Mr. CRAMTON. No; that was not quite the policy. There are different considerations that sometimes come in. In one or two cases there are imminent large revenues to come from oil operations. That is the case in Oklahoma and in some other States. It might be that of two offices or three offices, each of which contains an unduly large per cent of cost as compared with receipts one might remain after the abolition of some of these offices, and there would be brought about a consolidation of those offices. There are certain other ones, but I can not recall them now.

Mr. JAMES. I see Marquette has 58 per cent and Leadville, Colo.. has 71 per cent. I was wondering what particular reason there was in that case for retaining the Leadville, Colo., office?

Mr. CRAMTON. I would not want to take the time now to explain the details as to the situation in Colorado. We have general information affecting the Denver and other Colorado offices. I know there are other considerations appealing to the committee; one is the amount of land unentered. Michigan has in all only an amount equal to four or five townships unentered. Michigan has, as I recall, 97.000 acres unentered. Mr. JAMES. Leadville, Colo., has 177,000 acres, I think. Mr. CRAMTON. And Michigan has four or five townships. I am frank to say that Michigan, on that basis, was just about at the border line, and might have survived if I had not felt I would be subject to a charge of favoritism. In States with only 20.000, 30,000, or 50,000 acres, only two or three townships, it seemed to the committee that the possible business was so limited as not to justify their continuance.

Mr. JAMES. I wish you would put in the RECORD, if you do not have the information now, the particular reason why you provide for the continuance of Leadville, Colo., and Missoula, Mont., with an expense of 71 and 72 per cent, and in the bill provide for the discontinuance of Marquette, Mich., with an expense of only 58 per cent?

Mr. CRAMTON. That will probably come out in the discussion of the bill. I would like to inquire whether any gentleman desires to proceed with the debate on this paragraph? Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I would like five minutes. Mr. BLANTON. I think we should get off on a new tack, and I make the point of no quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Will the gentleman from Texas withdraw that motion for five minutes? Mr. BLANTON. Yes; I will withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is entitled to preference.

Mr. SINNOTT. But, as I understand, if I do not proceed Bow I shall not lose my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will undoubtedly have his time, but he would have preferential recognition now if he claimed it.

Mr. SINNOTT. I am not claiming it now.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas withdraws his point of no quorum and the gentleman from Washington is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, all the States which had public lands had public land offices. From time to time as the land became patented the offices, by the very nature of things, have dis#ppeared. However, in a number of the older States where there is still some public land there are one or more public land offices, and rightfully so. In the newer States the land offices are even more necessary. The giving of public land and the perfecting of patents has been one of the functions of the Federal Government in aiding settlement. It is right and proper, unless the Government is about to immediately abandon the entire public land business, to maintain these offices.

The expense is not as heavy as some would have you think. This bill proposes to abolish one in the great district which I have the honor to represent, where the loss to the Government is about $700 a year, and where the land of the Federal Government-your land and mine and all the people's land-is worth many millions of dollars. This land office which it is proposed to abolish is adjacent to a gigantic forest reserve, with untold resources, which belongs to the people of the United States-not alone to the people of one district or to the people of the State of Washington. The time will come when the forest reserve policy will have to be changed. It is only a question of time until some of the lands of these forest reserves which are more or less agricultural will be opened, and then, under a mistaken policy of economy, by which in this year of our Lord 1924 we propose to save $700 or $800 in one district, we shall lose thousands of dollars per ninth through the mis

management of the public land which we are now conserving and saving for posterity.

Mr. TILLMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Yes; with pleasure.

Mr. TILLMAN. As a matter of fact, is it not true that at the present time agricultural land in forest reserves can be homesteaded?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Well, under certain conditions. But it is held out of use in the great reserves out in my State, and if such lands are to be held out by the Federal Government they should be properly held. As a part of your agricultural bill you spend millions of dollars annually in the name of forest conservation, and yet you turn around and step into another department-the Interior Department—and propose to economize by nickels and dimes. You are proposing to abolish this office at Vancouver, in my State, and its abolishment will require all business in connection with the patenting of lands to be transacted with the office at Seattle, nearly 200 miles away.

I admit we do a declining business there now. The reason is that the public lands are reserved and taken away from settlement. They are not for the people to homestead now. You try to save a few hundred dollars a year when you are not prepared to destroy the whole publie land policy. If the Committee on Appropriations had power, its proper policy, following out this idea of destroying a dozen minor land offices that are not really paying money, would be to abolish the whole public land business from the offices here in Washington down to the poorest one, because, taken all together, they are not paying money to the Federal Government in the sense of getting in any cash profit. It was never intended that they should. They are assisting in the policy the Congress of the United States in its wisdom many years ago established of placing public lands at the disposal of the people.

We are now getting down to the ragged end of it, with most of the good land in reserve. Indeed, it is a doubtful proposition whether the people should be invited by Uncle Sam to go and attempt to win a patent after five years of struggle and of slavery on some of our so-called public lands. But you do not propose to abandon the policy, and therefore these little oflices should stay out somewhere near where the lands are that you are going to invite the people to go on. There can not be any doubt about that. [Applause.] I shall not take further time. Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. Why is the gentleman so uneasy? There are 24 of these land offices taken away from the States, and all the Representatives of those 24 States are here, and our friend, the chairman, had one of them taken out of his State, and another member of the committee, Mr. FRENCH, has some taken out of his State, so I do not think there will be much of a fight against putting them back.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. That is very kind of the gentleman.

Mr. BLANTON. Although I am going to fight it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I expected that from the gentleman, too, because I have discovered the less people know about public lands and public-land States and forestry and conservation the more certain they are that they can run the whole business for the people out there who are the pioneers and the sufferers. [Applause.]

Mr. CRAMTON. In the absence of some one claiming recognition at this time, I move, Mr. Chairman, the committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. TILSON, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration the bill H. R. 5078, the Department of the Interior appropriation bill, and had come to no resolution thereon.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to-Mr. WELLEB, for eight days, on account of important business. Mr. AYRES, indefinitely, on account of illness, at the request of Mr. TINCHER.

Mr. Kopp, for the balance of the week, on account of illness, at the request of Mr. DOWELL.

FARMERS' WAREHOUSE BILL.

Mr. SWANK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks by inserting in the RECORD a statement made by me before the Committee on Agriculture on January 17 on H. R. 4149.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? [After a pause.] The Chair hears

none.

Mr. SWANK. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following:

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity extended me by my fellow members of the great Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives of the American Congress. In the last Congress I appeared before the committee and spoke on the floor of the House in behalf of this bill. I have some argument and figures that I desire to present to the committee for its careful consideration on II. R. 4149, a farmers' warehouse bill, and then will be glad to have the members of the committee ask me any question they wish concerning the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. SWANK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am not here trying to present a cure for all our economic ills, but believe I have a plan that, if enacted into law, would be of great benefit to agriculture and therefore a great assistance to the country in general. I am aware of the fact that prosperity can not be brought about by legislation altogether, and that laws can not check the "hot winds" and prevent drouths, but laws can be enacted which will materially assist the producers of the country. I know that the members of this committee are interested in such proposals. Permit me to say here that in my judgment the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives is the most important of all for the reason that agriculture is our greatest industry, and the one upon which all others depend. There are many modern improvements that We could live without, although it would inconvenience us in many instances, but we can not live without something to eat and wear, and that all comes from the farm. Let the farmers refuse to raise a crop for one season and famine would stalk abroad in the land starvation and death would be the result.

I do not come before this committee with a "wild eyed" proposal that I know is impossible, but with a plain, common-sense plan that has already appealed to many leading citizens of this country and It is easy to submit many organizations interested in agriculture. propositions, but we must have something workable, easily understood, and reasonable. I am talking about a subject with which I am familiar, that is agriculture-its ups and downs, its adversities and rewards. Like other members of this committee, I was reared on the farm and worked there until after the age of majority, have always been interested in this enterprise, and studied the problems of the farmers. Many plans to help him have been suggested; many bills for his relief have been introduced in Congress. The farmers are not asking the Government to give them anything, nor do they want to take anything from the Government; all that they ask and have been asking all the time is a square deal. On account of the importance of the business of farming and the conditions of the farmers of my country, I feel that I should call the attention of Congress to something that, in my judgment, will be a great help to the people of our common land.

This committee shows a desire to gather all the information possible bearing on agriculture, and this is the only method of arriving at a solution of our present problems and finding a remedy for the present depression of this great industry. As Members of Congress, we are giving our best attention to the problems confronting us, and while everything can not be done by legislation, we can, by careful and The World War left patient study, do much to remedy the condition.

The us with many perplexing problems and a solution must be found. farmers are receiving less than cost of production, and have been for the past four years. This condition, with the exorbitant railroad rates, confronts us with a problem big enough to compel the attention of the best minds in the country. Railroad rates should and must be reduced to a reasonable extent that the producers may have an outlet for their surplus. What is the best thing to do at this time and the proper course to pursue?

1923.

1922

1921

1920.

1919.

1923.

1929.

1921

1920.

1919

1923.

1922.

What is wrong with our markets and why is the farmer's price of his own products so low and less than the cost of production? The high cost of living has not decreased with the depreciation of agricul tural products. Something is radically wrong and we are here seeking the remedy. What can the American Congress do to stabilize prices? In the course of this argument I shall endeavor to show a remedy that will greatly assist present conditions, relieve the situation to a great extent, promote the agricultural interests, and thereby benefit all busiIt is not the fault of the farmer, and he has not even contributed thereto. It is a condition over which he had no control, but which he can remedy with legislation of this sort and by organizing as other industries are organized. The farmer has worked just as hard as ever, tolled early and late, eaten about the same kind of food, worn about the same grade of clothing; his wife and children have assisted him as before, and he has been to 1ore expense in making his crops the past five or six years than ever before. We hear a great deal about the farmer's surplus, and at the same time read and know

ness.

1921

1929. 1919.

The

Our

All this

Mr. Chairman, the situation has indeed been tense since this great slump in the price of farm products. More people have been out of employment than ever before. Business has been stagnant, wages reduced, home building delayed. and distress noticeable on every hand and everywhere we turn, It has been argued that the farmers should produce more and thereby reduce the high cost of living. asked of the farmer, and now it is time to try to do something for his benefit. The farmer did not cause the increase in the high cost of living and did not profit thereby as did many other lines of business. He was asked to produce more during these times and suffered an unreasonable loss-greater than any other business. Many of our best farmers have been ruined financially through this depreciation in the price of farm products. The past few years the farmer has been com pelled to pay more for everything he bought to use on the farm. all these difficulties confronting him, the farmer has, according to the Department of Agriculture, produced crops to the value of more than $16,000,000,000 in 1919 and $13,000,000,000 in 1920. By this statement the crop of 1920, produced at an unusually high cost, was worth $3,000,000,000 less than the crop of 1919 and $1,000,000,000 less than the crop of 1918. It has been difficult to obtain help on the farm, and for this reason and to hold down the cost of production the farmer has in most instances been compelled to do the work himself, with the assistance of his wife and children. Like people engaged in other industries and in other lines of business, the people who farm are entitled to some rest, a holiday occasionally, and to enjoy life to the fullest extent.

With

I believe that these low prices have been caused mostly by a lack of storage warehouses and the unnecessary contraction of credits just as the crops were being gathered.

The measure under consideration provides for a new expansion of credits by the Federal Farm Loan Bureau through the intermediate credit banks, and if a system of Government warehouses were established, as provided by this bill, the farmer would be enabled to receive a fair price for the products of his toil, and his prices could not be fixed by the gamblers in farm products. This bill would put these sleek, well-fed, and elegantly clothed gentry out of the pernicious business of controlling the necessities of life. They should not be permitted to sit in their elegantly furnished offices, many miles from the farms, and tell the producers of this country the price for which they must sell their products. The farmer is not situated like the manufacturer, who can pass the increased cost of production to the consumer by adding the increased cost to the prices of the manufactured articles. The manufacturer can fix his prices to insure him a fair profit, regardless of the cost, but not so with the farmer. He can not pass his increased cost to the consumer, and has but little to say about the price he receives for his work. While the farmer is the only producer of the necessities of life, he is the only business man who has nothing to say about the price for which he sells. The prices are fixed for him when he delivers the goods, and he is tired and worried under the present system. While he sells for the prices offered, when he buys food and clothing for his family he must pay the price asked. A system or condition which permits any man, set of men, or combination of men to arrange the price of the farmer's products is wrong, unjust, and should be remedied.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, my purpose in appearing before you to-day and presenting this bill for your consideration and calling these conditions to your attention is that something may be done for agriculture. I have outlined a plan in this bill and will try to show you the remedy, and at least a plan that will be of great assistance for the correction of farm prices that have prevailed the last few years, out of all proportion to the cost of production.

During the World War the farmers were asked to plant more crops to supply our gallant soldiers and our allies. They responded nobly to that call without a question and did much to help win the war. The farmer did not profit as did many manufacturers and others who furnished supplies for the war, yet he furnished the most necessary supplies, for our armies must first be fed and clothed. We were able to furnish these supplies through the hard work and patriotic services of our farmers.

When the farmer receives a reasonable price for what he sells and prospers, everybody shares in that prosperity, and plenty and happiness are everywhere. His prosperity causes the merchant to sell more goods, the banks to make more collections; the lawyer, the physician, the teacher, every business and profession enjoy the prosperity of the farmer and feel the good effects of reasonable prices, Wages for people who work are better when there is prosperity on the farm, and those who work for wages are enabled thereby to live in a more comfortable manner. Other businesses and industries have been fostered and protected by the Government, and I hope to see this great Committee on Agriculture recommend something beneficial for the farmer at this session of Congress. The farmer, like other business men, should receive a fair return for his work and investment. The great cry raised in defense of the railroads of the country is that they should be given a fair return on their investment, and all reasonable people agree that such return should be permitted. The same is true of the business of farming. Business establishments, in computing their net incomes, among other allowances, deduct the salaries paid as part of the cost of management, If the farmer should deduct a reasonable

ness.

sum for his labor and the labor of his good wife and children he would not have any "net income" left. We have seen many methods proposed and much speculation as to the proper course to adopt. During these few years the farmers have suffered more than any other busiWe now see young men and women leaving the farms for the towns and cities, and this is not a good omen for our country. If the farmers must continue to sell their crops at less than cost of production, the farms will be depopulated, and much suffering will prevail, for the farmer can not continue to produce the necessities of life at a loss. They love their families, as does any other business or professional person, and desire to give their children an education and are entitled to do so.

In the district which I have the honor to represent in the American Congress we have the capital and largest city, the State university, the Agricultural and Mechanical College, the Central State Teachers' College, and great oil fields. While the chief industry is agriculture. as in other sections of the country, there are other great industries. Oklahoma ranked sixteenth in 1920 and seventh in 1919 among the States in the production of all crops. In 1920 she was fourth in the production of cotton and seventh in 1921 and 1922. In 1921 she was fourteenth in the production of corn and fifteenth in 1922. She was fourth in the production of wheat in 1921 and eighth in 1922. In 1920 she produced 106.206,000 barrels of oil, 114,634,000 barrels in 1921, and 149,571,000 barrels in 1922, or more than any other State in the Union. In 1922 she produced one-fifth of the oil of the United States and about one-eighth of the output of the whole world. From 1907 to 1922, inclusive, she has produced 1,308,642,000 barrels of oil.

In 1922 there was a total of 296,430 tons of zinc mined in the United States. Of this amount 209,682 tons were mined in Oklahoma. During the same year she was second among the States in the production of lead. The United States Geological Survey has estimated the total coal supply of Oklahoma at 79,000,000,000 tons, and the Oklahoma Geological Survey estimated the present available supply under present mining conditions at 8,000,000,000 tons. She also has millions of tons of salt, asphalt, limestone, and granite. Cotton is the leading crop in the State in money value, and in 1920 she was eleventh in the production of all grains, and produces more broom corn than all the other States combined. She produces millions of dollars worth of milk and cream annually, and in 1922 produced more than $30,000,000 worth of poultry and eggs. The value of her farm crops and fruit for 1923 amounted to $233,511,000, and her crop value for 1922 was $211,832,000. Below is a statement on Oklahoma livestock by the State board of agriculture. The table below gives detailed information for the past three years:

Statement of Oklahoma livestock for the past three years.

CARL H. ROBINSON, Federal Statistician. C. D. CARTER, State Statistician. This shows some of Oklahoma's greatness and that all the people there are not engaged in agriculture. This bill will stimulate business and help all classes. It will benefit the wheat grower of the North as well as the cotton farmer of the South.

You have heard it said that the farmer was growing rich when he was receiving 40 cents per pound for cotton (as was received part of 1919), $1 per bushel for corn, $2 per bushel for wheat, etc., but at this

price even he was losing money. He is entitled to enjoy some of the

comforts of life, for he works longer hours than any other business man; he is our chief wealth producer and should share in its prosperity. For his products the farmer should receive a price that will pay reasonable wages for his wife and children who assist him with the crops; reasonable pay for his teams and farming implements; reasonable allowances for the depreciation of his farm tools, teams, and lands; pay for upkeep of his land, taxes, etc.; and in addition to these allowances he should have a fair margin of profit as other business receives.

I quote a statement from the Memphis Commercial Club a few years ago, as that great organization recognizes the need of successful farming and good prices: "Memphis only prospers through agricultural prosperity. The farm bureau is the recognition of that fact by the Memphis merchants' interests. Help maintain the gift of Memphis to its trade territory, that united we stand, for divided we fall.' The South's cotton crop averages annually 12,000,000 bales, produced by 2,000,000 families. Average family is man and wife and three children, equals three hands. Three bales of cotton goes to pay land rent, feed bills, fertilizers, etc. Three bales left, or one bale for each hand, at 40 centa per pound, or $200 per bale. This will allow each farm band $16 per month. The average appropriation for a pauper at the county farm is $25 per month. Think it over."

Suppose an average family produces 10 bales of cotton, which is an extraordinary production, at 40 cents per pound-we will take the highest price received during or since the war-that would bring $2,000.

If he is a renter, he must pay the landlord $500, and has $1,500 for himself and family. Figuring the work of himself and one team at $75 per month, which could not be done during a part of this time, we would have $900 more in his cost of production. Then allow his wife the same salary as a hired girl to do the housework-many wives help in the field in addition-and this would amount to $600 more per year, which, added to $900, would make $1,500. The work of his children is not counted, nor is food and clothing for his family and feed for his stock estimated in this statement, nor taxes, nor depreciation of his working capital. Where is his profit even during high prices? What is true with cotton is true in the same ratio with all other

--

Cents. 29 to 43

10 to 13

17 to 23

21 to 31

1919 yield, 11.326,000 bales, average price. 1920 yield, 13.271,000 bales, average price-. 1921 yield, 7,978,000 bales, average price.. 1922 yield, 9,729,000 bales, average price.Mr. SWANK. According to a statement by the Department of Agriculture of 451 records in 1920 in Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, the net cost per bushel of production of wheat is, in Missouri, $2.21; Nebraska, $1.91; Kansas, $1.77; and in Oklahoma, $1.98. This is the cost for winter wheat. Farmers can not raise wheat that cost $2 per bushel to make, sell it for $1, and continue to live. No business in the world could live in that way. We must have wheat for the people to eat, but with this difference in the cost of production and the selling price production will decrease and there will be suffering. The farmer can not continue in his business under these conditions, and as a Member of Congress I am urging that something be done. We all want to see the railroads receive a reasonable profit in carrying the products of the farm to market, for times are better and better wages paid for all work when all lines of business prosper. Yet I know that

it would be better for the farmer, and therefore for the whole country, if some of our other appropriations were reduced and at least $100,000,000, the amount asked in this bill, set aside for the purpose of assisting in erecting warehouses as this bill provides. The enactment of such a law would not only help the cotton grower but would render the same assistance to all products of the farm.

It has been estimated that there is a loss annually of more than $70,000,000 to cotton alone as a result of permitting it to remain exposed to the weather for months at a time without attention or cov ering of any kind. With the loss on other crops from a lack of warehousing the loss in one year would be more than the appropriation carried in this bill. Then, would it not be an economical measure to enact into law and result in much good to our country? Some bave asked how this warehouse bill will remedy the cotton and grain situation. I answer that it will save a loss of more than $70,000,000 on cotton alone, to say nothing of other crops. It will, in addition, stimulate the producers to establish cooperative selling agencies, organize more efficiently, and thereby more directly market their products to the manufacturer and consumer. Under this bill the farmers must first establish selling agencies. I believe that this warehouse bill and cooperative marketing associations will solve the problems of our present system of marketing.

Agriculture is of so much importance that the Government should erect warehouses under its supervision and help in the solution of the farmers' problems. I think the Government should build them, but have drawn this bill cooperatively with the States, and also with farmers' cooperative associations.

Bulletin No. 887, "The Cotton Situation," says: "The warehousing of cotton after ginning is very important economically. Leaving the baled cotton exposed to the weather results in large losses annually from the rotting of the fiber. The cotton warehouse is a place of shelter and protection from fire and theft; a place for classing and assorting to meet mill requirements; and finally it is a place where cotton may be deposited under conditions which enable the owner to obtain money advanced upon it until such time as he may desire to sell. Receipts of responsible warehouses are considered among the best kinds of security."

The warehouse bill under consideration provides that when any State makes an appropriation for warehouses, or when any farmers' cooperative association having a selling agency makes an appropriation, the Government shall duplicate such appropriation.

We now have

a good roads law to the same effect so far as the appropriations are concerned. Good roads are necessary for farmers, but not so necessary, and will not stimulate agriculture so much as this bill provides, We can live and enjoy life without hard-surfaced roads, but can not live without agriculture. It is our most important industry, always has been, and always shall be, and more should be done to encourage and protect it by the Federal Government, and it should be done now. Some say that the State should not engage in the warehouse business. As an answer to that criticism, and as a precedent, I will say that the Government built warehouses for the storage of liquor, and at the present time. after many months of prohibition, we still have 348 liquor warehouses in the United States. Are not cotton, corn, wheat, oats, wool, and other farm products about as important to provide storage facilities for as liquor, and especially in time of prohibition? I am sure that the gentlemen of this committee want to assist and promote our great agricultural interests in this country, and I shall invite your careful and patient hearing to the provisions of this bill

under consideration.

The Secretary of Agriculture is the head of the farming activities of the United States and is interested in the promotion of this industry. The bill provides that he, the president of the board of agriculture of any State where the warehouses are located, and a representative chosen by the farmers' cooperative associations in any such State, shall constitute the board of control.

This provision will encourage the organization of farmers' associations, which are necessary to the farmers' interests, and will have a wholesome effect upon the

business of farming. The warehouses shall be under the management of the board of control, which is authorized to acquire property and property rights for the erection of the warehouses. Provision is made for the employment of a warehouse superintendent in each State, whose salary shall be paid by the State. Several States now have warehouse laws of some sort and employ a warehouse superintendent, but the provisions of the State laws will work in with the provisions of this bill.

It is provided in this bill that the official standards of the United States for farm products shall be the official standards of the warehouses created by this bill. It is necessary that uniform grades be established, and not have thousands of unofficial graders, each of whom can set his own standards. It is to the best interests of the farmers and the country that the grading be under the supervision of the Government. The issuance of warehouse receipts is provided for, which shall be negotiable and in the form prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Adequate punishment is provided for any violation of the provisions of the act. The locations for the warehouses are subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States.

Rural credits have been discussed and have been a favorable theme for orators and candidates for many years. I believe the most effective way to provide adequate and suitable methods for rural credits is for provision to be made for the Government to loan money on certain chattels as provided in this bill. If a farm product is properly stored, why not loan money on that warehouse receipt, which is a most satisfactory and safe investment? The warehouse receipts would be so convenient, and little expense attached in recording, as is the case in voluminous mortgages, that the local banks would be glad to loan money on the receipts. In order to prevent any association which might be formed against the system, and which might be interested in banks, it is provided that if the local banks refuse to loan money on the warehouse receipts, then loans shall be provided by the Federal Farm Loan Bureau through the intermediate credit banks.

By reason of the importance of the agricultural industry. I have provided in the bill that stored products shall be insured at actual cost. Some say that the Government must not go into the warehouse business, as it leans toward socialism, but there will be a greater leaning t socialism if something is not done for the farming interests of the United States.

The bill provides that the board of control shall prescribe the fees to be charged for the storage of farm products, and the fees shall not be in excess of the actual cost of maintaining the warehouses. It has been said that if the farmers want warehouses let them build them at their own expense like other business organizations. Farming is an entirely different business to merchandising, banking, etc. One of the greatest fights the farmers have had to make is to get money with which to finance their business. It is not organized like other business and more obstacles have to be overcome. You may say, "Let them organize." Organization of farmers' societies will be promoted if this bill is enacted into law. It will encourage the farmers of the country to greater efforts and the entire Government will prosper thereby. Heretofore Congress has seen fit to appropriate millions for the assistance of the railroads of this country and to guarantee them a certain rate of profit. Of course, as has been said, the railroads were taken over by the Government during the war and must be turned back in as good condition as when taken. The farmer's business was also taken in charge during that time by the Government, and he was told to plant wheat and the price was fixed. It is true that the railroad prices the rates were also fixed, but care was taken that they received a reasonable return, and this is all that the farmers ask now for themselves. In the readjustment after the war the farmers lost millions and can not recover for many years. Can not Congress do something for them? But for the farmers there would be nothing for the railroads to transport. The railroads and other business can re

He

cover much more easily than the farmer. His cost was higher than at any time in our history. He paid more for his tools, feed, and the necessities of life cost him more. He is certainly entitled to as much consideration as the railroads or any other line of business. No one was more patriotic than the farmer during the war. He planted what the Government told him to plant and never grumbled. He has always done his part, and this bill for his assistance only asks for a small appropriation in comparison to the importance of his business. has been unable to borrow money on his crops, and could not sell for enough to pay for harvesting them. On account of this depression in farm products the sons and daughters of the farm have been compelled in many cases to remain away from school. His family is entitled to as much consideration as any others. It has been said that the States should build warehouses for these products. Why not the different States do their road building? Why does the Government assist in this way? For the reason of the importance of roads to the Government. In measures like this warehouse bill and our good roads law there should be cooperation between the Government and the States. On account of the importance of agriculture our courts have held that appropriations for farming associations are not unconsti

tutional.

The Republican platform of 1920 says: "The farmer is the backbone of the Nation. The crux of the present agricultural condition lies in prices, labor, and credit. The Republican Party believes that this condition can be improved by the right to form coopérative associations for marketing their products and protection against discrimination."

The Democratic platform of 1920 says: "We favor such legislation as will confirm to the primary producers of the Nation the right of collective bargaining and the right of cooperative handling and marketing of the products of the workshop and the farm, and such legislation as will facilitate the exportation of our farm products."

These provisions of the platforms of the two great political parties show the importance which they attach to agriculture. The farmers are the only business men who produce the absolute necessities of life, and who produce more than they consume. In the United States there are some 6.500,000 farms and some 13,000,000 men engaged upon these farms, but this number is fast decreasing and will so continue unless something is done for this industry. Many farmers bought a little home for their families and made a substantial payment, thinking that their prices would be maintained to some extent and that they could pay out, and when the "bottom dropped out" in their prices they were compelled to forfeit their hard-earned money. Many renters have been obliged to leave the farm and have moved to town by reason of low prices on their production. Something must be done to stop this drift to the cities from the farms. Men and women can not be expected to continue to work early and late and not make expenses. That is not done in other classes of business. According to statistics, business failures increase in a surprising ratio to poor prices and reduced revenue on the farm, and there is a great reduction in business failures when the farmer receives a reasonable price for the products of his toil. When agriculture is depressed the number of business failures is more than doubled in comparison to the number of failures when the farmer is in reasonably good circumstances. When the farmer receives poor prices business is bad, failures many, and laboring people suffer greatly thereby in unemployment and low wages. Everyone enjoys the prosperity of the farmer, and all suffer when he suffers. He not only feeds himself and family but the rest of the world.

In comparing prices the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for 1920 says:

"This means that the farmers of the United States, as a whole, are not receiving adequate returns for their efforts. It means also that the very foundation of our Nation--the stability of our agriculture-is threatened, and that everything possible must be done to prevent, or at least to lessen, the effect of the recurrence of conditions under which large numbers of farmers conduct their operations at a loss. The farmer must have, under ordinary conditions, a reasonable prospect of a fair return for his labor and the use of his capital. The science, the art, and the business of agriculture can not thrive unless he is suitably and profitably paid for the products of his farm--unless he receives compensation sufficient to enable him to continue to produce and to maintain for himself and his family satisfactory standards of living."

This same volume says:

"We must see to it that the road between the producer and the consumer is open and direct, and that the farmers have a free and competitive market in which to dispose of their products. We must omit no effort to improve our marketing machinery and practices and to furnish necessary market information to the farmer so that he may take full advantage of modern business methods in the distribution of his commodities. The department recognizes fully the importance of the cooperative movement and its potentialities for good in the general marketing scheme "

We all know that the farmer is not receiving an adequate price for his work and toil. We know that he is producing more with the greatest cost in the history of agriculture. We know that prices are unreasonably depressed and should give our best efforts to find some remedy. I think a solution can be found that will bring great relief at least, and this bill under consideration is worthy the careful study of every member of this committee. We all recognize the great drift from the farms to the centers of population and know that this will not have to be kept up long until disaster will follow. We may talk long and loud about the constitutionality of certain proposed laws. but what we need now is legislation that will rehabilitate our agricultural interests. It is true, as I have heard suggested, that we can not legislate good crops, rain, sunshine, and industry, but we can enact legislation that will absolutely put a stop to the fixing of prices of products of the farm by those whose only interest is further depression of farm prices. We can assist greatly the marketing system of the farmer by providing a means for the storage of his products and the issuance of warehouse receipts against these products, and thereby relieve the threatened undermining of agriculture, as stated in the yearbook mentioned. How else can we make good the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture when he says that we must see to it that the road between the producer and the consumer is open and direct, and that the farmer has a free and competitive market in