law, so that the legislating committee of the House and the membership of the House will have complete control. Now, some folks have suggested that all this money might be used here, there, or yonder. I am not worried about that personally at all. I do not expect my section to be entirely overlooked, neither do I expect that it shall have more than a reasonable share, or that it ever will receive a dollar unless it has a thoroughly feasible project. I am not fearful that the secretary will spend all this money in the South, or in the Northwest, or in the East. I am confident that it will be distributed ; but in any event the Secretary must come to the Congress, unless we amend this bill, with his first projects, and tell us where he expects to undertake them and how much he anticipates they will cost. So that the Congress will have complete control, first, 'in the matter of the initial appropriation which will be, of course, properly phrased to enable him to make his first investigations, such as he has not already made, and present his first estimates. Congress will be in session, in my opinion, the larger part of the summer, and those things can be very promptly passed upon. The Secretary would be prepared to make his first estimate and the appropriation could be promptly made for carrying out that estimate. That would delay the matter "a little, but it need hot delay it long. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 605 Now, I have taken up the time of the committee probably longer than I should, and as we are nearing the hour of the convening of the House, I shall not take the time of the committee further, unless gen- tlemen desire to ask me some questions. Mr. BEN HAM. If the time permit, there are several questions that I vould like to have discussed by you further. Mr. NICHOLS. And I would like to ask some questions after Mr. Benham is through. Mr. BENHAM. There have been several references made in this com- mittee, both by witnesses and members of the committee, in regard to the corrupt propaganda that has been conducted in rural news- papers and elsewhere with regard to the opposition to this bill. Now, having my eyes and ears open, I have frequently wanted to ask, in the first place, whether there is any crime committed if people who are opposed to this bill talk and write against it ; and, in the second place, I would like to have some one who knows to dis- cuss fully, for my personal information, the question of how much this hearing in favor' of the bill is costing the United States Treasury. Mr. MONDELL. I do not know whether that question should be directed to me, because I have not discussed propaganda here or elsewhere at any time, and I do not happen to be informed about the propaganda. Certain matters have come to my attention to which I have referred. The chairman of the committee can prob- ably inform the gentleman as to how much it costs to consider ques- tions before the committee, but I presume that the committee has never considered the length of its hearings from the standpoint of how much it might cost gentlemen to walk over here. Mr. BENHAM. You are not directing your attention to the point that I have in mind. Mr. MONDELI/. I have said nothing about propaganda. Mr. BENHAM. It may not cost anything to have those witnesses here who are testifying against the proposition, but my good friend, formerly of Indiana, but now of California, has crossed the conti- nent one or more times, and I do not know whether that is purely philanthropy on the part of my good friend from Indiana or whether, being a part of the Reclamation Service, he is being paid out of the Treasury. Mr. MONDELL. The gentleman has reference to Mr. Elwood Mead. I asked Mr. Mead to come here, and he came at my request. I have known him for years, and at my request he crossed the continent to discuss these matters with various people Mr. BENHAM (interposing). What I am trying to get at is at whose expense did he come? Mr. MONDELL. Whether he came at his own expense or in connec- tion with other work that he is engaged in I do not know. He is recognized as a splendid example of the man who knows about these things. However, I take it that if the committee should go into the matter of propaganda they would find that there has been very much more carried on in opposition to the bill than in favor of it. Of course, we must not forget this, that Congress, after due deliberation, appropriated $100,000 for the purpose of examining projects with this very sort of plan in view; so that Congress itself 606 HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. did start the work by making an appropriation for the purpose of examining projects. Mr. GANDY. Was there not really an appropriation of $200,000 ? Mr. MONDELL. The $100,000 that I referred to was directly and specifically made for this class of work. There was $100,000 appro- priated for examinations which would also tend to furnish informa- tion with regard to this class of work. Mr. BENHAM. I would like to ask Mr. Mondell another question: When did you prepare this bill, or about what date ? Mr. MONDELL. I think I began work on it about the beginning of the recess, or soon after the 4th of March. I think I finally presented my draft of the bill to some gentlemen in the Interior Department about a week before Congress convened. Mr. BENHAM. You suggested that some mistakes were made in con- nection with projects. Since you say you have read the hearings, I assume that you have read the testimony of the gentlemen repre- senting the reclamation work, and I wanted to ask you whether mis- takes, or governmental mistakes, have not been made in connection with matters of reclamation? Mr. MONDELL. Yes ; there is no doubt about that, and I think I said that. Mr. BENHAM. Do you understand that your statement, or that your admission is, or is not, in harmony with what has been stated in the hearings by gentlemen representing the Interior Department ? Mr. MONDELL. I do not think that anybody connected with the department has ever denied that mistakes have been made. For in- stance, they selected one project after a most careful examination and constructed a reservoir, but it developed after the water was turned in that the geological formation was such, or the rock formation was such, that the reservoir would not hold water. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Davis said that about 95 per cent of the money put into the projects by the Government would be returned, and that only about 5 per cent was in doubt. Mr. MONDELL. I do not anticipate that any enterprise of this sort could go through to a conclusion without some mistakes being made. Anyone who has had any experience in business affairs knows that some mistakes are inevitable, and I should anticipate that eventu- ally there might be some loss in an enterprise of this sort. The rec- lamation enterprise was undertaken at a time when we had very little information with regard to that sort of thing, and at a time when Congress did not have control, but, notwithstanding that, the mistakes have been comparatively few, and the project will, in the main, pay out. Mr. BENHAM. You have given a few examples of enterprises of this sort, and have referred to Denmark. Do you want to go on record as speaking of the Denmark colonization scheme or the Denmark reclamation scheme as being a good example of colonization or a good example of reclamation? Mr. MONDELL. Well, both. Of course, if you reclaim an area that has not been in a high state of cultivation, you necessarily colonize it. Mr. BENHAM. I see that. Is that what this bill proposes to do? Mr. MONDELL. Exactly; it is for reclamation and colonization. I think that is one of its great virtues. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 607 Mr. SEN HAM. Then, you are entirely in harmony with what has been done in years past in Denmark ? Mr. MONDELL. No two countries present exactly the same con- ditions. Mr. BEXHAM. There are some others who want to ask you ques- tions, but I have in mind one more that I would like to ask: You spoke of this in several cases as a purely business proposition. Aside from the aid you furnish, and you concede that no necessity may exist in regard to employment, but taking it purely as a busi- ness proposition, would you improve the projects that we are talking about according to the method suggested in your bill as a purely business proposition? Mr. MONDELL. First, I do not admit anything in regard to em- ployment. I do not know what the conditions of employment may be, but I expressed the hope that they would not be as acute as we anticipate^ at one time. Therefore I was willing to assume, from that standpoint, that there might not be quite the urgency for some- thing of that sort that we thought there might be at one time. I think that is entirely a matter of opinion. But speaking about the development of these projects, the only way in which areas that are not now utilized in an intensive way can be utilized advantageously is through development on a plan of reclamation and colonization. I think no one will doubt that. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether the Government ought to undertake it, as to whether the State ought to undertake it, or as to whether individuals ought to undertake it. but given an area that needs certain work in order to make it available for intensive cultivation, you can only accomplish that in a large way and, in connection with reclamation, through the colonization of the area. Mr. BEXHAM. You do not answer my question, or, at least, as I think it ought to be or with the fullness with which I think it ought to be answered. Now, here is a given amount of work to be done as a purely business proposition, taking the matter simply as a dollars- and-cents proposition. Would you say let the Government do it or let individuals do it? Mr. MOXDELL. So far as all of those things are concerned, if con- ditions were such that private enterprise could fully and adequately occupy the field I would say allow them, by all manner of means, to do so. It was because private enterprise did not fully, adequately, and satisfactorily cover the field that we provided the farm-loan act, and it was because private enterprise under certain conditions could not adequately occupy the field that we embarked upon the reclamation projects. It is because of the condition confronting us, in which we think there may be need of furnishing additional op- portunities for employment and because we know there will not be sufficient opportunity to meet the demand of those who are seeking homes and who do not have money or credit with which to make the first payment, that we feel that the Federal Government should embark upon this enterprise. But I am sure that all of us hope that these projects will be so successful that private enterprise later on, as well as the States and municipalities, will take up the work, and that we shall prove in this work, as we have proved in the work of reclamation, that the Federal Government is simply blazing the 13331919 39 608 HOMES FOR SOLDIE'RS. trail, pointing the way, illuminating the principle, and encouraging other agencies to take up the work. Mr. BEN HAM. I would like to ask one more question as a matter for my own personal information. I do not know the rules under which the committees work generally, and I wanted to ask this question to illuminate that point : Did you request to come before this committee because you had additional information to give the committee, or were you requested to come before the committee to combat the argu- ments that had been produced by gentlemen representing the other side? Mr. TAYLOR. That, it seems to me, is not a proper question. Mr. MONDELL. I am perfectly willing to answer that. Mr. SMITH. It is an impertinent question. Mr. ELSTON. I think it imputes a motive Mr. MONDELL (interposing). I desire to answer that question. I occupy a position of some responsibility in the House, thanks to my colleagues. I have had some experience in development work in one way or another, and particularly in connection with legislation hav- ing to do with development work. I have studied this question con- siderably, not only recently but in times past. I have been fortu- nate in having some very good friends who are interested in this class of work through public agencies and who have talked to me about their work at one time and another. I introduced this bill because the matter had been taken up in the last Congress, and gentle- men on both sides felt that it should be pursued by this Congress. It is usual for a Member of the majority to introduce a bill which ' is regarded as being of such importance as this bill is, and it was suggested to me by various gentlemen that it might be well for me to interest myself in the matter. That I proceeded to do, not in my capacity as floor leader but as an individual Member of the House of Representatives. I want it thoroughly understood that I do not want to bind anybody or persuade anybody against his judgment in regard to the matter. So much for the drafting and introduction of the bill. I appeared before the committee and took up its time to a considerable extent, and I am under great obligations to the committee for its patience. I have kept somewhat in touch with your hearings, although I do not know all that has been going on here, and I expressed a desire to appear before the committee again before the matter was closed. Mr. BENHAM. As a matter of personal information, I wanted to know if there was any natural stopping place for the hearings. I would infer from Mr. Mondell's statement to-day that other persons would have the right to be heard a second time, and I simply wanted to know as a matter of personal information as to what is customary in committee hearings. What I am trying to get at is this : Mr. Mon- dell's statement to-day might be regarded as a statement in rebuttal, and I wanted to find out whether it was customary to have argu- ments and then rebuttals. The CHAIRMAN. It is a very natural process and the logical thing to do. Mr. TAYLOR. Let me suggest one or two things : Because of tho fact that I have been interested in this matter and had charge of it in the last Congress, I have been consulting with Mr. Mondell several HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 609> times whenever he had the leisure, and I have personally urged him to assist us in every way he could. As a matter of fact, he was for- merly the chairman of this committee, and was the chairman for a number of years when I was a member of it, and we of the West have the most implicit confidence in him. I might say, paren- thetically, that we are all mighty glad that he is the leader of the House of Representatives at the present time. That is the way we feel in our country. I feel that it is not only proper, but that we- should extend that courtesy to a former member of the committee, and especially a former chairman of the committee, to have him appear whenever he wants to come before us. Nobody has ever in- timated that there was anything improper in that. Mr. NICHOLS. I want to say that personally I have the highest regard for Mr. Mondell, and I think that it is perfectly natural that he should come before the committee and give us as many explana- tions as he can or as we may require to assist us in our deliberations. He is the author of the particular bill under consideration. Notwith- standing my regard for Mr. Mondell, I think he is fallible and that he is wrong in that measure. You say that this is a reclamation project ? Mr. MONDELL. I said it had been criticized on th ground that it was a reclamation project. It had never occurred to me that there was anything particularly bad or indefensible about projects of reclamation. The winning of America from Plymouth Rock to the Golden Gate has been one continuous project of reclamation. It has never been anything else. So I did not think the fact that it meant the development and declamation of acres that are not now- utilized in an intensive way of itself discredited the proposition. As a matter of fact, I think that is one of its very great virtues, that it proposes to make many useful blades of many useful things grow where few grow now. Mr. NICHOLS. Was this measure you have prepared and offered in this committee conceived as a reclamation project or conceived as an. aid to the soldiers who had participated in the recent war? Mr. MONDELL. Well, I do not know that I quite understand the- gentleman's question. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, you said before in making your general state- ment that this is a reclamation project. Mr. MONDELL. I did not say that exactly, although I am willing to say it. I said that it had been assailed on the ground that it re- claimed land. If it did not reclaim land, if it did not add to the highly productive acreage of America, it would not be worth while in the interest of the soldier, because it would not help the soldier in the most practical way and would not help the soldier's country. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Mondell, will you answer this question : Was it conceived as a reclamation proposition for the purpose of reclaiming the land of the country and taking advantage of the unemployed sol- dier, or was it conceived as an aid to all the soldiers who might need! it after they returned from the war. Mr. MONDELL. Now, if I have time to begin back to where my first, interest came in this matter Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). No 610 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MONDELL (continuing). well, I must, because the gentle- man wants my view. I can not speak for other gentlemen. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Mondell, the reason I ask the question Mr. MONDELL (interposing). One minute, please. Mr. NICHOLS (continuing). is because the title of the bill says to provide employment and rural homes for soldiers. Mr. MONDELL. Yes; through reclamation. Mr. NICHOLS. Only through reclamation? Mr. MONDELL. Yes ; of one sort or another. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. One moment. Mr. MONDELL (continuing). so far as the bill is concerned. In other words, under this bill you could not provide homes unless you had lands, and unless you put them in condition whereby the soldier could use them. The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment. Mr. Mondell, a great many ap- pearing before this committee have used the term " reclamation " in a somewhat odius sense, odius to them as meaning solely the irriga- tion of arid lands and the draining of swamp lands. Mr. MONDELL. I did not assume that the gentleman had irrigation and reclamation confused. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know why, because a person asks a question, you gentlemen who seem particularly in- terested in this matter from the far western standpoint should take offense. I had intended none. I am asking my questions sincerely, and I am not using the w r ord " reclamation " in an odius sense. I believe in reclamation, and the questions I am asking are not for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. My remark was not toward you at all. Mr. NICHOLS. I had no such intention. The CHAIRMAN. I had no reference to you. Mr. MONDELL. The gentleman's question seems to imply, and is this simply a scheme of some gentlemen in the name of the soldier to do something that ought not to be done? That is practically what his question amounts to. Mr. NICHOLS. I do not mean that. Mr. Mondell, I am not going to allow you to read into my questions a meaning of your own. I know what I intended by the question. If you do not understand it, I will try to make it plain, and if I can not, you not have to answer it. I want to know whether the purpose is to help a great majority of the rsoldiers or only a few of the soldiers. I will ask you a further -question. Mr. MONDELL. Will you let me answer the question? It will only Tielp directly comparatively few of them. There is not any doubt about that. Mr. NICHOLS. Suppose that under this scheme of yours, Mr. Mon- -dell, 3,000,000 soldiers desired to take advantage of the opportunity that was offered them under this bill, what would happen? Mr. MONDELL. Of course, in considering legislation I do not ordi- narily consider a proposition which I know to be utterly impossible. I know, and we all know, that 3,000,000 soldiers are not going to seek this kind of an opportunity. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 611 Mr. NICHOLS. Would it not cost just as much as you stated a moment ago in your original statement as much as the war has already cost, to take care of three-fourths of the soldiers under this proposition ? Mr. MOXDELL. If three-fourths of the soldiers wanted to enter upon this sort of a proposition, it would cost a great deal of money, but no three- fourths of them or one-fourth of them will enter upon any enterprise that the Federal Government may launch in their behalf unless it be a pure gift, and no one, anywhere I want to emphasize that who has carefulty considered the situation feels there is any obligation on the part of the Federal Government to do something especially out of the ordinary for the bulk of the soldiers, or that the bulk of the soldiers are expecting the Government to do anything extraordinary for them or anything out of the ordinary. In any situation that develops in a country like ours where a large number of men have to be considered, unless you are thinking about simply making a gift, which is unjustified and unjustifiable, whatever you do can only affect a limited number directly, but it affects the whole body of them by relieving the pressure all along the line. Air. XICHOLS. It helps everybody in that way soldiers and every- body else. Mr. MONDELL. It does, because if we only help 5 per cent of these soldiers to employment, or if you only help 5 per cent of them to secure homes, in helping them you would relieve the pressure all along the line, industrially and agriculturally, and you would relieve it to an extent that would be of very great value. Of course, my friend must remember this : It is very easy to criticize a particular proposi- tion. It is often not so easy to suggest something in the place of it. Now, there are two things that this committee must determine; the first one is, should anything be done within the jurisdiction of this committee which will be useful and helpful to such soldiers as care to take advantage of the opportunities offered? That is the first question. If the committee determines that the situation does not demand any aid or any assistance or any effort on the part of the Federal Government within the lines of its jurisdiction, then it should not do anything and should drop the matter entirely. If. on the other hand, the committee determine that something should be done, it must consider this or some other definite and concrete thing within its jurisdiction. Xo\v. there may be people who think that, while we are not an in- dustrial country, we ought to go into the matter of industrial hous- ing. We have had a rather sorry experience of that very recently, but there are people who may think we ought to do that. That ques- tion does not come before this committee. It is not a matter for consideration by this committee. There are folks who may think that we ought to give a bonus to all the soldiers a very few, I hope. That is not within the jurisdiction of this committee. There may be people who think we ought to make loans to soldiers as a preferred class, enabling them to go out here and there to buv farms. That is not a matter that comes before this committee. That belongs to the com- mittee that has to do with the banking and currency and with the farm-loan act, and while it might be possible for this committee to 612 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. torture this bill and I use that term advisedly, because it would be a torturing of it outside of its jurisdiction to make a provision on it with regard to loans purely for the purchase of isolated or segregated tracts, the committee would hardly be justified in doing that, even though it might think there was some good reason for it being done by the committee which has jurisdiction over it. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Mondell Mr. MONDELL (interposing). Mr. Nichols, let me go just a little further. If we are to afford these opportunities in settlements, which we think is the only way of affording the opportunities, it neces- sarily means that you are to take areas that are not now utilized to the extent that they could be or should be utilized. There are areas in the country that are exceedingly fertile, that are subject to occa- sional or annual overflows. We are helping in protecting those lands under the levee act and under the flood-control act. Under this bill a project of that kind could be undertaken that would make useful and highly productive an area which for the present is only utilized, if at all. in an indifferent way for pasturage during a part of the season. There are, I am told, various areas of considerable size in Massachusetts where lands have been abandoned where, with the expenditure of a reasonable amount of money in restoring those lands, they could be made attractive and useful and furnish farm homes on which men could make a very good living. I am told, and I am quite sure, there are cut-over areas and partly swamped as well as cut-over lands in Minnesota and in Michigan which by the removal of the stumps and roots, and with some drainage and possibly with some fertilization could be made very productive and the home of a prosperous community. There are, I think, areas of that sort in practically every State in the Union, with the possible exception of a State like Illinois, which is a wonderfully blessed Commonwealth with very little swamp and no cut-over land, and in the main subject to cultivation as it stands. I do not know that Iowa w r ould furnish an area of this kind. I am sure that Indiana could, and I am very confident that most of the other States of the Union would furnish such areas. They would furnish employment, in the first place, to those who seek that kind of employment, and by so doing they would relieve the pressure everywhere. It is not necessary to furnish employment under ordi- nary conditions, or even under extraordinary conditions, to all the population of the country in order to relieve conditions of unemploy- ment, because even under the most trying conditions the percentage of men unemployed is always comparatively small, and it is the unemployed man 'and not the employed man you need to put to work. So you would employ men, and in employing them relieve the pres- sure all along the line on the man in industry against the pressure to lower his wages and also on the man on the farm. Then, in addition to that, you put the soldier to work where he has the incen- tive to save, free from the temptations of the city, where it is difficult to save, with all of the encouragement that men have when they see a coveted goal directly before them, and particularly the incentive that comes to men who work together in communities with a com- mon purpose. We have seen that ever since men first landed here, and it has gone on clear through to the Pacific coast. Men have HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 613 developed and men have cut the forests and drained the swamps and leveled the rough land in communities. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Mondell, I would like to ask you a couple more questions. You say the Government is not called upon to help the great majority of the soldiers, or at least I so understood you. Mr. MONDELL. I do not think there is any condition in the country that demands that the Government as a government shall furnish employment or furnish opportunities for the great majority of American citizens. If there were such a condition, we would be in a bad way, and we could not legislate here in this committee to help it. The returning soldier is a part of our general citizenship. Four out of five of the soldiers return to the body of our citizenship with all the marvelous opportunities of America before them, expecting nothing except that they shall be protected in their rights, in their lives and liberty, and in the pursuit of happiness. Mr. NICHOLS. But you believe the Government is called upon to help the soldier who wants to go on a farm? Mr. MONDELL. I think the Government is called upon, first, to a certain extent at least, to make and afford opportunities of employ- ment. I voted for an increase of the roadbuilding fund, as I have no doubt the gentleman from Michigan did, on that theory, and on that theory alone, nearly as much in one year, or much more in one year, than we are expecting to expend in a year under these projects. That appropriation was made on the theory that we needed to furnish employment. Mr. XICHOLS. In this measure Mr. MONDELL (continuing). Just let me finish answering your question, if you will. So I do think that while the condition is not likely to be as acute as to unemployment as at one time we anticipated, still there is a probability of a condition of unemployment that will require this additional assistance on the part of the Federal Govern- ment. That much for a beginning. Then, in addition to that, I think, in view of the fact we no longer have the boundless free lands and cheap lands of the West available for these returning men, we should furnish such of them as desire opportunities other than those afforded to them the opportunities that we present under this bill. I do not think, as I said earlier in my discussion, that the man who is going into the industrial centers at the very good wages now prevailing feels that the Federal Government owes anything to him. He is taking advantage of good wages amid conditions that are most satisfactory, in the main, for he has all of the opportunities afforded him by organized society, has all the pleasures that come to a man who lives in the midst of churches and schools and picture shows and all those things that go to make life agreeable in an industrial center. Mr. XICIIOLS. Is any unusual opportunity offered in this bill to the soldier who desires to go on the farm ? Mr. MONDELL. An opportunity is offered to him. Mr. XICIIOLS. Unusual? Mr. MONDELL. I think that a soldier could go to work in a factory, and I have no doubt but that many of them will at the present high wages, having in mind the building of a home in the city or the purchase of a home in the country. Such a soldier' will save a large part of his wages and will arrive at the home-owning condition we 614 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. are trying to establish through this bill. But there are other sol- diers who will not do that, and we afford such soldiers an opportunity to work on a project and to become a part of it and secure the bene- fit of the preference that accrues by working on the project. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Mondell, you spoke antagonistically of the idea of a special privilege for all the soldiers. I want to ask you if you do not think it is the highest type of special privilege when you pro- pose to assist in an unusual way, as you say, only those soldiers who propose to go upon the land. Mr. MONDELL. The opportunity is open to every man under the Flag. Mr. NICHOLS. But you know they can not all take advantage of it. Mr. MONDELL. Any man can take advantage of it who wants to. Mr. NICHOLS. No; if 3,000,000 of them took advantage of it you say the Government could not do it. Mr. MONDELL. Well, but those who want to can take advantage of it. The majority of the men, the men in your city, working at high salaries in factories, they are doing better than they would do on one of these projects, from their point of view. They do not want to live in the country. They want to live near the bright lights. They want the high wages and the abundant opportunities of the city ; but if they wanted to go out and secure an opportunity to have a farm home the opportunity would be granted to them, and no- body is given anything under this act except an opportunity. Your argument, if I may suggest it, is the very same argument that was made against the nomestead law. Mr. Buchanan said, " Why give men farms out West free? You do not do anything for the man who remains at home, in his own neighborhood, who takes no chance, who lives where he is comfortable, who does not want to subject him- self to any unusual hardship or make any unusual effort. You do not do anything for him," said Mr. Buchanan, " and therefore you should not do anything for the man who is willing on account of his desire to secure a home to take advantage of an offered opportunity ;" but we thought differently and we passed the homestead law. That has been the argument that has been made ever since against oppor- tunities for men to secure homes on the farm ; that you ought to give a man an opportunity to enjoy all the blessings and all of the oppor- tunities of the surroundings that most please him, and then, at the same time, give him all of the advantages that may come to the man who is willing to make an unusual effort. Mr. NICHOLS. Of course, when you take us back to Mr. Buchanan, you are taking us back a long time, as you have done several times to-day, and you are taking us back to conditions that do not exist to-day. In refering to the city, Mr. Mondell, you spoke several times of the bright lights. Now, you do not believe that every sol- dier who returns from the war and decides that he will make his living in the city is lured only by the so-called bright lights that you refer to. Mr. MONDELL. There is a lure, and it is a lure that attracts all men. to remain in the comfort and security and certainty of settled and developed communities. There are the churches, the schools, the lyceums, the lecture courses, the opportunities for constant com- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 615 munications with your fellow men, the pleasures of enjoying all of the institutions of a prosperous and highly developed community. It is a lure. Mr. NICHOLS. And the industrial activity Mr. MONDELL (continuing). And the picture shows simply adds one more attraction, and we sometimes refer to it as illustrating the attraction, but the attractions are many. Mr. NICHOLS. And they are also attracted by the industrial ac- tivity and because it is more to their liking. Mr. MONDELL. Well, men prefer to make a sure and secure $4 or $5 or $6 or $7 a day in a factory than to take their chances on the grow- ing of a crop that may be cut by the chinch bug or destroyed by the drought. Mr. NICHOLS. I thank you for your elucidation of that remark of yours, because I thought it was rather sarcastic. Mr. MONDELL. It was not intended to be so. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Mondell, I gather from your statement and the opinions you have expressed I have only heard a small part of your testimony, I am very sorry to say that these industrial activities and high wages now being paid are such that the opportunities pre- sented by this measure if it becomes a law, will attract more from the country than from the cit}' ; is that the idea ? Mr. MONDELL. No; I do not think that necessarily follows. It is true, I think, perhaps, although I do not know. I never saw any statistics and I do not imagine that any are available, but I assume it may be true that more men who at one time or another have lived on a farm return to farms than those from the towns and cities. HoAvever, some of the best farmers I have known have been men who grew to maturity and even to middle age in a city or a town and who had no acquaintance with farming up to that time. Many men get tired of the largely artificial life of a city or a large community. So that as to a thing of this kind I do not know whether a majority of the people who would take advantage of it would be men who had lived on farms or men who had lived in the cities. If I were to venture a guess. I should say that there would be as many, if not more, men who are now in cities and large towns, and who would remain in large towns except for an opportunity like this, than there would be of men from the country, because I do not antici- pate that the ordinary country boy who is going to inherit his father's farm or some part of it is probably going to seek this opportunity. The opportunities in their own community appeal to a great many country boys. They have friends who know them so well that they can secure extraordinary opportunities in the matter of borrowing and starting with but little in their own locality. Some of these same men, particularly from your country and from the mid-W->t. generally would seek opportunities on the newer lands of the West and Middle West; so if I were to venture a guess, I should say that more men would be attracted by this opportunity who are now in cities and in large towns than men who are now on and about farms. Mr. WHITE. Now, I would like to ask you this question, making it as brief as I can : Instead of taking the instance suggested by yourself of a son of one of these farmers who might inherit his father's prop- 616 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. crty, let us take a case like this which might exist in 1 0.000 instances, where he will not inherit his father's farm on account of having- a large family or misfortune overtaking him for 100 different reasons, over which the man would have no control Mr. TAYLOR (interposing). Or the son of a tenant farmer? Mr. WHITE. Yes; or the son of a farm owner who might not inherit his father's farm on account of having a large family, or through sick- ness or through a number of reasons which I do not care to enumerate, and this soldier boy wants to take advantage of the very conditions you have delineated here so faithfully, but has not the capital, and who, possibly without any stretch of imagination, would have to go to the city or would, be inclined to go there, yet would much rather settle on 40 acres of land or 80 acres of land that are unused, as there are existing in thousands and tens of thousands of cases, the productivity of which land is well established, and in a locality where the boy is thoroughly familiar with the conditions and will have the counsel of his father and his friends, coming back with enlarged ideas, stimu- lated ambitions Mr. MAYS (interposing). And where his mother-in-law lives. Mr. WHITE. Yes; or where she will live when he marries the girl. From the standpoint of solvency, Mr. Mondell, would the Government be as safe in lending that boy the percentage that might be fixed by law and I will include another question if you will pardon me would his prospects of success be equal to those who moved to a project Avhich to him would be problematical and experimental. Mr. MONDELL. I will be as brief as I can and try to answer that question. I think the earlier part of my statement/before you cams in, covered in a way the thoughts that you have raised by your ques- tion and the conditions that you have suggested. The farmer boy who does not want to leave the home neighborhood is like the farmer boy who has stayed at home while all of his brothers have gone West in years past. If he is the right kind of a farmer boy and wants to buy a farm in that locality, there are abundant opportunities for him to get credit. He is known ; men are acquainted with his ability and his honesty and his stability of purpose and his industry, and there are a thousand hands held out to him in the way of aid and assist- ance of one sort and another in acquiring property in the community or near where he is known. Now, when the Federal Government or any government legislates with a view to assisting that man who is to carve out his own fortune, who will be under no supervision, who will have no advice from those interested, from the governmental standpoint, it has not been deemed safe to depart from the purely business view that has developed with regard to that kind of loans. We passed a farm-loan act, the purpose of which was to help that kind of a boy. It is possible that the farm-loan act is not sufficiently liberal or it might be made more liberal than it now is, safely, as applied to people generally. I do not know as to that. That is a matter that is beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, in any event. As I suggested, it is possible that the farm-loan act might be so amended as to afford loans to soldiers up to 100 per cent of the value of the property they purchase. In my opinion that would be unwise from my viewpoint. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 617 The CHAIRMAN. One moment ; I would like to state to the committee that I have just been informed that the previous question is being put on the wire-control bill. Mr. MONDELL. Just one word in conclusion. In my opinion you can not enter upon that sort of enterprise with any hope or expecta- tion of success. I do not think that in the great majority of cases you would either do the man a kindness or do an act which you could justify. You would find, as Australia did, that such attempts to aid were failures. As I suggested during the early part of my discussion there are many States in this Unicn that are strong and powerful and that have funds at their command. There is a splendid opportunity for all of the States to enter upon just that kind of enterprise and do just that tiling. I do not know why they should not do it, if they think it is safe. It has been suggested that the Federal Government might provide, through the farm loan act for a larger loan on property than now, in the case of soldiers, the State to furnish a certain per- centage of the money and the Government, which furnished the greater portion of the money, to have the superior lien. If under the farm loan act the States and the Government want to enter into that kind of an agreement, there may be some argument for it. I do not think it would be wise. I do not think it would work out. I do not think it would help the soldier in the long run, but that is not before this committee. Mr. WHITE. That is very interesting, Mr. Mondell, and I am pleased to have this a matter of record, and I am glad you have elucidated your ideas on that subject. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the statement that there has been a whole lot of concern expressed here for the man who wants to live in his own neighborhood. I have listened pa- tiently to those expressions, and I have come to the conclusion that the concern is not so much for the soldier as it is for the community where he lives at the present time. I actually believe that these projects when they are started- will appeal to the venturesome spirit of these men and they will want to leave, the big majority of them, and will take up a project of this kind. I think that would be true in my case. The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Mondell, for your statement. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman, I beg your pardon for having taken up so much of your time, and I am under very great obligation to the committee. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, is it understood that the hearings will absolutely be closed on Saturday? The CHAIRMAN. It was moved and carried at the meeting yester- day that we would meet to-day and adjourn until Saturday, and it was understood that after hearing the delegation from New York on Saturday the hearings would be closed. (The committee thereupon adjourned until Saturday, January 21, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 618 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, June 21, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have met this morning in pursuance to a request from Mr. Titus, of New York, asking that a delegation from New York be heard this morning, and, in accordance with the order made the other day, we will hear these gentlemen and close the hearings to-day. Mr. Titus, who is here to give testimony on behalf of your delegation ? Mr. TITUS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have with us Mr. John D. Miller, of Susquehanna. Pa. ; Mr. Charles D. Porter, of Orleans County, N. Y. ; and Mr. F. A. Saulsbury. of On- tario County, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish each of them to be heard, or will some one speak for the entire delegation ? Mr. TITUS. I think that each one of these gentlemen would like to say a few words. The CHAIRMAN. Then we will be glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF MR. ELWOOD V. TITUS, PRESIDENT OF THE NASSAU COUNTY (N. Y.) FARM BUREAU ASSOCIATION. Mr. TITUS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Public Lands Com- mittee, I represent the New York State Federation of Farm Bureaus, composed of upward of 60,000 members, who are real farmers of the State, and individually I represent the Nassau County Farm Bureau Association and the Suffolk County Farm Bureau Association. Suf- folk County, as you gentlemen know, is on the eastern end of Long Island. We appear here in opposition to the Mondell bill, calling for the expenditure of several millions of dollars in the reclamation of swamp and arid lands to provide homes for the soldiers. But at the outset I want to explain to you my attitude in this matter. My desire is to do everything possible for the soldiers, and, in fact, I yield to no one in my desire to do everything possible to aid those heroic and patriotic young men of this county, many of whom sacrificed their lives, and others of whom risked their lives in order that you and I might live, and that this Government of the people, for the people, and by the people should not perish from the earth. I want you to understand that. I am here, perhaps, with an open mind, but on gen- eral principles we are opposed to the expenditure of this vast sum of money, especially at this time, when, as you know, we are burdened with a tremendous war debt. Another thing I wish to say to you is this: How many of those soldiers do you suppose want to go bark on the farm ? From a copy of the hearings that your illustrious chair- man sent me, I note that some 52,000 replied that they did. Is that right, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. That was the number at that time. Mr. TITUS. They said they wanted to go back on the farms. Now, what does that mean? Personally I am~ opposed, and I believe that you gentleman are, to undertaking to put upon the farms any man HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 619 who has not had some farm training or some agricultural experience. Most of you gentlemen, I take it, know what it means to go on a farm and milk the cows and do all that sort of work for 365 days in the year. Sundays and all. I tell you that there are very few men in this country to-day that are willing to put up with that, notwithstanding the fact that we have modern milking machines and all those other modern appliances. There is another thing: Is it not a fact that in the Middle West to-day farmers are clamoring for help to aid them in harvesting the bumper crop of wheat and other cereals, and is it not a fact that they can not get the help? They are offering, as I understand it, from fifty to one hundred dollars per month and board, and yet if you will go into these big cities you will find that there are thousands of men walking around, big husky fellows in uniform, just returned from across the seas, who will not go out upon the farms. That is the condition that prevails in my own home town to-day. Our farmers are seeking help, and in our home village there are great husky men walking around with the uniform on. with the idea, judg- ing from their expressions, that the world owes them a living without work. Now. no one would object to such a plan, and I say that I favor this country or this Government offering every inducement pos- sible to aid in the location of the soldiers upon farms, if they want to go there and know something about it. How T many of these men will make failures? They are simply replying to questions that are put to them. The answer, " Yes ; I would like to farm," carries but little weight with me. How many men start out and make a living on farms who have not had any agricultural training? You know that from XeAv York City many millionaires have gone out on Long Island to engage in the poultry business and in the dairy business. Of course. 99 per cent of them make failures. I know of many men who have gone into that locality and who have spent thousands of dollars upon poultry plants, hoping to have a few hens and collect a few hundred eggs every day and sell them for $1 per dozen, or something like that. Now, these are the reasons why we oppose this bill : We believe that it is unbusinesslike ; we believe that it is impracticable, and we do not believe that any private individual would finance any such scheme as this, because of the fact that the re- sults from it would be so problematical. Therefore we believe that it is unbusinesslike and impracticable for the United States Govern- ment to take up a scheme like this and spend vast sums of money upon it. especially at this time. We further claim that if there is any desire for lands on the part of soldiers, there are sufficient lands for them without spending so much money for their reclamation. Is it not a fact that in New York State and in Xow England there are hundreds, and I guess thousands of abandoned farms that can be bought to-day for 25 per cent less than the original dwelling houses on those places cost. The CHAIRMAN. In Xew York State? Mr. TITUS. In Xew York State. I think, and in New England as well. The, Department of Agriculture, I think, has put out a docu- ment W 7 ith a statement as to the farms for sale in Xew York State. The CHAIRMAN. Is this [indicating] the document? Mr. TITUS. I have a copy of it at home. Yes ; that is one. What is the date of that? 620 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. December, 1915. Mr. TITUS. I think that is about the date of it. The CHAIRMAN. This list shows that there is a great deal of idle land in the State of New York. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Now, take the Middle West and the South- west, and the Yazoo Valley in Mississippi. Is it not a fact that that is the most fertile land in this country, possibly with the exception of the Imperial Valley in California ? My contention is that there is no- necessity for this bill, involving this unusual expenditure of money. That is all I have to say. Mr. WHITE. Referring to the lands you, spoke about in the State of New York, could they, with moderate expense, be made profitable for agriculture? Mr. TITUS. I believe that they could. If you will permit me to say further, as I understand it, the provisions of this bill call for certain centralized settlements or communities. It calls for a community plan, does it not? Now, I question the wisdom of this Government going into settlement work. Mr. WHITE. You answered my question very satisfactorily, and I would like to ask one more, if you will pardon me : Why do you think that lands which are under cultivation and which are so very valuable now, and upon which the profits are said to be quite satisfactory, are not in demand? Why does there seem to be no demand for those lands? Mr. TITUS. Why is it? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. TITUS. I admit that some of those farms are somewhat iso- lated. They are over a mile away from public schools, social activi- ties, and all that ; but in all my experience I never saw a good farm lying in a city. I never saw a farm in a city that was good for anything, and I always thought that farms belonged in the country. The CHAIRMAN. There is a good deal of idle land in your own county ? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir ; some. The CHAIRMAN. On the plains there, or on what are called the plains ? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There are idle farm lands all through the State of New York? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Especially on what is called the Volusia soil. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. They have been run down on account of poor farming and neglect? Mr. TITUS. Very largely. The CHAIRMAN. That is what this bulletin issued by your State agricultural department states, and I get that also from the United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. TITUS. Permit me to say further that I have had information from a very authoritative source that within two hours ride of the city of New York there are over 4,000,000 acres of tillable land available, and that one and a third million of those acres are ready for the plow to-day. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 621 The CHAIRMAN. What could those lands be purchased for? Mr. TITUS. I have no idea. For instance, you take lands on Long Island that are not so expensive I might say in the vicinity of Hicksville have you been in that vicinity ? The CHAIRMAN. I have been in the vicinity of the city of Mineola. Mr. TITUS. This is three or four miles from Mineola. There was a farm there on which a man planted 205 acres of potatoes, and after the potatoes were up he sold 20 acres of that land for $15,000. Of course lands are high, but that is ideal potato soil. Now, along this line, why is there a demand for so much additional land to-day to put soldiers on in view of the bumper crops of cereals that are in sight for the year 1919? Here is a little paper that the Depart- ment of Agriculture sends me weekly, which states that there are about 1,200,000 more brood sows in the United States than ever before, and that the farmers have in prospect a wheat crop of 1,260,000,000 bushels in sight now. Is that right? Mr. WHITE. The estimate is about 1,000,000,000 bushels. I want to ask you another question: You do not believe that your farmers fear any competition that might result from putting this legislation into operation, do you? Mr. TITUS. Personally, I have no fear of it, because I believe that it will be largely a failure on the part of many of them. As I was saying, looking at the large crops in prospect, that exemplifies my contention that there is sufficient fertile land in this country to-day to provide for our 100,000,000 inhabitants and leave enough for export. Mr. WHITE. Let me ask you another question: When did this decadent condition that you spoke of, when the lands began to go down, commence? Did it begin after the Civil War, as a result of competition with the West ? Mr. TITUS. I would not like to be quoted as an authority on that matter, but my understanding is that it began along in the seventies. Is that right, Mr. Porter? Mr. PORTER. I think so. Mr. SAULSBURY. It began in the seventies. The CHAIRMAN. You have in the State of New York about 215,000 farms, averaging about 102 acres each. Mr. TITUS. It is about that. The CHAIRMAN. What is the average price of those farms? Is the average about $5,000 ? Mr. TITUS. I can not say what the average would be for the whole State. The CHAIRMAN. If your State got its proportion of the proposed appropriation, it would be about $10,000,000? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That would buy about 2,000 farms in your State? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that would be a little less than 1 per c?nt of them? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You do not feel that that would bring on any undue or severe competition, do you ? Mr. TITUS. Personally I do not think so. 622 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke about the fact that you are opposed to the draining of swamp lands in the South and the irrigation of arid lands. Now, this bill is broader than that. This bill is not confined to swamp lands of the South nor arid lands of the West, but it is proposed to construct a project in each State, wherever there is one feasible ; and, according to your testimony and the testimony of the bulletin put out by your Department of Agriculture, there is a great deal of land in the State of Xew York that might be utilized for the purpose. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And the very cheapest land in the United States that might be secured is in the State of Xew York. This bulletin that you have referred to. and that was issued by the department of agriculture of the State of Xew York, says this: " The State needs more and better farmers, and it is to that class that this department particularly appeals, and to which the State will give a warm welcome. That is true, is it not? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. I know that there are efforts being made by organizations in the counties to induce farmers to locate in the several counties. The CHAIRMAN. Then this bulletin states further In order to supply the demand for farm produce, every acre of land in this State capable of producing a profitable crop should be under cultivation, ami undoubtedly will be within a few years. Mr. FERRIS. What are you reading from, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. I am reading from Bulletin Xo. 78 of the depart- ment of agriculture of the State of Xew York. It contains a list of farms for rent and sale in the State of Xew York. It seems to me that your State would be a pretty good State in which to take up some 'of these lands and to inaugurate on them one of these projects. Now, the former Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, after a tour of several days through portions of the State of New York, made this statement : The cheapest farm lands in the United States to-day, with nearness to good markets, the price of land, and ;ill other farm conditions considered, are east of the Alleghenies, and the low-priced farm lands of New York State are the best investments in America. Do you agree with that? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. This bulletin goes on to say on page 436 : The truth of Secretary Wilson's words is becoming more and more appre- ciated by the people of the whole country, as shown l>y their requests for infor- mation and their purchases of New York farms. The CHAIRMAN. You agree with that? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter from Mr. E. R. Lupton, presi- dent of the Suffolk County Farm and Home Bureau Association, which I would like to submit. Mr. Lupton was unable to be present. Shall I read it? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 623 The CHAIRMAN. You may read it. RIVERHEAD, N. Y., June 19, 1919. Mr. E. V. TITUS, Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C. MY DEAK MH. TITUS: As I am unable to attend the hearing at Washington on the Lane plan for land reclamation for our soldiers, I am sending you the fol- lowing statement giving reasons why the directors of the Suffolk County Farm and Home Bureau Association and a large majority of its 1,100 members and many of the other farmers of this vicinity are opposed to the plan as described in the newspapers : " 1. The development of new land, as cut-over swamp and arid land, is a slow and arduous process with a long period of waiting and discouragement before the land can become productive and profitable. " 2. There is a large element of uncertainty as to the proper methods of handling new laud to render it productive, which the settler must meet without the guidance of an established practice to be observed upon the farms of suc- cessful neighbors. " 3. The problems of the agriculture suited to irrigated farms and drained swamps are highly complex, require large capital and are at variance with farming experience, which may have been acquired on general farms through- out the United States and are therefore unsuited to beginners in farming. " 4. The present time is unsuitable for undertaking such reclamation projects, because it is the time of highest cost for labor and materials for the work and because the need for food production is immediate and greater than it is likely to be when these farms begin to produce. The settler will incur maximum cost of development and begin to produce on a declining price scale. " 5. There is an abundance of good agricultural land in the East and South which may be obtained at low cost in terms of its productive capacity and may be quickly made productive by following agricultural practice well established and demonstrated on successful farms near by. The soldiers might be located on these farms at lower cost and with greater prospect of success." The farmers of Suffolk County therefore believe that the expenditure of a smaller amount of money in assisting our soldiers to establish themselves on these so-called abandoned farms of the East and South abandoned only be- cause their owners have failed to adapt them to present-day conditions will do more toward making successful and prosperous farmers than a much greater expenditure on extavagant reclamation schemes. Yours, very truly, E. R. LUPTON, President. The CHAIRMAX. Mr. Titus, in Bulletin No. 60 of the United States Department of Agriculture I note this statement \vith reference to these Volusia soils in the State of New York, which stretch nearly across the State : In the region occupied by the silt loam many farm homes are abandoned ; the farm buildings are fast going to ruin ; once productive fields are abandoned, so far as profitable agriculture is concerned. These fields are growing up to weeds, and, in a few cases, to a second growth of timber, worthless except for firewood. Many of these fields are not even being utilized for pasturage, and the present tenantry make only a poor living. Then, on page 12, reference is made to the increase in population in that section as being something like 37 per cent. On page 22 they say that These soils constitute some of the cheapest farm land now on the market in the United States and their selling price in the majority of cases is below their actual agricultural value. This bulletin goes on to say that those lands are not worn-out soils in any proper sense of the word, but that, so far as the mineral mat- ter of the soil is concerned, they are abundantly supplied with the 13331919 40 624 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. plant- food elements for the production of good crops. It says fur- ther that the proper management and tillage of the soils requile tile drainage over considerable areas, etc. This bulletin shows how those soils may be restored to their original fertility. Do you agree with all of that? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir ; and that is what is claiming the attention of many of our scientists to-day, as you all know. They are trying to restore the fertility of worn-out soils. May I ask you if it is not a fact that out in the Dakotas and in some of the other States out in that region there are thousands of acres of valuable land that has been abandoned by farmers who have gone to Canada? The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of any such in the Dakotas. Mr. Trrus. I have been told that. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that the paramount duty of this committee is to recommend a continuance of the agitation for more intensive agriculture rather than extensive agriculture. You know as well as I do that in foreign countries England, Belgium, Hol- land, France, and Denmark the yields of cereals and potatoes are just about double what they are in this country. On potato soils in England they have grown potatoes since the occupation by the Romans. Now, why is that? Mr. JOHNSON. I understand it to be the purpose of the committee here to work out some feasible plan for aiding soldiers. Can you not give the committee the benefit of your opinion or the informa- tion you have on this subject, so as to aid us in working out a feasible plan for aiding the returning soldiers? Mr. TITUS. I would favor any effort on the part of this committee to place any soldier upon a farm who wants to go upon a farm. I believe, as I have said, and as has been indicated by the questions of your chairman, these abandoned farms could be utilized, and I would favor the expenditure of a small amount of money Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). How much? Mr. TITUS. I do not know. Mr. JOHNSON. About how much for each soldier? Mr. TITUS. Well, now, that is something that I have not given any thought to, and you must excuse me from answering that. In a general way, however, I favor it. Now, there is another thing to be considered. Why are not these soldiers encouraged and assisted in going into some other kind of business as well as farming? Mr. JOHNSON. We would like to have your ideas on that. We want your help. Mr. TITUS. I am somewhat at sea on this matter, and the most that I came for was to oppose this vast expenditure of money at this time, with the burden that we are under. With the tremendous debt that we have, I would oppose entering upon an impracticable and unbusinesslike scheme that no private companies would finance. Mr. SUMMERS. In regard to your statement that potatoes had been grown on certain soils in England since the time of the Roman occupation, are you not taking that back too far? Is not the potato indigenous to America ? Were not potatoes introduced into Eng- land after the discovery of America? Mr. TITUS. I think the potato originally came from Brazil, from the top of the Andes Mountains. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 625 Mr. SUMMERS. Well, that is in America. You must make a little allowance, then, of about 2,000 years in your reference to the pro- duction of potatoes in England from the time of the Roman occu- pation. Mr. TITUS. Perhaps I am mistaken there. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask this question: I have been won- derfully impressed with your statement, Mr. Titus, as to the avail- ability of this New York land for farming purposes, and the letter which you have read into the record strongly alludes to the propo- sition of segregating these settlements. Having that in mind, I would like to present this concrete question : You seem to think, and I am frank to say, although it is not necessary for me to say, that I agree with you, that a man who starts out on a farm with the adequate experience that comes from a lifetime of training is the man who is most likely to succeed on the farm, and that where the soldier has had a farm training and experience he presents to the Government a more solvent proposition than one who has not had that training? Mr. TITUS. That is true. Mr. WHITE. If one of those young men in the Army who, we will say, is the son of a farmer and who has had experience on a farm all his life, comes back here and wants a farm, but has not capital to procure one, do you not think it would be a safe thing for the Government to lend him the necessary capital, or do you not think it would be a safe thing from the standpoint of solvency? Mr. TITUS. I would want to put that young man on the witness stand and question him. Mr. WHITE. We will say that he has the qualities that make for success. If such men were located on those farms that have been abandoned and that promised profitable returns, what do you think would be the result? Mr. TITUS. About 25 per cent of them would succeed and about 75- per cent would fail. Mr. WHITE. Do you think that such a man would give greater promise of success than he would if he were without any experience in farming? Mr. TITUS. By far; yes, sir. Mr. VAILE. Would it be possible for the Secretary of the Interior and some of his assistants to exercise an intelligent discretion in securing men to go upon those farms? Mr. TITUS. I should certainly think that that would be his para- mount duty. Mr. VAILE. Then, if that provision is made in this bill, the bill would not be open to the objection that it threw open the door indis- criminately to incompetent as well as competent men? Mr. TITUS. No, sir: provided you do not undertake this scheme of spending $5,000,000,000 I do not know how much money is in- volved, because when we farmers come to the word "billion" we become confused in our heads. We do not know where we are at. Mr. VAILE. Do you realize that this bill does not propose any gift or gratuity to the soldiers? Mr. TITUS. We realize that. 626 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. It proposes to sell lands on certain reasonable terms. Was that point considered by your association ? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. What are the provisions of the Farm Loan Bank Act on this subject? Dp you give much better terms in your bill than are given in the existing law ? Mr. VAILE. That is a question that has been raised here. Mr. TITUS. That has been referred to. Mr. VAILE. If the Government gets back in a few years such money as has been invested in these projects, would this bill, containing such a provision, be objectionable to your association as involving the expenditure of a large amount of money? Mr. TITUS. I am opposed to the expenditure of a large amount of money if the situation does not warrant it. If there is a demand that warrants it, no one would concur in such a plan more quickly than I. Mr. VAILE. Do you believe that there is too much food produced now? Mr. TITUS. No, sir; not when we have to feed a lot of people abroad. Mr. VAILE. Your statement with regard to excessive crops is not entire applicable to this inquiry, is it? Mr. TITUS. Of course, when we get back to normal times that may be true, but we are living now under extraordinary conditions inci- dent to the long war. When South America, Australia, and all of those countries get back to normal conditions, and shipping gets back to normal conditions, the situation will be different. What would be the price of wheat to-day if there was not a Government guaranty under such conditions, with no demand for it, and with this immense crop at hand ? Mr. WHITE. Wheat is away above the guaranty. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir ; but it is due to conditions abroad. Mr. WHITE. Not altogether. Mr. SUMMERS. Wheat was $1 per bushel above the guaranteed price at the time the guaranty was first fixed. Mr. TITUS. I have so much faith in the American fanner that I believe that so long as he has a reasonable show of a fair profit on his crops hogs, wheat, corn, and everything else there is no danger of the people starving to death. Mr. VAILE. Your association would be favorable, would it not, to a reasonable expenditure by the Government, not in the form of a gift, but as an investment to establish soldiers upon farms in your State, would it not? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir ; if there was a demand for it in this State or any other. That would be true if there was a demand for it. Mr. VAILE. Assuming that there is such a demand as that for farm lands in your own State, I will ask you whether your association has such an objection to the development of lands in the West and South that it would refuse to take the benefits of this act as applied to the State of New York? Mr. TITUS. We would make no distinction between the East and West. I have seen the statement in the papers that this is to boom the West, etc. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 627 Mr. VAILE. I think you are under a mistaken impression. Mr. TITUS. I do not think that is true. I would not say that. Mr. VAILE. That is what we want to get at. As the chairman stated the other day, the poison has been spread among the people that this is a western scheme. They tell the western people that it is a scheme to reclaim swamp lands in the South, and they tell southern men that it is a scheme to reclaim arid lands in the West. They tell eastern men that it is a western and southern scheme to reclaim swamp lands and irrigate arid lands. Has your association consid- ered the proposition that it applies equally to all parts of the United States? Mr. TITUS. I will say that our executive committee has not. but personally I have. Mr. VAILE. Will you be good enough to impress upon your execu- tive committee that this does apply to all parts of the United States? Mr. TITUS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. With reference to the demand for more farm produce, this bulletin issued by the department of agriculture of the State of New York says that the State is increasing in popula- tion about 116,000 annually, and then it has this statement, which I shall read : In order to supply the demand for farm produce, every acre of land in this State capable of producing a profitable crop should be under cultivation, and undoubtedly will be within a few years. Bulletin No. 64, issued by the United States Department of Agri- culture, refers to the abandoned farms in the State of New York in this way: Among the important causes of the decline of agriculture in this region has been the lack of sufficient capital to make the necessary improvements, to pur- chase needed equipment, and hire sufficient and competent labor. Then on page 7 of this same bulletin is this statement: Enough evidence is at hand to support the belief that the agricultural condi- tions existing in southern New York are not necessary, and that they are the results of poor or indifferent management. As pointed out in Bulletin 60 of the Bureau of Soils, the problem of soil improvement is purely one of a system of managements. On page 17 of this same bulletin this statement occurs: The opportunity to establish a practical and successful system of manage- ment on lands which can be purchased at remarkably low prices is great. Many farms can be purchased for less money than the buildings are worth. A small amount of capital will go a long way. These lands are not infertile and respond quickly to good management. Then, there is the conclusion that the run-down condition of the land in southern New York is due primarily to the misuse of the soil. etc. Do you agree with that? Mr. TITUS. 'Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Are you a farmer yourself ? Mr. TITUS. I have been a farmer for about 60 years, and I am a farmer now, although my farm is reduced to about 1 acres. How- ever, I still raise a few peas and vegetables in my garden. I have done my bit, it seems to me. 628 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MAYS. Have you been a successful farmer ? Mr. TITUS. Moderately successful, or fairly so. Mr. MAYS. You have stated two or three times that personally you oppose this bill because you fear competition from the soldiers in agriculture as affecting those already in the business. Does your association take the same position that you do upon that question, that they fear competition ? Mr. TITUS. Practically they do. I might qualify that statement: Where those soldiers proved within two or three years to be suc- cessful farmers there would be the danger of competition, but per- sonally I believe that so many of them will make failures of it, and will run away from the farms to go into the cities among the bright lights and excitement of the cities, that it would not be serious. I believe that many of them would quit the farms. Mr. MAYS. The farms would then be available for somebody else. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir; so they would. Mr. MAYS. Does New York State produce what it consumes in the way of food supplies? Mr. TITUS. I do not think it does. Mr. MAYS. It imports the larger proportion of its food supply, does it not? Mr. TITUS. I do not know about the larger proportion, but it does import in great quantities. As a farmer, I would say that I have plowed and harrowed behind a team of oxen many a day. We did not have recreation fields and community associations to teach boys how to play ball and other games, but the boys had to work in those days, and I think they were a blamed sight better off. I believe in a certain amount of recreation, but I believe that the best men in this country started to work when they were boys about 5 years of age. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you want your boy to have as hard a time as you had ? Mr. TITUS. No, sir; but I am as well off, and, perhaps, better off than some of the present rising generation who have been born with silver spoons in their mouths will be. Mr. MAYS. Do you not believe that it is desirable to relieve the congestion in the large cities as much as possible? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Now, there is one more important point, if you will permit me. In 1916 there were 247 farmer boys, or farmers' sons, who left the farms of Nassau County to take up their life work along other lines. Mr. MAYS. Did they better their condition? Mr. TITUS. Some of them did, but I do not know about all of them. Nassau County is probably the smallest county in the State. We have only 1,037 farms in Nassau County, but 247 'boys left those farms to go into the cities. Would you not view that situation with some alarm ? I take it that that condition prevails all over the country to some extent. Mr. MAYS. Does not that emphasize the necessity of taking some action to encourage the building up of farms ? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. You would not allow that tendency to proceed indefi- nitely, would you ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 62 Mr. TITTJS. It is alarming. I do not know what the result of ail this will be, but I view it with considerable alarm. Mr. SUMMERS. Did your association take into consideration that the expenditure of the $500,000,000 proposed in this bill would be ex- tended over a period of several years, and that it would not be an immediate draft to that extent upon the Treasury ? Mr. TITUS. Did not the bill call for an initial appropriation of $100,000 ? Mr. SUMMERS. There are other bills. Mr. FERRIS. The bill last year provided for $100,000,000 and this 'bill provides for $500,000.000. Mr. MAYS. $100,000 was expended. Mr. FERRIS. That was for investigations. Mr. SUMMERS. Is it not a fact that soil erosion and the overgrowth on these abandoned farms are every year making the reclamation of those farms more difficult? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMMERS. Would you think it safe to let that condition pro- ceed indefinitely ? Have you a plan to suggest whereby at the time you are reclaiming such lands you will be relieving the congestion in the cities and providing employment and homes for returning sol- diers, or have you a better plan to suggest than that ? Mr. TITUS. I have not. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Titus, these gentlemen who are with you tell me that they have to appear before another committee, and they Avant to make brief statements before they leave. Mi. PORTER. We are perfectly Avilling for Mr. Titus to remain here until you get through with him. I think we all indorse what Mr. Titus has been saying. We indorse the questions and answers, or practically all that have been asked and answered. Mr. Miller, of Susquehnnna, Pa., would like to address the committee for two or three minutes. STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN D. MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE, SUSQTTEHANNA, PA. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman. I am the vice president and am here as the representatiA~e of the Dairymen's League, an organization of 75,000 dairy farmers scattered throughout the States of Pennsylvania. Xew Jersey, Xew York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. I can only take about tAvo minutes, but I will be glad to return later and answei any questions. My first thought, gentlemen, is that this subject natu- rally divides itself into two branches, first, what is best for the returning soldier, to whom we owe so much, and, second, what is best for the public good. We are here before you with some knowledge of farm conditions and of the result of people going from other voca- tions in the cities to the farms. Now, in proffering this invitation to the returning soldiers to go out upon the farms, you are inviting them to another siren country, and my advice to them would be to purchase a considerable supply of wax. It is unworkable The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You would do like Ulysses? 630 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Now, as to the development and the gen- eral good of all the people, which, as I take it from the questions you gentlemen have asked, is an increase of the food supply, I say to you that the ultimate working put of this plan will not result in an increased food supply for this country. These questions can not be regulated by arbitrary governmental actions, but they must be regulated by the inexorable law of supply and demand. If tem- porarily the quantity of farm products is increased, then the law of supply and demand will reduce the price on those farm products. That will result in a high cost of production and in the farmers going out of business. If these new farms constitute a part of the high cost of production, they will cease, but if they have a lesser cost of production, it means 'that in other sections the high cost of production farms will go out of business, and so the final result of your effort will be that you will have a shifting area of pro- duction. I think that is all I have to say, and I thank you. STATEMENT OF MR. F. A. SAULSBURY, PRESIDENT OF ONTARIO COUNTY FARM BUREAU ASSOCIATION, PHELPS, N. Y. Mr. SAULSBTJRY. Mr. Chairman, the question has been brought up here in regard to food production. I live up in central New York, where we are growing quite a large quantity of cabbages, my county being one of the largest cabbage-growing counties in New York. We also grow quite a large area of potatoes, together with carrots and other vegetables to a certain extent. I want to say that last year in our section there were hundreds of acres of cabbages that were not harvested because of the fact that the farirn-r could not secure their value. They would not pay the expense of harvesting and marketing them. Of course, it was a bad season. Mr. WHITE. How many acres were lost? Mr. SAULSBURY. Several hundred acres. Mr. WHITE. Last year? Mr. SAULSBURY. Yes, sir. While we are not a wheat-growing sec- tion, especially at the present time, last year the wheat crop did not produce enough to pay the expense of growing it. Of course, that was due to unfavorable climatic conditions which we do not always have. We are in a fairly good farming section, and usually producn a bountiful wheat crop. One thing that I can not quite get through my head is this : I believe I am as much in favor of helping the soldier as anyone, and we have a young man who was in the Army on our farm at the present time getting his first experience in prac- tical farming, and he will buy a farm when he can. He is trying to do that. While I am a farmer and live on a farm, and will have to meet that competition if this plan is carried out, it seems to me that some of that money ought to be loaned to men to aid them in starting grocery stores, wool factories, and other business. It seems to me that other men, as well as the farmer, ought to have to meet this competition. Perhaps I am too practical, but that is the way I look at it. I thank you. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 631 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES D. PORTER, PRESIDENT OF OR- LEANS COUNTY FARM BUREAU ASSOCIATION, ALBION, N. Y. Mr. PORTER. I would like to say a word in regard to those neglected fa I'D is in New York State. Those farms are in that condition at the present time for the reason that there has not been available help to work the farms as they ought to be worked. Those abandoned farms, or a lot of them, w r ere owned by families, and the families have been broken up, as the boys have gone to the cities, leaving the old people, and they can not get help. The result is that the farms are neglected. If a scheme could be devised by which there could be some help secured by sending soldiers to help on the farms or if in some way there could be some help provided, there would not be as many neglected farms as there are to-day. The question has been asked. " What do you suggest? " We all agree that we want to take care of the soldiers. We want to take care of all the soldiers, and we do not want to pick out some soldiers whom we think might farm and put them on farms. If they have no experience or training as farmers, it would not be any help to put them on farms, but it would be like tying a millstone about their necks. If we want to help them, why not make an appropriation and have it allotted among the States, requiring the States to meet that appropriation with a like appro- priation, and then have the States, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior, perhaps, work out the problem, and not only get the men on the farms, but give them help in some other businesses that they might w^ant to carry on instead of farming? That would help all of the soldiers, and the States would be interested in financ- ing it. Mr. NICHOLS. Have you any idea of the value of those abandoned lands h|New York State? Mr. PORTER. The values varj r , and, of course, some farms are worth more than others, but it has been stated that most of those farms can probably be bought to-day for less money than it would take to build the buildings and fences that are now on the farms. Mr. FERRIS. What would that be per acre? Mr. PORTER. That would probably be about $50 per acre. The CHAIRMAN. Are there not some much cheaper than that? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir ; there are some cheaper than that. Mr. NICHOLS. How large would those tracts be? Mr. PORTER. Anywhere from 50 acres up. Mr. NICHOLS. How far up ? Mr. PORTER. I do not know that I can answer that question. Mr. NICHOLS. About how would they run? Mr. PORTER. From 100 acres to 150 acres, and there are some farms of 200 acres or more. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think it would be possible in the State of New York to get a tract of 10,000 acres altogether? Mr. PORTER. Yes. sir ; I would not be surprised. The CHAIRMAN. In Bulletin No. 60 of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture I find this statement on page 11 : The first of these farms sold in 1883 for $37.50 an acre, while in 1909 the second farm, which is neither better nor worse, was sold for about $5 per acre. A number of farms have recently been sold in this same region for taxes, and brought only a few dollars per acre. 632 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. PORTER. I know of some farms that were bought in Oswego County, adjoining Lake Ontario, some years ago. One of my neigh- bors bought one of those farms for $7.50 per acre. It had quit a large orchard on it, but it was a neglected farm and was bought, as I say, for about $7.50 per acre. Within a few years, he was raising $5-a-barrel apples on that farm, and lots of them. Mr. MAYS. You stated that you were in favor of having some plan for aiding the soldiers by which they would be sent out to the farms to work. Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Would you regard that as pretty substantial assistance ? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Do you know to-day what the farmers in New York are paying for help? Mr. PORTER. I know what they are paying in some parts. I know that they are paying what amounts to $100 per month and more. Mr. MAYS. Would you have the Government to pay a portion of those wages? Mr. PORTER. The farmer would. Mr. MAYS. Would you have the Government to act as an agency to secure help for the farmers? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. These farms are equipped with tenant houses, and the workers would have good homes, good gardens, and all that sort of thing, in addition to the wage, which would run any- where from $900 to $1,000 a year. Mr. MAYS. The gentleman who preceded you thought that this would impose unfair competition upon the farmers in their business. Mr. PORTER. In regard to competition, of course I would not fear competition from farms that might be taken up in certain locations, because the men who would be located on those farms would cave up before they could produce very much as compared with th farms already organized. I believe that if they took up these abandoned farms and of course w r e do not figure that all of them will be taken up but if some of them are taken up, there will be some farmers who will be industrious and successful, but I do not believe that that competition would be unfair. Mr. MAYS. If there were opportunities to secure tracts such as you suggested awhile ago of 10,000 acres or more, or tracts large enough to place a project upon, would you object to that sort of project in your State? Mr. PORTER. If it was carried on in the right form I would not, but I would object serious!}" to have it taken out of the hands of the State government, I think the State government should handle this proposition and should help select the farms and the men. Mr. MAYS. Do you understand the provisions of this Mondell Bill? Mr. PORTER. I have not read that bill. Mr. MAYS. Then, you are not sure that you would oppose that bill after you had read it? Mr. PORTER. I would oppose the bill that I did read. Mr. MAYS. But you did not read the Mondell bill ? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. Furthermore, I did not come here for the purpose of appearing before this committee, and I was unprepared along those lines. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 633 Mr. TAYLOR. Would you force those boys to go out on the farms and work, or those that the gentleman who preceded you said were walking around the streets wearing the uniform? Mr. PORTER. That is true in New York. Mr. TAYLOR. How would you put them out on the farms? Mr. PORTER. I do not know how you would put them out there. Mr. TAYLOR. You are in favor of doing something for the soldiers? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. All of these people seem to. be in favor of that. If that is true, why do you not come here with some constructive sug- gestions to help us meet that problem, rather than coming here with a series of knocks ? Anybody can knock, but what we are look- ing for is something that is feasible to do for the soldiers. We would like to hear some constructive suggestions with that end in view. Mr. PORTER. In reply to that question, I would suggest that per- sonally I have not had time to look up this bill. I did not know that there was such a bill pending. Mr. TITTJS. May I be permitted to ask Mr. Porter a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. TITUS. This is in line with a remark that was brought. out. Mr. Porter states that the soldiers should be working on the farms. I do not know what the situation is in the Western States, but I live within 6 or 7 miles of Camp Mills and within 30 or 40 miles of Camp Upton. Camp Mills is in the center of the truck region of Nassau County, and they are offering men sixty and seventy dollars per month, but I do not believe that more than 10 soldiers have gone to work on farms, and those that did go did not stay 24 hours. Mr. PORTER. Our farmers are offering $3 per day and board to sol- diers or anybody else they can get to do their work, but they can not get the help. Mr. SUMMERS. Take such a tract of land as you have described to be bought at a very reasonable price, or was bought, in fact, at a reasonable price within three years Mr. PORTER (interposing). I think that was within five years. Time goes fast. Mr. SUMMERS. Well, five years. You say it was a. very productive and very profitable farm. Now, would it be any mistake to put sol- diers on such farms as that, or help soldiers to procure homes like that in New York? Mr. PORTER. If the soldier was made of the proper material, it would not be. Mr. SUMMERS. If it would not be in New York, it ought not to be in any other State, ought it ? Mr. PORTER. Not if the conditions were the same. Mr. MAYS. New York soldiers are generally made of the proper material, are they not? Mr. PORTER. Most of them are. Mr. SUMMERS. I want to say, further, that in considering a proposi- tion of this kind, you should bear in mind that the State government coperates and that a representatives of the governor's chair helps in the selection of the projects, so that there is cooperation, as you will find when } 7 ou read the Mondell bill, between the State and the De- partment of the Interior in locating and carrying out these projects. 634 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. PORTER. Does this bill call for a like amount or any amount of funds to come from the States ? Mr. SUMMERS. No ; it does not, but it provides that if the State co- operates to the extent of 25 per cent, they then have greater rights in the proposition. Mr. TAYLOR. They will not select anything except it is approved and advocated by the Government. Mr. PORTER. My experience has been that where there is money in- vested in a proposition, whatever it may be, and the people who are interested have money in the proposition, it is more likely to be a suc- cess than where they do not have money invested ; therefore I believe it is highly important that this bill provide that the States should match any amount of money that it is decided shall be allotted to the States. For instance, if $100,000 was allotted to New York State, New York State should match that $100,000. Mr. SUMMERS. Do you believe New York State would do that ? Mr. PORTER. We are doing it on extension work right straight along. We are matching to-day in New York State all the funds that come from the Lever bill and the special funds that are provided for exten- sion farm work. We are matching that and going nearly $100,000 better than the Federal Government is putting into our State, besides what we are getting for our county supervisors. Mr. SUMMERS. My State of Washington has appropriated $500,000 per annum for 10 years for just this sort of work, and I should think the great State of New York could afford to do as well. Mr. PORTER. Well, I think the State of New York would come for- ward on a proposition of this kind if it is properly done. Now, I am sorry I have got to go at this time, but I am due over at the Senate committee at 10 o'clock. The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Porter, I hope you will banish from your mind the bogie man that this is solely a scheme to drain the swamp lands of the South and irrigate the arid lands of the West. Mr. PORTER. I am glad that this bill does not contemplate that. The CHAIRMAN. That is riot solely intended nor solely permitted. Mr. TITUS. We have another hearing this morning before the Sen- ate committee on the reduction of the appropriation which would curtail the work of the counties all through the country. I was down here last week on this matter and I tried to see your worthy chair- man at that time, but failed to do so, and so immediately on my return home I wrote a letter Mr. MAYS (interposing). What did you say it would curtail? Mr. TITUS. The work of the county "agents in the various counties. Mr. FERRIS. Are these county agents that spoke here this morning ? Mr. TITUS. No, sir ; not one of them is. Mr. Saulsbury is president of the Ontario County Farm Bureau; Mr. Porter is from Orleans, and Mr. -Miller represents he is vice president or secretary of the Dairymen's League. Mr. BENHAM. Mr. Titus, I would like to ask you a question first, pursuing the thought just a little farther a qestion was asked by the gentleman at your right, Mr. White, and you stated that not all of the farmer boys would succeed on a farm in their own community. How would that percentage of successes or failures, in your judgment, of the farm boys of your community, compare located on a farm in HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 635 their own community with the project system which would locate them in about 99 per cent of the cases away from home? That is, in which case would the percentage of successes, in your judgment, be greater? This bill proposes to take the boy away from his home. Mi-. Tin s. Well, it would be greater where they would be allowed to remain on the farm at home. Mr. YAILE. What would be greater? Mr. TITUS. The percentage of successes. Mr. BENHAM. In his local community or away from home? Mr. TITUS. In his local community. Of course, there would be isolated cases exceptions. Mr. BENHAM. One other question, Mr. Titus. It is a sort of a harmless joke of some of the members of this committee to make it appear to the witness from any State that this project will, of course, furnish numerous projects in his home State. His home State is always a favored State. Now, as an actual fact, judging by the years that have gone, taking into account also the fact that the head of the Interior Department is from the extreme West ; that the director gen- eral is also from the extreme West Mr. SUMMERS (interposing). Pardon me, Mr. Benham, to whom do you refer? The CHAIRMAN. Director Davis is from Illinois. Mr. BENHAM. Was from Illinois; is from farther West. The CHAIRMAN. From where? Mr. BENHAM. _Well, that is a question that we can take up later. Mr. SUMMERS. He has been in this service for 37 years. Mr. BENHAM. He testified before this committee that his interests are largely in California and have been for the last several years. Mr. VAILE. Would be lodged there ; that is what he testified. Mr. BENHAM. Well, I have the floor, I believe also that the gentleman, the chief engineer of the Reclamation Service, who has appeared before this committee, Mr. Corey, is from California. The CHAIRMAN. Indiana is his State. Mr. BENHAM. I understand. Now I can go into that just as much as you want to, Mr. Chairman. Thirty-seven years ago he was from Indiana, and I may say for the benefit of the chairman and others that since it is a joke on Indiana, 70 Members of the present Con- gress are in the same sense from Indiana that Mr. Corey is from Indiana, and hence, pursuing the thought a little further, the mem- bership of this committee, four of them, as you will observe, are from California, and in fact we people from the Middle West are put in only as a sort of ballast. Taking into account the experience of the past and the fact that the Interior Department will have the last word as to where these projects are to be located, what will be the effect that is, where will these projects probably be located? The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Benham, your premises are not correct, in that the Interior Department is going to have the last say on the location of these projects. Mr. BENHAM. In what respect am I misrepresenting the truth, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. Why, the Congress of the United States has the last say. 636 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. Of which you are a distinguished Member. Mr. BENHAM. The bill doesn't say so. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I assume that the Appropriations Com- mittee will consider the appropriation for each project. Mr. BENHAM. Well, I have asked a question of Mr. Titus, and I am stating the facts that the bill justifies and that the author of the bill expounded and that the chairman of the committee and the gentleman on his right in their remarks have justified. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don't think you have, Mr. Benham, be- cause projects are selected, and they are subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress. Mr. BENHAM. As an actual fact, how much will Congress know about an individual project? Are we expected to go out to each individual project and investigate it? The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that you will know nothing about it when the matter is presented to Congress and full hearing are had on each project and on each proposed expenditure of money ? There will be full hearings on each individual project. Mr. BENHAM. On each individual project you understand Con- gress will have a full hearing on each individual project? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; on each individual project. Mr. BENHAM. How much more will Congress be able to do than to attend these hearings on these individual projects? Mr. SUMMERS. Those hearings would probably come before the Appropriations Committee, would they not? The CHAIRMAN. They would come in the Appropriations Com- mittee. Mr. TAYLOR. The Appropriations Committee will go into every one of them before they appropriate a dollar. Mr. BENHAM. They will have an immense job on their hands; that is all I have got to say, if this thing amounts to anything. It must, after all, be left to the testimony of a representative of the Interior Department. We have the testimony only of gentlemen representing the Interior Department. The CHAIRMAN. They are doing that to-day on the reclamation projects. The hearings are very voluminous. Mr. BENHAM. It is not possible for this Congress to go out and inspect it is not supposed that the members of Congress will go out and visit these projects and pass judgment on them. The CHAIRMAN. They have done that, Mr. TAYLOR. The Appropriations Committee goes out and goes over every one of them. I have been over both of them in my State with the committee. Mr. BENHAM. I think that is another of your harmless jokes. Mr. TAYLOR. No; I have gone right with them. The Appropria- tions Committee goes and looks at them and goes all over them. I rode from one end to the other of those projects in Colorado with the committee, myself. Mr. BENHAM. It is absolutely and entirely impossible and ridicu- lous to advance that theory about all these projects. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to hear this gen- tleman. Let him say anything he wants to, and then interrogate him after he gets through. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 637 Mr. TITUS. Gentlemen, I havivt anything further to sav, only this The CHAIRMAN (interprosing). Mr. Benham asked a question. Mr. TITUS. Excuse me: what was it? Mr. BENHAM. I don't seem seem to get anywhere with my ques- tions, Mr. Chairman, without, not a discussion with the witness, but a discussion with the members of this committee, so I guess it is not necessary. I will have my say a little later. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. Well, I think you should state your ques- tion, Mr. Benham, distinctly, so that the witness can understand it. Mr. BENHAM. Mr. Smith. I think the witness understands it, but I don't think you understand it. Mr. VAILE. Let us all keep silent now while he states the question. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Titus, you are at the disposal of Mr. Benham. Mr. Benham, you may proceed. Mr. BENHAM. Well, Mr. Chairman, will the members of the com- mittee allow this talk to proceed between the witness and myself? If I don't have the floor I don't care to attempt it. The CHAIRMAN. If you don't wish to be interrupted you may pro- ceed. Mr. BENHAM. I don't want more than six members of the com- mittee to jump in at once and try to interfere. You are fairly well acquainted with the reclamation projects of the Interior and other departments of the Government for the past several years, as to where they are located? Mr. TITUS. Tolerably so ; yes, sir. I have traveled a few times three times across the continent. Mr. BENHAM. And you are entirely familiar with the many recla- mation projects in the various States, are you? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. BENHAM. And in New York and in the East and Middle West there are many, don't you think, reclamation projects that the Gov- ernment is carrying on successfully? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. BENHAM. Well, it is a fact that the gentlemen, according to this bill, who will have the last word, are members of the Interior Department. Now, judging by the experience of the past, where the projects have been located and the personnel and the location of the gentlemen who will have the last word on their location, do you assume that that will have a tendency to take the farm labor away from the State of New York or bring it back to the State of New York that is, the reclamation projects, the soldier-helping projects, so called? Mr. TITUS. I am fearful that it would draw some of it away. Now, that particular point, as I say, I had given thought to. It seems to me, gentlemen, that this is a most serious question, and I know that this committee are doing their very level best to act in the proper line toward the returning soldier. It seems to me that the thought of the thinking men of this country should be concentrated in some way those men of experience in farming matters on this one subject, that the best results may be obtained. Mr. JOHNSON. Are you through, Mr. Benham? Mr. BENHAM. I suppose so. 638 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I want you to be through. I don't want to interrupt anybody. You spoke awhile ago of the competition with the farmer and farm labor being interfered with; that the soldier in your section would not work on the farm. Don't you think that that labor could be supplied by inducing the southern negroes to go up there and take their places? Mr. TITUS. Thirty years ago we had nothing but southern Negro labor in our locality ; to-day there are very few of them, and isn't it a fact that the Middle West, Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, has been depending very largely upon the Negro laborer of Georgia, Ala- bama, and Mississippi, and they have gone out there at the instance of some of these intelligence bureaus on the promise of immense wages and nothing to do, and have remained there a year or two, and have then returned to their native heath ? Isn't that fact, gentlemen ? Mr. JOHNSON. I really don't know. Mr. TITUS. Now, we have tried that in our locality, and I will tell you there are very few southern Negro laborers working on Long Island to-day. I do know of a few instances. They work there until snow begins to fly, along early in December, and then you see them shoot off down South, and when the sun begins to shine on both sides of the fence, they come back again. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, wouldn't you be in favor of inducing them to come back? Mr. TITUS. If possible, I certainly should, but you know it is like pulling teeth to get a Negro away from the South. I have been all through the South, and I was wonderfully impressed, and it made a deep and sad impression upon me, the condition of the southern Negro as to illiteracy, immorality, and everything else in those Southern States. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Titus, in answer to a leading question by Mr. Benham, you expressed some apprehension that the farm labor- ers that is, the hired man on the farm in New York and other Eastern States might be attracted to these new opportunities which would be afforded by opening up these new projects. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Are you opposed to giving the returning sol- dier who is a farm laborer, a hired man on the farm, an opportunity to get a home, to own a farm ? Mr. TITUS. I am not opposed to it. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Does not this afford an opportunity for him to do it ? Mr. TITUS. But I don't know that I make my thoughts and my posi- tion clear to you, gentlemen. I favor this Government doing every- thing possible to aid these returning soldiers in one way or another. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Will not this plan do it ? Mr. TITUS. But this plan I don't think the Government is war- ranted in spending so much money on a plan of reclamation, the re- sult of which would be so problematical. Understand me, I favor helping these soldiers. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You admit that you can not help them in your own locality to get back to the farm; now, we are proposing something that will afford them an opportunity. If you are in favor HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 639 of helping them get back into agricultural pursuits, why not support this bill? Mr. TITUS. Because I believe, in a general way, that there is suffi- cient untilled land in this country to supply the needs. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What is your solution, Mr. Titus, of the problem of the high cost of living, which is so seriously affecting every wage earner in the country? What is your solution of that problem ? Mr. TITUS. It is a pretty knotty question. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I know, but it is a question that confronts this committee and Congress. Mr. TITUS. I am well aware of that. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. We are hoping that this legislation would tend to solve that problem by encouraging agricultural development. Mr. TITUS. I am afraid that no relief will come from this legis- lation. Mr. SUMMERS. I would like to ask Mr. Titus two questions. There has been some reference made to the great danger of taking a young man away from his home and putting him down on another farm somewhere else. Isn't it a fact that the farmers west of the Mississippi are as prosperous as any farmers in the United States? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMMERS. Isn't it a fact that 75 per cent of those farmers are men who did that very thing, left their native State and went to a new country and developed a farm and are still living during the first generation after they moved ? Mr. TITUS. A large number of them did, but hardly the per- centage you state. Mr. SUMMERS. What percentage would you say? Mr. TITUS. Twenty-five per cent. Mr. SUMMERS. Twenty-five per cent of them that went from States east of the Mississippi ? Mr. TITUS. Yes. Mr. SUMMERS. Where did the others come from? Mr. TITUS. I don't know. Mr. SUMMERS. Well, they came from some place. Mr. TITUS. They came from some place ; yes. Mr. SUMMERS. And they went on to soil with which they were not familiar. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMMERS. And if they did that, with some encouragement and some help on the part of the Government, why should we believe that our returned soldiers can not do the same and establish prosperous homes for themselves? Mr. TITUS. Well, human nature, to my mind, has changed some- what since the pioneers went west of the Mississippi. Those men would endure hardships and did endure hardships which the young men of this generation will balk at. Isn't that right, Mr. Chair- man, to a large extent ? Mr. SUMMERS. In that connection I would like to take that into consideration. The Government is in this bill proposing to make it possible for them to establish homes without having undergone as many hardships as these pioneers that you speak of have undergone. Mr. TITUS. Yes ; that is my understanding. 13331919 41 640 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SUMMERS. And that is exactly what it proposes, and the greatest thing, in my mind, that it does propose. Mr. TITUS. It might be sufficient inducement to a great many. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask Mr. Titus one more question. Mr. Titus, have you observed that as a result of the returning soldiers there is any oversupply of labor in your State, either in town or out? Mr. TITUS. An oversupply ? Mr. WHITE. Of labor ; yes. Mr. TITUS. No, sir; there is an undersupply a great shortage of labor. Mr. WHITE. You honestly believe there is an undersupply of labor in the State of New York at this time? Mr. TITUS. I do. What do the statistics show ? The CHAIRMAN. Here is a clipping from yesterday's Washington Star, June 19, 1919: LABOR SURPLUS IN UNITED STATES SHOWS MAKKKI) INCREASE JUMPS FROM 227,777 FOR WEEK ENDED JUNE 7 TO 241,040 FOR THE SAME PERIOD TO 14TH INSTANT. The labor surplus in the United States jumped from 227,777 for the week ending June 7 to 241,046 for the week ending June 14, according to the latest report of the United States Employment Service issued today. Reports were received from 100 cities. Of these 48 report the surplus, while 19 cities report a shortage of labor amounting to 12,765, which compares with a shortage last week of 9,618 reported by 15 cities. This week 33 cities report an equality compared with 12 cities last week and 48 the week before. Of the 38 States reporting, 21 show a surplus of labor, 9 an equality, and 10 report the above shortage. New York again reports a surplus of 100,000. Mr. TITUS. May I say that I misinterpreted the gentleman's ques- tion. That applies to all lines of industry, that statement. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. TITUS. I thought that this gentleman here (Mr. White) re- ferred to the farm labor. Mr. WHITE. No ; I meant general conditions, as far as you were able to speak, in the State. Mr. TITUS. Well, I was not cognizant of the situation in general. Mr. MAYS. Well, there is a million more soldiers to be returned yet, or nearly that, to civil life, isn't there ? Mr. TITUS. Yes ; a whole lot more. Mr. MAYS. That will tend to add to the surplus of labor? Mr. TITUS. Yes ; it will. Mr. TAYLOR. Let me ask you two or three questions, Mr. Titus. You are in favor of the basic proposition of doing something for the soldier? Mr. TITUS. I am. Mr. TAYLOR. And all these organizations associated with you in this protest are in favor of doing something, aren't they ? Mr. TITUS. Practically all of them ; yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. The whole American people are in favor of doing something for the soldier? Mr. TITUS. I think so. Mr. TAYLOR. And they are looking to Congress to do something, aren't they? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 641 Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Now ? two-thirds of them are already discharged. Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. We have been fiddling along about this thing for months and months; people are getting impatient; soldiers are get- ting impatient; they feel that if we are ever going to do anything we ought to do something. Now, as a thoughtful man, as you are, why haven't you been thinking about the lines of construction instead of along the lines of destruction? And why don't you come here before this committee with some concrete proposition to help the returning soldiers and help this committee in doing what the Ameri- can people want us to do and what we are trying to do here, and give us some suggestions worthy of our consideration you and all these organizations that have come before the committee? Mr. TITUS. That is a very petinent question to ask, I admit. Mr. TAYLOR. "Well, will you answer it? Mr. TITUS. I confess I can't answer it at this time, but I will tell you what I will do, if it is the desire of this committee I will com- municate with this committee in the very near future about that. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, let me suggest this Mondell bill is no new thing; it has been worked out for months and months and months ; we don't propose that it is to be a panacea for everything under the sun, or bring about the millennium, but every nation in the world is trying to do something for the soldiers: all the English-speaking people are doing something right along this particular line, and they are doing ten times more than this. Now, why shouldn't we adopt this measure, even if there are some other measures that ought also to be adopted by other committees in the way of loaning money or advancing money or something of that kind? Why shouldn't we do something of this kind and bring in this unused' and abandoned land throughout the United States, and tend at least to check the movement of everybody, all the young people, toward the city ? Don't you think we ought to stop that? Mr. TITUS. Certainly that is my desire. . Mr. TAYLOR. And if there is any movement that tends that even tends toward checking the avalanche of people from the farms to the cities, and these boys that have come back, who have been on the farms and don't want to go out on them if we can in some way counteract that, isn't that a beneficial public service, and can't we afford to spend some money even upon that proposition ? Mr. TITUS. Yes; I favor the expenditure of some money. Mr. TAYLOR. Then why don't you come in and help us work this out? Mr. TTTUS. Well, I will submit something to you. I will get a few of my Nassau County friends together and we have some big men there and submit something to you. Mr. TAYLOR. How long are you going to wait? Mr. TITUS. Within a few days. Mr. TAYLOR. As a matter of~fact, why didn't you bring this along with you? Mr. TITUS. Well, I have been here in WashingtonI was here twice last week on this appropriation bill, and I tell you while I haven't any business at all, I am the busiest man in the world, I guess. 642 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Titus, just one question. I notice your asso- ciation, the Nassau County Farm Bureau Association, you are coop- erators with the New York State Department of Agriculture? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, in this bulletin I have referred to, No. 78 of the department of agriculture of the State of New York, is this statement, on page 429 : The State needs more and better farmers, and it is that class that this de- partment particularly appeals to and to which the State will give a warm wel- come. The Census figures show that only 375,000 people are actively engaged in agriculture in this State. There is ample room for more than double that number. You agree \vith that statement ? Mr. TITUS. I should say that that was practically correct. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions, gentlemen? Mr. NICHOLS. I would like to ask one question. You heard the reference made by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Taylor, to the desire of all the people to help and aid the soldiers? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And you heard also the reference to the impatience of the soldiers themselves? Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And that some sort of measure should be enacted in their aid? Mr. TITUS. Yes, air. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you believe that all the soldiers, or the great majority of the soldiers, are impatient that a small percentage of the soldiers shall be aided to go on the farm ? Mr. TITUS. In my locality a very small proportion of the soldiers are in favor of it. They are contented to loaf, and I will venture to say that that is the condition that prevails in many other localities. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, this bill from the standpoint of reclaiming lands may be all right; I think it is; but do you believe that Con- gress should enact legislation that would take care of a reasonable percentage of all the soldiers ? Mr. TITUS. I am inclined to think so. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you not think, Mr. Titus, that 95 per cent, or at least 90 per cent, of the returning soldiers have their own business arrangements and occupation to which they will turn, and that they will not need any particular encouragement from the Gov- ernment? This legislation is framed to take care of the others who may want to go into agricultural pursuits and have no means to enter that occupation. Mr. TITUS. I would naturally think that would be the case, but from information I have received in different ways through the press I am led to believe that a very small percentage" of them wish to go back to the occupations that they left to go into the service. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Well, in all probability most of them have their plans arranged to go into other activities that are probably more remunerative. Mr. TITUS, Probably they would not want to go back to their former occupations. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Titus, the chairman called your attention to some literature that says that the State of New York, I believe it HOMES FOR. SOLDIERS. 643 was New York that in that State there were three hundred and some odd thousand farmers 375,000 farmers? The CHAIRMAN. No; people engaged in agriculture. There are 215,597 farms in New York Mr. NICHOLS. Well, do you know how many soldiers this bill would place on the farm for the amount of money that is authorized to be appropriated ? Mr. Trrus. No. Mr. NICHOLS. You don't know that the amount of money author- ized to be appropriated by this bill would probably not take care of any more than 100,000? Mr. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have great faith in the deliberations of this body of men, and I know that good results will come from it to aid our returning soldiers, and if my services, in a humble way, humble as they are, can be of any service to you, I am only too glad to help you. The CHAIRMAN. You have been very helpful. Gentlemen, Mr. McCracken, former Member of Congress from Idaho, wants to say just a word. STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT M. McCRACKEN, OF IDAHO. Mr. MCCRACKEN. I want to say, gentlemen, that in a general way, the people of my State indorse this bill. I want to say further that a large number of the people, whom I represent, are returning soldiers. We sent, out of a population of 400,000 people, 20,000 men to the front at least most of those men went to the front. Now, that is a big percentage, and I want to say, too, gentlemen, that out of that number the larger percentage of them were farmers, and I think I am safe in saying that the larger number of the men who went from all the States "west of the Mississippi River were boys that were drawn from the homes of farmers. That might also apply to the men who came from the South, the larger percentage. Now, it is simply idle so say that these men, many of them, will not be attracted by any proposition which this Government may make with reference to putting men upon farms. They would be at- tracted by it, gentlemen, and since the matter has been pressed, and since it has been sponsored by the Secretary of the Interior, there isn't any doubt, too, but what they are expecting something of the sort. Now, of course, you gentlemen who come from the industrial sections of the country will say : " Well, we have fellows that prob- ably will want to be helped to get a home in the city." That may all be true, and I hope that some means will be devised which will per- mit that sort of thing. But, gentlemen, after all, this great number of men who were drafted and who went to the front, a large per- centage of whom are farmers, are looking to the Congress of the United States to give them some sort of assistance, and, of course, the natural thing which would attract them, as I said before, would be some inducement to go back to the soil. So that I don't want to feel that this committee is taking a wrong course. It seems to me that this committee has chosen a very wise course in trying to devise some sort of legislation which will give these men an opportunity to at least choose the occupation of a farmer, because, 644 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. gentlemen, after all, the occupation of the farmer to-day is not what it was 40 or 50 years ago. He has a great many facilities which per- mit him to enjoy the comforts of the city in a rural community. He has the automobile and he has the telephone. It is a common thing to-day in the West for people to establish town sites, to have their community schools, their community centers, and then go out into the different sections of the country and till their farms. They Avill go back for 15 or 20 miles. That is farming to-day in the West, and it is farming in a large portion of the South. These gentlemen who come here from these agricultural associa- tions in New York, I want just to remind them that the reason they have so much agricultural country in the State of New York that is not fitted for agriculture has been demonstrated, because the young men of New York State have left there and have gone to those sections where there is country that does afford them an opportunity for agriculture. Now, isn't that the most natural thing that they should do ? And certainly this Government is not going to select these barren wastes in the East, nor in any other section of the country, which would not afford them the opportunity to go ahead and engage in agricultural pursuits. Mr. NICHOLS. You think this bill would take them West? Is that it ? Mr. McCRACKEN. I think it would take them to the agricultural localities of all sections of the United States which would be attrac- tive, and, of course, those sections would be selected by the Secretary of the Interior, with the aid of the Agricultural Department, don't you see. The Government of the United States is not going to send them out into localities where they can't exist. That is not the ob- ject of this bill. And now here, coming back to this question, I simplj* want to make this plain to you gentlemenI think you will all agree with me, you gentlemen upon this committee that in all opposition that has been voiced here to this bill there has not been a specific allega- tion to show wherein the bill would not be operative. I wish these gentlemen would specify w r herein the bill would not be practi- cable or operative. I have an open mind and I am willing to aid in the small way that I can to assist the committee and assist Members of Congress to find some way which is a better way than the way that is prescribed in this bill. As to the question of competition, which we hear urged in the agri- cultural press, that it might make competition and the gentleman from New York a moment ago hinted at that, that certain competi- tion might arise by reason of this increased area of agriculture I just want to say, gentlemen, that that is mere folly, because in all those Western States you will see different articles' of merchandise bearing the brands of New York firms. How often we see Beech- nut butter and Beechnut meat and Beechnut beans, and all that sort of thing out in the West, in practically even 7 Western State. Those people moved out there, many of them from the East, and they are consuming the products of these people back in New York State, and I venture the assertion that we have firms in the State of Idaho to-day that are purchasing in the aggregate as much as $20,000,000 worth of merchandise of various kinds, including, I might add to HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 645 that, farm machinery. I am informed that we stand fifth in the purchase of automobiles, and a good many of them are Studebakers that come from the State of Indiana. In my judgment the passage of this bill will encourage not only farming, but it will encourage other industries. You very well know the number of Ford automobiles that we have in the West, and all these come from the State of Michigan ; and that is simply one illustration. There are thousands of manufactured articles which come to our people in the West, so that if you attempt in this small way to aid the returning soldiers, you have aided the industrial sections of the whole United States. I hope no one will think that you are striving in any way to augment the business con- ditions of any particular section of the country, because all sections of the United States will naturally enjoy the fruits of this legisla- tion. I don't know what more I could say, other than simply to call at- tention also to the fact that the gentlemen who have preceded me have come down here to appeal for further appropriations for count}' farm agents. Now, why? Simply because they realize the value of agriculture in their own community, and those New York gentle- men expect to get increased appropriations for county farm agents. Of course we have county farm agents all over the United States, and why? Simply because they know that the country must rely upon the industry of agriculture for the larger part of its prosperity. If there are any questions that I can answer, I will be very glad to do so. Mr. NICHOLS. You say you represent the returned soldiers of your State? Mr. McCRACKEN. I represent what is known as the Idaho Recla- mation Association, in which there are a large number of returned soldiers. Mr. NICHOLS. You said you thought you expressed the view of the great majority of the soldiers of your State who were returning from the war? Mr. MC-CRACKEX. I believe I do. Mr. XICHOLS. What makes you think you do? Mr. McCRACKEN. For the reason that many of them are agricul- turists and are looking forward to this kind of legislation. They expect it. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, have you come in contact with them to explain this bill to them? Mr. McCRACKEN. I will say this, Mr. Nichols, that I have met a good many of them in camps. I was a soldier myself for a short period of "time, and I have met them as they came back. I am a member, of course, of their own local association in my home city, and I know it is the thought of many of them how they might get a small tract of land and be independent. - That is the feeling of many of the fellows I have talked to. Mr. NICHOLS. How many do you suppose you have come in con- tact with ? Mr. McCRACKEN. I have not talked to a groat number, but I have talked to enough of them to convince me that they express the senti- ment of the great majority. Mr. NICHOLS. How many, can you estimate? 646 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. MoCRACKEN. Oh, probably 35 or 40. They come into my office and talk to me. Mr. NICHOLS. Did you explain the details and provisions of the Mondell bill? Mr. MOCRACKEN. Certainly not; simply because the bill had not been introduced until the 19th day of May, and the public was not advised of its provisions. Mr. NICHOLS. How many soldiers did you say went to war from your State? Mr. McCRACKEN. About 20,000. Mr. NICHOLS. And you think the majority of these soldiers were farmers ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. The great majority of them were farmers; yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And they desire to return to the farm? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Unquestionably they have that in view; they will doubtless come back to the farm. Mr. NICHOLS. And they desire to be aided by the Government? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Well, they would desire to avail themselves of any action of the Government, and naturally they are best fitted for the particular occupation of farming. Mr. NICHOLS. How many would you say of the 20,000, most of whom are farmers, would want to avail themselves of the oppor- tunity afforded in this measure ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Well, I think your question is hardly pertinent you assume that I possess accurate information. I don't want you to assume that; neither do I presume to speak accurately, but I am simply speaking in a general way from the conversations which I have had with these gentlemen. Mr. NICHOLS. Could you estimate? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Yes; I think I could estimate it. I think I would be safe in saying that 80 per cent of them would be glad to avail themselves of any offer the Government might make along agricultural lines. Mr. TAYLOR. To acquire a home for themselves ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think that under the provisions of this bill and the amount of money that is authorized to be appropriated, that any such percentage could be provided for under this measure, under this bill, from the soldiers of your State? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Why, certainly. Mr. NICHOLS. You think they could under this bill? How many soldiers do you think that this bill will take care of? Mr. MCCRACKEN. How many do I think this bill will take care of? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. MCCRACKEN. I want to say this, that it will doubtless take care of the larger number of the men, of the returning soldiers, who de- sire to pursue agricultural activities throughout the whole country. There isn't any question about it, and just as was intimated here a while ago by Mr. Smith, the Representative from Idaho, pointing out the fact that there is a large number of men who will want to engage in agricultural pursuits, the point is to provide for and take care of that number; don't let them drift back in the city and be- HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 647 come helpless there, because they are not trained along vocational lines. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know that under the authorization, the ap- propriation authorized under this bill, probably no more than 100.- 000 in the whole country could be taken care of? Mr. McCRACKEN. I think that the gentleman is mistaken as to the number. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, we will see whether he is or not, Mr. Mc- Cracken. Do you know how much appropriation this bill authorizes ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. It doesn't authorize enough; I will say that. Mr. NICHOLS. How much does it authorize? Mr. MCCRACKEN. It authorizes $500,000,000 appropriation. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, is it the plan to try to close at 12 ? The CHAIRMAN. We should like to. Mr. FERRIS. Might I make a suggestion, then? I just met here a Mr. Lehmann, a soldier that I have never seen before, a nice young man who has just returned from France and bears all the evidence of the hardships of war, and I have suggested to him and asked him that if he would like to say a word to the committee on this bill, we would like to have him, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chair- man, that Mr. Lehmann be given a few moments be given the honor of closing the hearings, of having the last word to say on this sub- ject. It seems to me that would be entirely appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Mr. Lehmann. Mr. FERRIS. If Mr. McCracken is through I did not intend to interrupt you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. NICHOLS. No ; I will be glad to hear him. Mr. FERRIS. I will say that Mr. Lehmann explains that he is not a speaker at all; he doesn't care to exhibit any oratorical qualities, but he simply wants to say a word from the real standpoint of the soldier. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Lehmann. STATEMENT OF PVT. EMILE A. LEHMANN, COMPANY D, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH INFANTRY, UNITED STATES ARMY. Mr. LEHMANN. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Ferris says, I haven't much to say, but I have met together with quite a few boys that were in- terested in this bill, as far as we have had it explained to us in France. We have had a man explain it to use as best he could, the details of the bill, and we have seen a few prints in the papers on it. That is about as far as I know the details of the bill, but I myself am interested in getting a western farm home, and a lot of the soldiers are who have been with me they are also interested, and 1 have been over quite a large area of western land that undoubtedly would be put under some of the projects if this bill passes. I have seen the good qualities of this land and I know what can be produced from it, and it is very valuable for agricultural purposes. Mr. VAILE. What part of the country are you from? Mr. LEHMANN. I come from Montana. That is where I entered the service from. My folks are in West Virginia. Mr. WHITE. What part of Montana, what county? 648 . HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. LEHMANN. I have been around Billings, and I have been around Great Falls and in the northwestern part, and Kalispell, and I have seen quite a bit of the State. Mr. WHITE. Don't you believe that there is a great deal of land in Montana, and what is known as "bench" land that could be very profitably segregated for a scheme of this kind, a reclamation scheme, without great expense to the Government, and which would promise splendid opportunities to the young men ? Mr. LEHMANN. There is, yes sir ; but the area of that kind of land is not very large. It would not give the opportunity for a large project like there is in Wyoming. Mr. WHITE. Don't you believe that such projects could be found in Montana? Don't you think there are within the State some projects? Mr. LEHMANN. Well, not as good a project as I understand this Idaho project would be. Mr. MAYS. You say your people live in West Virginia? Mr. LEHMANN. West Virginia; yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Do you feel that you ought to be assisted to secure a home in the immediate neighborhood of your people ? Mr. LEHMANN. No. Mr. MAYS. Why not? Mr. LEHMANN. Because the land in the immediate neighborhood where my folks live is not of very good agricultural quality. Mr. MAYS. And is higher in price that other land? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes. Mr. BENHAM. Who would you have do the deciding for you, yourself or some Government agent, as to where you want to settle? Mr. LEHMANN. I would want to decide that myself. Mr. MAYS. You don't understand that this bill dictates to you anything about where you should go, do you ? Mr. LEHMANN. No, sir. Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. You can go in any State where there is a project Mr. TAYLOR. You boys are not so much concerned about the de- tails, the working out of the thing? What you want to see what you approve is, and what a lot of the boys approve is, that they would like to be home owners somewhere? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes. sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And if the Government could help help them in some manner, you feel that they would be glad to take advantage of it? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And as to the locality or as to the working out of the machinery, the details of that is not what you are concerned about ? Mr. LEHMANN. No, sir. Mr. MAYS. Have you talked to a great many soldiers in France on this subject? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. And you noticed considerable interest among the soldiers ( Mr. LKTIMANN. Yes. sir. Mr. MAYS. Let me ask you this question: Is or is it not true that a lot of soldiers might not want to go out on farms to work as farm hands, but they would go out to work if they had the Government HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 649 promise of giving them a home and letting them own a piece of land at the end of their work? Mr. LEHMAN x. Why, that is just it. There is a lot of the soldiers, a lot of the boys, who would be very willing to go onto a farm and go through considerable hardship if they see a chance where they could get a home. Mr. TAYLOR. They are perfectly willing to do a lot of hard work if they had the Government's promise that at the end of it they would get a home that they could own themselves ? Mr. LEHMAXX. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. Have you worked on a farm? Mr. LEHMAXX. I have worked on a farm in different places in the northwest. I was born and raised on a farm in West Virginia. Mr. WHITE. For how long a period did you work on a farm? Mr. LEHMAN x. Well, at different times. Mr. WHITE. Altogether, how many years? Mr. LEHMAXX. I might say all my life. Mr. WHITE. Now, that is very good. Don't you think that your experience on a farm would be a great advantage to you in engaging in farming? Mr. LEHMAXN. Oh, yes ; it would. Mr. WHITE. Indeed, I think so. Mr. LEHMAXX. That is one reason why I went over several States worked over several States I wanted to get the different ideas, and I got a lot of good ideas from different localities. Of course, in one locality the same idea might not work in another locality. Mr. 'WHITE. And speaking for yourself, if you felt confident that you could succeed finally and make a home, you would be willing to undergo a great deal of hardship and hard toil, would you not? Mr. LEIIMAXX. Certainly. Mr. WHITE. And with the fixed purpose to succeed and to finally make a home? That is the idea with you, is it? Mr. LEHMAXX. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Lehmann, of course, while you are not concerned with the machinery that will put this plan into operation, you are concerned in how much one of these farms will cost you ? Mr. LEHMAXX. Well, that, of course, depends a whole lot on the different localities where they are located. Mr. NICHOLS. I say, but you are concerned in how much it will cost you? Mr. LEHMAXX. Oh, certainly. Mr. NICHOLS. You care how much it will cost you? Mr. LEHMAXX. To some extent; yes sir. Mr. NICHOLS. You want to know "how much you are going to pay for this farm that YOU are going on? Mr. LEHMAXX. Well, anybody naturally would want to know how much he would have to pay for it, but that part of it is easy enough arranged so that a man could see that. And as long as the boys got a good square deal. I don't doubt in the least that a large number of them will be willing to go on a farm. Mr. NICHOLS. How much do you think this would cost you? Mr. LEHMAXX. I haven't figured that out. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know? Mr. LEHMAXX. I haven't gone into any details about that. 650 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. NICHOLS. You haven't read this bill, have you? Mr. LEHMANN. Not the latest bill out; no. Mr. NICHOLS. You don't know how much it would cost you ? Mr. LEHMANN. No. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know that you would have to have $1,200, approximately, before you could go on one of these farms? Mr. LEHMANN. Well, that seems reasonable enough to have to- have that. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know how many soldiers that you have met, and have talked this bill over with, are in favor of the proposition as it is understood now, as you understand it? Mr. LEHMANN. No; how many I couldn't say, but a large per cent of them, I should say, among the organizations that I met. Mr. VAILE. You are not so much concerned, Mr. Lehmann, are you, with the question of whether it is going to cost you $1,200 or $10,000, as with the question of whether you will get value for your money ? Mr. LEHMANN. That is the point; yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. You also understand, Mr. Lehmann, that you have a chance to work and earn wages to pay for it? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Lehmann, you think that the Government should extend aid to the soldiers who are returning from the war to go on the farms ; do you think that the Government should extend aid to the thousands and hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of soldiers who are from city homes, who have lived all their lives in the city? Do you think they should extend some kind of aid to them? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes; they should. Mr. NICHOLS. You don't believe it should be restricted entirely to the soldier who wants to go on a farm ? Mr. LEHMANN. Well, it seems that they all should have a chance, probably, but if there is a good chance for them on farm lands, which would improve the country, it seems that that would be a good thing to put through. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know how many soldiers this plan would take care of? Mr. LEHMANN. No ; the number I don't know. Mr. NICHOLS. Did you just happen to come up here to-day? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Were you invited up? Mr. LEHMANN. Yes; I was taken in on the way here. Mr. NICHOLS. By whom? Mr. LEHMANN. By Mr. Harris. But it was my intention to come up here, and I just happened to meet him, and he showed me up. I wanted to get some information, to get some of the papers and the bill. Mr. VAILE. You were not invited in here until after you came up here to get information? Mr. LEHMANN. I met some men at the K. C. last night that told me about it. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Harris? Mr. LEHMANN. Mr. Harris? Mr. NICHOLS. Who is Mr. Harris? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 651 Mr. LEHMANN. One of these gentlemen here, perhaps, knows him better than I do. I haven't met him before last night. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you were not invited to address the com- mittee until you happened to be talking with Mr. Ferris here in the room? Mr. LEHMANN. I was not invited until I was here in the room ; not until after Mr. Harris left. I had no intention of addressing the committee at all. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, I hope a real sun-burned soldier and a real man who has seen service will not have to apologize for com- ing here, but if he does, I want to take all the blame for having him speak here. I sat behind him there not five minutes ago, the first time I ever saw him in my life, and I asked him to appear and say something, and I want to add that I think it is exceedingly appro- priate that one of these 4,000,000 boys that has returned, with the real harness marks of war on him, should have an opportunity to make a statement, and I want to add further that I think he has made a very creditable statement, and as one member of the committee, I want to say that I am very glad that he has made this statement, and I assume that must be the view of the committee. Mr. NICHOLS. I agree with you fully. Mr. WHITE. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this young soldier has been one of the best witnesses that has become be- fore this committee. Mr. FERRIS. I think so, too. He is a real fellow, with real stripes on him. Mr. NICHOLS. I think we all feel that way. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask the soldier one more question. Don't you think that whatever might be the plan adopted finally by Congress after this committee has reported and assuming that a plan is adopted, as we all think there should be don't you think that the element of success would largely be the disposition of the individual to succeed ? That he would have to have a fixed purpose ; that he would have to have that in his mind and thought? In other words, if he was thinking this thing over, as you have been, looking for a location, that would be one of the important, paramount ele- ments of success in his case ? Don't you think it would ? Mr. LEHMANN. It surely would. Mr. WHITE. Don't you think one thing further, that a young man like yourself, or any one of your comrades, if he had had that in his mind and was willing, as you say you are, to undergo hardships through a long period in order to build up a home, that that would be a safer proposition for the Government, for the solvency of the investment, the Government's investment; that the Government, in other words, would be less likely to lose in that case? Do you agree with that? Mr. LEHMANN. I don't quite understand you. Mr. WHITE. I say, the young man who had, as you say you have, a fixed purpose to succeeded wherever he might locate; that was fa- miliar with the circumstances and had the purpose to make a home, don't you believe that he would be a safer bet for the Government, that the Government would be safer in loaning him money than it 652 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. would a man who took it up on an impulse or experiment without the technical knowledge that you have? Mr. LEHMANN. That certainly would be the case. Mr. WHITE. That is my question. Mr. LEHMANN. That stands to reason. That is very plain. The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Lehmann. Gentlemen, the committee, I suppose, will stand adjourned until Tuesday next. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, would you allow Mr. McCracken to be recalled for just one or two short questions? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. WHITE. Mr. McCracken, I am not familiar with the agricul- ture of your State. I would like to ask you this question : Are there segregated tracts of agricultural land in your State for sale ? I mean here and there, as there are in most States, that are well adapted to successful cultivation ? I mean on your bench lands. I mean now, to make my question perfectly plain, a tract of 80 acres or 100 acres? There is land changing hands, is there, possibly ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Now in private ownership? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. MCCRACKEN. Oh, yes. Mr. WHITE. That is what I wanted to know. Now, Mr. Mc- Cracken, those lands are good agricultural lands, are they not, upon your bench lands, much as they are in Montana ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. We think they are better than they are in Mon- tana. Mr. WHITE. Well, if they are as good as they are in Montana, they are about the best in the world. Those lands are changing hands constantly ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. They have been. Mr. WHITE. Now, Mr. McCracken, I want to ask you this ques- tion. In a case where a soldier, a returned soldier, comes back to his home and wants to resume agriculture, if his father is not able to stake him, but he has the ambition to go ahead and succeed, as men must have, don't you think one of those tracts would be a good invest- ment if he was able to finance it, or if the Government would assist him in financing it? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Undoubtedly. Mr. WHITE. You would not object to a thing of that kind, would you? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Certainly not. Mr. WHITE. Do you not think, Mr. McCracken, that in a case such as I have suggested, that the young man with all this experience of life would stand a very good chance to succeed? Mr. MCCRACKEN. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. Well, don't you believe that in case the Government would finance him, that it would be a pretty safe bet for the Gov- ernment ? Mr. MCCRACKEN. It would. Mr. WHITE. Thank you. That is all. Mr. MCCRACKEN. I want to thank the committee for hearing me. The CHAIRMAN. And we thank you very much. HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 653 Mr. McCRACKEN. I also want to thank Mr. Nichols for his interro- gations. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until Tues- day morning. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday morning, June 24, 1919. COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. <7., Tuesday, June 2^ 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock, Hon. N. J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. This meeting was called for the purpose of hearing from Mr. Hallam. He was invited to appear pursuant to the order made at the last meeting of the committee, on motion of Mr. Nichols. STATEMENT OF F. C. HALLAM, PRESS REPRESENTATIVE, WASH- INGTON, D. C. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Hallam, it was at my request that the invita- tion was extended to you to appear to-day. Mr. HALLAM. So I understand. Mr. NICHOLS. And because of certain things that were perhaps unintentionally insinuated in the remarks that were made regard- ing my invitation to you, I want to say to you that I have no criti- cism of any kind of you and, even though you may say that you have represented somebody in the capacity of publicity agent, so far as I am concerned you have a perfectly legitimate right to appear. Mr. HALLAM. Thank you, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And I want it understood that there is no criticism of you implied in the questions I ask, regardless of what anybody else may say. Mr. HALLAM. Thank you, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, I would like to ask you, Mr. Hallam, if you were the author of some literature that was sent to the Press Club for the purpose of general distribution throughout the country in favor of the Mondell bill, which this committee is considering? Mr. HALLAM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be well to incorporate in the record the press notice of June 19 ? Mr. NICHOLS. I think so; yes. I will show this to you and ask if that is the article referred to ? Mr. HALLAM. Yes: I wrote that. Mr. Xicimi.s. I \\\\\ ask thnt that be placed in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the article will be incorporated in the record. (The article referred to is as follows:) Pointing out that there are large areas of very fertile land along the Missis- sippi Kiver that is subject to occasional overflow and areas of fertile cut-over lands in the Lake States as well as the South that can be reclaimed to make 654 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. farms for soldiers, Representative Mondell, of Wyoming, Republican leader of the House of Representatives, to-day closed the testimony in favor of his bill for soldiers' settlements at a hearing before the House Committee on Public Lands. Mr. Mondell answered arguments that have been made against certain pro- visions of the bill. He asserted that it would enable all soldiers who want farms to obtain them. Taking up the objection that the bill is a reclamation measure, Mr. Mondell admitted that that is one of its purposes. " The winning of America from Plymouth Rock to the Golden Gate has been one continuous work of reclamation," said Mr. Mondell. He denounced as im- practical suggestions that the Government finance soldiers in taking isolated farms. Such plans have been unsuccessful in Australia and other countries. On the other hand, the colonization plan as proposed in his bill, under which soldiers will be located in communities on the land, has been proven suc- cessful. The Republican leader answered a number of questions asked by members of the committee. Every advocate of land-settlement plans different from those contemplated in his bill, he said, has admitted the dangers and difficulties they involve. Denying that farmers oppose the community soldier-settlement plan, Mr. Mondell said that there has been some little opposition voiced by " agricultrists," whom he described as a class that " farms the farmers." Next week the House Public Lands Committee is expected to take up the Moudell bill for consideration and an early and favorable report on it is looked for, possibly with minor amendments. A very large majority of the committee will vote for the report, after which there may be a meeting of the Republican steering committee of the House, of which Representative Mondell is chairman, to see what can be done to assist the bill in the House. Meanwhile Secretary of the Interior Lane has reported favorably to the Senate Committee on Public Lands upon Senator Smoot's bill for soldiers' land settlement. This measure is like the Mondell bill except that it contains a pro- vision that 10 per cent of the wages of a soldier employed in constructing the project shall be withheld to form a fund from which he is to discharge part of his obligation to the Government for the purchase, improvement, and equip- ment of a farm. Senator Smoot advocates this change as a measure to en- courage thrift among the solider workers. In order to still further assist them his bill provides that the Government shall pay 4 per cent interest to the soldier on that part of his wages so withheld. Senator Smoot does not propose immediate hearings on the soldiers' land bill before his committee. Later on it is understood that H. T. Cory, consulting engineer in charge of the southern district, United States Reclamation Service, will appear before the Senate committee and tell about the possibilities offered in the South and elsewhere under the bill. In his report on the Smoot bill, Secretary Lane tells of the great interest manifested by southern States and other States in the soldier-settlement project and the preliminary steps they have taken in connection with it, in the matter of adopting memorials indorsing the plan, axithorizing cooperation with the Federal Government, appointing commissions to study the land situation and to assist and advise the Government, and otherwise. The Secretary also says that soldiers', commerical, and other organizations have passed resolutions favoring the plan. " I believe this measure is one of the most important pieces of constructive legislation before Congress and earnestly recommend its early enactment." says Secretary Lane in his report. " The scope of the bill is clearly indicated by its title and its enactment will help the soldier "By providing him with employment upon his separation from the military service, affording him an opportunity to acquire and save funds necessary for the payment of the first installment uix>n his farm. " By providing him with a chance to secure and improve a farm home. " Making available the money and credit needed to improve and equip his farm. " Reducing the cost of farm buildings and other permanent improvements through the purchase of material in wholesale quantities Cor cash. "Giving the soldier an opportunity to get practical advice regarding farming operations. "Permitting of the organizing of community settlements for more effective buying and selling by the settlers. ".Making farming more profitable and attractive by cooperative organizations and the resulting closed social and bu iness relations." HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 655 Mr. NICHOLS. Have you any objection to informing this committee if you were employed to do this or whether you did it on your ac- count. Mr. HALLAM. No; I have no objection. Mr. NICHOLS. Were you employed to do it or did you do it on your account ? Mr. HALLAM. I was employed some time ago to do some publicity work in connection with this bill and some other matters. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, have you any objection to saying who em- ployed you? Mr. HALLAM. No, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Will you state who employed you ? Mr. HALLAM. The Southern Settlement & Development Organi- zation. Mr. NICHOLS. What is the Southern Settlement & Development Organization ? Mr. HALLAM. Why it is chartered under the laws of Maryland. Mr. NICHOLS. Is it a private corporation? Mr. HALLAM. I do not know. Mr. NICHOLS. They are interested in having this bill enacted into law? Mr. HALLAM. The organization dates back some years, and it was formed, as I understand it, to promote development and improve- ment work of various kinds in the South. Mr. NICHOLS. Is it a private corporation? Mr. HALLAM. I do not know whether it is or not. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know if this association is composed of men in the South who have large property interests and who might be interested to the extent of selling this land to the Government, if we put this bill through? Mr. HALLAM. I understand that the organization is made up of a number of representative citizens bankers, business men, educators, State officials, some railroad men. and various others. I am also informed that its charter distinctly forbids the association selling any land. Mr. NICHOLS. Its charter may forbid it, that is, as a corporation ; but do you know whether or not the membership of this organization is made up of large land owners in that part of the country? You would not say that it is not made up of men who have land they could sell under this bill. Mr. HALLAM. I don't know; I think it may include men of that class in its membership ; but not solely of those men. Mr. NICHOLS. Not solely ; I do not say that, but a great many men who would? Mr. HALLAM. I could not say how many. Mr. NICHOLS. That is all I care to ask you, Mr. tlallam ; I am very much obliged to you. The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee care to ask any questions of Mr. Hallam ? Then, I guess that is all, Mr. Hallam. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have another matter I wish to call to the attention of this committee. I think it is of great in- terest to the committee. I want to call the attention of the com- mittee to the testimony of the young soldier who made his appear- 13331919 42 656 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. ance in this committee room Saturday morning, and who was in- vited to speak by Mr. Ferris, a member of the committee. I want to make the statement to the committee that this young man who apparently was a very fine young farmer soldier, was unconsciously being made use of by a man representing private land interests in the West, men who have private interest and private gains at stake in the enactment of this bill. I asked Mr. Lehmann, as I recollect his name to be, who caused him to come here. There seemed to be some little indignation on the part of some of the members that I questioned this soldier. Mr. Lehmann gave the name of Mr. Harris. Of course, I am new in these land reclamation matters, and I did not know Mr. Harris. Nobody before this committee seemed to place Mr. Harris. I now want to state to the committee that the Mr. Harris who talked with this young soldier and caused this young soldier to make his ap- pearance before this committee, as he said in answer to my question, comes from Harding, Mont., and is the representative of the Big Horn Investment Co. Now, undoubtedly, a good many of you members here who come from the West know more of the Big. Horn Investment Co. than I do. I am not familiar with those things. I may know more about it after a while. But this man who prompted this soldier, who made his lonely appearance before this committee because he was the only private soldier to come before this committee he was caused to come here, undoubtedly without him realizing he was being made use of by the talk of Mr. Harris, and Mr. Harris represents the Big Horn Investment Co. After making that statement to this committee, I desire to make a motion that Mr. Harris, whose address I will very gladly find and give to the clerk of this committee, or the chairman of this committee if he desires it. be requested to come before this committee. Mr. FERRIS. Pending that motion. I want to make a statement. Mr. Chairman, I invited that red-haired, sun-burned, faded-out soldier to address this committee, myself. I never saw that soldier before that day, and I have not seen him since. Mr. NICHOLS. I have no doubt about it. Mr. FERRIS. I never saw r Mr. Harris to know him. If he has ever been here before I do not know it. I never knew that there was such a person on earth. I never heard of the Big Horn Investment Co., and I did not know that there was such an investment company on earth. I merely saw that private soldier sitting there. The hearings had been dragging on ; we had had people of every conceivable kind before this committee, presenting their views to us. and I thought it was high time and proper that a real soldier who had the battle marks on him should give us his views. And I went over and sat down by him and invited him on my own initiative to get up and say a word. He replied to me that he was on here and he merely came in to see what he could learn about relief for the soldiers: that he had never made a speech in his life and did not know how to talk, and had not come here with the intention of making any state- ments. I stepped around and spoke to the chairman and told him what I had done, and ho told me he was here and it. was all right for me to have expended him the invitation, and the chairman very graciously said he could make a statement and he was asked to do so. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 657 I feel that statement is necessary in answer to your statement, Mr. Nichols, because I fear your statement might be mistaken. Mr. NICHOLS. I am glad you made your explanation. Mr. FERRIS. If anybody had any idea of having the soldier appear, I never knew of it, and if any Mr. Harris invited that soldier to come here and see if he could learn anything about the bill, he never mentioned it to me, and I would say also that that soldier very reluctantly consented to appear and evidently did not come here to be heard. He said, " I can not speak," and I said, " Well, you are well posted on this matter, and get up and say what you know." Mr. NICHOLS. I suggest he was a good-looking soldier, and well picked by the man who picked him, and I want to say to the commit- tee that I accept your statement, and did not intend to convey any suggestion that you knew anything about it. Mr. FERRIS. I am afraid your statement left that impression. Mr. ELSTOX. I have heard iterated and reiterated the statement that we have heard from only one private soldier. We have had reference made by Secretary Lane here to others to replies made by 80,000 soldiers made on this proposition, and we could read here for 10 months and consume two hours a day reading from lauditory letters from first-hand testimony now, from letters covering every phase of this proposition. So it is all balderdash to say we have not heard from private soldiers. We have heard more from private soldiers than from anybody else, and we have spent more time up one side and down the other on the views of private soldiers than from anybody else. And what is the use of getting what is merely the opinion of one or two men, when we have 80,000 ? Mr. NICHOLS. That is not my purpose. Mr. ELSTOX. What is our purpose of pursuing a private line of this kind, as to how that soldier came here to give his testimony? Of course, it might be that he came here because of some suggestion of somebody else, but if we are going off on sidetracks Mr. NICHOLS. We are going Mr. ELSTOX. To thrash out issues of some sinister conspiracy on the part of some big private company to use a stocking horse to some in here and knock this thing, when that is the only testimony 1 know of, of all the testimony that is in and it can not weigh in the consideration of the testimony as a whole. It looks to me as if it would be absolute!} ;i waste of the time of this committee to go off on side lines of that sort and to exploit this little sinister cam- paign that evidently somebody was put up to do something. Now, if you are going on to do that (and that is not saying this man did not get some >ut year? Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. Before this committee? Mr. HARRIS. Before the Committee on Water Power. But I want to make this Matement that I will be only too glad when we get some- thing done along that line so I can get back home and get to work. 1 a MI a long way from home, about 3,000 miles, I guess. The CHAIRMAN. Has your company any lands that you expect to turn over to the Government if this bill is passed? Mr. HAKIIIS. No; none at all. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nichols, do you want to question the witness ? Mr. NICHOLS. You talked to Mr. Lehmann. Did you suggest tbar he come down here and make a statement '. Mr. HARRIS. No. sir. The fact of the matter is. I thought the status of the bill at that time was I had a general idea, if I had any idea at all that the thing was about wound up and that he could get what literature he wanted and get the matter in pretty complete form,, probably that is, if he would ask for information. 680 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. Mr. NICHOLS. Haven't you talked to other soldiers about it? Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely. They have asked me down there at the Knights of Columbus Hut about* it. Mr. NICHOLS. Haven't you gone to soldiers on your own account and Drought the subject up with them of the soldier-land bill? Have not you brought it up yourself with the soldiers without them com- ing to you? Mr. HARRIS. I don't think so. Mr. NICHOLS. Will you say that you have not in the Knights of Columbus Hut? Mr. HARRIS. Definitely I could not say. It may have been this way, that there may have been several there and somebody would ask me while I was talking to others that put the question. Mr. NICHOLS. Isn't it true that you have brought this subject up yourself ? Mr. HARRIS. Not that I recall, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Will you say it is not so ? Mr. HARRIS. I could not say definitely, but not that I recall. Mr. NICHOLS. Isn't it a fact that it is well known among the boys around the Knights of Columbus Hut that you are very much interested in this soldier land bill and that you have been generally talking this soldier land bill around the Knights of Columbus Hut to such an extent that it has become a well-known fact that you are interested in this bill ? Mr. HARRIS. Not from any other consideration except the consid- eration I just enumerated. Mr. NICHOLS. I didn't say the consideration; I just asked you the question. Mr. BARBOTTO. I suggest that the witness be allowed to answer the question. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, is this gentleman on trial for having committed some crime? If not, I don't think these questions should be asked. Mr. MATS. Let him ask anything he pleases. Mr. BARBOUR. I don't object to the witness being questioned, but I would like to see the witness answer. Mr. SUMMERS. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, if he, down at the Knights of Columbus or Young Men's Christian Association or any other place, has presented this matter fully to any and every soldier, I believe he was only doing his duty and nothing beyond thai. Mr. BENHAM. That doesn't seem to be the question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NICHOLS. I would like to continue my questions. Mr. BARBOUR. I suggest that Mr. Nichols go ahead with the questions. Mr. HARRIS. I will answer the question that I am interested as any man would be interested in the development of the country and get- ting something for the soldiers. Bevond that I am not interested at all. Mr. NICHOLS. But haven't you made yourself conspicuously active in the interests of this bill, so that it was generally understood that Mr. Harris of Montana is very much interested in the adoption of this measure? Mr. HARRIS. No; I couldn't say that, outside of the viewpoint I just presented. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 681 Mr. NICHOLS. Well, Mr. Harris, do you live in Washington ? Mr. HARRIS. I live in Montana. Mr. NICHOLS. Whereabouts in Montana? Mr. HARRIS. What part of Montana ? The southeastern portion. Mr. NICHOLS. What is your business? Mr. HARRIS. Water-power development generally water power, irrigation, and transportation. Mr. NICHOLS. How long have you been in Washington ? Mr. HARRIS. Well, I have been here just about six weeks, and pre- vious to that I was here I have been here off and on for the last two years. I have been here between Washington, York, and Pennsyl- vania, for the past two years. Mr. NICHOLS. You have been coming to Washington for a number of years, haven't you ? Mr. HARRIS. The first trip I made here was in 1914 in connection with water power, and then in regard to the nitrate plant. They had hearings before the War Department one time in regard to locating a nitrate plant somewhere, and they considered the West in that con- nection. Mr. NICHOLS. Are you in the employ of somebody ? Mr. HARRIS. Just our company. Mr. NICHOLS. What company ? Mr. HARRIS. The Big Horn Canyon Irrigation & Power Co., Hardin, Mont. Mr. NICHOLS. What is its business? Mr. HARRIS. Power, irrigation, and railroads. Of course, we haven't built any; we are waiting for legislation. Mr. NICHOLS. Is this a subsidiary company connected with other companies ? Mr. HARRIS. No; we have no connections to-day, and we can't get any financial connections until legislation is had on water power. The CHAIRMAN. You mean water-power legislation? Mr: HARRIS. Yes. Irrigation, of course, is an incident to the power. We build a dam for power, and irrigation is incident to it. Mr. NICHOLS. You are in Washington now. Mr. HARRIS. In Washington ; yes. Mr. NICHOLS. As a lobbyist for water power? Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely* no. I am here as a general manager and president of our company, and we have no work in Montana now. Our work is all here. It is not in Montana, because we are stalled. Mr. NICHOLS. Are you a lobbyist? Mr. HARRIS. I am not a lobbyist ; no, sir. The fact is, I receive no salary, and I have had no salary for several years. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you represent any concern in New York City? Mr. HARRIS. Only in this way : Mr. Hugh L. Cooper is the 'con- sulting engineer of our on our project and Gen. Goethals. Mr. NICHOLS. That is all I have. Mr. RAKER. I have just a couple of random questions. Mr. Harris, in addition ty> appearing before the Committee on Water Power, did you have any matter before the Department of the Interior in regard to application for rights to construct your dams, etc.? Mr. HARRIS. Oh, yes; the maps and all that matter have been filed, as is usual in a case of that kind. We have had a great deal of work with the Interior Department. 682 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. You are generally interested in proper legislation, to the end that the water power of the country might be developed ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes ; so much so that we can't do a thing until there is legislation enacted. Mr. RAKER. Now, have you been familiar with the West to some extent? Mr HARRIS. Well, I think probably as much as it is given to the ordinary layman to be familiar. Mr. RAKER. How long have you been out there ? Mr. HARRIS. I have been out there in the Northwest since 1906. Mr. RAKER. Are you anyways familiar with the cut-over lands of the Northwest also ?' Mr. HARRIS. You have reference now to the timberlands? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr HARRIS. Not so much so. In our eastern territory we have very little of that in the eastern part of the State. Mr. RAKER. Are you anyways acquainted with the cut-over lands in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Mr. HARRIS. No ; as to those lands, I am only acquainted in a gen- eral way. Mr. RAKER. You are in no ways acquainted with the unoccupied and uncultivated lands of the Southern States, the swamp lands there? Mr. HARRIS. Not to be able to give any information that would be of value. Mr. RAKER. Are you acquainted with irrigation projects in the West conducted by the Government ? Mr. HARRIS. Very well, indeed. Mr. RAKER. Are you anyways familiar with the irrigation projects in the West under private development and ownership ? Mr. HARRIS. I am. Mr. RAKER. Now, have those projects, to a greater or less extent, been a success? Mr. HARRIS. It so happens that in my observation projects which have been conducted by private parties* in the main have been more successful, by reason of the fact that they were in close touch with the situation governing the case. The Government, of course, is far- fetched and full of red tape ordinarily, and unless it is a tremendous big project that private parties could not go into, that would not be a commendable thing, don't you see of course, in very large projects it so happens that you have got to take water sometimes for 100 miles before you can use it, and there the Government, of course, can do the thing where private parties could not. Mr. RAKER. What I want to know is, generally speaking, from your personal observation you are in that line of work to a greater or less extent whether or not they have developed the countries or territories that were unproductive before to such an extent that they are now successful? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, indeed; very much so. The Government has I will state, for instance, the Himtley project, east of Billings about 12 miles, is a very successful project. Of course, gentlemen. I want you to have this impression, too. as I make that statement, the thing governing that condition there is sugar beets, and it is the most HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 683 successful sugar-beet country, I think probably, that there is in the Northwest, and that, of course, entered into the situation very largely and really made that the most successful reclamation project that the United States Government has. Mr. RAKER. Well, is there more land out there that could be suc- cessfully irrigated, that is not irrigated now, that is open, unoccu- pied, uncultivated land ? Mr. HARRIS. Well, I want to make this statement, gentlemen : In 1904 the United States Government made a survey the Reclamation Service for the irrigation of 46,000 acres of ground, and then after more thorough investigation, and by reason of the lack of reclama- tion funds, they abandoned the project. That very project we will cover with our power project that is, we will increase the acreage from 46,000 acres to 70,000 acres and the irrigation becomes an au- tomatic part of our project. You see, while you are raising water for power, we raise it for irrigating the ground, and that is where we automatically build up about a million and a half dollars' worth of irrigation while we are building power; so, while it wouldn't be a practical proposition for them, it is for us. Mr. RAKER. Outside of the special matter you speak of, generally over those Western States is there a large quantity of land that is susceptible of irrigation and cultivation if water could be obtained? Mr. HARRIS. Yes; very much. Mr. RAKER. Well, now, you have looked over this Lane bill and are somewhat familiar with the general situation. I will ask you to state to the committee if, from your observation and experience, you believe that this bill will be workable and will be a great benefit for the United States if enacted into law ? Mr. HARRIS. I want to say this, that I saw a page or two of the bill, and probably read the first five lines of it, and that is all that I have seen. Mr. RAKER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BENHAM. Just one question, Mr. Harris Mr. HARRIS (interposing). Just one moment before you put your question. Finishing my answer, the idea, in my opinion, is a good one. I think it is a splendid idea to get the land in that way for re- turning soldiers, I don't care whore it is; I think it is a good thing because I find this true with them I have a brother that is serving and he left his bvisim> ;md went into the Army and came back and he wanted to go West. He was not satisfied with things any more. I figure that very many of them are unsettled, and this is a thing that is likely to appeal to them. They want to get somewhere else. It is hard for them to go back to business, and that offers an opportunity for such as want to change their location, etc. I think the bill offers very good opportunities for such men as that. Mr. NICHOLS. Now. Mr. Harris, of course if a great deal of money is spent in irrigating Western arid land, your corporation and all other corporations of that kind would benefit, either directly or in- directly by it? Mr. HARRIS. You are very correct about that. T made this state- ment, that every bit of land brought into cultivation in the West creates a national asset or a Stale a>sct that is helpful throughout the State and throughout the Nation. There is no question about that. 684 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. VAILE. And it would not only be of peculiar benefit to the corporations engaged in irrigation work, but to the whole industry of the country. Mr. HARRIS. Not the corporation I think that should be elimi- nated. I mean the public at large. Mr. NICHOLS. Why do you eliminate corporations? Because you represent them? Mr. HARRIS. The situation is, I think it is for the people at large. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Incidentally, do you not think it will be help- ful in industrial centers of the East? For instance, the city of De- troit would be greatly benefited if we would develop the West so that they could send in automobiles and threshing machines and mowing machines. Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely. Even Wall Street, New York, for in- stance, if there are objections from there Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). You are getting nearer home Mr. HARRIS (interposing). We have got to come East to finance and so on. You gentlemen know that very well. Mr. NICHOLS. How are you interested in the city of Detroit? Mr. HARRIS. Whether I would be or not, the proposition would still be the same. Of course, there are many interests in the country that would be prosperous. Mr. NICHOLS. The truth of the matter is that you represent a pri- vate corporation? Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely. Mr. NICHOLS. And you are in favor of this bill, the general pur- poses of it? Mr. HARRIS. The general principles of the bill ; yes. Mr. NICHOLS. To such an extent that you have talked it over with quite a number of soldiers, and one of those soldiers that you dis- cussed it with came here and made a statement. Mr. HARRIS. I told him to get his information up here at the Pub- lic Lands Committee ; that they would probably have it and would be able to enlighten him. I didn't have anything on it. Mr. MAYS. Did he ask you for information or did you first ap- proach him ? Mr. HARRIS. He asked me for information, as I recall it. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Harris, how did he come to ask you for information ? Mr. HARRIS. I couldn't make that statement definite^. Mr. NICHOLS. Why should he ask you for information? . Mr. HARRIS. Well, he was over in France, and you know he had lost touch with the United States and was going to Virginia and then going west. Mr. NICHOLS. You don't think that he heard that you took a great interest in this bill ? Mr. HARRIS. Now, he may have heard from the boys there I don't recall the boys that I had spoken to. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You do not think that you did anything wrong to impart information to the soldiers, do you? Mr. HARRIS. No ; oh, no. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Nor that you ought to apologize to anybody for talking to these men about anything you want to talk to them HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 685 about ? Did it ever occur to you that you would be brought up here and cross-questioned for giving out information ? Mr. HARRIS. I want to say Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). Now, just a minute are you answer- ing my question or Mr. Smith's? Who is questioning? The CHAIRMAN. You were questioning him first, but Mr. Smith broke in. Mr. BENHAM. And we ought to know on whose time he is to be questioned by Mr. Smith. Mr. NICHOLS. Did anybody ask you to apologize? Did I ask you to apologize before this committee? Mr. HARRIS. No; and, gentlemen, I w r ant no apologies. I think it very Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). Mr. Smith suggested that. The CHAIRMAN. Let him answer the question. Mr. HARRIS. Now, the question I have lost track of that. The CHAIRMAN. Are you through on that line? Mr. NICHOLS. I was asking Mr. Harris regarding how this soldier came to ask him, but Mr. Smith interrupted how the soldier hap- pened to come to him. Mr. HARRIS. I could not recall. Mr. NICHOLS. And I asked you Mr. SMITH (interposing). You had better ask the soldier that question. Is he here ? Mr. NICHOLS. No ; he is not here. Do you know how he happened to come to you ? Mr. HARRIS. Do I know how he happened to come up here? Mr. NICHOLS. No; to you personally. Mr. HARRIS. Well, as I say, as I recall, I met him at the entrance of the Knights of Columbus'Hall. Mr. NICHOLS. You said he came to you and asked you. Mr. HARRIS. As I recall; yes. We were speaking, however, of other matters, you understand, and I learned that he had come from across the water ; I learned that he was from the West, and naturally he was asking questions, and I feel that he asked me. I couldn't say definitely. Of course I know this much, that I was willing to impart any information I could. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think that he came to you because it was generally understood by the boys around there that you were inter- ested in this proposition ? Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that question is relevant at all, because how can he know what induced the soldier to come to him? The CHAIRMAN. I think he can answer the question. Mr. HARRIS. I say. I have that idea, that he got his information from the boys around there, that probably I knew a little something about it, or could put him wise to where he could get some informa- tion. Mr. ELSTOX. Was there any understanding between you and the soldier that he should come up here and represent a particular line of argument that you suggested to him, and in a way be your repre- sentative here, and an agent to misrepresent the opinion of the soldier ? Did anything like that pass between you ? 686 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HARRIS. That idea is absolutely wrong, because the soldier boy just came up here to get this information. Mr. ELSTON. The imputation here was that this is some kind of a cooked up deal between you and the soldier, by which he came up here and you were attempting to put over something. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that that is perfectly unfair. Mr. ELSTON. Now, Mr. Nichols, that implication that is not in- vidous, but you have implied that as a fact. Mr. NICHOLS. I have not implied that the soldier was in the deal. What I said specifically was that unconsciously the soldier was being made use of, and I repeat what I said. Mr. HARRIS. Well, then, I will make Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). I said "unconsciously" the soldier I am perfectly satisfied with the soldier. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask Mr. Nichols a question, if I may. Who, in your opinion, was making use of the soldier, either with the soldier's consciousness or without? Who was making use of him? Mr. NICHOLS. The people that Mr. Harris represents, and people that I can't tell you now all the names that he does represent, either directly or indirectly. Mr. FERRIS. Well, what do you think Mr. Harris what does your information disclose that Mr. Harris sought to do with that soldier? What was in your mind? All I am trying to get at is what was in your mind as to what Mr. Harris did with that soldier, and I say to the committee frankly that I ask this question for a purpose, because I had something to do with that soldier myself after I got up here, and I want to get it straight in my mind. What is it, Mr. Nichols, that you think Mr. Harris actually did to bring about any misuse of that soldier, or any use of him at all, other than a perfectly proper one? Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I don't know that I care to make any state- ment at this time before the committee. Mr. Harris is up here to answer questions and I am asking questions. He stated specifically that he represents a private corporation that has an interest in having this bill enacted, because it means so much to the particular section of the country that this corporation is doing business in, and that they are very much interested in seeing this bill enacted. Mr. FERRIS. Is there anything wrong about that, Mr. Nichols ? Mr. NICHOLS. I think it is wrong if Congress and a congressional committee is endeavoring, sincerely and earnestly and conscien- tiously, as I think this committee is, to enact a law, the purpose of which is to aid the soldiers to own a home and to readjust themselves after this war I think that it is wrong and it has a suspicious sur- rounding altogether that private concerns are showing a deep inter- est in the enactment of this legislation. Mr. MAYS. Have you shown anything like that? Mr. FERRIS. Where is the proof of that? Mr. NICHOLS. The proof of it is right here in Mr. Harris. He told you who he represents. Mr. BARBOUR. Not on this proposition, though, Mr. Nichols. Mr. NICHOLS. No; but generally in Washington. He lolls you who he is employed by. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 687 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nichols, do you think it is part of the overt act that he brought this gentleman up here to get the information? Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, the general disposition is to help to put this over if they can. The CHAIRMAN. That is all that appears, that he brought this soldier into this room, and the soldier sat here and engaged in a con- versation with Mr. Ferris, the former chairman of this committee, and Mr. Ferris on his own initiative invited the gentleman, the sol- dier, to testify before the committee. What I am trying to locate or discover is the overt act of this conspiracy alleged conspiracy. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, if you gentlemen want to laugh at it, you go ahead and laugh at it, but I tell you it is a mighty interesting thing .and it is a mighty suspicious thing, in my mind. Whether it im- presses any of you gentlemen or not, it is a mighty suspicious thing that we have at least traced one private corporation from the far West that will benefit by the enactment of this legislation, whose representative he is. Mr. MAYS. In what way will they benefit? Mr. NICHOLS. He testified that. Mr. MAYS. In what way? Mr. NICHOLS. He testified to it, and you look it up that they. It is suspicious that they should show an interest in putting this legislation over, to the extent of having one of their agents, at any rate, show a particular interest in this legislation. Mr. MAYS. I want to ask a question there. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hersman has been endeavoring to get the floor. Mr. HERSMAN. Mr. Harris, did you know that there was a hear- ing going on before this committee, where the soldier could testify? Mr. HARRIS. No; I didn't know a thing about it. I haven't 'been to any hearings. Mr. FERRIS. Did you ask the soldier to come up here and testify? Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely, no. Mr. FERRIS. Now I was not here yesterday and I may be a little insistent about this, but I think that a statement is due here from me. I don't know whether the committee will hear me or not Mr. VAILE (interposing). I think it is due from Mr. Ferris. Mr. FERRIS. Absolutely that soldier had no more intention of making a speech before this committee than I have of addressing the Versailles conference. I went right over there and sat down by him and asked him his name I had never seen him before and asked him if he knew anything about this bill. He said a Young Men's Christian Association concern in France had explained it to him, and that he was interested in it. I said, " Would you like to say a word about it ? " He said, " I can't talk. I never spoke on my feet in my life." I said, " I have heard something of the terms of this to-day, and they explained it to me over in France." Then I said, " Wouldn't you like to say a word before the committee ? " He re- plied that he wouldn't mind if we wanted him to, and I went over and suggested to the chairman that he be called on. and the reason I state this is that I don't think we ought to get a man, Mr. Harris or anybody else, up here and cook up a lot of surreptitious imagin- ings and fry to make something out of it. That soldier had no in- 13331919 44 688 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. tention whatever of addressing the committee, and I went and ar- ranged with the chairman to have him address the committee if he would. I called on him myself to make an address. I never saw the soldier before ; I have never seen him since, and I never spoke a word to Mr. Harris on the subject in my life. I stated yesterday that I had never seen Mr. Harris; I think I saw him before the Water Power Committee. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. And you did not know what he was going to say, whether he was for the bill or against it ? Mr. FERRIS. He told me there that he thought he was for the bill. Mr. ELSTON. Does his testimony, Mr. Ferris, show the earmarks of a slick, insidious propaganda? Mr. FERRIS. Absolutely not. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot that does not reflect credit on this committee. Mr. WHITE. He never stated that it did, Mr. Elston. He stated repeatedly and consecutively a dozen times that nobody thought the soldier had any such purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Mays has the floor. Mr. MAYS. I started to ask a question of the witness. Mr. Nichols has just stated that this propaganda has been traced to one private corporation which would be peculiarly benefited by this legislation. I want to ask Mr. Harris if his corporation would be benefited peculiarly by this legislation. Mr. HARRIS. Absolutely no ; not any more than any other corpora- tion wherever a project of the kind might be located, or something of that kind. Mr. MATS. Do you have any land that you thing possibly might be bought by the Government upon which a project might be insti- tuted? Mr. HARRIS. No; the Government in our Territory has no land for sale in the first place, that I know of. It is Indian reservation around there, in the main. Mr. MAYS. Does your company have any land that you might hope to sell? Mr. HARRIS. No; no land at all. Mr. VAILE. HaA r e you any water that you could sell to the Govern- ment for these or other lands in that vicinity where the water could be used? Mr. HARRIS. Under existing conditions out there to-day as to our irrigation feature, we would be able to increase the irrigation area about 70,000 acres by gravity and probably 40,000 acres by lifting. But that land, gentlemen, is owned by whites and by Indians to-day,, and they, probably, of course, would see to it that they had w r ater for the land, you know. It would be a beneficial proposition, provided the water was cheap enough. Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Harris, isn't it a fact that if 70,000 acres of irrigated land there under private ownership was put on the market, and this bill was enacted, that this would come in direct competition with that? If this Mondell bill were enacted and there were other projects opened up all over the United States, I say that would come in competition with any private projects? Mr. HARRIS. Naturally the territory would have to stand on its. merits. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 689 Mr. SUMMERS. I believe Mr. Harris very fully understands that he has a right to talk to one soldier or to every soldier for or against this bill. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Or about any other bill or subject. Mr. SUMMERS. Or any other person. And the impression is being given over and over again that when a man goes out and talks to a soldier in regard to this bill that he is doing something improper, and I maintain that he is only exercising the rights of an American citizen, and when he goes out of his way to talk this to a soldier he is only doing a patriotic duty toward that soldier and toward his country. If he believes in the bill, well and good; if he is opposed to it and steers a soldier away from it, he is doing the same thing, and regardless of which side he is on, I don't think that any improper motives ought to be imputed to that man for talking to soldiers if they want information. They have been trying to get it in France; they are writing to me from my part of the country in regard to it, and wherever you go I was in Xew York the other day, and they were asking me up there in regard to this bill and what it meant, and when there would be land available and all those things, and I think I had a perfect right to give them the fullest explanation of which I was capable, and I don't think that this is a proposition that is go- ing to benefit any particular part of the country. There has been some reference to Detroit and its automobiles. I will say for the information of the committee this morning that in Yakima County in the State of Washington, where we have 140,000 acres of irri- gated land, they are running more than 5,000 automobiles, whereas they possibly would have been operating 300 or 400 without that development, and it is benefiting the soldier back in Detroit just the same as it would benefit a soldier some place else on the land. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gandy, do you desire to ask a question? Mr. GANDT. I don't desire, Mr. Chairman, to ask the witness any questions, but as one member of this committee, I do want to say that the time has been limited and it doesn't occur to me that it is fair in the least for this committee to take up all the time with one witness here, and if you will pardon the expression, wrangling among ourselves as to this or that or the other, and we ought to have some definite time for each witness and go ahead with him. There are other witnesses that want to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. I think it was the desire of the committee to be pretty liberal with this witness. He is really not a witness ; he is un- der investigation. Mr. NICHOLS. You might say under suspicion. Mr. WHITE. I want to ask the witness some direct questions. Are you pretty familiar, Mr. Harris, with the agricultural condi- tions in the State of Montana at the present time? How about Fergus County, for instance? Mr. HARRIS. I don't know about that. Mr. WHITE. Well, how long has it been since you have been in Montana? Mr. HARRIS. Well, of course, I am in touch with it every day. Mr. WHITE. Did yon ever live there? Mr. HARRIS. Yes:'l lived there since 1906. I homesteaded there. 690 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. And you are pretty well acquainted with the topog- raphy of the country generally? Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. WHITE. You know, Mr. Harris, that the bench lands of Mon- tana are being continually developed, that they are finding small tracts of land that a few years ago were thought to be not important enough for agricultural purposes, but that land is naturally well watered and they are raising enormous crops all through those bench lands almost a 'sure thing. They raise 45 bushels of wheat to the acre. You know, too, that those farmers are making good profits, operating very successfully; that they are buying trucks and trans- porting their products to market on the Milwaukee and the other roads that penetrate that country. Do you know if there are num- bers of segregated tracts of land that are for sale throughout the State of Montana, this productive land, in small tracts, SO acres or 100 acres, or 160 acres? Can you answer that question? Mr. HARRIS. I will answer it in this way, that land is changing hands very much there all the time; yes. Mr. WHITE. Well, you regard those segregated tracts, then, as a good investment? They have a commercial value fixed on the basis of their revenue-producing power? Mr. HARRIS. Any land in the Northwest that is good land is grow- ing in value. Mr. WHITE. That is true all over the United States. Now, I want to ask you this question, Mr. Harris. We will say, for instance, that a young soldier that has returned from the war, who, we will say, enlisted from Montana, from one of these districts, and he wants to go into business. Having only a small capital, do you think that if he could buy a tract of this land, selecting it from his own personal knowledge of the adaptability for the products they raise there, and the Government would loan him a percentage of the purchase price, would he have a good prospect to succeed? Mr. HARRIS. Why, I feel so. I think he would. Mr. WHITE. Well, don't you believe that he would have as good a prospect to succed as he would have under a Government project? He would have the advantage, Mr. Harris, of having a thorough familiarity with the local conditions. He would have the advice of his father and his friends. Mr. HARRIS. There is this difference: Of course, you would benefit in one respect but you might lose in another. As I understand the plan of the Government, it is to get a community together. Now, he might have to buy an isolated tract in order to get what he wanted. I will explain that. We will say, for instance, here is an Indian allotment that was barren, nothing doing there; he bought an ad- joining tract Mr. WHITE (interposing). Now, my question applies to the case where there is an opportunity to buy by this land ; make a selection that will be satisfactory to the soldier. Mr. HARRIS. Still the difference is there. The difference is that by somebody taking the lead and laying out and planning a project on a large scale, it would make the project a more successful propo- sition than where the party went out and selected a piece of ground isolated from transportation, etc. There would be that difference. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 691 Mr. WHITE. I am speaking about these remote tracts being connected by truck travel and automobile with all these stations along these railroads. Mr. HARRIS. He would naturally go to the place where the land was cheapest, and that would be isolated. That is the general propo- sition where the fellow hasn't got funds, you know. Mr. WHITE. But you say there are plenty of those tracts and they are for sale and are changing hands constantly? Mr. HARRIS. Either plan, in my opinion, is a good plan. Mr. WHITE. And those lands are worth what they cost, based on the well-known sagacity and business judgment of land speculators and buyers and sellers '4 Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. WHITE. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Harris. Mr. BARBOUR. I would like to call up the remark made by Mr. Nichols a moment ago, that, as it goes into the record, leaves it in rather an unsatisfactory way. Mr. Nichols said that this witness was under suspicion. Am I correct, Mr. Nichols? The CHAIRMAN. He was expressing his own opinion. Mr. BARBOUR. I wanted that to appear. I didn't want it to ap- pear that that was the opinion of the committee. Mr. NICHOLS. Under suspicion so far as I am concerned. Mr. VAILE. I might add that I don't think that he is under in- dictment, so far as I am concerned? Mr. BARBOUR. No ; nor under suspicion, so far as I am concerned. Now, I have heard this discussion, and I haven't heard a thing or a word that warrants any suspicion against Mr. Harris. Now, would you mind stating, Mr. Nichols, the reason why he is under suspicion with you ? I think that is due in fairness to Mr. Harris. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, now, supposing you ask the other members of the committee who have said he was under indictment. Mr. BARBOUR. That was a joking remark. Mr. VAILE. I just explained that remark. The CHAIRMAN. Does Mr. Nichols care to answer that question? Mr. NICHOLS. You want to know why I think he is under supicion ? Mr. BARBOUR. Yes; your reason for that statement, why he is under suspicion by you. I think that is only fair to the witness. Mr. NICHOLS. I think the witness is deeply concerned as a repre- sentative of the corporation that he says he represents here, the Big Horn Investment Co. Mr. HARRIS. The Big Horn Canyon Irrigation & Power Co. Mr. NICHOLS. That as an agent of this corporation Mr. HARRIS (interposing). As an officer. I am president and gen- eral manager of it. Mr. NICHOLS. You are the representative here of that corporation ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes : the only representative. The CHAIRMAN. President and general manager, he states. Mr. SUMMERS. But he doesn't come here, does he, Mr. Chairman, in the capacity of an officer in a corporation ? He comes here because he was asked to come. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I will continue, and say that as a representa- tive of this corporation he has shown an interest in the enactment of this legislation, and I think it is a very suspicion thing a sus- G92 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. picious thing to me that a private corporation, with a representa- tive in Washington, who has appeared before various committees regarding the development of the western district The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Water power. Mr. NICHOLS. Water power should show as much interest as it appears here he has shown by talking to numbers of soldiers re- garding this legislation? The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. BARBOUR. That answers my question. Mr. HARRIS. I would like to just make a few remarks. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask one more question. The question I want to ask you, Mr. Harris, is do you believe that in a case sucli as I have indicated that the young man with an experience in agri- culture throughout a lifetime should buy a tract of this segre- gated land, that it would be a safe thing for the Government to loan him a part of the purchase price, so far as solvency on the part of the Government is concerned ? Would it be a good bet for the Gov- ernment ? Mr. HARRIS. Well, it would in the main, I think. Of course it would depend then on the man. It would depend also on the terri- tory. Mr. WHITE. Certainly it would depend on that. I admit all that. Mr. HARRIS. I want to make a statement for the gentleman Mr. BARBOUR (interposing). Do you mean Mr. Nichols? Mr. HARRIS. That when the war broke out we had many men in our territory that went to the young fellow who was going to war and patted him on the shoulder and said, " How I envy you that I am not in your place." The soldier went across the water, a young fellow taken not at his own volition to go into the Army, but he went because the Government wanted him to and put him in. I don't feel like the fellow that did the clapping on his shoulder, and said, "How I envy you." I have always had a sympathy for the boys. Some of our engineers had to go over there, and especially is that true of the men coming from the West; that they had just made a start, and they quit everything and went away to war, and if I can do anything in any way to help them along I am going to do it, and that is my motive in probably showing an interest in the sol- dier boy. I don't Avant to be hypocritical about it, but he has always had my sympathy. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Harris, if I may ask you one question, do you believe that they should help all the boys that went to the front, that went to the Army? Mr. HARRIS. I think the Government in its discretion will know best how to handle the matter. Mr. NICHOLS. You say you are interested in doing something for the soldier who went to the front and whom we all honor. Mr. HARRIS. I certainly am interested. Mr. NICHOLS. We all are. Do you think that we should do some- thing for all of them? Mr. HARRIS. I think we should do the things that judgment would we do to help the situation along. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 693 Mr. NICHOLS. I know, but you are showing an interest, as you un- doubtedly have, in the soldier. Now are you in favor of enacting legislation that will attempt to give Government aid to all of the ap- proximately 4,500,000 men that were in the Army and Navy ? Mr. HARRIS. To the extent that it would encourage the boy to get out and make good for himself, and in that way make good for the Government and increase the national credit. We have got debts enough, and we ought to reduce it. To that extent we ought to en- courage the soldier boy to go and make good. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you know how many soldiers could be aided by the provisions of this bill ? Mr. HARRIS. I haven't the slightest idea. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, if it should only be able to provide for ap- proximately 100,000, do you think it would be a good bill? Mr. HA&KIB. Any bill that will provide for helping 100,000 boys in a practical way, I consider that a good bill. Mr. NICHOLS. Would you believe in giving some Government aid to all the soldiers? Mr. HARRIS. I think the Government aided them to get away from thoir work and should aid them to get back. That is the way I feel about it. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is fair to this gentle- man I have never seen him before and know nothing of him, but I think it is fair to him for the committee to say that he has acquitted himself admirably before this committee; that he has shown no in- terest whatever in this bill except such interest as would be prompted by his patriotism, his love for his country, and the soldiers, and I would not think it proper for him to leave this committee feeling that the committee felt that he had acted suspiciously at all, and so far as I am concerned, I think his conduct is beyond suspicion. Mr. ELSTON. You make a motion to that effect? The CHAIRMAN. I think your statement is true. I think it is a case of "trifles light as air that jaundiced minds become confirmation strong as truths of Holy Writ." [Laughter.] Mr. ELSTON. You make that motion? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. ELSTON. I second the motion, that this witness be relieved of suspicion. Mr. RAKER. We don't want any motion; the committee is using its discretion. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Gentlemen of the committee, under a rule made yesterday, three hours' time will be devoted to the opponents of the' bill, to be followed by three hours from the proponents of the bill. Now, we are ready to hear the opponents. Mr. FERRIS. You mean, Mr. Chairman, general debate? The CHAIRMAN. No; the rule was that the hearings would be extended three hours to the opponents of the bill and three hours to the proponents of the bill. Mr. FERRIS. Was that done yesterday? The CHAIRMAN. That was done yesterday; yes. Now, the regular order of business is to hear some one who is against the bill. Is there any witness in the room who is opposed to the bill ? If so, he may step forward. 694 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. GANDY. Mr. Chairman, I have a witness here who is against the bill as it stands. The CHAIRMAN. Will you introduce your witness, Mr. Gandy? Mr. GANDY. This is Mr. Jeffries. The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and whom you repre- sent, and your residence? STATEMENT OF ME. HUGH JEFFRIES, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERI- CAN MILITARY REFORM ASSOCIATION. Mr. JEFFRIES. My name is Hugh Jeffries, president of the Ameri- can Military Eeform Association. My residence is Danbury, Wis. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. With what organization were you connected in the Army? Mr. JEFFRIES. The Twenty-third Regiment of Engineers, L Com- pany, A. E. F. Mr. GANDY. Before you start, for the benefit of the record, will you state the position that you were in before you went into the service ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I am a highway engineer, engaged in highway work under the Wisconsin Highway Commission for about four years previous to enlisting in the Twenty-third Engineers, which is the highway regiment of the Army. I was in 1916 and 1917 secretary- treasurer of the Wisconsin Highway Commissioners Association. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You are now a sergeant ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I was a sergeant; yes, sir. I am discharged from the Army. I have an honorable discharge. Mr. GANDY. And just further, for the record, before you start in> you saw service overseas and at the front? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir ; I was with L Company of the Twenty-third Engineers, and we went through the Lorraine front with the Rain- bow Division early in May of 1918, and were in the zone of action continuously until after the armistice was signed. We were in direct contact with and along with 10 different combat divisions, and saw them in action. Mr. GANDY. Now, Mr. Jeffries, if you will permit me, if you are not in favor of this bill as it stands, tell the committee why and what amendments you would favor. Mr. JEFFRIES. I wish to state to the committee that I have been I have taken part in a great many discussions and informal confer- ences among the soldiers in regard to this proposition, both in France and in the United States. I will say that I represent no private concern in any way, shape or form, but I do represent a great many soldiers who are very deeply interested in this proposition, and I know from my own personal knowledge and contact directly and indirectly with about 300,000 of these soldiers I know something of the questions which have arisen in their minds and have been pro- pounded in regard to the feasibility and the advisability and the ap- plicability of this proposed act, and I have prepared a list of ques- tions, questions which have been asked of me and asked of others many times in regard to the bill, 10 in number, and if you have the time, I would like to take up particularly two or three of these ques- tions. Now, what is your pleasure, gentlemen ? Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to hear him. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 695 Mr. JEFFRIES. Shall I read the entire list? Mr. JOHNSON. Read whatever you want to. Mr. JEFFRIES. These are questions of the enlisted man. No. 1. What assurance has the enlisted man that in the administering of this plan the employment of ex-Army officers in desirable salaried positions would not be fostered without regard for real ability and merit? I think that is the first question in the mind of the enlisted man nearly always. We have seen a great deal of favoritism and patron- age. We have been very closely held by a governmental system, a military system in which it has been brought very forcibly to our notice, and that we are afraid of. Mr. RAKER. Just what do you mean by that, Mr. Jeffries ? In what particular line ? Mr. JEFFRIES. In the administering of the act, an organization would have to be either expanded very considerably, or a new or- ganization, neAv bureaus created. Mr. RAKER. You mean that under the provisions of section 3, lines 4 and 5. page 3 : "The Secretary shall, so far as practicable, util- ize the services of soldiers for such purposes " that the Secretary would not use the services of engineers and men like that who had been in the service, but would take those who are now in the service in preference to them ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I don't wish to be taken as implying that that would be done by the Interior Department or by any department which would handle it. I don't wish to imply that, but I say that that section we would like an answer to that an assurance, some kind of an assurance that this favoritism would not be shown, you see. Mr. RAKER. I catch your point. Mr. JEFFRIES. That is the idea. Mr. RAKER. Well, is it your view that the Secretary should be directed positively to employ the soldiers in all the work surveying, engineering, and electrical work, and house building, and all ? Mr. JEFFRIES. It is our idea that a real merit system should prevail, regardless of enlisted men, officers, or whoever it is ; but a real merit system should prevail. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Jeffries, would you like to continue to make your statement to make a complete statement and then answer ques- tions ; or do you want to answer them as you go along ? Mr. JEFFRIES. That is at the pleasure of your committee. Mr. NICHOLS. I just wanted to know what your idea was. The CHAIRMAN. You might get your questions into the record first, Mr. Jeffries, so we will have them in consecutive order in one place. Mr. JEFFRIES. Very well [reading] : No. 2. What protection has the purchaser in his equity in the land in case he desires to dispose of same prior to acquiring title? Has not the Secretary of the Interior full power to prevent transfer of any kind whatsoever without the necessity of even explaining why he refuses to sanction the deal? No. 3. Under the provisions of the bill, what is offered in the way of assist- ance to the soldier who desires to acquire and develop land which does not happen to be included in a project which has been approved and acquired under the provisions of this act? No. 4. Does this act admit of the expenditure of any portion of the fund for administrative purposes or for preliminary investigations or the making of sur- veys and plans? No. 5. W T hat assurance have we that in the work of improving and developing the land a real merit system under which ability, application, and initiative 696 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. shall be promoted to the highest degree and the evils of political and other forms of patronage be minimized? No. 6. Is any provision made whereby the counsel, advice, and desires of the settlers in matters affecting the policies of administration as to projects in which they are directly interested may be availed of, and whereby those most interested may be sharers in the responsibility of management of the under- taking, through the exercise of a stockholder's vote when policies are to be determined ? No. 7. After Congress has appropriated money under the provisions of this act what supervisory powers has it over its expediture? No. 8. Has not the Secretary of the Interior absolute power of veto as to any and all undertakings or operations under this act? No. 9. Is it not entirely possible that a great deal of favoritism might develop In the administering of this act, and that it places tremendous power in the hands of a few political appointees who are far removed from the people and not directly responsible to the Congress? No. 10. What is to insure an equitable distribution of the funds appropri- ated? [Applause.] Mr. TILLMAN. Did you have any assistance or suggestions in draft- ing this questionnaire? ' Mr. JEFFRIES. As stated, I have prepared this list of questions per- sonally from the conferences I have had with soldiers. Mr. GANDY. In this connection I want to sav that Mr. Jeffries came to me voluntarily yesterday and we had quite an extended discussion of it, and I asked him to go back and put into writing the questions that he asked of me. and assured him of an opportunity to be heard, and that is the result of it. Mr. NICHOLS. We are deeply indebted to this soldier for putting up questions to us that are of great importance. I think he is the best witness we have had. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further to state in your open- ing statement, Mr. Jeffries? Mr. JEFFRIES. I should be very glad to take these matters up and have any of the members ask questions. I shall be glad to answ r er as best I am able any questions that occur to you. The CHAIRMAN. You are through with your opening statement ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. GANDY. Now, I want to ask, Mr. Chairman you are familiar with the provisions of this bill that is before the committee, are you not? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. GANDY. And you are familiar with the fact that it contem- plates the development of projects, so called ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. GANDY. In so far as it goes, with certain safeguards and amendments, do you approve the bill ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I approve of the purposes of the bill very strongly ; yes, sir of the purposes. Mr. GANDY. Then you think there should be added to it the alter- native provision of individual selection and assistance? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. GANDY. You are familiar with the South Dakota law? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. GANDY. Do you think that some alternative along that line for cooperation with the States, or individual selection, should be specifically provided for ? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 697 Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes; and I have some definite proposals to put before this committee for their consideration, whereby I think the bill might be strengthened ancl bettered, and whereby I think that the confidence of the people and of the soldiers in the bill, which is very necessary to the successful consummation of the purposes of the bill, might be compelled, where, as it now stands, I absolutely know that the bill is viewed with suspicion by a great majority of the soldiers. I know that. Mrs. GANDY. Now proceed with your suggestions. Mr. NICHOLS. May I ask you before you do that what you mean by the suspicions the soldiers have toward the bill ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; I will say that there is a very unusual state of mind among the soldiers, produced by a very unusual condition of government under which we have lived existed for many months, and there is a universal lack of confidence in individual and depart- mental efficiency and integrity. And so in regard to the distribu- tion and as I have stated before, in regard to the proposition of the selection of the help the doubt arises in the minds of these men, and it is expressed among themselves that is, between themselves where they speak as equals and are equally interested a doubt as to the possibility of anything governmental ever being administered fairly and efficiently. Now, tnat is a state of mind in the Army yet, and it continues for a considerable period after the men come out, and for this reason they do view with suspicion any proposition that comes from any department which proposes to do good things for the soldiers, because they are afraid there are strings to it. That is the situation. Mr. JOHNSON. What do you attribute that to? Mr. JEFFRIES. The despotic authority which all officers have in the military organization. Mr. JOHNSON. You mean the Regular Army or the National Guard? Mr. JEFFRIES, All the Army was the same, I think. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you said awhile ago there had been discrimi- nation. Did you mean discrimination for /or against the National Guard in forming the Regular Army ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I don't mean between the different units in the Army ; I mean discrimination against the enlisted men in the Army, and by .officers of higher rank against officers of lower rank, including the entire Army, all of it, every department that I came in touch with, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. Now you are not speaking for the private. You are speaking for the officers, as I understand it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Enlisted men are privates and noncommissioned officers. Mr. JOHNSON. Also noncommissioned officers? Mr. JEFFRIES. I would say, sir, that there is in our military system 5i wide line of demarcation between the enlisted man and the officer. The assumption is all the way through and it is carried out that the enlisted man is possessed of neither honor, intelligence, nor ability, and that the officer is possessed of all of those requisites only to a degree commensurate with his rank. Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with you on that, sir. I don't indorse that. 698 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Jeffries, of course, you understand the military branch of the Government would have nothing to do with administering this law, and if you are familiar Mr. RAKER (interposing). Now I would be The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just wait a minute, Judge. He is putting a question to the witness. Mr. RAKER. I am going to object to the question until the witness gets through. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. He said he was through. Mr. RAKER. All right; I withdraw it. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Are you familiar with the administration of the reclamation law by the Interior Department? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. To any extent? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Well, there is no suggestion that there is any person put in authority there that was not equipped for the position ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not making any implications, sir. I am stat- ing trying to state to this committee the actual facts of the state iof mind of the soldier, and I want to say to this committee, when the bill is enacted by this Congress it must be in such shape as will go the very farthest possible way toward compelling the confidence of the soldiers ; toward answering these questions in the bill and leaving as little as possible of these various questions to be answered by the individual act of the Secretary of the Interior or any other individual head of the department. I will say for your information that I do know a great deal about the reclamation ; that I was a member of the committee that helped draw, I think, the first draft of the reclamation bill, and I have lived a long time in that country out where they have done this reclaiming, and I am personally acquainted with Frederick H. Newall, who was the first director, I believe, and I know positively that there is no comparison between the administration of the Recla- mation and the Forest Service and the military service, but a great majority of these men whom you seek to satisfy and to benefit don't know what I know. They have these doubts. The CHAIRMAN. You don't have them yourself? Mr. JEFFRIES. Sir, I have less confidence now in the infallibility of individuals than I had before I went overseas. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you are speaking about your experience in the Army and I understood you to commend Mr. Newell and the Reclamation Service. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That you knew yourself about the Reclamation Service ? Mr. JEFFRIES. There is no comparison between them. The CHAIRMAN. But the boys didn't know, and they naturally would be suspicious from their Army experience ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. According to your viewpoint? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But you do not criticize the Reclamation Service yourself? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. It is a grand thing. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 699 Mr. MAYS. Then your criticism awhile ago or statement to the ef- fect that the soldiers very generally doubted the integrity of all de- partments, was directed more to the military than to anything else, was it? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think it is induced by this very close association with the Department of War ; yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. And their experience has been with the officers in the Army, and through that experience they have become suspicious of the whole Military Establishment? Is that it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes, and other governmental establishments. Mr. MAYS. And what, as you express it here, the soldier wants is an assurance that the military organization will not govern the ad- ministrative work of this project, of this bill. Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, they want more assurance than that, sir. Mr. GANDY. Let me put a question right there. I understand, then, in a nutshell, your idea is that just as much should be made defi- nitely certain by legislation as possible, and as little left to the dis- cretion of departmental officers as possible? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. Mr. WHITE. Just one question there. I get it that you voice a fear in the mind o*f the soldier that this repugnant condition that you have described might be extended into the administration of this law? Is that it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Not only the military though you are asking that particular question, question No. 5 : " What insurance have we that in the work of improving and developing the land, a real merit system under which ability, application, and initiative shall be promoted to the highest degrees, and the evils of political and other forms of patronage minimized ? " Now, that is the question. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You do not believe, Mr. Jeffries, do }'ou, that there is any politics in the classified civil service? And all of these men in the Reclamation Service are appointed under civil service. Mr. JEFFRIES. I believe that there is a great deal of politics in the classified civil service. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Not if the laws are properly administered. Mr. JEFFRIES. I believe that there is a chance for a great deal of reform in the civil service before it is ideal, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jeffries, I doivt know just w r hat you mean by your contention that the merit system should prevail on one of these projects. Just explain what you have in mind. Mr. JEFFRIES. It contemplates the employment of a great many soldiers, and you see I am an engineer, sir; I have been in charge of a great deal of work for a great many years, scattered over a considerable territory, and always when you start to accomplish a work, a considerable work, the first consideration is the securing of funds, the appropriation. Many times that is much more easily accomplished than the next very necessary step, which is the or- ganizing of the forces, the organizing of the work. In the organi/a- tion, if we haven't the very best of plans and regulations governing the organization of the forces, there is always liable to creep in a favoritism and the evils of political and other forms of patronage. Mr. RAKER. Could you tell us right there how you would organize the forces as an engineer, for one of these projects, in your own way? 700 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. Mr. JEFFRIES. Sir, I would not attempt the organization alone. Mr. RAKER. Well, how should it be organized? Mr. JEFFRIES. It should be organized on the best established prin- ciples. Mr. RAKER. What are those? Mr. VAILE. Pardon me, judge, I think you are embarrassing the witness by asking him to state a general plan. He might state how he would make the organization, without attempting to give a gen- eral plan. Mr. RAKER. He has in his head a general idea of how he would amend this bill or place it so that just what he is desiring would be carried out in the organizing of a force on one of these projects, say 100,000 acres in some States. Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, to start with, sir, I will tell you that I would seek to have the bill so drawn that, as I try to bring out here : " Where the counsel, advice and desires of the settlers in matters affecting the policies of administration as to projects in \vhich they are directly interested may be availed of." I would make it as democratic as possible. If you have the time I will state that I have had some experience in matters which were carried to the people of a State, and that are of great similarity with this; that is, the highway construction proposition in the State of Wisconsin. And I will say there that we got appropriations ahead of a proper organization for the handling of the funds and that the highway commission and the department got in bad with the people to start with, because we didn't show the high degree of efficiency that might have been expected in the expenditure of these funds to start with; and so a rather different plan was taken and it was carried to all the different counties of the State, and there was a division of responsibility with each county, and then into districts, so that we took it right to the people and then we began to build up, and we have in the State of Wisconsin a magnificent system,. very strong. Each winter we have a road school the last two I have missed, unfortunately I was across the water but we have a road school which is attended by hundreds six or seven hundred of the people who are interested in this work, and it has proven to our satisfaction that the democratic system of administering these public works is the only safe, sound, and efficient system, and so I would like to suggest Mr. GANDY (intreposing). You use that word in its broadest sense, and not in any political sense? (Laughter.) Mr. JEFFRIES. I would like to suggest that this committee consider the proposition in case you pass this bill authorizing this appro- priation, of an equitable distribution of the funds provided by the act, along the same lines as the distribution of the Federal aid high- way fund. That is distributed to the different States, pro rated on a basis of three things: one-third determined by the proportion of post roads within the State, I believe; one-third according to the area, and one-third on population or valuation. Mr. GANDY. On population. Mr. JEFFRIES. And in that way the department, the United States Office of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture, is abso- lutely relieved of any responsibility in apportioning it, and they HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 701 are relieved of any suspicion as to favoritism in regard to the appor- tioning of these funds. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Let me ask you a question. You spoke of the highway organization of Wisconsin being very efficient. Does politics enter into the organization in any way in the State of Wis- consin ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Very little at the present time, sir. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. If they can keep politics out of the organiza- tion in "VVisconsin, do you not think you could keep it out of the organization of the Reclamation Service ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think it is entirely possible, sir, especially in the present state of mind of the American people and the returning soldiers, because they desire very sincerely that this political pat- ronage be absolutely minimized. They desire that very much above all else, I believe. Mr. TAYLOR. Sergeant, hasn't it been your observation that the Reclamation Service during the 17 years that it has been in existence it, has not been charged with being controlled by political favoritism, has it? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Either under Republican or Democratic administra- tion. Hasn't it gone along very evenly ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think it has. Mr. TAYLOR. Don't you know that one reason why it is suggested that the Reclamation Service have charge of this is because of their experience in reclamation work and because they are not controlled and have not been controlled by politics? I don't think anybody knows the politics of anybody in there. I certainly do not, and I do not think there has been any I haven't ever heard it charged in the Western States that politics cut any figure with the administration of the Reclamation Service, have you ? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Then why should they be suspicious about the Rec- lamation Service? We thought if there was any department or bureau in the whole Government that was conducted free from politics it was that bureau. Mr. JEFFRIES. I will agree with that. Mr. TAYLOR. Another thing, sergeant, you have thought over this thing a great deal and very deeply. Have you got any concrete sug- gestions to offer to the committee as to, in the first place, what we ought to do for the soldier? That is the great question, what should we do for them and how many of them, and that is what this com- mittee wants to do, and then in what manner we should do it. Now, can you give us briefly and concisely your ideas about that in a con- structive way not in the way of criticism of what we have got here, but. tell us what we ought to do. Can you do that quickly ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think I can. Mr. TAYLOR. Tell us in the first place what ought Uncle Sam or Congress to do for the soldier; secondly, how we should do it? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think that a great deal can be done by the enact- ment of this law with some beneficial changes and additions. A great deal can be done. Mr. TAYLOR. Can you suggest the changes? 702 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Just give them to us for our constructive aid. That is what we want. Mr. JEFFRIES. To start with, this proposition of equitable dis- tribution Mr. VAILE (interposing). Take the bill, sergeant, and show us just where you would amend it. Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, he can hardly go through the bill. Just give us your general ideas. Mr. JEFFRIES. The matter of equitable distribution is of first im- portance. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, why? In what way? Mr. JEFFRIES. Along the same lines. Mr. TAYLOR. Would you give them all cash? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, I don't care to go into the proposition of a bonus to the soldiers before this Public Lands Committee, unless you wish it. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, do you believe in giving them a bonus straight out? Mr. JEFFRIES. Do I? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. Mr. TAYLOR. You think they ought to all have a bonus ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely; yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. In cash? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. $5,000 apiece? Mr. JEFFRIES. No. Mr. TAYLOR. In what way? Mr. JEFFRIES. Is that germane to this question? The CHAIRMAN. You may answer the question. Mr. TAYLOR. Certainly, if you can, because we want to know. Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, I will say this is my personal opinion. I think that almost universally the enlisted men made a sacrifice, made a considerable sacrifice, a financial sacrifice, as well as other sacri- fices in the service, and that every man who left his home and left his business and left his ordinary vocation, and went into a camp and then returned again, that he lost financially out of proportion to the men who did not see service. So I think that the Government of the United States does owe I don't think that $30 was sufficient pay. and I don't think the emoluments were sufficient, and then along that line I would say this, that it is my idea that a just settlement with the soldier would be based on two things; that is, that every man who volunteered or was inducted and I should say that the volunteers should have somewhere near an even break anyway in this into the service, that they should be allowed by this Govern- ment, in addition to their regular pay which was provided, a fixed sum to cover the amount which might be considered as being still due them, as of justice, for the time they lost and the losses they sustained going into the service and coming out a fixed sum to cover that. Mr. TAYLOI:. Would you give them that in cash? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 703 Mr. TAYLOR. Just turn it over to them and let them blow it in. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir ; let them blow it in ; let them waste it. Yes, sir: let them blow it in for anything they want to. My God, we went all through the war with "somebody telling us what we could do and what we could not do. Those men went through the war and fought this fight to win it, and they won it ; and they are capa- ble just as capable as some of the rest of you men of deciding what to do with those few dollars. Mr. TAYLOR. How much cash would you say to give each one of them I Mr. JEFFRIES. If I had the say so, I would give each one of them $150, every man of them, and then I would say a bonus of about 75 cents, six bits, for every day which he served in the Army. I think that would be just and equitable. The man who served 18 months suffered a greater loss, made a greater contribution in a financial way. And now, I do not think the financial contribution should be required from those soldiers. I think their debt of patriotism, and so forth, was paid by the dangerous and disagreeable service which they rendered ; but they nearly all came back broke. Mr, TAYLOR. Don't you think if we save them all that in money that four out of five of them would have it all expended in some way in 30 days' or 90 days' time ? Mr. JEFFRIES. A lot of them would, before that. Mr. TAYLOR. And then do you think that should cancel the obliga- tion of the Government to help those boys get a home of some sort ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Xo, sir; I do not think that it should ever cancel that. Mr. TAYLOR. But they should be allowed to do whatever they pleased from that time on? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh. leave it to them. Mi-. TAYLOR. To do whatever they please? Mr. JEFFRIES. If you leave this to them, and they get this money, they will make a great deal better use of it than' if you folks start in to tell them what they can do and what they can" not do. That can not be done with the kind of men who went and upset the greatest military system on earth. It don't work, Mr. TAYLOR. Our boys are very similiir in characteristics to the Canadian boys, and has not the Canadian Government provided for tlio loaning of money to help the Canadian boys to help themselves, rather than turning over the cash without any string on it? And don't you think that will operate to build up* homes and families, better than giving the money to them outright to spend ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Sir, I have more confidence in these buck soldiers than maybe you have. I have explicit confidence in them. A few here and there will waste some money, but I venture to say some of you here waste money, too. There is a free American privilege that we value very. very, highly, the privilege of spending a nickel, a dime, or a dollar as we damn please. And as far as that paying the debt entirely. I do not figure that if you pass this bill, or pass if in the most efficient, most effective manner that will bring the most benefit to the men, a lot of them that wish to avail themselves of this. I do not think that will be in the shape of a bonus. It is simply a loan, isn't it? It is all to be paid back? Outside of that. T think 13331919 . 15 704 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. this country owes a debt to each individual soldier, bar none. I do not think they paid him anywhere near in proportion to what others were paid. I know they did not. I was drawing $3,600 a year my- self, and I enlisted for '$30 a month. But that is all right. I have one lung left and I have probably 20 or 30 years to live. I am nearly 40 now. I can get by ; nearly all of us can. God, if we could get through what existed over there, we can here. We" do not ask for anything except to break even, for a square deal. We do not ask for $10 a day as the fellows got that loafed on the jobs; but it would create a much better feeling with the soldiers if they got something without a string on it. Mr. TAYLOR. You think we ought to just scrap this bill here, then, and just make a straight donation in cash and call it quit< ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, no, sir. Mr. WHITE. Don't you honestly believe that a big majority of them would make wise use of that^noney ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I certainly do. God, I saw them make wise use of the few pennies and the few francs they had. They made wise use of that. Mr. FERRIS. Sergeant, would a $1,000 flat, given to every soldier who would use that as a part purchase for a home, either city, urban, or farm, and let him work out the balance in his own way, let him select his home, let him make application to the Government to buy it for him, and make the initial payment of at least $1,000, how would that suit the soldier? Don't you think he would be satisfied with that? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. There are so many strings, and there are many sodliers, sir, who do not want to buy a home right now. Wo do not want to be fastenend down, a lot of us; we want to look around a little. We have not seen this United States at all, and we might want to spend a little of this bonus money for car fare. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask you another question: For such of them who did want to buy a home, w^ould you think that would bo all right? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think that would be fine. Mr. FERRIS. That would let them select their own homes, but let the Government make the initial payment? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And give the soldier a chance to work out the balance ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. For such of them as wanted to buy a home, you think that would be satisfactory ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; but I doubt if that would be the very best plan. I think it would be a very good plan, but I doubt if it would be the best plan. Mr. FERRIS. For such soldiers that did not desire to enter into this soldier-colony plan contemplated by this bill, what would you think about letting him select a home in a community in which he desires to live, and make him a straight-out loan through the Federal Farm Loan Bank sufficient to buy that home and let him pay it back at a low rate of interest over a period of 40 years ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think that can be incorporated in this bill; that option. I think that would give you see I lost a lot of the words I HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 705 had when I went over, and I got a lot of new ones that are not appro- priate, but that would give to the proposition an internal competition which is very necessary: that is. projects could be attempted and car- ried through within the States, and then in competition with that would be the proposition of the individual's selection. That would be very fine competition. Mr. FERRIS. Let me ask you this question, then. I do not think we are so far apart. You can conceive, from the knowledge you have of the West, where pretty nearly this exact plan would be applicable in those 12 or 15 Western States with public land avail- able. Mr. JEFFRIES. As it is right now? Mr. FERRIS. Well, subject to modifications. Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes. Mr. FERRIS. Now, couldn't we as a practical proposition I am asking this solely for information for myself and the benefit of the committee; I think we have a lot in common with these soldiers in this line, and we are trying to get their viewpoint couldn't the good features in this bill be preserved, with such modifications and changes as would make it acceptable to the States where it is feasible, and then couldn't we insert an alternative proposition in this legis- lation, along the line I have suggested, and allow them to make indi- vidual applications for loans to buy individual tracts in States where they want to locate? Wouldn't that be more satisfactory to the sol- diers, and would not not reach a larger number? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. I think this distribution could be pro- vided by the act so that a certain amount is available for each State I think that is very important and a fixed amount, so that the Sec- retary of the Interior is not subject to criticism for the manner of distribution. Then I think the bill should require that a department be created, or some department already in existence, within the State to be charged with the responsibility of administering this fund within the State under the supervision and in cooperation with the Federal department with the Department of Interior. I think that is entirely practicable, and that that would bring it much closer to the people. And then include the two plans, the plan of the project and always the opportunity of individual selection. I want to say that that thing is more important to the soldiers, much more so than it ever was oefore this proposition of making indi- vidual selections and using your own judgment. It is very repugnant to the soldier to think of being forcibly re- quired to go in a cantonment or a project and that is the way it looks to them, where he is hedged in here like this: This is No. 1, Xo. 2, No. 3, and Xo. 4, and maybe a little later on. when children are born, they will put an aluminum dog tag on their necks, and that is their number. And I have heard this ventured many times. And then they will build a certain kind of church on that project, and you don't have any chance to fuss around like you fellows here do. and enjoy that, and out of it comes great good. ' But we have no chance to fuss about what kind of a church, what kind of a school, or what kind of a seminary we thought ought to be provided. There are a lot of fellows that want to shift that responsibility. We let this depart- ment that is all wise over here furnish us plans over there and the 706 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. plans did not lit at all; they absolutely did not fit at all. Every time we got those plans and had to operate tinder them it was suicide, and we always dodged those plans. And so we are afraid of this little model community, but while we would like to have them built we would like to look over the plans and see if they are all right. But over there we were not allowed to pick out the mud- hole in which to lie down, but we were lined up in the Argonne, company front, and we would strike shell holes as big as this little table, and we were supposed to pitch our tents in a straight line on the company front. We would rather have picked a place a little out of the water, if possible. And so that is very important right now that maybe you do trust a little bit to the soldiers. Suppose & few of them do spend this money ? It does not go out of existence. Somebody else will get it. They do not burn it up lighting ciga- rettes, and they will get a little experience in that way and they are satisfied. And that is the main thing. Mr. WHITE. And, by the same token, you would trust a little bit, then, the thousands and tens of thousands of soldier boys who have had experience in practical farming that want to make individual selections themselves ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I would say that they would use the very best judg- ment, equivalent to that of any bunch of men that I have ever seen. I am at ease in addressing you men. You men are of very high caliber, I recognize; but when I talk to the doughboys, who have pondered deeply on these subjects and have gone right down to bed- rock, I feel the necessity of making my supreme effort to interest them and hold their attention; they are so keen, and so smart; they do not have to have somebody to look out for them, look after their quarters, you know, for fear they will waste them, and there will be this dissatisfaction as long as Congress and the people of this country take that attitude. Mr. 'NICHOLS. In connection with your statement as to a soldier being allowed to do as he chose in this matter, I will call your at- tention to this language, to a sentence in this bill : The Secretary shall make regulations, general in character or applicable to the specific projects, as to the residence and cultivation, with a view to cariying out the purpose of making the soldier settlements the per- manent homes of the soldier purchaser. What do you think of that? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think that is all right as applied to the project. The project is the community idea, and certain ideas must be ob- served and carried out whereby cooperation can be compelled. But I think there should be the option always, so that a man for in- stance, in the Army, you know, there was no option; you see. you had no choice. Only the officers had an option. You know that when you went up to the front, the enlisted man had no option; they went where they were told. But there were a lot of options among the, officers, little things that would happen, you know; and that was fine for them, and most of them are a lot better satisfied than the enlisted men. And in this I can conceive of the necessity for great supervisory powers in order to make successful these projects. I think it lias been necessary in the reclamation projects because if they allow of certain internal troubles and strikes, you know, and difl'creiKvs of opinion, etc.. it might defeat the purpose of the entire HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 707 project. And there would be no objection to that if the man were a free agent in choosing between a piece of land in a project and a piece of land which he selected elsewhere. Xow, I will say another thing, that when the man himself goes and makes a selection, he has done the thing that the Americans only, I believe, did over there he has challenged the world on that propo- sition, you see; he is bound by his choice either to make that suc- ceed or to show that he was wrong, and he has an especial interest and an especial responsibility in the proposition which he himself selects. Hut that is not the case in regard to projects to any con- siderable degree, because the project at the best is controlled by a group and not by individuals, and it is easy to pass the buck to shift the responsibility. And we have seen that done. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jeffries, you spoke a while ago about the pay- ment of $150 as a bonus and the sum of 75 cents per day while they were in the service. Mi 1 . JEFFRIES. Yes. sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you mean that to be in lieu of any land plan? Mr. JEFFRIES. Why, absolutely not. I think that much money, at least that much money in cash, is due these soldiers. Mr. SMITH. Do you think they would be satisfied with that? Mr. JEFFRIES. A great many would be. Now, you men are Mem- i ers of Congress, and I will tell you what I believe Mr. SMITH. Do you think the officers should be included? Mr. JEFFRIES. I hold no brief for the officers. They had many, many privileges that the enlisted man did not have. Mr. SMITH. Is it not true. Mr. Jeffries, that a great many officers went in the service, and some remained only a few months before the armistice was signed and some only a few weeks, and they spent four, five, or six hundred dollars for uniforms, and the folks back home had to help them to pay for them? Mr. JEFFRIES. I belieVe that. Mr. SMITH. And that many officers in civil life made a great finan- cial sacrifice, as great as many of the privates? Mr. JEFFRIES. Of course, in that case it was different; but a great many of the officers were war profiteers a great many. Mr. SMITH. I think that may be true. Mr. JEFFRIES. But the enlisted men did not; they were no war profiteers. The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, what, percentage of the men would avail themselves of the farm plan? Mr. JEFFRIES. It would depend very materially on the confidence that is inspired in the men in the practicability and its freedom from thi'-r objections. I think there would be a great many. The CHAIRMAN. What would be your idea of the percentage of those that would avail themselves, assuming the plan was a good plan ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not in a position to fix a percentage. The CHAIRMAN. Very roughly; just approximately. Mr. JEFFRIES. I would say that out of the A. E. F. that there would be 100.000 men at least. The CHAIRMAN. One hundred thousand? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir ; from the 2,000.000 that were overseas. 708 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The CHAIRMAN. No more than 100,000? Mr. JEFFRIES. I say at the least. The CHAIRMAN. At the least? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you say 100,000 or 200,000? Mr. JEFFRIES. I said iOO,000 of the 2,000,000 that were overseas. I think, at the very least, there would be that many who would feel the necessity and the desire both ; yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Jeffries, have they become conversant with this bill over there through any agency over there? Has anyone sought to explain to them what this land bill was over there, and how gen- erally do they know about it? Mr. JEFFRIES. A great many have explained, but they know less about it after it has been explained than they do if it has not been explained. Mr. FERRIS. What percentage of the men over there had any idea, do you think, what this bill really provided for ? Mr. JEFFRIES. No percentage at all. Maj. BRADY. I do not believe officially the men know anything about it at all. The only way I got any information was from the Paris-New York Herald, and I showed that to a lot of my own men. Mr. JEFFRIES. I will say this, that they have been very keenly in- terested, and what they have asked about more than anything else was of the free homestead land and any preferential right as to entry under the existing laws that soldiers would have. A great many have turned their attention toward the Western States, and. from various sources, they have just conceived the idea that Congress would undoubtedly give a preferential right to ex-soldiers. Now, as regards this Lane plan, this plan of creating a new thing entirely, their information is very, very incomplete. And I will say, as I said at first, that the general well, I have lost my vocabulary; I know what I want to say that the inclination is to view it with doubt. And the general statements that will be made among the men are that it will provide a bunch of good jobs for fellows that see them first and are close up to the throne, and the like of that. That is very, very common conversation. And there is that fear and suspicion among the enlisted men. Mr. MATS. Are you giving now your suspicions or the suspicions of the Army men generally ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I have- stated that this is common conversation among the men. Mr. MATS. You have had opportunities to consult with vast num- bers of soldiers on this? Mr. JEFFRIES. I have, sir. Mr. MATS. And you have taken advantage of that? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes, sir. I did not smoke any cigarettes while I was over there ; I was busy many hundreds of extra hours, writing for the regiment, and I wrote to the States here, and I have for many years always been seeking diligently to find out what people think. Mr. MATS. And you have explained this bill to a great number. this plan? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, no. Mr. MATS. I thought you said you had. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 709 Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. I did not have any complete knowledge of this until I came back here and went to the Secretary's office to get some circulars and books, and so forth. Mr. MATS. When you gave the 10 questions that occurred to the soldiers, then, you were giving the questions that occurred to you rather than to the soldiers? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir ; questions that have been brought up many times in talking to the soldiers themselves. Mr. MAYS. I thought you did not talk to them about this bill ? Mr. JEFFRIES. You asked if I explained this particular bill. Mr. MAYS. Oh, you explained the plan? Mr. SNELL. You were talking about the general legislation? Mr. JEFFRIES. I was talking about the general legislation ; yes, sir Mr. MAYS. And you find the men strongly in favor of some general legislation of this character? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. They believe they ought to have opportunities of this sort, and some bill that would afford it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. And your objections to the bill go more to the details and administrative features and possibilities of abuse? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. Mr. SMITH. Of course we all recognize that it would be impossi- ble to compensate these soldiers to the full extent for the sacrifices they have made; but have you estimated about how much it would cost to follow out the plan you suggest? For instance, $150 bonus, and then 75 cents a day for each day they served, assuming on the average they served atiout a year, and taking the 4,000,000 in the service. Mr. JEFFRIES. If they do not get this million out faster than they have been doing it it is going to run the average up, too. Mr. SMITH. Taking it on the average, that would be about $515 apiece for each of the 4,000,000 soldiers, sailors, and marines? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. That would be about $2,000,000,000? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mt. NICHOLS. That, Mr. Jeffries, would take care of all the sol- diers ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes; I think it should be very equal to all to par- ticipate. The CHAIRMAN. That is not to be in lieu of the land clause? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. NICHOLS. You know this bill authorizes an appropriation of $500.000,000, and that it has been stated before the committee here that it would not, probably, provide for any more than 100,000 of the whole Army and Navy. Your idea is, I take it, that something should be done by Congress in an equitable way, "as you say, so that every soldier, irrespective of whether he desired to go on a farm or do something else, should be aided by the Government? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes ; absolutely.' Mr. VAILE. Just one question, sergeant: Would you regard the fact that different kinds of land is contemplated in this bill an ob- jection to the plan? 710 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. VAILE. Your experience "with the Reclamation Service would lead you to believe that that was an advantage rather than a disad- vantage, wouldn't it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. I would consider that the present reclama- tion proposition, the present Reclamation Service is probably able and is progressing along the lines of taking care of great dispro- portionate areas of land in the West, and the Western States as it now stands, and that an equitable distribution, what I would call an equitable distribution to the States, would probably be based on the number of soldiers (because they say it is primarily for the sol- diers) that each State furnished. Now, then, in the State in which I live now, Wisconsin, and the State in which I lived for 25 years, South Dakota, they have a greater area or proportion of land which would be reclaimed undoubtedly than some of the other States. The Reclamation Service is working in those States on that, and that does not need to be included in this. This bill does not Deed to be framed for the purpose of supplanting the proposition of reclaiming tracts of land in the West, which can continue on its own merits. Mr. VAILE. And while you would like to go and select lands there in Wisconsin if you saw fit, on the other hand you would not like to be tied down to selecting land only in Wisconsin ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. BEXHAM. What, in your judgment, would be the attitude of the rank and file of the soldier toward the project, of having the Gov- ernment make the improvements as this bill presupposes, inasmuch as the soldier is to be called upon finally to pay the bills ? What would be the attitude of the rank and file of the soldiers toward having those improvements made by the Government? Mr. JEFFRIES. In the matter of projects, I think the rank and file would consider that a necessity. Mr. BENHAM. I did not mean that. But take the farm that is to be turned over to the soldier, do you think he would prefer himself to do the improving, or have the Government do it for him ; that is, inas- much as he has to pay the bills in either case? Mr. JEFFRIES. I surely think that in the majority of cases the sol- dier would prefer to do his own improving in his own way, on his own time, and to secure financial aid. Mr. VAILE. Do you make any distinction between different stages of improvement? Do you think that it would be advisable for the Government to first put the project in shape for cultivation, and their let the soldier on his own means and on his own time, proceed with the cultivation and further improvement as he sees fit? Or do you think the soldier should undertake individually to put the land in its first original shape for cultivation? Mr. JEFFRIES. Of course, that is going into details. I think that should be governed through these boards which are established in the various States and in cooperation with the department. For instance, there are many different classes of crops ; some land might be fruit land. Mr. VAILE. You think, as I get your viewpoint, that it would be wise, and in many cases necessary, for the initial putting of the land in shape to be done by the Government, or by the State and National Government together? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 711 Mr. JEFFRIES. In projects, absolutely ; yes, sir. And I wuold like to say that if the impression were given out that if this land bill would be* in lieu of any settlement, any bonus to the soldiers as a whole, that this land bill would be very, very unpopular. Now, I can tell you that; there is no question about that, no matter what anyone hears. Mr. MAYS. Most of them want the coin? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely they do. Mr. TAYLOR. You take it the soldiers are not satisfied with the $60? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir; absolutely not. That is pay for six days* work in the shipyards, whether they work or not. Just before I enlisted, a very close friend of mine, Henry Dietz, who is a brother of the Dietz of Cameron Dam fame and I liked that man who has several big sons who had been in the Army; his father came from Germany, but he is a big, strong American he came to me and he said. *' Hugh, I try to see this thing fairly, but it looks to me as if this is a fight between England and Germany,'' and he say>. " now, it is going to cost this- country " and he went on to tell how much it would cos^, how much it had cost already, and how much it was going to cost. I said, "Dietz, honestly that doesn't interest me; l7lon't care a damn what it is going to cost; it may cost me my life, but I am going to go, and so this business of how many millions and billions it is going to cost doesn't make any difference, because if it did we would not be fit to live in this kind of a country."' And so we went over there, and we did not count the cost. You did not count the cost when you were buying the other things the cannon, the tools, and labor here you did not count the cost. And since I have returned here the Secretary of the Treasury has published a statement in all of the daily papers, over his signature, in which he said there were still 1,500.000 soldiers overseas, and that the people should buy Victory bonds to get them home. They bought the bonds. That was $4.500.000,000. Now, really, we are not masters of mathematics; we are just engineers, and farmers, and like of that, but it appears to us that about $100,000,000 would have brought the soldiers home all right, first class, each one traveling on his own hook. One hundred million ; and there was $4,500,000,000 raised under this appeal to the country, and so we are not so dense as not to see that. And then the next day the Secretary of War published an in- terview in all the papers in* which he is quoted as having said that the one-millionth man would embark for home the next week. Now, there were only 1,950.000 over there when the armistice was signed. The Secretary of the Treasury says 1,500,000 are over there yet, and the Secretary of War says the millionth man will embark next week. There is a "wide disparagement of statements. But even if it did take $4,500,000,000 to bring those men home, the people of this country would willingly pay that $1,500.000,000, and honestly the soldiers are going to help to pay all of this. Mr. MAYS. Wasn't there some use for that money other than for transportation ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh; yes ; presumably. Mr. RAKER. Just when did you get back from France? Mr. JEFFRIES. The 22d of March I landed in Philadelphia. Mr. RAKER. You were over there how long? Mr. JEFFRIES. A year, lacking eight days. 712 HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. Mr. RAKER. You were over there at the Argonne Forest? Mr. JEFFRIES. I was in the Argonne Forest. Mr. RAKER. And in Balleau Woods? Mr. JEFFRIES. I was not in Balleau Woods ; I was back of Balleau Woods. Mr. RAKER. And your business is engineering? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. What have you been doing since you came back ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Since I came back? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, I have answered a very close lot of questions about what I have been doing. Mr. RAKER. I mean since you have been discharged. This is just so the committee will have an idea of what you have been doing. Mr. JEFFRIES. I was discharged on the 4th of April at Camp Dix. I came here to Washington to .confer with the Acting Director of the United States Office of Public Roads in regard to employment. I was on the eligible list of the civil service as a highway engineer, United States Office of Public Roads. But my lungs have been affected by some gas I got in the Argonne, and I thought I would have to go out in the mountains for a few months, and I made ar- rangements to go to work out there from the Denver office, on high- way construction in the national forests. And then I went to my home at Danbury, Wis., and got acquainted with my family I have a wife and four children and I had promised all of the men of my company, most of the men in the battalion over in France, when I left them, that immediately upon arriving home, if the regiment was not yet home, that I would come to Washington and do everything in my power to secure the release of my fellow camp mate, John F. Hinkley, who was court-martialed over on the Lorraine front, and who had a wife and five children absolutely dependent on the allow- ance and the allotment which this wife and children were to get from the Government. On the morning of the 4th of July over there we had placed a big barrage on the German line, and AVC were on the front from 3 o'clock in the morning, and we stood by all clay, so it made a long day of it, and on the morning of the 5th of July this man had asked the captain of the company for a pass to go to a detachment nearby we had four detachments covering the entire front of that division The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that we want to go into the merits of that. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. The only thing I wanted to see, Mr. Jeffries, is if you are in the employee of the Government now ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not. Mr. RAKER. Would not the Road Administration employ you? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; they would. Mr. RAKER. And didn't you go into the service? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir; I did not. Mr. RAKER. What are you doing now, just in a few words? Mr. JEFFRIES. I am president of this American Military Reform Association. Mr. TAYLOR. When was that organized? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 713 Mr. JEFFRIES. I can not give you the exact date. It was just a short time ago. Mr. -TAYLOR. Where are its headquarters ? Mi 1 . JEFFRIES. Washington, D. C. Mr. TAYLOR. Do they pay the officers a salary ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. How much do you get out of it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, I get $7,500 a year. Mr. MAYS. What are the purposes of that organization? Mr. JEFFRIES. Do you wish to put them in the record? They are in the Congressional' Record. Mr. MAYS. They are already? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. This is to reform the militar}' organization? Mr. JEFFRIES. It is to secure some reforms. Mr. RAKER. And who is paying for this organization, the boys themselves ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely ; yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Now, just in a few words, it is not really applicable to this Mr. JEFFRIES. I am very glad to have you bring it out, sir. Mr. RAKER. There is a general feeling of the private soldier there is quite a feeling of the private soldier, against the officers generally, is there not ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And that exists with practically all of the boys as against generally all of the officers? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; practically. Mr. RAKER. Because of the rules and regulations? Mr. JEFFRIES. The caste system does not fit. Mr. RAKER. What is that? Mr. JEFFRIES. The cast system does not fit ; it does not work out. Mr. RAKER. It does not fit the American man ? Mi 1 . JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. RAKER. I do not want to go any further into that now; I want to go on the bill ; who were the other officers of the organization, beside yourself? You are president, you say. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And who is the vice president ? Mr. JEFFRIES. The vice president has not yet been selected. Mr. RAKER. And have you a counsel? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; an executive committee. Mr. RAKER. Give the counsel's name, will you ? Mr. JEFFRIES. You mean legal counsel? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes; Frank Warrick. Mr. RAKER. Where does he live ? Mr. JEFFRIES. In Washington, I believe, but I am not sure. Mr. RAKER. Was he in the service ? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. He is just a lawyer and did not go in the service ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And he is acting as counsel now of this organization? 714' HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; we have an assistant counsel, too. Mr. RAKER. What is his name? Mr. JEFFRIES. David Pelton Moore. Mr. EAKER. What is his position? He did not go in the service either, did he? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. And what salary do you pay those two men ? Mr. JEFFRIES. The salary has not been fixed. Mr. RAKER. How many constitute the executive committee? Mr. JEFFRIES. Three. Mr. RAKER. Who are they? Mr. JEFFRIES. Myself, George Grojean Mr. RAKER. And the other man's name ? Mr. JEFFRIES. John F. Giles. Mr. RAKER. Were the latter two in the service? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Are they here in Washington? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. If you hold that job some time, you will make up what you lost financially in the service, won't you ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I might; yes, sir. Mr. VAILE. You will probably earn all of your salary before you get through ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely ; we have to to get it. Mr. RAKER. When was this organization formed ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I haven't the date. Mr. RAKER. Approximately. Just give approximately the date. Mr. TAYLOR. A month or three months ago ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, no; I said about 10 days ago. It was sometime about the 12th of June that the legal organization was effected. Mr. RAKER. Where did you organize; here in Washington? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. At what place? Mr. JEFFRIES. You mean where the articles were signed? Mr. RAKER. Yes ; in what room, what building, was it that you got together? Mr. JEFFRIES. In the McLaughlin Building. Mr. RAKER. About how many were present ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I can not say. Mr. RAKER. How many soldiers that were overseas in the com- bative service participated in this organization? Mr. JEFFRIES. How many soldiers participated in the signing of the papers? Mr. RAKER. Yes; at that meeting when you organized? Mr. JEFFRIES. This man, John F. Giles, and myself were the only ones that were in the fighting over there. Mr. RAKER. How many were present at the meeting outside of those ; how many other men were present ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I can not say. There were not very many. Mr. RAKER. These two lawyers were present? Mr. JEFFRIES. Just one of them. Mr. RAKER. Did you have any meeting prior to this time! Mr. JEFFRIES. We had conferences ; yes, sir. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 715 Mr. RAKER. You just had conferences prior to this time? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes. Mr. EAKER. And this meeting was a confirmation of that? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely; yes, sir. We had many conferences on the drawing up of the articles. Mr. RAKER. You have articles of agreement and incorporation, have you? Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, it is articles of association. Mr. RAKER. Will you furnish a copy of those to the chairman, so that they may go into the record? Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, I can not right now. ' Mr. RAKER. I mean, will you to-morrow or next day? Mr. JEFFRIES. I can not say that I would. No; I have a right, of Mr. RAKER. What method have you adopted to raise your salary to assess each of the boys so much? Mr. JEFFRIES. It is a membership proposition. Mr. RAKER. It is a membership proposition, and your purpose is to go out and get all the boys to join the association you can? Mr. JEFFRIES. Not only soldiers, but citizens. Mr. RAKER. And you will pay the officers so much ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. And we are going to publish a magazine, too. Mr. MATS. And will you take in sailors also ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. About how many signed the papers of organization? Mr. JEFFRIES. Just the three of us. Mr. RAKER. Just the three of you"? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes. Mr. RAKER. And then you fixed your salary at $7,500 ? ' Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And the idea now is to extend the organization by writing to these soldiers, to get their names and write to them, ask- ing them to join and setting out the purpose of the organization is to remedy and correct the military laws, and then expect them to pay a certain percentage or a fee each year to belong to the membership? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. And not only the soldiers, sir, but citizens. Mr. RAKER. I understand; this organization not only includes sol- diers, but everybody else who wants to join ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. But the main purpose is to get soldiers to join, because they are interested in it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, the main purpose is to get those who believe jn the purposes, as set forth very clearly, to join citizens and soldiers. Mr. RAKER. Were there as many as 10 present when this was organized ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I^doubt it. Mr. RAKER. Between 5 and 10; somewhere along there? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. VAILE. About how many members have you now, sergeant? Mr. JEFFRIES. I do not know. Mr. RAKER. You have not any members signed up yet except those who were present, have you ? 716 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes. Mr. RAKER. How did you get them? Mr. JEFFRIES. You know that is something peculiarly our business and not germane to this. Mr. RAKER. Just a moment now Mr. JEFFRIES. Honestly, now, that is not good business. Mr. RAKER. Sure; you know, Mr. Jeffries, Ave do not want any- thing but what is germane and vital to this question. Mr. JEFFRIES. For your information, you know for your curi- o>ity. you know, that might be all right. Mr. RAKER. My curiosity is very extensive, but it is valuable. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes; we have other members. It is not restricted to snlisted men; we have officer-. Mr. RAKER. How did you get these other men? Mr. JEFFRIES. Why, different means; some of them through the mail. Mr. RAKER. Have they signed up? Mr. JEFFRIES. They have paid their money. Mr. RAKER. About how many? Mr. JEFFRIES. I do not want to state. That is like asking a pub- lisher to turn over his subscription list to you and everything: that is not done. Mr. RAKER. If a publisher came in here indorsing any matter before the committee I would certainly insist on knowing who his subscribers were. Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not asking for anything from this committee any patronage or anything. Mr. RAKER. We haven't any patronage to give. Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not asking you to sign up for any advertising in the magazine or anything of that kind. Mr. RAKER. You are going to publish a magazine ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely; yes, sir. And I am to be editor in chief of the magazine, too. Mr. RAKER. Well, it ought to be a good one. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir; we hope so. We will try to make it a good one ; we certainly will. Mr. RAKER. Now, Mr. Witness, to get down to the bill : You are in favor of the general purposes of the legislation? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. But now there are criticisms of some things you would like to have changed, namely, you do not want any department to direct and control the personal affairs of the men, the mode of living, the mode of cultivation; the way he builds his home, the way he- builds his house, and the way he lives ; you want to leave that to the individual ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to leave that to group decisions and to the individual. Mr. RAKER. To the individual men, exactly? Mr. JEFFRIES. That is, as much as possible to the individual, and then to group decisions and State boards. Mr. RAKER. And wherever that is in the bill, your idea is it ought to be stricken out? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 717 Mr. RAKER. And where there is any policy, before a project is -tartcd. before the Secretary acts, or any public official, the advice and judgment of those who were on the project, or who were inter- ested in it, should control and not the Secretary of anybody else? That is your view, isn't it? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think their counsel and advice should be availed of. Mr. RAKER. And before any action is taken that advice and counsel should be had ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Otherwise, you do not believe it would work well? Mr. JEFFRIES. I do not believe it would work best without it. Mr. RAKER. You are in favor of having each soldier treated alike on the projects? Mr. JEFFRIES. As nearly as can be. Mr. RAKER. You are against giving any preference to one over the other ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. You do not believe the farmer boy should have any preference over the blacksmith boy, or the dentist or the doctor, or whatever he might be, who went into the service; is that right? You do not believe he should have any preference in getting a home on these projects ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I think it should be open to all on the same terms; yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And that if a soldier should happen to have a little residence in town, and there is a project started some place in the Southeast, in the West, or in the North, that he ought to have a chance to go out there and get his home as well, too; oughn't he? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes. sir. Mr. RAKER. You think to exclude him would not be right, because he owns a little tract of land, a little home in some city, of very little value; that he has given his service, and if he wants to go out on one of these projects, he ought to have a right to do it? Mr. JEFFRIES. I would like to make a little statement along that line, if you care to have it. Mr. RAKER. All right. Mr. JEFFRIES. I take issue with the Secretary of the Interior on that one proposition. In one of his published statements he said there should be no slacker land and these tracts should be restricted to a size which will just merely support one family, and there should be no chance of unearned increment. Now, then, I say why be so particular to see that the soldier gets no chance to profit by unearned increment, when there is an opportunity that is afforded to every- body else? For instance, in the State of Wisconsin, where I have lived now for four years for six years counting the time my home has been there, but my abode somewhere else men vei\y commonly buy 80 acres of rough land where they do not expect in their lifetime to 'develop more than 40 acres: but when that 40 acres is developed, then it increases the value of the other 40 acres it has doubled, trebled, or quadrupled it. And as a rule. I think that the strong families are bred and born and raised on those tracts, and that it is a fine thing for the man. This is a long-time bet that these soldiers are taking when they take this, and I think that opportunity should 718 HOMES FOB SOLDIEES. be afforded them to take more land double the amount of land, prob- ably, that they themselves can be expected to cultivate within the next few years, at least, and give them a chance to benefit by the unearned increment, which they earn. Mr. RAKER. Now, Mr. Jeffries, I have put this question many times to the various witnesses before this committee during this hearing, and I am going to put it to you and get your judgment on it: Are you in favor of a project so developed as to get the roads and to have the water for it, with just enough land cleared so that the soldier may go upon the place with a little home, a small house and sufficient outbuildings, and leave the rest of his tract of land suppose he had 100 acres, to leave 80 acres for him to clear and to handle and to add other buildings if he wants to, other barns do you thing it would be better for him to live in that way, or to clear it all up at once ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I believe the way which you have outlined is the better way. Mr. RAKER. It will give him a better chance ? Mr. JEFFRIES. It will give him a better chance, absolutely. Mr. RAKER. It will give him a chance to work for himself and family? Mr. JEFFRIES. I believe that. Mr. RAKER. And give him a chance to get the benefit of his own labor when there are slack times, between harvest and other times of the year? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. You believe that will be better than to have the entire tract developed with roads, and all under cultivation, and all cleared ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. I think that w^uld allow the settler to apply and develop his individual initiative and ability to the highest degree; and that is certainly to be desired. Mr. RAKER. One other question in regard to section 4. I have pressed this to various witnesses and I am going to put it to you because you have had experience. You have been in France and observed their mode of living, their towns? Mr. JEFFRIES. Their communiques? Mr. RAKER. And then doing all the work from town, farming the farms from the city. Are you in favor of that kind of living in this country? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir ; I believe in homes on the land. Mr. RAKER. Separate, individual homes? Mr. JEFFRIES. Like we have here in America. The worst we have in any of these rural districts is far superior to the best they have in the communes in" France. Mr. RAKER. We do not want any communist centers centers where you put all the population at one place and then let them farm their farms from where they live, do you? Mr. JKI FRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. RAKER. Then thai provision, sod ion 4. that the Department of the Interior should have a right to select town sitos. to establish them, aii'l to build up a regular little town. You do not believe it- would be |)oil>le. do you '( Mr. JKH--IMKS. If that does not include a requirement as to resi- dence and participation in all tho-e activities, I think that the policy HOMES FOU SOLDIERS. 719 that has been pursued in this country on public land and on private land, of dedicating for school, religious, and recreational purposes certain tracts of ground that are decided, by those in a position to make a wise decision, to be peculiarly adapted to the center Mr. RAKER. In other words, set aside a tract of land for a park, a schoolhouse, or for other purposes? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And then let the people themselves select the kind of church they want to build? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And the kind of schoolhouse they want to build ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. You do not want any committee, commission or indi- vidual in Washington or anywhere else, going out there on one of those projects and telling you what kind of church you want and the kind of schoolhouse you want, do you? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, 'sir. Mr. RAKER. You think it will create trouble, don't you? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMMERS. Sergeant, on a settlement of that kind, would you have any objection, if a dozen plans were laid before you and you had the privilege of selecting the one that suited you and your community best, and by means of this plan you could purchase the material at wholesale prices you would not object to that arrangement? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. SUMMERS. That is what the bill contemplates. Mr. JEFFRIES. The bill? Mr. SUMMERS. Yes; that is what the bill contemplates. Mr. -JEFFRIES. There is no objection that I can conceive of. This proposition of counsel, advice, suggestion, and plans, that is in line with the best educational efforts, and suggestions, and that is very fine. But the choice should be a majority choice; that is the Ameri- can way. Mr. SUMMERS. But it brings it to the man at a very much less price than he could handle it privately, without the assistance? Mr. JEFFRIES. That is quite possible. Mr. BEX HAM. Would you assume that the boys would be better satisfied with an advisor 'that they selected, or one that was selected by the Interior Department ? Mr. JEFFRIES. To what advisor do you refer? Mr. BEXHAM. The advisor, etc.. that is suggested in the former question: that is. an agricultural advisor, of this gentleman who is in charge of the project, who is to act as advisor, etc. Now, my question is, do you assume that the boys would be best satisfied with an advisor selected by themselves, or one selected by the Interior Department? Mr. JEFFRIES. Of course, I think the safest policy and the best policy is the one that puts the responsibility on the people them- selves: and I think that the soldiers and other people have a little more confidence in their State boards ; that is. they feel closer to the State representatives than to the Federal representatives. I think the soldiers have a great deal more confidence in Congress than they have in any of the departments; I will say that. That is the reason 13331919 i6 720 HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. we ask, after Congress has appropriated the money under provisions of this act, what supervisory powers it has over those expenditures. Now, then, we have found during the progress of this war that is about the only place we could get any kind of a hearing for the enlisted man through Congress, through Congressmen. And when we came back, that is the only place we could go and get a hearing a respectful hearing. Mr. TAYLOR. There are 435 of us here who have been working for you every day and night since you went into the Army every last one of us. Mr. JEFFRIES. We believe you have been working for us; we believe Congress has the sincere desire, in the establishment of the war risk, to protect the soldiers to the best of their ability. We believe the desire of Congress was absolutely for the best interests of the soldiers in that. Mr. RAKER. What is your view, after the soldier has resided upon the place, say, for from three to five years, of his having the right to dispose of it at his own will, provided the Government is pro- tected ? Mr. JEFFRIES. We believe that he should be protected in his equi- ties; that he should not be arbitrarily restrained from realizing on his equity that he should not be arbitrarily forced to remain where lie does not care to be. Mr. RAKER. In other words, that his right of alienation should not be given except within a reasonable length of time of acquiring residence ? Mr. JEFFRIES. We think, if possible, that the restriction against transfer should be stated in the law. Mr. RAKER. Exactly. Mr. JEFFRIES. And not left to the discretion of this man who hap- pens to be now Secretary of the Interior, or somebody else who hap- pens later to be Secretary of the Interior ? Mr. RAKER. And a definite period should be fixed ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. What would you say in regard to a provision in the bill that where the soldier does take the homestead and the cost against it has not been paid, of there remaining a lien upon the land in favor of the Government until it is paid : You think that would be fair, don't you? Mr. JEFFRIES. Perfectly just. Mr. RAKER. Perfectly fair? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. You are familiar with the present homestead law in regard to it not being subject to any debt contracted by the home- steader prior to the issuance of the patent : What is your view as to whether or not such a provision should be included in this bill to protect the soldier from any debts contracted prior to the date of the issuance of the patent by the Government ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I should think he should have the same protection. Mr. RAKER. Exactly. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And what have you to say in regard to his physically and actually residing upon the land a certain length of time, like upon the present homesteads? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 721 Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, sir, I think that there is a case where it should be elastic, where it should be left to the decision of a group say. the State board and the settlers, because the conditions are so much different. For instance, in the Northern States there will be a period of many, many months in which you can do nothing. Mr. BAKER. We have provided for that in the general homestead law. Mr. JEFFRIES. I think the same provision should be made here. Mr. RAKER. Is it your view, in talking with the soldiers and from your observation, that there should be some definite provision pro- vided in this bill for residence upon the home that the soldier ob- tains ? Mr. JEFFRIES. As to projects? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. If he got an isolated tract, he should live on it, shouldn't he? Mr. JEFFRIES. Not necessarily. I do not think he should be gov- erned in the same way. Mr. RAKER. But if you provide a home for the man, say, 60, 80> 100. or 120 acres, and suppose it is an isolated tract, or a separate home, not on a project? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. Wouldn't it be your view that for a number of years, say. three, four, or five years, he ought to make that his home ? Mr. JEFFRIES. The same conditions would not prevail and the same necessities for residence there would not prevail on the isolated tract that would on the project. Because of the project, that is neces- sary it has been found necessary. Mr. RAKER. Isn't it your view that the very essence of the success of the home on the farm is the fact that the man lives there and con- ducts it himself? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And no absent home or tenantry ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And therefore if you are going to do the right thing for the soldiers, we ought to provide in the law for requiring a rea- sonable amount of residence upon this home when he gets it? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes, sir. I doubt if there would be any serious objection to that. Mr. SMITH. You stated in answer to an inquiry from Mr. Raker, of California, that you objected to the Secretary of the Interior hav- ing any control of the transfer of the entry. Do you not think, be- fore the land is paid for, the Secretary would naturally want to keep track of it, and do you not think if there is any other soldier waiting for this land that he should have a preference over any civilian who wanted to buy ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes : if that was provided. Mr. SMITH. That is the intention of this provision. Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, that is the intention, of course ; but that might l>e a different intention with a different man: that is the idea. We don't want it left to individual decisions. For instance, in my recol- lection, conditions were not in the Interior Department what they 722 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. are to-day. Suppose that the Secretary should decide that he could not see it for the settler he could not see any necessity for allowing the settler to dispose of it to another soldier, wouldn't he have the authority to refuse to assent to the transfer and couldn't he reserve his absent under this to the transfer until such time as some com- pany or some friends or somebody should make the offer and that would come before him? Isn't that a possibility under this? Mr. SMITH. It is a possibility, but it is not likely with the Secre- tary of the Interior, who would naturally be disinterested. Mr. JEFFRIES. Oh, yes. We have had a Secretary of the Interior who was charged very publicly and very broadly with having a direct interest in similar matters, and I remember it very well, and those things might happen again. I stated that I have not the faith in the infallibility of man, of individuals, that I had before I went to France. Mr. MAYS. You have to have somebody to do this, though? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely. Mr. MAYS. You do not have any supernatural agency? Mr. JEFFRIES. No, sir. Mr. FERRIS. What particular thing happened over there that shat- tered your faith in man? Mr. JEFFRIES. Many things the high percentage of officers who did seem to fall for this superior man stuff. Mr. FKKKIS. Was it Czarism? Was it abuse or what I ask purely for information? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely; Prussianism of the men w r ho went up from the ranks a few of them, even absolutely w r ere tainted by that. I have seen it in officers myself, men who have stood with us, I have seen them separated so widely from us who were their fel- lows, that you would not dream they were the same men. Mr. FERRIS. Now, as you are undertaking to cure that in the pub lication of the magazine referred to and the organization of the sol- diers, you will doubtless have a very great influence ; so that even if they have Prussianism in the Army and even if the bulk of the men did not approve of the conduct of their officers, it is not your desire or intent to suggest they all have that feeling in the Army as to other governmental agencies ? Mr. JEFFRIES. Absolutely not. Mr. FERRIS. And your statement was not so intended ? Mr. JEFFRIES. It is my sincere desire to aid you men in eliminating from this bill anything" that can be eliminated that would subject it to those suspicions. Honestly. I believe in equality. I want to see it a success. I have been engaged in constructive work for years and I have been next to people and helped to prove out this constructive work, and I do know something about the objections, and I want to bring them up here. But I think, for the protection of the Interior Department, that everything should be settled in this bill that can well be settled in this bill, so as to relieve the Interior Department or any individual from any charge of favoritism. Mr. FERRIS. Was any particular maltreatment or czarism visited on you that intensified your views on it, or is your view of it general and based on general observations? Mr. .Ih.i'i i.-ii.s. Nothing personal, although I did run a grave risk of lip'mg subjected to an inglorious death two different times through HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 723 fliv having protected the men under me from very brutal treatment from men of higher rank. I stood between and was sent back and reported for insubordination in the face of the enemy, for which the penalty is death. But I got by with it. Mr. FERRIS. Just what was that occurrence? We are all anxious to know of any maltreatment of the Army. Mi-. JEFFRIES. That is some story. Mr. SMITH. You volunteered, did you? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes ; all of the men in my regiment were volunteers ; they were all skilled men. Mr. BEX HAM. I would suggest if the reference to himself is al- low <1 to stand and to go in the record just as he ha > stated, that he was in a way sent back under arrest, or something like thai, that leaving that where it is it reflects upon your record. The CHAIRMAN. He might explain it if he wishes. Mr. JEFFRIES. My idea was this; it was in work under fire in the Argonne; and in our company we had a sergeant, first class, who was very ignorant and very domineering. He could not write his own name and could not read an order that came to him, and he was abusive to the men, very abusive to the men. Ordinarily, I was not in direct charge of the men; I was a consulting engineer; but this particular day the sergeant who slept with me, who was in charge of a large detail of men on construction work, reconstructing the bridges that had been blown out, was sick and asked me to take charge of the men. And knowing there was general dissatisfaction with the treat- ment, among the men, and military authority is counted supreme, especially at the front, so this sergeant, first class, was abusive to the men who were working under me and working very well they worked especially well under fire. And he told them, among other things, that there was no more man about them than there was a God-damned yellow dog he used those words and then he told some of them to place some material in a place that w r as not the place which I had directed them to place the material. And I had been instructed by the lieutenant who was in command of the company, to take charge of that piece t of work and to lay it out as I saw best, and so the men obeyed the instructions I had previously given and refused to deposit the material where he told them to, and so he flew at me in a rage and cursed me and told me to see that those men did what he told them to do. And it was just the last straw. I told him the men were doing w r hat I told them to do and it was the right thing for them to dp and that is what I wanted them to dc. And so they went on and did that. Well, we had a few personal words, and I offered to knock his block off, right then and there, but he did not want to try that. And he went on up the road to where the first lieutenant was, and the first lieutenant came back with hir \ and said, "Jeffries, what is the matter?" I said, "Nothing is thj matter, sir." I saluted. I said, "The work is going along fine; the men are working good." He says, " Daley tells me you refused to take orders from him." I said, " It is not exactly because of his orders : it is because of his abuse ; he is abusive to the men and never treats them like they were men, and I won't stand it any longer: I won't work under him any more, never, and I won't allow him to interfere with men who are working under me: so that is all there is 724 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. to it." He said, " You know he outranks you, don't you ? " I said, " Yes; I do." He said, " You must take orders from him." I said, " I will not take orders from him." And he said, " Go and report to the captain and tell him I sent you in for insubordination." I did ; and I walked 3 miles; you had to walk 3 miles back always to find the captain. And I went back and I reported. The lieutenant had gone in on a motorcycle and made his charge. I stood pat ; and I told the captain I was ready to die on that ; that I would not go back and work under those conditions ; and I acquainted him with the state of mind of the men. I even suggested to him that even his life might not be worth much, it was in danger, because they were about full up. And so he gave me a letter to take back to the first lieutenant, sustaining me. It was the safest thing for him to do at that time. And the lieu- te'nant met me on the road. He had talked with two other sergeants in the company, who had told him, in the meantime, that the com- pany was back of me, and it was kind of scaly business right then. And so he was hurrying back to see me. He was a good man at heart, just a young fellow who had had two years at West Point, but he had this Prussianism drilled into him until he could not see a man in uniform : he just saw a slave. But he saw some men there that day. And he got off his motorcycle and he said, " Jeffries, I want to talk to you about this proposition; I do not mean to say I did right and you were wrong, because I think I was wrong and you were right ; but that can not be done in the Army; authority must be maintained. I had to uphold Daley or I would have lost my commission." And so he said, " We must work together. God knows it is hard enough as it is, with the captain overruling me in everything that I do, to try to help the men, and so we have to get together and we can arrange some way that we can get rid of Daley. The same men made Daley that made the captain, and the captain is afraid to fire him ; but we can arrange it so he is not on this work and we will do that." So, I said, " Lieutenant, read the letter," and he read the letter and said, " Well, that fixes it all right." It fixed it all right; that sergeant did camp police duty from then on until the demobilization of the regi- ment last week. Mr. SMITH. And you were left in charge? Mr. JEFFRIES. I was sent back to take charge ; yes, sir. But, mind you, this was not freely granted. You see, I was in jeopardy there and I do feel the men ought not to have to be. You see. I still feel that. I had a wife and four children that I think a great deal of, of course, and I took my chance of getting busted with a shell or a bullet many times, and that is the chance you have to take; but I do not think the soldier ought to have to take the chance of being shot for insubordination under those conditions. And we certainly had to take that chance any time we stood against the abuse of men who were loyally working for us. I think only the enlisted men did that; I did not see the officers ever running the risk of losing their commissions, being demoted, in standing up for the men under them. Probably many of them did, but they did not come under my obser- ve! ion ; but I have seen enlisted men do that many times. Mr. MATS. That is the only trouble you had with the oll'uvrs? Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes; practically. This same lieutenant was the first man in our regiment to join this organization. Mr. SMITH. This lieutenant is in the Regular Army? HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 725 Mr. JEFFRIES. He is in the Officers' Reserve Corps. Mr. SMITH. He is a West Point man? Mr. JEFFRIES. Two years, I understand, he had had in West Point; but he did not complete his course. Mr. SMITH. I suggest that the witness be requested in a bill to indicate just what he thinks so that we will have his views in con- crete form. The CHAIRMAN. Could you, without any trouble, prepare amend- ments and send to me the amendments you think would be desirable to the bill, for the consideration of the committee when we go into the consideration of the bill ? Mr. JEFFRIES. I would be glad to do as much as I can do toward that, but I do not want to take that as a contract. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we will take up your questions and suggestions in executive session, but if you could supplement that with certain amendments which you think might make the bill more workable and satisfactory the committee would like to consider them. Mr. JEFFRIES. I should be glad to work with anybody who has had experience along that line, but it is a pretty big job and I am pretty busy to undertake it alone, and I would not like to undertake it as a contract. The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to impose a burden on you, but if you have the time to do it the committee would appreciate that. Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. Where do you reside in Washington? Mr. JEFFRIES. I have a room. Mr. NICHOLS. Where? Mr. JEFFRIES. 928 Fourteenth Street NW. (The committee thereupon adjourned to to-morrow, Thursday, June 26, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, Jwie 26, 1919. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to insert in the record a paper which Sergt. Jeffries has presented, the prospectus he spoke of yes- terday of the American Military Reform Association, of which Mr. Jeffries is president. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. (The paper referred to follows:) Tin: AMERICAN MILITARY REFORM ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. ; HUGH JEFFRIES, PRESIDENT. The American Military Reform Association is the outgrowth of many con- ferences of soldiers and citizens in the United States and in the American Expeditionary Force camps in France. It is primarily a citizens' organization with certain well-defined purposes, and is in no way opposed to the American Legion, which is a soldiers' organization, nonpartisan and nonpolitical. 726 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The object of this association shall be to secure, by appropriate National and State legislation, certain reforms in our military laws and policies which ap- pear to be necessary and to be the inevitable outcome of the experience gained in the World War. The policy of the association shall be at all times to discountenance any senti- ment or action which is aimed in any way to attack, undermine, or discredit the Constitution of the United States, the established law of the land, or legally con- stituted authority. The association is opposed to the principles proposed by the Bolshevists, the I. W. W.'s. and any and all organized efforts wherein reform or revolution is sought to be brought about through violence or co- ercive measures, for the reason that it is recognized by thi: association that under the Con:-titution and the laws of the United States all reforms which are deemed necessary by the sovereign people can be brought about in an orderly, peaceable manner, through the rights of free speech, the free press, petition and exercise of suffrage, and that the present established machinery of government, if availed of, i-; fully sufficient for the carrying out of the will of the people in matters of reform which shall appear to them to be neces- sary from time to time. The purpose of this association is to ;issist in every honorable and legiti- mate manner in the securing, through appropriate legislation and through co- operative effort and assistance, of the following reliefs and reforms: 1. Immediate and unconditional abolition of all forms of censorship of letters and publications. 2. Complete restoration of the rights of free speech and a free press, includ- ing the right to criticize the Government, the Army, and the Navy, and officials, both civil and military. 3. An immediate reform of the court-martial system along the lines proposed and recommended in Senate bill No. 64, introduced by Senator Chamberlain, and House bill No. 367, by Representative Johnson of South Dakota, in the lir^l session of the Sixty-sixth Congress, in the interests of justice, humanity, and efficiency, as opposed to despotic, tyrannical personal authority and so-called expediency. 4. An immediate review of all courts-martial cases by an unprejudiced judicial tribunal, vested with full powers and jurisdiction, to the end that in so far as may now be possible, justice may be done in all cases where sen- tences have been illegally imposed or appear to be of undue severity. 5. A change in our national military system wherein all despotic, autocratic, arbitrary authority now held by officers is entirely removed : wherein the line of demarcation in our Army which separates the enlisted men from the officers' personnel under the assumption that the enlisted man has neither honor, in- telligence, nor ability, and that the officer is possessed of all these qualifications, but to a degree only commensurate with his rank, is entirely effaced, and wherein all to whom authority may be delegated shall be accountable for the proper exercise of that authority to those over whom the authority is exercised and to the sovereign people, instead of only to those of higher rank. A system based on the good American principles of justice, humanity, and efficiency which will, in so far as is humanly possible, make the most effective use of our man power and our material resources in our preparation^ for national defense and in case of war, and under which our Army, in times of peace, may be employed in the great work of national improvements such as construction and improvement of highways, railways, and waterways, and in the development of natural resources with 100 per cent efficiency as the goal. A system wherein promotions come only as a reward of real merit and wherein the enlisted man is guaranteed an honest opportunity to gain ad- vancement through ability and application, up to the highest rank in the Army, based on the sound principles and practices which have been developed and proven out in the development of the great business and industrial organi- zations of the United States. A system wherein the pay of officers and enlisted men shall approximate the pay of men of like ability employed in similar work in our civil life: wherein the requirements as to application and production shall equal or excel those of our business and industrial institutions, and wherein the opportunity for indi- vidual initiative and progress shall receive the fullest consideration. An honest, four-square, democratic, American-made military system in pla say that I approve the Mondell bill and am convinced that with these minor amendments which I shall suggest it is well calculated to accomplish the objects for \\hich it was framed. In the second place. I wish to say that in giving our approval to this measure we are speaking from a practical rather than a theoretical point of view. The .Mormon pioneers entered Sail Lako Valley .July 1M, 1S47, and we are basing our conclusions concerning this bill upon our whole experience of 7'J years. I think it is generally conceited that we have been successful colonizers and have done our full share in building up the western country. We have, of course, learned some very valuable lessons in the course of an experience which has taken hundreds of thousands of men of very small means, including HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 729 many who were practically penniless anil established them successfully in self- sustaining homes of their own. I am somewhat surprised, and very much gratified, to find that the lessons of this experience are embodied to a very considerable extent in the Mondell bill. Another point which I want to make very clear is this : We have not con- sidered this bill merely from the standpoint of Utah and the West, nor from the standpoint of the work in which I am personally engaged, the colonization work of the Mormon Church, but I can see no reason whatever why this pro- posed law should not be just as successful in every other part of the country as in Utah, and I see no reason why it should not work as well with all ele- ments of people, and of all denominations or people of no religion whatever, us it will certainly work with my own people. I say this, because I believe the Mondell bill does embody principles of intelligent executive power, of care for the soldier's welfare, and of community interests which would make it possible also to build up and develop successfully prosperous communities in any part of the United States where suitable lands and opportunities are available. I am also of the firm opinion that if the owners of nonnroducing lands in the North and East, viewed by us from our car windows as we passed through these States on our way to this city, would earnestly cooperate with the true spirit and intent of the Mondell bill, mt-y would be great benefactors not only to the soldiers and their communities but would add impetus and strength to one of the most laudable resources we have within the reach of our own Nation. The problem of my own people from the beginning has been how to take men with little or r.o money, very often with little or no agricultural experience, and accomplish three things: First. To give them employment, such as clearing and cultivating land, teach them the art of proper irrigation, building roads, ditches, canals, reservoirs, etc., and doing everything that is necessary to convert a raw wilderness into a productive agricultural district. Second. How to handle these men so that they would become industrious, loyal, and self-supporting citizens, lovers of home and home life with its accom- panying desires to own their own homes, their own little farms, and be per- manent residents and community benefactors; how to save their money from small earnings and combine same with their own labors in building their own homes and in making the necessary essential improvements around same. Third. How to organize these settlers into communities so that they might have all the necessary institutions of educational, commercial, religious, social, and industrial life that is within the power of the people to give. ' I want to ask you gentlemen of the committee, Are these not the identical problems with which you are called upon to deal as lawmakers in considering the welfare of our returning soldiers? Well, these were the problems faced by President Brigham Young at the beginning of the Utah settlement two years previous to the discovery of gold in California. These are the problems with which the successors of President Young have dealt to this present hour and with which I am dealing to-day as head of the colonization department under President Heber J. Grant. It has been suggested that it might be of some value to you to open the door of our entire experience in building hundreds of farms and tens of thou- sands of homes not only throughout the State of Utah but in several other St. U os and some foreign countries, including the Dominion of Canada. You possess certain very great advantages as compared with the pioneers of our work. You have the advantage of abundant capital and of all modern equip- ments. You can sit down, and figure out the cost of a given project or even of the entire policy and then draw upon the credit of the United States to furnish the money. You have at your command the best talent available in every part and branch of your work, whereas we had to develop talent and use such implements and other limited means within our reach. You can operate on a very large scale in clearing land, building works, and doing other essential things with the most up-to-date machinery, with an abundance of labor at your command, where we were often hampered not only by lack of capital but by small numbers and poor facilities. You have a great reservoir of the finest young men on earth, 25,000 of which came from our own ranks and are of good pioneer stock. With such resources to draw upon for your settlers, young men inured to outdoor life, schooled in discipline, and animated not only by the desire to make homes for themselves but to perform other great service for their country. We had to take settlers of all .ages, -all nationalities, and under all conditions, not a few of which had 730 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. passed beyond the days of youth and were strange to outdoor tasks. But. gen- tlemen, we now have the advantage over those who are called upon to write this law. We have the advantage of 70 years' experience in actually doing the things you are talking about doing, and whatever they say about the Mormon people no one has ever yet said that they do not know how to do this kind of a job. Their sternest critics have never denied their industry, their thrift, their ability to take a company of poor men and convert them into a settlement of land proprietors owning their own homes, working for themselves, paying their way, and fulfilling the obligations of the highest type of American citizens. Now, gentlemen, if you want the benefit of our experience I am here to be of any service within my power and to answer any questions you may care to ask me, but first permit me to submit my suggestions concerning a few minor amendments to this bill. In conclusion may I just say that I am for the Mondell bill with the following suggestions and for the spirit of this legislation in offering an oppotrunity for our soldier hoys to own their own farms, for the following reasons: The farmer is truthfully recognized as the most independent man in the world to-day. There is no more ideal home for the family than the modern up-to-date farm which is also the true source of natural wealth. According to printed statistics 85 per cent of the rich men of the United States became wealthy through the advance in real estate and its resources. It is also said that at the present rate of increasing city population and lag- ging agricultural activities that congestion, labor troubles, distressed industrial conditions, and suffering are inevitable which can only be relieved by the fa rmer. Gentlemen, let us help these solders "Forward to the farm." Xow, the suggestions that we considered and talked over at the table in the governor's office in Utah have the following thoughts : In your opening paragraph of the bill it reads: "To provide em- ployment and rural homes for those who have served with the mili- tary and naval forces through the reclamation of lauds." As it reads we desire we feel that that wording is a little misleading, and would like to suggest: " The acquisition and development of land-. 1o be known as the soldier settlement act." Mr. TAYLOR. You would change the title of the bill? Mr. HANSKX. We changed the title by making it read instead of reclamation" make it read "acquisition and development." be- cause all of the work is not intended to be reclamation work. Mr. TAYLOR. As I understand it, there are other things contem- plated besides reclamation. Mr. HAXSEN. Yes; and it is a little misleading and throws us way up into the big, cold reclamation projects; so, to bring it a little nearer home and make it answer the true intent of the purpose, we feel that that word would probably be a little more fitting. On page 2, line 17, we thought the words " a commissioner or com- missioners" might be inserted instead of the words "a representa- tive of the governor/' and also to insert the words "or Territory." So that it would read, "approved by a commissioner or commis- sioners of the governor of the State or Territory in which the lands are located." Our governor has already appointed commissioners for this pur- pose. Mr. TAYLOR. Those commissioners would still be representative, wouldn't they? Mi-. HANS i: x . Possibly so. Mr. TAYI.OH. What is the idea of using the word "Territory " in- stead of the word " State?" We haven't g<1 any Territories. Mr. HAXSKX. Not instead: just insert the words "or Territory." HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 731 Mr. TAYLOR. So as to make it applicable to the Hawaiian Islands or Alaska ? Mi-. HANSEN. Yes: or any place that might be chosen to be used. Mr. FERRIS. Is Bamberger still governor of Utah? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. On page 3, line 1, there is the same thought that is contained In the introduction, instead of having it read, " for the permanent reclamation or development." have it read, '" for the acquisition and development of the lands." On the same page, line 9, the words " in no single case exceed $1,200," we thought the words " $2,000 or $2,500 " should be substituted. We really spoke of $2,000, but I am more inclined to favor $2,500 for the following reasons : By virtue of a loaning fund made available about four years ago I now have a great deal to do with men who come and want assistance, who already have the title to their lands, who are out on the frontiers and who own their lands, and they are pretty well along, but their homes are deplorable and uninviting, and they are not satisfactory or agreeable for their families and young people. It is not what they would desire for their homes, and so in similar cases the soldier may come to you and ask for some money to make and build his im- provements ; he doesn't want it for anything else ; he doesn't want it to acquire land; he doesn't want any assistance to buy live stock or implements, or anything, but he would like to have some assistance in building a home. He will put up his own labor against that, and as building material is very high, if he should want to have a little more money, I think it should be left within the discretion of the State commissions to use their judgment in such cases. Of course, as very often we have no rules in our limited regulations about that, and it has thus far been left up to me to decide. I make the recommenda- tions to my committee of three, and if these recommendations are approved they indorse it and the secretary and treasurer is author- ized to advance the money. And I think that the man on the job at the particular time is probably in a position and desires to hold it back as much as he can, but there are exceptional cases where $1.200 would not be sufficient to meet the needs. The CHAIRMAN. Do your observations in this particular relate to the farm units, to the colony, or the segregated farm units? Mr. HANSEN. In this particular it is possible in new developments and settlements, and is not restricted farticularly to any settlement plan. The same thing would apply to another clause that is just similar to it I will come back again here, but on page 5, line 2, this same thing applies to $800, which we would like to recommend be made to read " $1,500." Mr. MAYS. Line 10, page 5 ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes. For the same purpose that they may have everything else and may not want any more assistance in any way, but they lack a few hogs or sheep or a few milch cows and some live stock around their place. Eight hundred dollars doesn't go very far for a man under that condition at the present price of good cattle, which we want to recommend and which we are recommending .that they get, good registered stock, or good choice stock, and so in order to do that $800 doesn't go very far. It may be that he wouldn't want any money for any other consideration but that. 732 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Going back to page 4, line 9, 1 hardly feel that 5 per cent is enough to ask of the purchaser when you are advancing him a great amount of money a large amount and I would like to recommend that that first payment read 10 per cent of the sale price instead of 5. Now, the reason is this : That while we want to help the boys without any means, we do not want to place five or six or seven thousand dollars, as the case may be, in their own possession if they themselves neither have the resource nor the ability to raise one-tenth of the amount that we are intrusting or loaning them and giving over into their hands. And I think, because of this, that there will be opportunities for them to become educated along the different lines that are provided for them in this bill; that it will be possible for them without and handi- cap at all to bring and deposit at least 10 per cent of the purchase price, which will give them a more individual interest in the proposi- tion itself than it would if they had practically no interest. A man could come and take a farm and take the crop off the first year, and he can deteriorate the value of that property very materially and go away and take his crops, and you are out the money, if they were so inclined. Now, it doesn't happen very often, but in my experience it does happen in the goodness of their hearts they have no intention of doing it at all when they enter into this contract with us, but I have found that the more you can get a man interested personally with you in any business, the better is his ability to execute that work. So I suggest that that be made to read 10 per cent instead of 5 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. What do you require under your plan ? Mr. HANSEN. We have no definite plan for the loaning fund of our church. It has been left largely to my recommendation. Often I meet people that I don't have to give a 5 cent piece. They say, " Mr. Hansen, we don't want any money ; all we want is an opportu- nity to get in right. We know that you are in a position to advise us and to help us and to get us started in right so that we are not going to be held up using their phrase by any real estate stunt, or any- thing of that kind. You help me get in right and that is all I ask of you. I am willing to fight my own battle and get through it." And some don't want anything but advice and the right opportunity. Others want only a small amount, $150, $500, $1,000; some of them come with four or five or ten thousand dollars, and all along the line, so that, Mr. Chairman, we dont' have any restrictions. It depends en- tirely upon the case, which has a personal investigation and receives personal recommendation from me to my committee, so we have no fixed amount, but it depends altogether on each case. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, you do put men on without any capital at all, if they are honest and reliable and industrious? Mr. HANSEN. Yes; we often do that, very often. As, for example, refugees from Mexico. But I would say this : That my greatest suc- cess has been where they have been pretty well interested themselves. I lost quite a few when we started this financial-assistance plan. I lost a few of them in the goodness of my heart and my endeavor to help them, but I soon found that my success was not measured by the number of people that I could assist, but the success that I could cause them -to enjoy. Mr. FERRIS. What character of land do you put them on -pul (In- lands, or State lands, or private lands! HOMES FOK SOLDIERS. 733 Mr. HANSEN. It varies entirely with the circumstances. Some- times we help them out to a new reclamation or different places out of the State; sometimes we just put them onto new lands. Some of them want to go where the lands can be obtained cheap ; they want to get down on the ground floor; they want to get in with all the advantages and help build it up. Others are married and intermar- ried and their social and other connections are such that they don't want to go away from their own settlement. They want to branch out, but they also want to be sort of a leader in the community where they are. Mr. FERRIS. What I am trying to get at is, do you put them on there as tenants, or do you put them on there with a view of acquir- ing homes of their own? Mr. HAN SEN. Ownership is the only way. Tenancy is a failure, and it will be just as hard to get people to be successful tenants as it is to get them to work for day's wages. They want to own their own lands. Mr. FERRIS. I agree with you on that. So that when the applicant conies to you for the purpose of acquiring a home or land to farm, your efforts are to get him located somewhere where it will be ac- ceptable to him ? Mr. HAN SEN. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Where family relations and community relations are agreeable ? Mr. HANSEN. We have to consider all those things. Mr. FERRIS. And you don't have any particular colony to put him in, do you? Mr. HANSEN. No. Mr. FERRIS. You find something that is acceptable to him and help him on it ? Is that it ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. And you make loans to him ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes ; we make loans to them. Mr. FERRIS. Is that a church fund? Mr. HANSEN. That has been a church fund, which was you might be interested to know this, that because of our interest and the limited overhead expense that we have in connection with this, and the degree of success which has followed our people, in this recent move, w r as brought about by some philanthropist or some gpod-hearted capitalist, who left to 'the church an estate which was immediately matched by the church and is used for this loaning pur- pose. That was really, gentlemen, the impetus of this particular move. Mr. FERRIS. Have you acquired lands with that fund ? Mr. HANSEN. We buy no lands; we help them buy teams, harness, wagons, if necessary. To one man we will loan a little money to acquire his land ; another will make his own arrangements for land and we buy him his team and outfit and equipment. Others possibly have all they need, and all there is for us to do is to go to the store and arrange a year's supply for them, seeds, and so on, and help them with implements until they can get a crop out and start it. Our work is very much varied in that line. Mr. FERRIS. Does the church own large areas of land ? 734 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HANSEN. No; we have no lands at all that we are selling to anybody. Mr. FERRIS. Only just as you acquire them for the individual ap- plicant as they come along ? Mr. HANSEN. We have 800 bishops, I was going to say, who are all anxious to have enterprising men come to them, and they do anything furnish supplies and cooperate with them to get them interested. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. How long has this plan been in operation ? Mr. HANSEN. As outlined here, as already stated, it is nearly four years old now. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the particular plan? Mr. HANSEN. That I have just outlined, where we have started to be of help, have made an organized effort to help our people back to the farm. It was brought about by the influx to the city and the lagging on the farm. Our cities became overpopulato.d with men that understand the art of agriculture, and the lands were lying dormant and there was a move on to get them from the cities back to the farms, and the time when this effort, as I say, especially con- centrated with this organization, was made, was about four years ago. The CHAIRMAN. But you have had your colonization plan going for years? Mr. HANSEN. Ever since we started to settle in Utah under very close supervision. This assistance plan is an addition to our old plan, you know. Mr. TAYLOR. Sort of an evolutionary development of it? Mr. HANSEN. Yes; trying to keep up with the times. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, will you go ahead with the amendments that you have to further suggest? Mr. HANSEN. On line 15, of the same page, page 4, it reads. " at the rate of 4 per centum per annum, payable annually," for where does it say that it is for a period of 40 years? The amendment that we suggest in that line is that it be 4 per cent for the first 20 years and 5 per cent thereafter, for this reason : You have helped them to get a start, and 20 years is long enough to help anybody get a good start. You are making the terms very liberal and doing everything for him ; his farm has increased in value; you hold the title; the title is not yet in his name, and if he is anxious to get the title in his name, he can go to the Federal loan bank or other banks and borrow money, easy enough to pay you up, or he can continue with you if he desires along the same plan. I would make it optional for him, whether he desires to remain with you, you holding the. title until you get through, until he redeems it ; or he has the privilege at the expiration of 20 years of redeeming or taking title in his own name and going to the bank and borrowing more money if he chooses, and that this land will permit, and buying live stock or making such improvements that will be worth enough to him so that he can afford very well to pay the difference between 5 per cent or 4 pei- cent and the rate of interest lie would have to pay otherwise. Mr. FERRIS. Wouldn't you give him the option of paying out earlier than 20 years? Mr. HANSEN. Yes ; decidedly so. Mr. FERIMS. What option would you give him? HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 735 Mr. HAXSEX. I would put a clause in the contract providing that he could take it up there could be no objection on the part of the Government, I would give him the option to redeem the whole thing and take the title over in his name at any time that he can and desires to do it. Mr. FERRIS. After paying out in full ? Mr. HAXSEX. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. At any time? Mr. HAXSEX. At any time; yes, sir. That creates, then, a fund or the money is back in the Treasury, and as we use it for a revolving fund, then somebody else could have the benefit of it all the quicker and could immediately take it and go on. Mr. TAYLOR. And if it was less than 4 per cent, it would be an in- centive to him not to get title, because that is cheaper than he could get money any place else, and cheaper than the Government of the United States has to pay on its own bonds. Mr. HAXSEX. We don't know what the rate of interest will be 40 years from now. Mr. FERRIS. And, of course, all the years that that title has been held, the property is taxed free. There is another consideration that will keep him from acquiring title. Mr. HAXSEX. Well, I don't know. That is a point that I have not gone into, but we always ask them to pay the taxes. Mr. FERRIS. You do in your lands, but so long as the Federal Gov- ernment withholds title, and until such time as title is finally granted, there could not be any taxes on Government property. Mr. TAYLOR. There could be taxes on the improvements. Mr. FERRIS. Yes; but I am speaking of the land. Mr. HAXSEX. Is that just exactly what we want to convey? Mr. FERRIS. That is the logical sequence. Now, whether you want to modify that is the question. You know the Government doesn't allow its property to be taxed in any event. Mr. HAXSEX. No. Mr. FERRIS. Either public buildings acquired or land, and as long as these titles were withheld from these applicants without the bill making any definite recital about it, of course the land would be tax free. So I was thinking your amendment might have a good deal of merit in it, because by raising the interest it would be an additional inducement to the fellow to pay out, rather than go on tax free at a low rate of interest, under which conditions there might come a time when it would be unfair to the surrounding community. Mr. HAXSEX. Well, that was my idea. Mr. FERRIS. There are sections in my State now that are in that condition. Mr. HAXSEX. We have them, when they sign a contract, with us for a series of years, come back at a much earlier period and say, "I need money. I can make more money by buying a bunch of good sheep or a bunch of good dairy cows, something that can bring me more interest, and I want to take up my loan. I want to get title." And we go over and make arrangements and get the money. Mr. FERRIS. So you don't think it would be a wise scheme to keep them as long as five years on the land before they can come in and pa} r out and acquire the title ? Mr. HAXSEX. I wouldn't have it under five years. 13331919 47 736 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. TAYLOR. You want to make them become permanent settlers and residents? Mr. HANSEN. Yes. Mr. FERRIS. Would five years be too long? Mr. HANSEN. No; I don't think so. Mr. FERRIS. You stated a moment ago that you allowed them to get title any time. That would mean one day or one month or one year. Mr. HANSEN. There is just one thought in connection with this. I don't know the detailed route of work that the Government con- templates in administration. That is what I am not familiar with. I know with my own records and the way we keep them that we are prepared at any time to accept their money. They can come and get their title at any time they choose. Mr. HERSMAN. You wouldn't allow him to sell out his contract, would you? Mr. HANSEN. No, sir; absolutely not. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Except to another soldier; wouldn't you be willing to do that? Mr. HANSEN. Not without the written consent of the Government. I would make that provision, of course. Mr. HERSMAN. While you are on that subject of 40 years, don't you think that 20 years is long enough to pay for this land in any case ; that if a man can't pay for it in 20 years it isn't a good invest- ment for him; that 20 years is as long as it could reasonably be expected to be extended ? Mr. HANSEN. Well, you are making quite a gap there, you know, for a young man that doesn't have to pay taxes for 40 years and pays 4 per cent interest. It is a very strong inducement, of course, for him to hold on, but I do personally, without going into that in detail I haven't gone into that so much in detail, but personally I can imagine no case in our own connections AVC could not think of 20 years. It would be absolutely beyond our limit, you know. We don't do that. Now, what the capacity of the Government is I don't know. Mr. HERSMAN. Well, the question is, if a man couldn't pay for it in 20 years, it would not be a good investment for him. Mr. HANSEN. That is the natural conclusion. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What is the length of term on which you loan? Mr. HANSEN. It varies. Some of them only wanted six months, or until after harvest; another wants it for a year, another five years ; but I don't think that in any of our instances I have a single ise where it exceeds five years. Mr. FERRIS. Of course, Mr. Hansen, in a number of States, in the disposition of their State lands they give them 40 years. Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I know. Mr. FERRIS. Quite a number of those have come under my notice. Mr. HANSEN. I didn't attempt to go into that. I took it for granted that that had been arranged, and I suggest the raise of interest after 40 years, if it is going to be 40 years. On page 5, line 16, it is provided : That no such loans shall exceed GO per centum of the cost of the live stock and equipment purchased. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 737 I think that should be raised to 75 per cent. Live stock is an awfully good security. Bankers will allow a cattleman to go out and draw on them any time for 75 per cent of the value of the stock that they are getting, and he may not have the money available but may have splendid security that would satisfy us, and I think that I would say 75 per cent instead of 60 per cent. Mr. HERSMAX. Just on that point there, 75 and 60 per cent. I had expected to raise that same question in the committee don't you think that 75 per cent is entirely too much on machinery, extending over a period of five years? Xow it is not too much on cattle, pro- viding for the increase of the cattle, of course, and the Secretary will do that, but don't you think that 75 per cent is entirely too much on machinery extending over a period of five years? Mr. HAXSEX. Xo; I don't think so. His machinery has to be kept up. He has to keep it up. Of course it deteriorates, but it is always replaced. Mr. HERSMAX. Now your own experience as a farmer will cer- tainly lead you I would imagine it would would lead you to be- lieve that any machinery that is five years old is not worth 40 per cent of its original value. Mr. HAXSEX. Yes; we grant that. Mr. HERSMAX. It is not worth 30 per cent of its original value. I can't imagine any machinery we could buy that would be worth 30 per cent at the end of five years. Then why isn't 75 per cent too much to loan on machinery "unless you are just going to make him a gift of it provided he fails? That is not so with cattle and the increase on cattle. Mr. HAXSEN. Well, I haven't gone into that. I haven't had occa- sion to test that out. We never sustained any losses that way. Mr. HERSMAX. But you don't extend loans on machinery five years. Mr. HAXSEX. It deteriorates very materially. I realize that. There are a lot of these details that would have to be left to the dis- cretion of the commissioners or the party on the job at the time. The moral risk with a man is often much more, of course, than the other. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What would you think of this suggestion, Mr. Hansen, that these loans on equipment and stock shall not exceed a period of two years, and then be subjected to renewal, so that the Government in that way could keep close track of it ? Mr. HAXSEX. That involves an awful lot of work. Mr. HERSMAX. What did you saj r ? Mr. HAXSEX. That involves an awful lot of work, renewing and going into these records: and I think that your provision would be safe on that. I wouldn't ask for a renewal in two years. Mr. BEXIIAM. Mr. Hansen. I would like to ask this question. We are all more or less familiar with what you are doing, and are sure that it is a success. Would you say that, in the main, your work at present, and during the past several years, is with the project plan as suggested in the Mondell bill, or a major portion of it individual ownership, segregated lands? Mi-. HAXSEX. Yes: that has been chiefly it on ours. Mr. HERSMAX. What has been chiefly yours? 738 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HAXSEX. Individual work, instead of large collective plans- as I understood your question. Mr. BENHAJC. Yes; that was the question. Mr. HERSMAX. You tried to arrange them in colonies? Mr. HAXSEX. The origin, of course, was in colonies, always, and until we get established; and We very often are called upon to go out and start little colonies. We take as many families as we can get together, and put out there and let them grow naturally themselves: put out there on these colonies. But the old plan, of course, is to get your families started in a community, and the natural growth de- velops them. Mr. BEX HAM. One more question, Mr. Hansen. Do you find the loaning on these individual holdings any more risky than in the case of colonies? Mr. HAXSEN. No; we have lost but very little. The fact of the matter is, I don't know at this time of any accounts that we would lose in connection with that. We take every precaution, the details of which I would be glad to submit later, in 'drawing up the contract in connection with that. I would be very glad to be helpful in a lot of details. In the contract we make provision for that. Our risks are now very small. You don't have to take any risks. Let them improve the ground; the land is increasing in value all the time, and the live stock is increasing in value, and if you will get them to start the game fair with you and play the game fair, you are absolutely safe. It is one of the safest investments we can possibly loan money on. Mr. HEKSM\X: Mr. Hansen. along that line of individual colonies, as is proposed in this bill, that is quite an important question. I imag- ine, under consideration before this committee, and your testimony undoubtedly will carry weight, because you have had experience. I wish to go into that a little more fully. I wish you would state the advantages, if you thing there are any. over the system that is proposed by this Mondell bill, of assembling them in colonies, to have the advantages of churches and homes that they may have in this new settlement, or loaning money to individual persons, to select as they may see fit in different isolated places and maybe in the State or near their own homes. I wish you would go a little more fully into that, because it is a question that has bothered me somewhat, and I know that question is going to come under con- sideration when this committee goes into committee of the whole in executive session, and I would like to have you go a little more fully into that one phase of it. The CIIAIRMAX. You want him, Mr. Hersman. to go into the re- spective merits of the colony plan and the segregated unit plan ? Mr. HERSMAX. Yes: he has had experience. He says he has loaned money both ways, and I w r ould like to have him go into those two features. Mr. HAXSEX. Now. we haven't had just such an organized effort as is proposed in detail here by the soldier-settlement plan. We have never gone into a community 'with this recent financial assistance, as is proposed in this plan, and opened it systematically, laid it out, planted it, planned and arranged for little community centers, such as the plan that was submitted for my consideration yesterday in the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 739 office of Mr. Davis, our Reclamation Director General, provided. We have never had enough money for such an experience; we have never gone into it as he has planned. Mr. HERSMAN. You mean as represented in this bill? Mr. HANSEN. As represented in this bill ; but I believe that it can be made a great success. I think if you were to confine it exclusively to that plan it would not be a success, but I do think that that is one of the appealing features of this bill and will be very helpful and very useful in developing the ideas that it is desired to obtain and to get the results. But we have practically the three stages. If Utah is to participate in this limd, I would suggest something like this: There is a little community at Moceda, on Utah Lake, now that was taken up, a project that was planned beautifully planned and arranged and they came from the East out there and started to colonizing on their own methods; but it was not a success, and it failed and went into other hands and failed again. It is in the hands of a receiver, and is now ripe and ready, with trees growing and everything all ready to jump right onto and put in a little money in developing the sys- tems the. water systems. That would be the first. This could be started within 30 days, as far as that goes, just after the word was said to go. Then, there we have another project that could be started as soon as the boys would be ready. We have the plan there to build a reser- voir on one of our rivers and start work and give them work immedi- ately, all of the preliminary engineering work having been done. That would provide for largely the infiltration method in colonies of from 10 but in colonies, I will say, of from 10 to 15, 25, 75, and 100 families, but it is intermingled with other families. Then the big plan, where we want to work out still another very large project on the reservation. Mr. FERRIS. Let me interrupt the witness for a moment. Where is this word " infiltration plan " as applying to taking up lands where does that come from ? Who is the sire of that word ? To me it is a very great misnomer and a very displeasing and inappropriate word. Who is it that fathers and applies such a word as that? The CHAIRMAN. I don't know the etymology of it. Mr. FERRIS. The " infiltration plan " to me it is all out of joint. Do you know the origin of it ? Mr. HANSEN. No ; I do not. It has been a little confusing to me. Often I am asked, "Are you for the infiltration plan or the soldier settlement plan? " and I can really not draw an intelligent distinction between the two principles. We all have the same purpose in view, and in discussing the matter a little further I always find we are exactly the same, whether it is the infiltration plan or the soldier settlement plan. Before we get through we are right together on the t\vo plans. Mr. FERRIS. I don't like the word at all. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Would not the word " segregated " or " iso- lated " be more expressive ? Mr. FERRIS. It seems to me anything w r ould be more intelligible than that word. The CHAIRMAN. You might say " individual." 740 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. How about " individual segregative " ? Is that a good word, Mr. Ferris ? Mr. FERRIS. It seems better to me, Mr. White. This " infiltration " plan I don't think 1 per cent of the country will know what that means. Mr. MAYS. It sounds like it ought to be applied to a water system. Mr. FERRIS. I have heard it, but it don't grow in grace with me. Mr. WHITE. It doesn't grow in your country. It is not indigenous to Oklahoma. Mr. FERRIS. No. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of a certain colony plan failure. What was the reason of the failure of that ? Mr. HANSEN. Well, the promoters didn't have the interests of the people at heart. It was their own interests that they had. The CHAIRMAN. Who did not? Mr. HAN SEN. The promoters of the big project. It was a promo- tion scheme. Somebody was to make a lot of money out of it, and it was a money-making proposition instead of getting right into the germ of benefiting the community and the people there. That is whv thev failed, and why anybody should fail. The CHAIRMAN. It was a speculative proposition ? Mr. HANSEN. Purely speculative; yes. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask you a question. Don't you think, generally speaking, that that is the common danger that threatens these plans s Mr. HANSEN. That is where these promotions and projects seem to have to battle so hard for approval just at this hour and at this particular time, because of just that condition. Mr. MAYS. After they got these settlers on the land they neglected to pay any attention to them. Isn't that the trouble? Mr. HANSEN. Well, they carry it for a while and then their money pans out and they get discouraged, and the bills become due, and then they begin to close in on the people, and then they are sold under the hammer, and some others think it is a good thing and they try it. I always find it the nice thing to get in about the third man on a proposition like that. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you undertake, Mr. Hansen, to keep in close touch with the farmers to whom you loan money, to see them every two or three months as to how they are getting along? Mr. HANSEN. It has been my duty to visit them and to advice with them. I go through their farms and take an inventory every year. I go out and walk around with them on their land, look over their crops, consult with them, and advise with them. I take an agri- culturist with me and say to him, " I have got some boys here that I want you to take care of. They are a little lame in this direction. Bolster them up and give them personal attention and put them under the personal supervision of our agricultural agent." In some instances it has been necessary for me to go and appeal to the educational interests, and in one particular instance lately, where my young men were getting away from me, I had to have an educator come out on tho ground and live with tlu> boys and work with thorn in their homes. iret up early and go and see how they cared for their horses, how they hitched them up, and how HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 741 they tended to their implements, and all the details of their work; and in that way I feel that that has been the big point in my success, because of the individual personal interest that they feel with me, and naturally if you loan them a little money you are the big man, and when I come I always get the fattest chicken and they make quite a fuss over me. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is that the reason you like to go ? Mr. HANSEN. That is one of the reasons I like to go. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Hansen, I was called out of the room and did not hear your preliminary remarks maybe you covered this. I just want to ask a few questions, if I may. Does your State aid men to obtain lands and develop them? Mr. HANSEN. No; only in this connection: The State has appro- priated $1,000,000 the State of Utah to cooperate with this move- ment. Mr. NICHOLS. But you spoke of some experience you had in the matter of placing men on the farms and the development of the land. Mr. HANSEN. That I spoke of particularly in reference to our church the Mormon Church. Mr. NICHOLS. Your church, then, does it aid men to go on the farms, loan them money, etc.? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. How much would they loan them ? How high would they go ? Mr. HANSEN. It varies. I believe I made the explanation. I would be glad to make it again we have no stipulated amount. It varies anywhere from what we call good advice and helpfulness in getting started to $2,000. Mr. NICHOLS. You go as high as $2.000 ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes. We have tried to hold it to very few cases where we have to go up to that. Mr. NICHOLS. Would you go as far 20 years in that case? Mr. HANSEN. No; five years is our limit. That is as far as we consider our limited funds will permit us to go. Mr. NICHOLS. And what rate of interest do you charge ? Mr. HANSEN. We usually charge 7 per cent. Sometimes in extreme cases we have charged 8 'per cent, but 7 per cent is the standard. It is not the interest we are after. We just want them to feel the obligation. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, you go as high as $2,000. That covers the payment on the farm and also the equipment the stock? Mr. HANSEN. It is applied in various ways. Sometimes we only use it for equipment; sometimes for stock only; sometimes for land only. It is seldom, if ever, that we attempt to start them out we wouldn't start them out on the ground floor with equipment and everything, amounting to $2,000, without any resources on their part at all. Mr. NICHOLS. As I understand it, then, you have loaned as high as $2.000 to a good prospect? Mr. HANSEN. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. For a period not longer than five years and usually 7 per cent? 742 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. HANSEN. Yes. Mr. NICHOLS. Is it ever any less? Mr. HANSEN. Yes; and if a man comes in and says he has a hard struggle and puts up a plea and says, " I would like to have my in- terest abated," I would recommend and in case after case we abate their interest as long as we can get the principal back and start it over again and start it to rolling. But they sign the note for 7 per cent. Mr. MAYS. Do you believe that by charging such a rate of interest the individuals are induced to pay off the principal sooner ? Mr. HANSEN. That is the purpose. We want them to pay the principal and get the money back for somebody else. Often after we get them started their securities are enhanced and they go and get the money for a little less interest and pay up, which pleases us very much. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, in this bill, Mr. Hansen, you call attention to page 3, line 9, that $1,200, you think that should be increased to $2,000? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir; $2,500. Mr. NICHOLS. And would you leave the words in " nor in excess of three-quarters of the cost or value of the improvements " ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. And on the 5 per cent initial payment, page 4, line 9, you would increase that to 10 per cent? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, then, the initial payment of the soldier would be considerably increased by the increase of the first payment from 5 per cent to 10 per cent and the increase indicated from $1.200 to $2,000 in the loan and the increase indicated on page 5, line 10, from $800 to $1,500. Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. As it is now, it has been estimated that the soldier would approximately have to pay $1,200 as an initial payment on all, covering all, so that would increase it materially. Mr. HANSEN. You say he would have to pay '$1,200? Mr. NICHOLS. It has been estimated here by Mr. Davis and others that approximately the soldier would have to pay $1.200. Of course, this would increase that amount of the initial payment of the soldier. Mr. HANSEN. You will find so many conditions confronting you, your local committeemen in taking these boys, that they will find their own level of safety. We all have just one purpose in view. We want to help them and we want to adopt those measures which in the main will be the guiding post, the mile post, to those who are making this contract with them. But you will see, and I will see, as we come in contact with them, that it will be necessary to make personal investi- gation and examination of those boys before you will give any of them anything, I don't care what it is. The CHAIRMAN. You mean before you make your selection? Mr. HANSEN. I would have to meet them in order to say how much we should give them and just how much we will give them in our own district, not barring anybody. Mr. NICHOLS. Now, Mr. Hansen, some of the boys would be ex- cluded from this, then ? HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. 743 Mr. HAXSEX. I can't imagine anybody that would be excluded, if they have the purpose of this bill in mind to be agricultural bene- ficiaries and to get a home of their own. The law is big enough and broad enough to help anybody that has the purpose of this bill at heart, and what the Government could not do the State will do, and what the State won't do the individual would do, and you will find help rallying around you to such an extent that you will not be handi- capped for means, and if you get through with this amount success- fully they will be only too "glad to double the appropriation or to add to it as you succeed with the purpose of this bill. Mr. NICHOLS. Xow, Mr. Hansen, would a man be excluded be- cause he didn't appreciate the purpose of the bill, or would he be excluded because he would not be considered, we will say, the right kind of a man to put on one of these projects? Mr. HAN SEN. Well, now, I would not like to go into the personality of the measure, so far as the boys are concerned. Mr. NICHOLS. You said that sooner or later the Government would reach the point where they would have to pick their men. Mr. HAXSEX. I didn't mean just that. I don't mean it to be in- tended .that way. I mean this, that we want to help the boy who wants to help himself in this direction, and the law and the commis- sioners, the men having the details of that, are the best judges as to just the amount and just how and just where they will be helped in this direction. Now, I wouldn't say that I would debar anybody. I could not, would not it is not intended to, but I think that the meas- use is for agricultural purposes for getting a home on the farm. Hundreds of the soldiers will not want a home on the farm, but this is the farmer boy's day just now, to get a home on the farm; later on the day will come for the boy that wants to enter into some other enterprise or some other business, that doesn't want a farm, but this is the farmer boy's day and the farmer boy's bill and the farmer boy's appropriation at this time, as I understand it. Air. NICHOLS. I agree with you about that. Would you say that all that w r ould be necessary for a soldier to avail himself of the oppor- tunities in this bill that all that w T ould be necessary for him to do would be to show his honorable discharge from the Army? Mr. HAXSEX. No, sir. Gentlemen, I would sooner you would not question me too strongly on that. I don't know that I am prepared on that line. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, it is very important. Mr. HAXSEX. I would not be prepared to go into that closely. I haven't gone into that phase of it. I did prepare a letter, and have submitted it before, that would cover that point, but I don't think it is opportune just now to do that. I made a report on that in writing; but I will say in brief, in answer to that question, that I have already thinking in my own mind that I might be asked to make an expression on that. I w y rote this among other things. This is one clause of my recommendation, and I think a copy of it is on file. Mr. NICHOLS. On file with the committee? Mr. HAXSEX. Not on file with this committee. I didn't think it pertained to this, but I think the Secretary I don't know but 744 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. what the Secretar}" I know that my own people have it at home. [Reading :] But, naturally, all can not be considered exactly on the same basis, and classifications must necessarily be adopted, and I suggest possibly three head- ings, namely : First. The immediate farm owner and operator. Second. The project developer. Third. The educational agricultural employment. Then I have gone on and specified the three different headings and classified the boys, and that is about all the way I would handle them if they should be brought to me and if I were an examining board or an examining committee. I think for the protection of the boys and for the best interests of all concerned I would necessarily have to make a classification. I could not give the same boy that had been an agriculturist and that was considered a success and had had the experience I could not give him the same consideration as another one that had never had any experience on the farm at all, had never been on a farm, but he wants to go on a farm and he would like to go on a farm. I could not put those two fellows side by side and handle them exactly the same way just at the same time. Mr. MAYS. Have you had any experience in taking city-trained men out onto farms ? Mr. HANSEN. Yes; a great deal. So much so that now I won't take a city boy out on the farm until I go right into his own home and get acquainted with his wife. I don't usually loan to single young men ; I take married men, and I want to know what kind of a wife he has got, how he is mated up, and whether she is going to be true to the life and whether she is fitted for it and adapted for it, and if she is not, then I don't take them. In my work I only loan 1 out of every 8 or 10 that comes to me, and they don't take any exceptions. At first they did, but I have got my little plans and my own individual way so arranged that I don't have any trouble. I don't want them to go unless they are fitted for it. Mr. MAYS. After you have selected them, they have been satisfied as a rule? Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir ; I don't have any trouble with that. Occa- sionally the best of us will get wrong. Mr. NICHOLS. Would you recommend that the Government, in putting into operation the provisions of this bill, should go as closely into the conditions of the applicant, the soldier applicant would you recommend that the Government agents should become acquainted with his wife and his home conditions ? Mr. HANSEN. Not necessarily. That is just my own way. You would have to adopt your own methods as a council of good men, and I would not adopt a plan until I had met in council with the best men that I could possibly get, and I would not suggest that you adopt my plans. These are just personal views, and I realize, the danger, and right there is where you are going to have your greatest trouble, if I dp say it. I would not want to go on record just now as recommending any one particular measure, because T :im not prepared to do so. I have not had to deal with those boys as you will have to deal with them. Mr. NICHOLS. But you don't believe that an honorable discharge from the Army would be sufficient guaranty that they should be placed on a farm? HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 745 Mr. HANSEN. Xo; if I had to answer that } T es or no I would say it was not sufficeint guaranty for the maximum amount. Everyone would come under one of these classifications, as near as I could tell. Mr. XICHOLS. Now, Mr. Hansen, in your summing up that you made in your statement that you read I just heard part of it as I came in regarding the problem, did you mean the problem of developing the land, the land problem, or the soldier problem? Mr. HANSEN. I don't remember just what sentence you have reference to, but there are both propositions. Mr. XICHOLS. What problem were you referring to ? Mr. HANSEN. I don't remember the phrase. Can you tell me the thought that I was expressing? Wait just a minute, maybe I did use that. The CHAIRMAN. You used the word " problem " several times. Mr. HAN SEN. I don't remember it just now. Mr. XICHOLS. Well, Mr. Hansen, I will ask you this question : Ac- cording to the statements that have been made before the committee, probably less than 100,000 of the soldiers who participated in this re- cent war could, under the authorized appropriation of this bill, take advantage of the opportunities that are offered. Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. XICHOLS. Now, do you think if you are considering this as a soldier problem, do you think that the Government should attempt to aid soldiers who were in this war or were in any war to own a home any place, or do you think it should be confined to the farm ? Mr. HANSEN. Absolutely to the farm, without any reservation. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, then, do you believe that 'the Government should enact legislation, the price of which will be $500,000,000 to aid only about 100.000 soldiers, when there are 4,500,000 in all? Mr. HANSEN. I think $500,000,000 is a very intelligent estimate for the experimental stage of this work. Mr. NICHOLS. You think it will require more afterwards? Mr. HANSEN. I think later on you will be glad to give more, if it is carried on successfully. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, how many soldiers do you think will avail themselves of this opportunity? Have you any idea about that? Mr. HAXSEX. I could only judge, as I say, by my own applications. I find when I come to handle them, that a very small amount will go on the farm, and the real purpose of it would be such that the boys would not want to avail themselves not as many when it gets right down into the detail of it. will want to avail themselves of it just now not as many as we think. And I think that if more is needed it will be forthcoming. I am not a bit worried about the amount that will be available for the worthy applicants among the soldiers for this purpose, either from the State or otherwise. Mr. XICHOLS. Xow. Mr. Hansen, I come from a city that sent a good many thousand soldiers to the war, the same as other cities of the country did, and supposing the citv man, born and bred, we will say. a boy' who went into this" war. felt that he would like some as- si-tunce from the Government to purcha<=e a home in the city; do you think the Government should assist him? Mr. HANSEN. Xo. sir; not at this stand the improvements in each case to secure the note for a first loan in an amount not to exceed 50 per centum of the value of the land mortgaged and 20 per centum of the value of the permanent, insured improvements thereon, which notes for said amounts may be used by the farm-loan banks as security for the farm-loan bonds, the same as notes made by other borrowers, and a second mortgage shall he taken upon the land and the permanent, insure 1 im- provements theivon. to secure a second loan evidenced by a note for the re- mainder of the loan in each case, in an amount in the aggregate 1 not to exceed 100 per centum of the value of the laud and the permanent, insured improve- ments thereon, which said second mortgages shall be held by the farm-land bank of the district in which the land and Improvements so mortgaged are located, and collections shall be made on them, both as to principal and interest. Hie same as notes secured by first mortgages, and the United States shall issue HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 755 its bonds, which shall be denominated ' soldiers' bond,' to such an amount as may bo necessary to make the proceeds equal the amount of the second mort- gages, which said bonds shall be nontaxable and bear interest at a rate not to exceed 4 per centum and be sold for not less than par value, and the money shall be loaned to said honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines at the same rate as paid upon the notes secured by the first mortgages, and the proceeds derived from the payment of the notes secured by the second mort- gages shall, when collected, be used for the payment and -retirement of the (jovornmeut bonds herein authorized to be issued : Provided, however, That said second loan shall be made only to those honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines who carry life insurance under the war-risk insurance act approved October 6, 1917, and acts amendatory thereof, in full force and effect, which shall be assigned and held as additional security for said second loan. " In making said appraisal the value of the land for agricultural purposes shall be the basis of appraisal and the earning power of said land shall be a principal factor. "A reappraisal may be permitted at any time in the discretion of the Fed- eral land bank, and such additional loan may be granted as such appraisal will warrant under the provisions of this paragraph. Whenever the amount of the loan applied for exceeds the amount that may be loaned under the appraisal as herein limited, such loan may be granted to the amount permitted under the terms of this paragraph without requiring a new application or appraisal." SEC. 3. That section 15 of said act shall be amended by adding at the end of said section the following paragraph : " Each farm-land bank in its respective district is authorized to make loans to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines or farm lands through agents appointed by it and approved by the Federal Farm Loan Board, which agents may be other than duly incorporated banks, trust companies, mortgage companies, or savings institutions chartered by the State in which they have their principal office." SEC. 4. That the short title of this act shall be the " soldiers' home act." Sincerely, yours, W. W. HASTINGS. The CHAIRMAN. I also received this morning a letter from Secre- tary Wilson, which gives his views about this land legislation. The Secretary writes me that owing to the pressure of departmental work he has been unable to appear before the committee, and he asks me to do him the favor of accepting in lieu of an oral statement the in- closed excerpts from his annual reports, and without objection this will go in at this point. (The matter referred to follows:) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, June 26, 1919. Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Cliainitan Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN : I beg that you and the Committee on Public Lands, of which jou arc chairman, will pardon the delay in acknowledging your letter of Juno 10. Owing to pressure of departmental work I have been unable to suggest a date on which I might avail myself of your courteous invitation to make a state- ment before your committee regarding the soldiers' land settlement legislation; and I lind now that I can not. name a dato without risk of embarrassing conflict of duties. Will you not therefore do me the favor of accepting, in lieu of an oral state- ment, the inclosed excerpts from 1 my annual reports? They express my views on the subject as fully as I could state them in person. The inciosnres are taken from the Third Animal Report of the Secretary of Laber, fiscal year ended June 30, 1915, at pages 41 to 4."> ; and from the Sixth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1918, at pages 143 to 14G and 219 to 222. 756 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Trusting that this suggestion may meet with your approval and thanking you in anticipation, I am Very respectfully, yours, W. B. WILSON, Secretary of Labor. [Inclosure A.] DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS. EMPLOYMENT FOR HETUKNING SOLDIERS. The department looks forward to the day when our victorious soldiers will re- turn to their peaceful and customary pursuits and join, once more in the up- building through industry of the Nation which they have defended by force of {inns. Nor is the department unmindful of the fact that the overwhelming mass of our armies is drawn from the ranks of wage earners, and that when their military task is done these men will return to the ranks of wage earners. It would be an ungrateful Nation, indeed, which did not deem it its first duty to assure to its returned soldiers honorable and profitable employment. It has been the unfortunate experience of the armies of other nations that gratitude has been too frequently confined to words, and men who have risked their lives have too often been released from military life to find an industrial condition where there were more men than opportunities for work. In consequence, such in-an have frequently submitted to the humiliation of accepting alms. The department therefore believes that the problem of providing profitable employment for our returned soldiers is its first duty. To believe otherwise would be to violate the spirit of the organic act of the department. " The pur- pose of the Department of Labor," says this act, " shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment." It is in furtherance of this injunction that the department has created and extended the United States Employment Service. The duties of this service, in brief, are to bring togther the ruanless job and the jobless man. It is therefore contemplated to use its full resources in minimizing such unemployment as shall occur. And, indeed, if there were an equality between the numbers of men wish- ing employment and the opportunities for employment, this liaison would be sufficient. Even in the most prosperous periods, however, there is a disparity between the actual number of wage earners and the number that our industries can absorb. Under the most favorable circumstances tins unemployed surplus is such as to give rise to grave social and industrial problems. So long as this basic condition persists, it is apparent that the mere bringing together of men :'iid jobs is not sufficient. In order to provide for this surplus, wo must do more than seek for employment among opportunities already existing. We must correct the disparity itself. Consequently, the department faces the fur- ther duty of creating new opportunities for employment. In accordance witt this view, the department has been for more than three years engaged upon a comprehensive study of the problem of discovering new and profitable oppor- tunities for employment. In the course of its investigations it has availed itself of the export assistance and advice of many persons in other departments. Although the war has intensified the basic problem and introduced cert;! in new- factors, it has in no essential respect altered any of the chief elements. Conse- quently, I believe that the plans already formulated will require extension rather than alteration. Although novel expedients have been suggested, it has seemed best to proceed in accordance with historical precedents and to pursue a course that is justified by our own experience and by that of other nations. Such experience, as well as the undoubted necessity for a continuous augmen- tation of the world's food supply for many years to come, indicates that a more extensive as well as a more intensive use of our natural resources must be made. The soil is and must remain the chief working opportunity for large numbers of the Nation's wage earners. It is therefore desirable and Imperative that a comprehensive policy with regard to the public domain be established. The same problem was before us more than a half century ago. Access to the public domain was provided by the homestead law of 1Sest possible basis of industrial credit ability, opportunity, and character and by establishing in connection with tliem a system of community credits adapted to the circumstances. I?y their educational processes the Departments of the Interior and of Agri- culture could make efficient farmers of inexperienced but otherwise competent workers seeking that vocation. By its marketing plans the Department of Agri- culture could guard borrowers from the " rotary fund " against commercial misfortune in disposing of their crops. By its labor-distribution functions the Department of Labor could bring the right men to the right places on the soil and sertle them there under favorable circumstances. And by their several appropriate functions these three departments, cooperating under appropriate legislation, could multiply demands for labor in rural regions and minimize labor congestion at industrial centers. It is a reasonable prediction that such a policy would develop in country and city an economically independent and socially progressive population. The re- sults would be analogous in our time to those of the homestead laws at an earlier period. STATEMENT OF MR. W. R. GREEN, OF BUHL, IDAHO. The CHAIRMAN. We have with us this morning Mr. Green, a son of Congressman Green, of Io\va, who will favor us with a statement. Will 10 minutes be sufficient time for you, Mr. Green? Mr. GREEX. I think so. The CHAIRMAN. You can state who you are and give your views upon the bill. Would you prefer not to have questions asked until you are through with your statement? Mr. GREEN. That is a matter of indifference to me. If it is more convenient for the members to ask qestions as I go along it will be entirely satisfactory to me. My name is W. R. Green, jr., and I reside at Buhl, Idaho. I came out here as the representative of the soldiers and citizens of the county in which I live, Twin Falls County, Idaho. I put in 18 months in the Army, and am thoroughly familiar with the soldiers. I think I know them probably as well as the average man would who had been in for that length of time, due to the fact that I came in contact with more men than the average man who is in the Army would. I want to say to you, gentlemen, that after we all caught our breath after the start of the war the men were wondering what was going to happen to them after they got out, and whether Uncle Sam was going to favor them in any way, and continually I heard talk and discussion of the question of some sort of farms for the return- ing soldiers. 762 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. The western boys were not satisfied with the prospect of home- steads, because they knew, as I knew, that there was very little- desirable homestead land left, and they felt that there was not any- thing left to be had unless the Government took some sort of steps or action to develop lands for them. They felt that the lands were not available and satisfactory under the present conditions. I have had occasion to talk to a great many soldiers lately, not only in my own community but on my way down here I met a number of them, and they are all interested in this. Now, to say that they would all want to take farms would, of course, be too strong a state- ment, but I mean those who are interested in it. Of course, a lot of them will say, " I have a good job, and I do not care," but a lot of them want a 'good place to take a home, and they are looking to Con- f:*ess to provide it for them. They feel that they are entitled to it. ow, you would be surprised to find the number of men out of the cities who by reason of their outdoor life in the Army, and, partic- ularly by reason of the fact that they became familiar with the oper- ation of the pick and shovel, have acquired an inclination for out- door life, and they want it. They have been taken away from the congested conditions of the cities, and they have been living in the fresh air, and as they come back they find that the congested city conditions pinch them in very much the same way that the English walking shoe does when they first put it on. They do not like it, and they soon begin to feel cramped. There is only one way. and that is to provide farms for them. They will not be satisfied with a cash bonus or would not after the money has been in their hands for 30 days and I do not think that anybody after careful consid- eration would ever favor such a proposition. Possibly, as the sergeant said here the other day. the Government may owe them a little. I do not know about that, and I do not care to go into that, but those funds will be dissipated just as surely as the world stands. I have known men to draw three months' pay and shoot it away in craps in two hours. I know how these men in the Army spend money, and they are no better now than they were then. They are just the same as they Avere when they went into the Army and have the same ideas with regard to hanging on to their money. They spend it. Now, to my mind, the Government owes a certain duty to these men besides providing for them cash compensation. These are young men, most of them ranging from 21 to 31 years of age. You have got to take care of them. I am a little over 31 years old myself, and I am a lawyer by profession, but I have a lot of the kid in me yet, and if somebody handed me a big bunch of money I might buy an automobile with it and run it in a ditch, and the game would be over right there. It is true that all of these men, or some of them, have not received the educational advantages that I have had, but, as I have said, if a cash bonus is given them, that money will go. I can not speak of the possibilities of success in other States except my own. I know about Idaho and her irrigation projects, and 1 know of the success that can be attained there. I know that from personal observation. I have seen men on tracts of land of compara- tively small area, ranging from 10 to 30 acres, take from four' to five hundred dollars' worth of actual crops per acic. I know what they do, and I know what the possibilities of success there are. The reason I make that statement is this, that without HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 763 doubt there will be a lot of soldiers who would be in favor of selecting farms in their own communities, and who believe that you should back the soldier wherever he wants to go. That is fair. If he can not pick up and leave, put him on a farm at home; but you owe it to the man who is willing to go to provide him 'with the best public lands that you can obtain under any form of action possible, or I should say public or private lands, but where public lands are open they are the best for the purpose. These lads are no longer tied to their homes, as they were before they went into the Army. They have learned to hold up their heads, and they have met conditions far more difficult to overcome than any they will ever meet on a new piece of land. Pioneering is nothing to them now. I did not go overseas myself, but I know what they met, and I know something of what they met on this side. I know that they will not be afraid. I say to you that if you provide one good tract of land, or one of the very best that this country affords, and will say to the soldiers who want to make homes on it, " This is the best thing we have and the best thing we can find; come upon it," gentlemen, they will come. That is my idea: and then, I say, go ahead and develop that tract. Do not content yourself with simply putting in a few improve- ments that will make it possible for a man to go on there, but make it desirable for a man to go on there. Build him roads, build him schoolhouses, and it is a question whether you should build churches, because you get pretty close to him there, but build a community center of some kind and give him a telephone and the things that go to make a place look very desirable and inviting. As soon as you give him a home there he is a good citizen for life. He has no Bolshevistic or anarchistic tendencies and he does not throw bombs. Really that is the serious thing, and if you would get 5,000 men safely planted on farms you would have done a great w r ork, let alone placing 100,000 men on farms. The CHAIRMAN. You are a son of Congressman Green, of Iowa? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Were you born in Iowa? Mr. GREEN. Yes. sir. The CHAIRMAN. When did you leave there? Mr. GREEN. In 1912. The CHAIRMAN. Have you read the statement of Judge Boies be- fore this committee ? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the views of Judge Boies? Mr. GREEN. To my mind and I do not speak for anyone else when I express my opinion of the statement made by Judge Boies, and I do not care to be in the position of speaking for anybody in the Iowa delegation but from my own conversations with members of the Iowa delegation my opinion is that his statement does not represent the opinion of the Iowa delegation. Further than that, I do not care to go. Mr. MAYS. Does his statement represent your opinion? Mr. GREEN. Xo, sir. I know from my own knowledge of the con- ditions in the State of Iowa, and I have been back there frequently since 1013. that it is practically impossible for a man to go on an 764 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Iowa farm on a shoe string or with a short supply of cash and ever make his payments. I left Iowa, as did a lot of other people, to go somewhere that offered opportunities to young men, and the biggest portion of the people in my own community in Idaho came from Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska. They came for the same reason that I did, and in the short space of time that they have been there they have made themselves independently rich, whereas, if they had re- mained in Iowa and those other States, they probably would have been tenants to-day. I can feel, at least, a little sympathy for thw men in Iowa because, I grant you, that it is a plainful thing to have your people leaving, but the thing that we are taught to consider is what is the best thing for this country. Iowa is a great and grand State, but she has made her pile. The people there are doing well, and if there is any soldier there who wants to find a home somewhere else there is no reason why he should not go. Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to say to you, Mr. Green, that on the Grand Valley project, in Colorado, there is a large delegation from Iowa. They have an Iowa society and an annual Iowa celebration. They are a very fine class of people. Mr. GREEN. The same thing prevails with us out there in Idaho. There are a lot of them scattered along the Snake River, all the way up and down. Mr. MAYS. Are you satisfied that the men who have left Io\va and gone out in your present vicinity have done better than they could have done had they remained in the State of Iowa ? Mr. GREEN. I am confident that they have, because most of them came out there with very small capital. They invested what they had largely in improvements, because they were given time in which to pay for their land. They developed lands and they produced wonderful crops. They produced wonderful crops, husbanded their resources, and saved enough money to pay for their land. A good many of them are now hiring a good part of their work done. They have made a lot of money by clean and honest efforts, and in th-j increase in the value of their property. They bought land at $25 per acre for the water rights, and, as I recall, 50 cents per acre for the land. The day before I came down here a piece of that land was under discussion in my office. One man said to another, " I want to buy your farm." The other gentleman sitting in the office said, " What will you give me for the farm ? " The other replied, " $450 per acre in cash." The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by saying they paid $25 per acre for the water right and 50 cents for the land?" Mr. GREEN. I think that is the provision in reference to Gary Act projects. The CHAIRMAN. Fifty cents per acre for the land and $25 per acre for the water rights? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; 50 cents per acre for the land. Mr. SMITH. What opportunity has a poor young man born and reared on a farm to get a foothold in the State of lowu '( Mr. GREEN. I should say he had none. I would not attempt to do it if I were a farmer. I have studied farming conditions prob- ably more closely than persons who are not farmers ordinarily do, and I do not believe that would be possible, assuming that hi> can HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 765 not have just unlimited backing and unlimited time in which to pay for his land. I was talking to Mr. Kennedy day before yesterday, and he said that a piece of land down in his part of the State of Iowa had just sold for $450 per acre. I said, '' Do you think that a man could go on land in that community with nothing at all and ever pay for it ? " He said, " I do not think it would be possible." And that is true, gentlemen; it can not be done. They have not the productive soil; they have not the initiative, and they are not ag- gressive enough. They do not farm with the same pep and energy that they have on one of those irrigated tracts. In the case of the irrigation project, the community spirit is there; everybody is striv- ing to get ahead and to have the best farm. The farmer out there wants it said that he has a wonderful-looking farm. It is the spirit of the thing, and they go ahead. It is all new blood, and they are aggressive in that country. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think, then, that Iowa and other Middle Western and Eastern States have not the productive soil that you have in Idaho and farther west, and do you think that this bill will have a tendency to attract soldiers from those other States to the western country? Mr. GREEN. Not necessarily to the western lands. I prefaced my statement by saying that I was not familiar with the undeveloped lands in other sections of the country. I have been through the South, but I am not familiar with the conditions there; but wher- ever a man can get cheap and productive lands and the best land, there he will go. Mr. NICHOLS. You do not think it could be done in Iowa? Mr. GREEN. It is not at all possible. Mr. NICHOLS. So that this proposition would have a tendency to induce men or the soldiers to leave Iowa and go there ? Mr. GREEN. I imagine so. There is a State or two through the Middle West that has nothing to offer absolutely nothing to offer. The people were leaving before the war. They were not soldiers, and they had money. Mr. NICHOLS. What would you say as to New York State ? Mr. GREEN. I am not sufficiently familiar with the conditions there to speak of that. I have, of course, heard a great deal about the abandoned farms, and I have talked with people who have gone over that situation. I have talked with aggressive farmers who thought it was possible to develop those lands. I have looked over this section of the country; and if somebody will give me a piece of land here, I could make" it a go, regardless of the fact that a lot of these people have failed. Mr. NICHOLS. What do you mean by saying if somebody would give you a piece of that land? Mr. GREEN. If I could get it in such a way that I could pay for it. That is what I meant. Mr. NICHOLS. It depends on how much you would have to pay for it? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; I could not carry a heavy interest load of 10 per cent. I believe that is all I have to say. I favor very intensely the Lane bill. 766 HOMES FOR SOLDIEFxS. Mr. NICHOLS. The Lane bill? Mr. GREEN. The Mondell bill or the Lane project. Mr. NICHOLS. You think that the Government should aid only those soldiers who care to farm? Mr. GREEN. No, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think they should extend the same sort of assistance and aid to" all the soldiers ? Mr. GREEN. To go beyond this plan, I would not attempt; but I feel, as does every soldier, that sooner or later, as the needs become apparent, the Government will help them. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think that in addition to this bill the Gov- ernment will probably offer aid to all the soldiers ? Mr. GREEN. I imagine so. This touches only a few of them. It is one step, to my mind. Mr. NICHOLS. Of course, you know that this bill proposes to au- thorize an appropriation of $500,000,000? Mr. GREEN. I understand that; yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. Do you think there will be further appropriations ? Mr. GREEN. Without question. Not in a year or two years, but I do not think this work will be over for 40 years. Mr. NICHOLS. Of course, you realize that in order to be fair with all of the soldiers that something should be done to assist them if they need assistance or desire assistance? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; I recognize that. Mr. NICHOLS. Regardless of whether they live in cities or upon farms ? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. You made the statement that this measure takes care of a very small percentage of them. Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. I think, however, that it is an admirable measure, because it takes care of those few, and I think that will work greater good to the country at large than any other assistance that can be offered to the soldier. Mr. NICHOLS. If you take this cost of $500,000,000 to take care of 100,000 of them, at the same rate, how much would it cost the coun- try to take care of all of them? 'Mr. GREEN. I do not think your hypothesis is sound, for this rea- son, that we are working upon the assumption that a goodly por- tion of this money will be returned to the Government. You are simply lending credit to these men, if your organization is sound. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, of course, that would be true, no matter how great the appropriation that was desired. That would be true if you should lend money to the city soldier to place him in a home in the city. Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir ; the proposition is the same. You simply advance them the wherewithal that they can not get in any other way in order to safely establish them in homes. Mr. BENHAM. You expressed very grave doubts as to the possi- bility of a man who has not the price of an Iowa farm ever being able to acquire an Iowa farm. Now, looking forward to the future of your native State for another generation, what, in your opinion, Avoiild be expected to happen in that Stntao, say. 80 yours from now when the present owners have passed away? What is likely to be true in regard to citizenship, etc., in Iowa, in another generation 1 HOMES FOB SOLDIERS. 767 Mr. GREEN. I do not know that I catch your idea, but my observa- tion is that a great number of farms are handed down from genera- tion to generation in the State of Iowa that is, directly from the farmers themselves and from landowning city people. Mr. BENHAM. You get my question only in part. Now, let us assume that the average farm family in Iowa would consist of four persons, and that is a fair assumption, possibly. The Iowa farm of average size could not well supply a farm to each of the four mem- bers of the family, but we will assume that one of those members inherited enough from his father to pay for one-fourth of a farm, or one-fourth of a farm similar in value to that of his father. Now, as I understand it, you say that it would be impossible for that mem- ber of the family to ever pay for a farm equal to that of his father ? Mr. GREEN. I would not say that it would be an impossible thing. Mr. BENHAM. " Practically impossible," I believe was the term you used. Mr. GREEN. You have got to classify the man who is doing the job. It is hot fair to say that the men who go on those farms are above the average. They may be supermen in some respects, but they are average men in others. You can not say that the young man who undertakes this is a wizard at farming or that he has remarkable executive and financial ability, but if he has not those qualities, he can not do that, unless he has got a father who will back him to the limit and will carry him from one year to another, giving him advice and every aid and assistance that a father can give his son, including stocking the farm, buying the automobile, and building the house. Mr. NICHOLS. Would you regard that father's advice and assist- ance of any considerable value to a young man starting into the farming or in any other line of business? Mr. GREEN. Yes, and no; and I want to explain what I mean. A father's advice is always valuable, without question, but to say that a father's advice on farming is better than the advice of some younger men is a serious question. My observation has led me to believe that lads from Iowa who went to Ames, that wonderful agricultural school they have there, where they have taken the farms over and have handled the farms, are making them more productive than their fathers did. In other words, father's advice has to be over- ruled on some questions sometimes. Mr. BENHAM. Pursuing that thought a little further, I assume from a remark that you made just when I came into the room that you have the impression that possibly some members of this com- mittee would desire to tie down the soldiers to their various com- munities. Is it your impression that it is the view of some mem- bers of the committee that they would object to a man going to Idaho if he desired to do so ? Mr. GREEN. I am not sufficiently familiar with the attitude of the committee to indicate, but I know that that impression or that idea prevails in the minds of some men in Congress. I know that they have the view that the men should not leave their home States. Mr. BENHAM. Putting it another way, would you say that before he gets any assistance he must leave his home State? Mr. GREEN. No, sir. Mr. BENHAM. I understood you to say that there are probably several States in the Middle West that could not provide lands for 13331919 49 768 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. a project. Now, would you say that if there is a young man in one of those States who desires governmental aid he shall leave such State; that is, that he shall leave Iowa, Kansas, Illinois, or Indiana? Mr. GREEN. By governmental aid, do you mean assistance in pro- curing agricultural lands? Mr. BENHAM. Yes. Mr. GREEN. I would say that if you could handle this proposition just as a banker who makes loans to men would handle it, then, as a practical question, that is not serious. If you used the same cold- blooded judgment in determining whether or not it is possible for a young soldier in Iowa to buy $'200, $250, or $300 land, that would not disturb you much as a practical question. You must be cold- blooded in this matter if it is to be a revolving fund. You must use the same business judgment and acumen that a banker does when he makes a loan. If it can be done, give it to him. Mr. BENHAM. Of course, you would safeguard the loan which the Government would advance wherever the soldier was loc,ated? If he settled in your own State, or in your present State, or in Iowa, you would have the loan safeguarded in the same way? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; absolutely. Mr. BENHAM. In the case of a young man who has little or noth- ing in the way of meeting an advance payment, where would you say it would be easiest for him to get backing on ordinary bankers' collateral, if that is what the Government would require of him? Would it be easier for him to get that backing in his home com- munity where he is known or 1,000 miles away from home among strangers ? Mr. GREEN. I should say that if he is entitled to credit, his home banker will carry him in South America. Mr. BENHAM. Would you as willingly back a man of your ac- quaintance in South America as you would where you could see him and consult with him frequently? Mr. GREEN. I probably exaggerated the situation somewhat, but knowing the conditions in my home community as I do know them an Iowa banker would prefer to lend money to a man out there to get an irrigated farm in Idaho, because the opportunities for suc- cess are a thousandfold greater. Mr. BENHAM. Of course, we have heard many times, and I have no doubt it is true, that there are wonderful opportunities for a limited number of men in Idaho. It is a limited number, and, as I understand it, a decidedly limited number. The CHAIRMAN. In Iowa ? Mr. BENHAM. In Idaho. The opportunities there are for a de- cidedly limited number. But, taking the general proposition, and speaking from the standpoint of a lender of money, is that con- tention of any value? What I mean is this: I myself have invested in quite a good many pieces of land, and I have found from years of experience that it makes a vast amount of difference whether a man is in the home community where I can see him and consult with him. Have you had any practical experience along similar lines? Mr. GREEN. No, sir; I can not say that I have. I am rather a borrower than a lender. The CHAIRMAN. You might explain your plan. HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 769 Mr. BENHAM. When you have had some experience along that line you will not be enthusiastic about wanting to back the young man away from home that is, if your experience should be what mine has been. Mr. GREEN. I do know this, that many hundreds of thousands of dollars of Iowa capital has been sent out to be loaned in the State of Idaho. I know that those people back there are glad to send that money to us. Mr. BENHAM. As I understand it, that is at a rate of interest that is fairly high. I do not know that anything would be gained by pursuing this any further, but what I say is based upon personal information that I have gathered after several years spent in what I am pleased to call a reclamation service. I buy farms that in the course of five years I can reclaim in the sense in which I use the term, and I insist that I can reclaim them by giving them personal attention and by applying personal methods of my own instead of governmental methods more cheaply than the Government. I in- sist that I can improve those farms more cheaply than the Govern- ment could do it, and I insist that I or any other individual can afford to sell those farms to the individual so as to make it easier for him to pay the interest than can the Government. Mr. GREEN. I do not think your proposition is sound, and I will tell you why: You have not got a farm I do not care where you go that is equal to the farms in my community. I am basing that statement on my own knowledge of farming conditions through the Middle West, where they doubtless have wonderful farms. I do not know where you come from, but I know what the crop produc- tion is, and I know what the cost of production is. Mr. BENHAM. That is one question Mr. GREEN (interposing). That determines the advantage that the man who goes on the land will have. Mr. BENHAM. You refer to the objection of the Middle West, and you western people seem to assume that the farmer boys are all going to Idaho. Mr. GREEN. No, sir; they are not. Mr. BENHAM. I assume that there are wonderful possibilities for a limited number in your State. I say that not only 'from what I know of it, but from what other persons, or my former neighbors, have told me, and I believe that is true; but at the same time there is a vastly greater number of men to be helped than can be helped in your State. I might say, in brief, that in the community where I live I have a farm worth $8,000 that I offered recently to a man whom I very much admire. I said to him, " You go and crop 20 acres of that 165 acres and give me that one crop and I will make you a deed to the farm." He would have 145 acres for that season and the whole farm or the use of the wfrole farm later on. I know that is a good thing and I know that there are not many propositions in the country that are superior. As a general proposition I know that I, or any other energetic individual, can place a man on a farm more cheaply than the United States Government will. Putting it in another way, you know, I assume, that there are farms in Iowa, New York, and Indiana where the improvements have been made on the basis of $1 per day labor or $2 per day labor, and the men performed labor 770 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. in the way they did years ago and not as men labor for the Govern- ment nowadays. Those improvements have been made vastly cheaper than the Government of the United States under this Lane bill or Mondell bill will make improvements. Mr. GREEN. That may be true, and bearing that out, in talking with Mr. Kennedy the other day, he said that when he first came to his part of the country a man took him out a little ways and showed him a good farm, with wonderful improvements upon it. He said that the house and barns and other improvements were valued at $8,000, but the man offered it to him for $3,000. Yet he did not buy it. Mr. BENHAM. According to the testimony before this committee it is evidently true that there are vast numbers of farms in the United States on which the buildings are in fair condition and the farms themselves are good, but they have been practically abandoned for various reasons. Another thing I am trying to draw out in this long series of rambling questions is this, Is there any good reason why it would be more dangerous for the Government to back up a boy or give him a low rate of interest on one of these segregated projects in the State of New York, along the Hudson River, where he can buy a farm, as the evidence before this committee shows, for the present value of the improvements, than on a Government project? Is it any more dangerous for the Government to back up a boy on that sort of farm, or segregated farm, than it would be to back him up on one of those Government projects? Mr. GREEN. In answer to your question, I will say this, that if the man you put on this segregated tract in the State of New York is a thoroughly trained farmer, familiar with all the things that are necessary to develop that piece of land, and if he has the benefit of expert advice Mr. BENHAM (interposing). With his father's advice. Mr. GREEN. Not father's advice, but the advice of an agricultural expert, because father has not made any great showing there, or the land would have increased in value. Mr. BENHAM. It is not, nevertheless Mr. GREEN (interposing). Let me finish that statement, please. If he is a man of tremendous energy, or if you could find a man who possesses the qualifications and advantages I have named, then I say that he will do just as well, and probably better, but of those things are not available, then I say that where the men can be collected closely together, or where the element of competition enters into it, and where the opportunity to observe is good, and where you have trained experts to advise those men, then there is a greater opportunity. I say that because if he does not know, he has got to learn. Then, how will he learn ? His father can not give him advice, because his father will be in practically the same condition that he will be in, or, otherwise, the land values there would be up, and people would be there in great numbers farming. Mr. BENHAM. You are doubtless familiar with the fact that prac- tically all of the Northern States I do not know about the South have in each county an agricultural expert. Mr. GREEN. I believe that is true. Mr. BENHAM. When ho is furnished by a college of his own State, he is probably better qualified to give advice about conditions in that HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 771 State than a man who was sent from Washington would be. Would it not seem that a man who has been trained in the agricultural col- lege of the State where he is serving, and who knows the farming conditions in the State, would be, at least, as competent as some man sent by Secretary Lane to be the guardian of the boys on the project? Mr. GREEK. Absolutely; but let me ask you, do they have them in New York State upon the farms? Mr. BEXHAM. I can not say for New York State. The gentleman representing New York State, I think, is not here this morning. The CHAIRMAN. If I remember correctly the New York State Bul- letin says that about half of the counties have them, although I am not positive about that. Mr. BEXHAM. Speaking for my own State, I thoroughly believe that we have as good an agricultural college as the country or world, ter has in it ; but speaking of the man in my own county, for that matter has the gentleman selected last year for my county was not reemployed for this present year or for this coming year. We observed that when he came to that county he employed a stenographer under politi- cal advice, and he stayed in his office. While I was at the county seat probably three times a week, he had been there nine months before I ever met him. It seemed that he was stationed there simply to draw his salaiy and provide a place for the stenographer; hence, in the judgment of those who had the selection, he was not reemployed. Now. one of the representatives of the Interior Department, in testi- fying before the committee, practically put it this way : " Put the men on our projects and we will practically guarantee 100 per cent success." Is it not possible that many of those projects would have upon them energetic and competent men who had been trained by State agricultural schools; and is it not possible that you might have just as efficient men on your reclamation projects, where the matter would be vastly more vital than on the segregated farms is it not entirely possible to have such energetic and competent men, and yet, as a matter of fact, might we not expect to have there a number of overseers selected here in Washington? Mr. GREEX. In other words, your question is, Is there any distinc- tion between the agricultural expert who might be selected" here and the one who might be selected in your county? I say there is just as good opportunity to select a good man from one place as the other. Possibly the Government has better facilities and opportunities for making the selection and a greater territory to draw from. In other words, it is entirely possible to get as good a man in one place as another. Mr. BENHAM. Putting it another way, our own agricultural college is much older, and it has had a much longer time to develop experi- ence than has the Interior Department. Now, I will pursue that question a moment further, and then I will desist: Assuming that there would be such a policy, and we know there are many- good schools that can guarantee that the man sent out will be a large suc- cess in any line, as I understand it, the success or failure of your reclamation project would depend vastly more upon the efficiency of the overseer or adviser than would be the case on the segregated farm, where the young man is surrounded by those who are capable of advising him. ' 772 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. GREEN. That is wrong, because from my observation of the matter, if one man follows the direction of your supervisor, as he should be designated, and his efforts are not successful, all of them immediately know about it. You could not get a project in my home State and fill it up with men from this section of the country. They will not let you do that; but they would be going on the project with men who had been thoroughly trained from childhood, and they will not follow the advice of the supervisor who is absolutely wrong. If that should happen, they would soon sound the alarm. Mr. BENHAM. I promised not to ask any further question; but I do not quite understand one statement yon have made. You assume in one case, or in the case of the segregated project, that the man must necessarily be ignorant, while you say that the man on your project would have been trained from childhood. Mr. GREEN. Let us say that one-half of them know their business and that the other half do not, or let us assume that one-fourth of them know their business and that the other three-fourths do not. The one-fourth on the irrigation project who know their business, will furnish advice and information to the other three-fourths. You have them scattered all over the project. Mr. BEN HAM. As I understand it, in a general way. you have talked to a lot of sailor boys, and I want to ask you what their at- titude would probably be toward a Government overseer, whether h" is a major or a colonel or whether he is some other representative of the Government. At the present time you know the state of mind of the average soldier, and what it might be toward a Government boss on a project. Mr. GREEN. Do not call him an Army officer who would be over the men. You would not get away with anything like that; but as for a man in that position, let him be the daddy of the outfit. Such a thing is possible, and it is practical in its operation. They are doing it out there on our projects. They have an agricultural ex- pert there who is thorougly well trained and familiar with that work. He does not come out and nag you to death by telling you to do this, that, or the other thing, but they go to him and ask for what they want. Mr. BENHAM. That is assuming that there are no such things as inefficient overseers on reclamation projects. Mr. GREEN. No, sir; they are human, and they fail just as people fail in other branches of lire. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask Mr. Benham a question : Are your reclamation operations confined to the one county where you live? Mr. BENHAM. Yes; or in my own community. Let me give one illustration of that, if it is proper to detain this witness. I am experimenting at the present time with a man who is 57 years old, and, who, up to 55 years of age, had not accumulated a dollar. At 55 he asked to go on a farm of mine. He did well, and sur- prised me and the neighbors by doing well, and he has probably made about one-third enough to pay for the farm in question. Of course, the natural corollary was to be asked about the purchase of the farm. Believing that even at that age it would be possible for him to succeed, I told him to put his profits in implements, to supply himself with stock, and to buy the f?rm and pay for it as he could, HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 773 paying an amount for the rent each year. Now, I am thoroughly satisfied that after five years he will have a farm that will be a source of income to him in his old age. Taking a case like that, success is only possible for individuals who know the conditions. It would not be possible for Secretary Lane, or any other power 1,000 miles away, to take a case like that. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been operating that way ? Mr. BEN HAM. Twelve years. The CHAIRMAN. How many individual experiences have you had? Mr. BENHAM. It might be just as well to give me 20 minutes or half an hour. The CHAIRMAN. I think your experience would be valuable to the committee. Mr. MAYS. Do you sell land upon as liberal terms as this bill pro- vides ? Mr. BENHAM. Yes ; but I am using 6 per cent money, and I can not give the boys 4 per cent money. Mr. MAYS. Do you object to this bill because it gives money at 4 per cent? Mr. BENHAM. No; I certainly do not. Mr. TAYLOR. You do not sell on 40 years' time? Mr. BENHAM. I would if it were necessary. . Mr. MAYS. I want to ask Mr. Green one question. Mr. Green, you are a son of Congressman W. R. Green, of Iowa? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. You left Iowa and went to Idaho? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Was your father a Member of Congress at that time ? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. Suppose, in addition to being a Member of Congress, he was engaged in reclaiming lands in his immediate vicinity and selling to the people there and charging them 6 per cent interest, would you thing that this bill would be a hardship upon him and take away from him some of the customers that might come to him if the bill should not be put into operation? Mr. GREEN. I hope not. Mr. MAYS. You think there would still be left plenty of prospective purchasers for your father in Iowa? Mr. GREEN. They have no difficulty in selling their land back there, and they are changing hands remarkably fast. Mr. MAYS. Even though it should enter into competition with your father, you would still be in favor of the bill ? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; certainly. He does not fear it. Mr. NICHOLS. In your opinion, this measure will not offer any aid to any soldier who "went to war from the State of Iowa unless he desires to leave that State and go to some other? Mr. GREEN. I wouldn't got that far, but I do say that as a prac- tical proposition it won't help very many of them. Now, if you will apply the cold analysis of the banker in determining whether or not the soldier who proposes to take over a piece of Iowa land under this plan if you will analyze the situation just as a cold-blooded banker would do, if he can 'handle it, then all right, give it to him. I don't think he can. I know that his judgment is not good if he 774 HOMES FOE SOLDIERS. tries it, unless he is forced to stay in the State of Iowa for some rea- son and can't get out to a hundred other places in the United States. Mr. NICHOLS. You naturally think there would be a preference for some other State ? Mr. GREEN. I absolutely do. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Green, it is all right for the Iowa boy who in- herits a farm, or one who can marry a girl that has inherited the farm, but if he is the son of a poor man, a tenant, or has no wife who inherits an estate, your judgment is that there is no way that he can acquire a farm that at all compares with the Government opportun- ity of giving him 4 per cent and 40 years' time ? Mr. GREEN. That is true. Mr. TAYLOR. And for that reason it is such an uphill proposition for a poor boy to ever get a piece of ground that costs $400 an acre that it is almost prohibitive. Mr. GREEN. He would much prefer to go somewhere else or stay in the city. Mr. TAYLOR. And he can't put in his whole life trying to get title to 20 acres, possibly, in a State of that kind, where he could go out and in three or four or five years acquire a home, a farm, in a new country. Mr. GREEN. And of equal productivity and yielding an equal return. Mr. TAYLOR. You feel that instead of that being a hardship upon him, it would not only be a great benefit to him, but a benefit for the country for him to go out and take that chance? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; and in three years he would have a piece of land that would rent, in cash, if he came from some sections of the country, at least from $20 to $40 an acre. I have handled in the last year a number of leases where men are paying $45 an acre in cash for the use of tracts of land varying from 10 to 40 acres. Mr. MAYS. More than the land originally cost, was it not? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MAYS. How long ago was it purchased at the price you men- tioned awhile ago? Mr. GREEN. I should imagine well, I don't know. It was in 1909 and 1910, I think. Mr. 'SMITH of Idaho. All of that was along in 1905 and 1906. Mr. MAYS. And it was then purchased for $25 per acre? Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. It was not developed within that time, how- ever. Mr. BENHAM. Just one question, suggested by Mr. Taylor there is a possibility that a circumstance like this might happen: Here are two soldier boys, sons of the same father, from your native State of Iowa. The one decides that he would like to buy his father's farm. Let us suppose that the boys each have $5,000. 'The father's farm could be bought for $7,500. The other boy, who has his $5,000, would prefer to follow your example and go to Idaho. Now, that boy goes to Idaho and settles on a project. According to the Lane bill, he would have assistance offered him ; he would be loaned money, let us say $2,000 I don't know what the figures now are and he would be given 40 years in which to pay that back at a low rate of interest. The boy who stayed on the father's home farm, he also wants to HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 775 borrow $2,500 or $2,000, or whatever the case may be. He is also a soldier. Would you say to the boy who wants to go to your present State : " I am in favor of backing you, giving you governmental aid," but to the boy who wants to settle on his father's farm, "We can't do anything for you?" Mr. GREEN. No; but again your hypothesis is not sound, for this reason Mr. BENHAM (interposing). Why not? Show me. Mr. GREEN. That there is no land that amounts to anything in the State of Iowa that can be bought for the figure you name. Mr. BENHAM. Suppose $100,000 then. Mr. GREEN. In the next place, if he has got the $5,000, he can go down to the Federal loan bank and get his money at a very nice rate of interest with fine terms of payment, and he doesn't need any particular help from the Government. Mr. BENHAM. Can't the boy who joins your project go to the land bank also, or to private banks, and get the money? In short, why make a difference? Why say to the boy who wants to stay at home: " You can't get a cent." But to the fellow, it doesn't make any difference what his circumstances are, who wants to go away: "We will help you"? Mr. GREEN. Did I say that? Mr. BENHAM. Your answers to the last question would imply that. Mr. GREEN. No; I said if he could stand the cold analysis of the banker on his application for a loan, give it to him. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we have Gov. Spry with us this morning. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, before you take that up, may I pre- sent a matter to the committee which is very urgent? Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a matter to the committee this morning it will not take me but a moment and I would like to get the action of the committee on it. There are two contending parties Mr. SMITH of Idaho (interposing). Does it pertain to this bill? Mr. RAKER. Well, that is for the committee to determine. The CHAIRMAN. This is on your own time. Mr. RAKER. Yes; this is a matter that I am bringing as a Repre- sentative to the committee for their action, so that I may answer my constituents. There are two contending parties, one in favor of constructing a project and the other is opposing it. They have had the view that this bill is for the purpose of this particular project, and have been advised that that is the fact. I have telegraphed them that it is not the fact;* that this bill is general in its character and relates to no special project. They want to know the status of the bill and want me to ask that the committee hold up the bill, the con- sideration by the committee final consideration and hearings until their committee can come to Washington and be heard upon this special project. And I may say this, that I saw the Secretary this morning and showed him my 'telegrams pro and con; I also saw Director Davis, and he says that this bill does not involve any special project; that none have been considered by them, that none are under investigation by them as special projects, and that it is entirely up to the department to determine what will be done after 776 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. the legislation is enacted. But in consideration of my duty to myself and to my constituents, I present this matter this morning and ask that the representatives may have an opportunity to be heard, and the hearings be continued until they have that right in regard to this special project. Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask Mr. Raker a question. When you use the words " special projects," Mr. Raker, do you qualify those words in the least? Do you mean projects of a designated character, or do you mean individual designated projects? Mr. RAKER. I mean individual designated projects. The CHAIRMAN. Well, Judge, you know, and they ought to know as well as any member of this committee, that this bill does not take up any particular projects. That is left to a selection hereafter. Mr. RAKER. I do, Mr. Chairman, know it specifically and dis- tinctly, but there have been telegrams sent and the impression is that this bill is the purpose of an individual project. Mr. WHITE. Well, I never heard of that before. Mr. VAILE. Won't Congress have to act on any particular desig- nated project? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; certainly. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Judge, you know it is not the function of this committee to take up individual projects. It is absolutely not within our province to take any evidence in connection with any particular project. Mr. VAILE. These gentlemen can have an opportunity to be heard on any particular designated project when it comes before the Ap- propriations Committee. Mr. WHITE. Why can't Judge Raker give them the information they want? The CHAIRMAN. I think Judge Raker is authorized to give them the information on behalf of this committee. Mr. TAYLOR. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it might be well, in order to satisfy those people, for the chairman of this committee to send also a telegram to these parties, saying that there are no that there can be no special project selected yet, and not only that, but the committee would have no authority to consider it. The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to cooperate with Judge Raker in conveying to them the information, and obviate the necessity of their coming on here. Mr. TAYLOR. And, incidentally, the hearings are closed. Mr. NICHOLS. Judge Raker, who are these telegrams from? Are they from soldiers? Mr. RAKER. No ; these are from one is from Charles L. Hampton, president of the board of directors of the Anderson-Cottonwood irrigation project, whom I know very well. Another is from an old friend of mine Mr. SMITH of Idaho (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I have had at least a score of inquiries from people interested in individual proj- ects, and I have told them all that it is a matter this committee has nothing to do with. Mr. RAKER. One is from Capt. Dozier, commander of the Shasta County Service Men's Association. Another one is from the North- ern California Counties' Association, consisting of five counties. An- other one is from Mr. Francis Carr, of Reading, whom I have known HOMES FOR. SOLDIERS. 777 for many years. Another one is from Julius Alexander and Russell Brownell, of Susanville, whom I have known I have known Mr. Alexander for 35 years. They have been advised that the bill my bill, which is the same as the rest carries a special appropriation for a particular project, and they want to send representatives here to speak upon it. I have told them that this committee has not con- sidered any individual projects and would not do so, but notwith- standing that, as their Representative, I make the request of the committee this morning and submit the matter. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the chairman will be glad to cooperate with you in wiring to those gentlemen. Mr. RAKER. You will not hear them? The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. NICHOLS. Did you make a motion that they be heard ? Mr. RAKER. Yes; I will make a motion that they be heard. Mr. BENIIAM. It might be of interest to the committee, Judge, to in a general way let us understand who it is that is in favor and who it is that is opposed to the project. The CHAIRMAN. I don't think it is necessary for this committee to go into the matter of who is opposed to those projects there and who is supporting them. We have nothing to do with that. Mr. TAYLOR. That is, not in opposition to this general proposition but is in opposition to some other project. The CHAIRMAN. It has nothing to do with this bill. The only mat- ter that you are concerned in is to quiet the apprehensions of those people that we are going to take up some particular project in this committee ? Mr. RAKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Which we are not going to do. Mr. MAYS. I think he has already quieted them by telegraphing them. Mr. NICHOLS. Are they representing soldiers or private parties? Mr. RAKER. This is solely a matter of irrigation, a particular proj- ect, known as the Iron Canyon project in northern California. One county and the people below are in favor of it ; the county above and five additional counties are opposed to it. It is in my district and I propose to act as their Representative in Congress, and when either side desires to be heard, I am always ready to present it, but shall not take the attitude of an advocate on either side, and I present it to the committee now at their request. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You have presented it to the wrong com- mittee. Mr. TAYLOR. That should go to the Appropriations Committee some time. That is where that will go. Mr. VAILE. Let them be heard by the Appropriations Committee then. Mr. NICHOLS. Has this project you speak of anything to do with this bill? Mr. RAKER. I don't think so, to be honest with you. Mr. WHITE. In other words, these fellows are a little bit worried, aren't they ? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. They are worried about some other fellows getting a project instead of them. 778 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Mr. WHITE. Why wouldn't it be a good plan to inform them that this committee is considering general legislation and not any special projects? Mr. RAKER. What is the action of the committee now, Mr. Chair- man? The CHAIRMAN. I am going to cooperate with you in wiring to those people that it is not necessary for them to be heard. Mr. NICHOLS. I will support your motion, Judge Raker, if you make the motion. Mr. RAKER. I take it that the committee would not hear them if they came? The CHAIRMAN. Yes well, I wouldn't put it that way ; but there is no necessity for them to come on relative to this specific project. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. White hits the nail on the head. We are not considering projects; we are considering legislation and not individ- ual projects. Mr. FERRIS. Why not let the record show that Judge Raker pre- sented their request faithfully and fully, the committee faithfully and fully considered it, and the consideration resulted in the decision that we are in nowise concerned in idividual projects, and in nowise prejudiced that case. The CHAIRMAN. I think the record shows that. Mr. FERRIS. And that that is the judgment of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. RAKER. That will be the judgment of the committee ? The CHAIRMAN. It will be the judgment of the committee, without objection. Now we will hear you, Gov. Spr} T . Please state your ri ; \ others who may desire to settle upon such reclaimed lands, and urges that the appropriations recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for that purpose should be made without delay ; and be it further Ifcxfilrcil. That this association urges the appointment of the commission created by the Newlands river regulation amendment enacted by the Congress of the United States in August 17, 1917, and the immediate preparation by and through such commission of a comprehensive plan for flood control and river regulations on every watershed in Arizona ; and be it further Resolved, That this association urges the construction, without delay, of the Upper Gila, San Carlos, Camp Verde, Horseshoe, Charleston, Sentinel, and Parjker Reservoirs, and all other practicable irrigation projects and reser- voirs for flood-water storage in Arizona to the end that the benefits to the manu- 16 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. facturing industries of the United States resulting from the work of the Reclamation Service may be extended at this time to the fullest possible extent, to create employment for labor and home markets for manufacturers, and thereby check the tendency to disemployment and business depression resulting from the cessation of war industries ; and be it further Resolved, That in the selection of lands for soldiers, sailors, and war workers we believe the State land commission should safeguard the rights of those who have served the Nation, assist them in the selection of desirable lands, and enable them to locate on such lands without being subject to unnecessary expense. THE NATIONAL SERVICE LEGION, NEW YORK. Resolved, That the National Service Legion indorse the reclamation project ("land for the soldiers") adopted by the Department of the Interior and, furthermore, that the speaking staff of the legion be placed at the disposal of the Government to assist in procuring a successful outcome of the proposed plans. THE KNCJINKKKS' CT.rH OF HALTIMOItK. Whereas information from reliable sources indicate that there are now out of employment in the United States about r>(M).'2 18 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. While the States here represented are but slightly concerned in the reclama- tion of swamp lands or cut-over timberlands, we express our hearty approval of legislation looking to the redemption and proper utilization of such lands, for it is to the home-owning class that our country must look for the preser- vation of our traditions and our institutions. In the carrying out of all reclamation projects in which the Federal Govern- ment may become interested its activities should ever be in conformity with the laws of the State in which the project under development is located. In the arid States of the West the irrigation projects undertaken by or with the aid of the Federal Government should in every instance be based upon a full compliance with the laws of the State wherein the projects are located so far as the appropriation of water and other matters of purely State control are concerned. WILLIAM SPRY, Chairman. OTIS J. BAUGH.N. Secret nnj. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING RESOI.TTIONS OF DIFFKIJENT ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING SOLDIER SETTLEMENT. GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS' CLUBS, TEXAS FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, May 1.',. 1919. Farms for soldiers. Whereas we believe in the project of the Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane, to give to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines the opportunity to own land upon which he may live and make a living: There- fore be it Resolved, That the district of the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs pledges its support to Secretary Lane in furthering the "Farms for Soldiers " project, and we urge that in the plans for the community center and for the homes on the farm careful attention be given to the needs of the women, that their surroundings may be conducive to happiness and con- tentment. OMAHA WOMAN'S CLUB. Mil)/ 8, 1919. Farms for soldiers. Whereas we believe in the project of the Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K Lane, to give to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines the opportunity to own land upon which they may live and make a living: There- fore be it Resolved, That the second district of the Oklahoma Federation of Women's Clubs pledges its support to Secretary Lane in furthering the " Farms for Soldiers" project, and we urge that in the plans for the community center and for the homes on the farm careful attention be given to the needs of the women, that their surroundings may be conducive to happiness and content. DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. The Daughters of the American Revolution at their Twenty-eighth Conti- nental Congress of the national society passed the following resolution : Resolved, That the Daughters of the American Revolution proffer to the Secretary of the Interior their hearty cooperation in and their cordial approval of his efforts toward the promotion of Americanization and the eradication of illiteracy, and that we urge the Congress of the United States to enact legislation which will permit these problems to be undertaken in a way which their importance to the future of the country demands; and be it further Resolved, That an authenticated copy of the foregoing resolution be trans- mitted to the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior. ;uid the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. Whereas of our great Army of patriotic sons now being rapidly demobilized many are unable to secure the employment necessary for them to make needed provision for themselves and their families; and HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 19 Whereas the safety and well-being of our country rests in great measure upon the stability of the home, which in turn depends largely upon ownership of the home by the occupant; and Whereas the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Franklin K. Lane, has proposed a program to provide both work and homes for our fighting boys by reclaim- ing undeveloped lands, dividing these lands into projects of farm homes, and permitting the soldiers to secure these homes by paying the actual cost in easy payments over a period of 40 years ; and Whereas more than 30,000 soldiers, sailors, and marines have already written to the Department of the Interior asking for the privilege of taking advantage of Secretary Lane's plan : and AVhereas this plan has received widespread approval from economists and patriots throughout the country, including the President of the United Statas and the late Col. Theodore Roosevelt ; and Whereas the United States is now the only large country among the Allies that has not made provision to meet the demand of the troops for farm homes : and Whereas a bill providing an appropriation to carry this plan into effect \\;is reported favorably out of a committee in each House of the Sixty-fifth Congress, but failed to Ue reached for consideration : Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Daughters of the American Revolution, in annual con- vention assembled, in the city of Washington, D. C., hereby approve the plan of Secretary Lane and urge the special session of Congress soon to be convened speedily to pass a bill under which it may put into effect, without delay; and be it further Resolved, That an authenticated copy of the foregoing resolution be trans- mitted to the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, May 9, 1919. The deparment of superintendence of the National Education Association in- dorses the bill now pending before Congress appropriating $100,000,000 with which to provide work and homes for our soldier boys. THE NEW JERSEY STATE COUNCIL OF DEFENSE, May 7, 1919. Be it resolved by the executive committee of the Neto Jersey Council of De- fense, That the proposal of Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, to procure a loan from the United States Government to the amount of $100,000,000 for land development for returning soldiers and sailors, by creating farms through the reclamation of arid lands in the West, the draining of swamp lands in the South, and the clearing of lands in every State where possible, is hereby approved and indorsed, in so far as the general pur- poses and general provisions of such plan are concerned, by the said executive committee of the New Jersey State Council of Defense ; and Be it further resolved, That the Congress of the United States be petitioned to enact such laws and appropriate the necessary moneys to execute such plan, as aforesaid, for the purpose of reclaiming such lands in the interest of sol- diers and sailors of the United States and for the purpose of ultimately pro- viding for such soldiers and sailors homes and lands. Be it further resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded at once to Hon. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, and to the Senators and Representatives of the State of New Jersey in the <',,ni:ress of the United States of America. Passed 1>\ the executive committee of the New Jersey State Council of De- fense this 7th day of May, 1919. JOHN RECAN POST OF WORLD WAR VETERANS, April 21. 1919. Resolution, Whereas a bill was introduced in the Sixty-fifth Congress of the United States, commonly known as the soldiers' settlement art. or the L:me Land Bill, providing for the reclamation of a vast acreage of arid, cut-over, and swamp- lands in the United States, and for the furnishing of homes and employment 20 HOMES FOR SOLDIEES. for soldiers, sailors, and marines who served in the Great War; and whereas we believe that the greatest question confronting the United States during the reconstruction period after the war is the adequate development of its vast resources and the furnishing of employment for the many citizens whose par- ticipation in the war or in war industries threw them out of their former occu- pations and employment ; and whereas the said soldiers' settlement act failed to pass at the last session of the Sixty-fifth Congress : Now, therefore, be it resolved by the John Regan Post of tlic World \Vi-()i>ri(iti(ins. A number of acts have been passed in this Province to aid the soldiers. The acts confer added powers upon the Land Settlement Board, which, with the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, can make loans, lease, exchange, set aside Crown lands, purchase, subdivide, and farm private lands. The land settlement act of 1918 permits the board to establish " Settlement areas " whore good but undeveloped lands 26 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. are available. Owners therein must either improve their lands or sell to the hoard at an appraised value. If the owner liles a statement claiming a higher value, such value will be taken for assessment. The penalty for not making improvements is a tax of 5 per cent of the board's or the owner's values, in addition to all other taxes. The soldier's land act of 1918 empowers the board to expend not more than $500,000 for the purchase of private land. The administration. The Minister of Lands administers all affairs concern- ing lands ; the Land Settlement Board in cooperation with other related de- partments of the Government deals with the soldiers. The Agricultural Credit Commission administers the loan funds. In general, British Columbia in com- mon with most of the other Provinces has not found it necessary to provide for service men, but merely to enlarge the powers of the existing agencies. State and Federal action. The act of 1918 instructs the Lieutenant Governor in Council to convey to the Dominion such Crown lands as may be necessary. In this way the Dominion appropriation of $2,500 may be used for British Columbia soldiers. Fifty thousand acres have already been set aside for soldier settlement. The British Columbia Government does not state expressly what assistance it will give soldiers, cadi case being dealt with individually. The aid is liberal, however. A soldier may acquire 160 acres of free land or purchase through the board this amount of private land. British Columbia follows the general plan of Ontario as to the training of soldiers, relying somewhat more, perhaps, on turning the soldiers over to farmers to gain the necessary experience. Australia. Australia's experience in land settlement. The Australian States have had a relatively long experience in the purchase, subdivision, and settlement of lands ; they can in general do little more for the soldier than they have done for the settler since 1901, except to hasten the development of new areas of land and to increase the rate of purchase. Between 1901 and 1914 the six Australian States purchased and subdivided 3,056,957 acres, for which $55,243,125 was paid, or about $18 an acre. Settlers were also assisted to build homes and to make needed improvements. Between 1909 and 1914, $68,029,500 was loaned for improvements. The Commonwealth Government alone will advance 100,- 000 to settlers in 1917-18. It expects to advance 2,000,000 in 1918-19. The , farmer pays a higher rate of interest than that paid by the State ; land settle- ment has, therefore, not been an added burden to the taxpayer. Although Aus- tralia has vast areas of land unoccupied, most of that which is susceptible of being brought under cultivation at moderate expense has already xmdergone development. A serious problem confronts the Dominion and State governments in providing land in any such proportion as that which has already been called for by her soldiers. The Dominion Government. The Australian Dominion Government was the first to draft a fully adequate law to repatriate the soldier, be he maimed or whole bodied. The repatriation act of 1916 was intended to consolidate and stabilize the private patriotic funds which were being accumulated in the several States, and were being administered locally. The Government added to the sums collected by the States, making a total fund of 359,355. This was used for relief and vocational service of all kinds, including small sums for the reestablishment of shops and small farms. The next step was a beginning toward actual settlement. In consideration of the number of men in the Army who have expressed a desire to take up land the Government contemplates an expenditure of 20,000,000 an equivalent for the population of the United States of about $2,000,000,000, to place soldiers upon the land. Respective spheres of State and Federal action. Under the plan worked out with the States the latter are to provide the land for settlement, while the Commonwealth makes advances to cover the cost of the improvements, stock, etc. The plan of cooperation as at present worked out is to the effect that the Commonwealth will supply the necessary funds, amounting to 22,000 in all. for the credit and advances of all kinds to settlers. A joint board, consisting of a minister for each State and the Commonwealth minister, will supervise operations. "The board will recommend advances of money to soldier settlers. decide upon the purposes for which such advances may be made, decide upon the HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. 27 rate of interest and method of repayment. * * * The advances will be made at reasonable rates. Each settler will be allowed an advance up to the full value of his improvements. In this way capital which each settler must possess of his own will be reduced to a comparatively small figure." New South Wales. Legislation and appropriation. The soldiers' settlement act was passed in 1916 and amended in 1917, which gave the minister power to set apart any area, crown land or land acquired in closer settlement acts, for the benefit of soldiers. In general, land is acquired by the soldiers under the customary forms of land tenure, such as that of the Farmstead Home or the Crown Lease. Provisions are made in the Returned Soldiers' Special Holding and in that of Group Settlement Purchase. This special legislation gives the settlers a few advan- tages, such as that of group settlement and application by one or more (instead of three) settlers for the purchase of private land which the purchaser has selected. Tlie administration. The Minister of Lands has full charge of all settlements and loans. A large number of district land officers assist. Applications are dealt with by a Classification Committee. New South Wales has developed a complete system for settlement and ad- vance of credit; mention is not made of the existence of a working arrange- ment with the Dominion Government. Kind and amount of aid The land. The most important aid which New South Wales gives her soldiers is found in the method by which land values are fixed and the long time allowed for payment, and low interest rate. The value fixed is as near the earning capacity of the land and its location as it is possible to make it. The annual payments are fixed at 2$ per cent of this capital value. The semiannual payments are spread over 38 years, the first two years being omitted. In the case of the group-settlement purchase five years' residence on the block or employment in the group settlement is re- quired. Payments begin six months after purchase and are at the rate of 6 per cent of the value. In the purchase of private land with the approval of the minister the purchaser is obliged to pay the first installment, the balance being provided by the Government, and repayable by annual installments. Ten years' residence is required, and improvement equal to 10 per cent of capital value must be effected in 2 years, 15 per cent in 5 years, and 25 per cent in 10 years. The credit. Five hundred pounds are advanced for improvements. Such advances will be allowed for improvements effected by the settler in the same way as if work had been done by contract or hired labor. Maintenance is allowed during probationary work, but such allowances must come out of the loan. Repayment of loans will be extended over 25 years (first five years' in- terest only to be paid). Tools, stock, and implements are paid for in six years (first year interest only to be paid). Seeds, plants, trees, one year. The land tenure. New South Wales does not give an absolute title to the land. When all conditions have been met the holder receives a lease in per- petuity, which for all practical purposes is equivalent to a freehold title. The " rent " for the land, as has been said, is based upon the capital value of the land as determined by the Local Land Board, reappraisement of this value being made in 20-year periods. Selection and training of the soldiers. Every man in the imperial service who wants a farm is given an opportunity to show his fitness. He may on his own initiative gain six months' experience on a farm or go to the Government Farm for the necessary training. xdtlemait progress. The State has made fair progress in providing farms. Preparation of 1.000 farms in the Yanco irrigation area is already under way. The average farm is to be 50 acres. Other areas are under development. The State plans to lay great emphasis upon the cooperative services which may he used in the community. These services apply not only to the prepara- tion of the lands of settlers, but to such matters as distribution and sale of products, purchase of supplies, establishment and management of canneries, creameries, etc. Settlers on the projects of the State have always shown great willingness to loan their labor and their teams for the use of newcomers. The State has already been called upon to provide farms for 5,000 ex-soldiers and is finding difficulty in keeping pace with the demand, although up to March the Government had purchased 18 estates of 171,213 acres, and it is proposed to make 2,000,000 acres available by January, 1920. 28 HOMES FOR SOLDIERS. Victoria. Legislation and appropriations. Under the Victoria closer settlement act some 567,687 acres have been purchased for civilian settlement. The lands average $37 an acre in cost and were sold to the settlers for about $45 an acre, supervision and settlement, absorbing the difference. Up to the beginning of the year 4,112 settlers had secured land under the act. Victoria's act for the settlement of discharged soldiers on the land was ] nisscd October, 1917 (8 Geo. V 2916). The act makes special provision for returned soldiers beyond those found in the general closer settlement act of 1!)1.~>. It also authorizes extensive development of irrigated areas and pur- chase of nonirrigable land. Moneys expended in agricultural development come from the sale of State bonds in the London market. Administration of the law. The land purchase and management board, responsible to a minister of lands, administers the law in regard to all non- irrigable land, and the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission is re- sponsible for settlement upon irrigable areas. The council of every district or municipality is made an advisory committee to the board. The diity of these committees is to report upon land available, to aid and encourage soldiers and to assist the board in every way. Victoria has opened her lands to all soldiers of the empire who have been duly certified in London as fitted for settlement. The State has been hasten- ing the improvement of all available irrigated land and has made large pur- chases of land in regions of satisfactory rainfall. Data are not at hand as to the acreage purchased, but some $5,000,000 has been set side for this purpose. It is believed that an expenditure of $25,000,000 will be necessary to pro- vide sufficient land for the soldiers who return or come to Victoria. Respective spheres, etc. Victoria was a party to the original agreement with the Dominion Government with regard to the consolidation of the repatriation fund. She will probably, if she has not already done so, adopt the Dominion plan of settlement as outlined. Kind and amount of aid. Civilian settlers are required to pay a deposit of 3 per cent on the capital value of the land on taking it, and to make amortized payments of 6 per cent per annum for 31$ years. Soldiers, however, need make no payments for 3 years. It is preferred that the soldier have some capital. To this and to the value contributed by the soldier's labor, the State will make additions. The general rule for advances is 70 per cent of existing value up to $2,500. All loans are made by the State Savings Bank. The State will also make advances to those soldiers who desire to go in for share farming, when such loans are indorsed by the proper authorities. Tenure of the land. Victoria bestows a freehold right in the land. The applicant for land under the general act gets a right to occupy. He then receives a conditional purchase lease which may run for the period of the pay- ments. At the expiration of 12 years, if all covenants and agreements have been met, and all purchase money for land and improvements paid, a Crown Grant for the land is given. Residence for eight months is required of the civilian; the soldier is exempt from this requirement, but he may not have two holdings and can not sublease. Selection and truinini/ of soldiers. Experience is gained at the Agricultural College or -in working for farmers on the Land Board. The local advisory bodies and the land officers have the responsibility of selecting men. Victoria is having difficulty in providing land fast enough for soldier needs. The Land Board has asked holders of large tracts to get together and set apart and subdivide acreage for soldiers' needs. Queensland. I.<'!/ixlureau Association-- 031 Richards, J. H., attorney, from Boise, Idaho 97 li INDEX. Page. Robertson, Hon. J. B. A., governor of Oklahoma 247 Rosen thai, B. Philip, Human Welfare Association 331 Saulsbury, F. A., president Ontario County Farm Bureau Association 630 Secretary of the Interior, report of Appendix A Shepherd, It. E., Jerome, Idaho 555 Sinnott, Chairman N. J., report for committee to the House Appendix B Springer, Charles, representing governor of New Mexico 416 Spry, Hon. William, former governor of Utah 778 Starr, Western, Farmers' National Single Tax League 204 Sterling, Henry, legislative agent American Federation of Labor 81 Summers, Hon. J. W., Representative from Washington 423 Tiniberlake, Hon. Charles B., Representative from Colorado 93 Titus, El wood W., representative New York State Federation of Farm Bureaus 618 Wilson, Hon. Riley J., Representative from Louisiana 113 Wilson, Hon. William B., Secretary of Labor, letter from' 755 Wood. Hon. William R., Representative from Indiana 531 o