into tenancy are people of the farmer class that are below the level of a farm credit; they are just above this level that has been provided for here, and something should be done about that. Some of those people, if they could secure a loan of as much as $300, $400, or $1,000, some of them $1,500 to $2,500, that would clear them up and get them on a footing to save them. They ought to be provided for.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say that another suggestion is to continue the activity along rehabilitation lines; there should be this general activity along that line?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The other group is under the group provided for in this bill. While you cannot finance them in landownership, something has got to be done immediately for them. This New Deal, through its activity, has drawn out of the dark a lot of information as to poverty and need that has been going on in this country for a long time. Much of it was not caused by the depression. Many of these people have lived in poverty all of their lives. Now, they are expecting something and we ought to do something for them. They are the forgotten men of the country. The labor unions have been developed to help the workers, but these people have had nothing.

Mr. PIERCE. Yes; but they do not get enough to put themselves in position to do anything. Now, why do we want simply to give them a shot in the arm? Why cannot we reach down to the cause of this whole trouble, why try to solve it by just starting with a few tenants? I want to help, but I doubt if we are attacking the problem in an effective way.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I was talking finally about this group that is almost below

Mr. PIERCE (interposing). I know. But many of them do not have sufficient income. Now, what brought about this condition? Is not the whole farm problem one of a study of what brought us into this condition? Is it not a fact that the farmer does not have a sufficient margin of profit, if any? Transportation charges, prices for machinery, combinations against the farmer compel them to buy everything they need at enhanced prices; the farmer must pay high interest rates and when he has sold his crop he does not have a profit to pay on his old debts. Why not try to solve this whole problem instead of attacking it in a meager way?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, as I understand, this Agricultural Committee has a good many other things in mind about the farm situation besides this program, and I have a great deal of faith in the committee's ability to find some solution to the larger farm problem.

I want to call this to your attention once more, Mr. Chairman: On Sunday I got a small book called Democracy in Denmark, a book that you can buy for 25 cents, which is a story of how Denmark attacked this problem and reduced tenancy to about 5 percent. It is a very simple statement of what Denmark has done.

Mr. PIERCE. How did they do it?

Mr. ALEXANDER. It is a simple statement, but a story never is as simple as it sounds. But so far as I could see in that simple statement-the most effective attack was not on the economic aspect of it. The most effective attack was the reorganization of their educational system in Denmark.

I am interested in and I know a good deal about the rural schools in this country. Our rural schools are largely built for city people.

We have a system of rural schools that deal very little with rural life.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What is the name of that book?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Democracy in Denmark. You can get that at any book store.

Mr. PIERCE. Is it not a fact that they could not have solved their problem unless they had had the English market?

Mr. ALEXANDER. They had that tremendous advantage, and they made very intelligent use of that market.

Mr. PIERCE. Yes; but we have no such market for our ordinary farmers. Now, in the event this bill passes, how about the centering of activities; will all sections of the United States be considered in purchasing the land; will every State have practical advantage of it, or will it be limited to a few sections? Could you make any estimate on that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I should judge that these laws usually apply to all sections of the country, and that this ought to do so. The problem, if it is going to be solved, will have to be attacked on a national basis.

Mr. PIERCE. All right.

Mr. HOPE. Dr. Alexander, I am very sympathetic to this problem, but I am bothered by the same things that bother the other members of the committee, and that is the apparent futility of trying to attack this great problem in such a meager way. I do not know whether we could spend more than $50,000,000 in 1 year on this problem or not, but it seems to me that if we have just $50,000,000 a year to spend that we could use it so much better even through the agency of the Resettlement Administration in attacking the problem of this 500,000 to 1,000,000 people you mentioned who are just slipping down the abyss right now; say, spend $500 or $1,000 each on those people; do you not think we would reach a much greater number of individuals and really do something worth while for them, as compared with what we can do with $50,000,000 a year in attempting to provide farms that will cost from $4,000, $7,000, or $8,000 for each individual farmer? What I mean is, should we not start on a basis of perhaps not trying to make landlords out of these tenants, but trying to make conditions betters for them as tenants.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I agree that there is a great deal to be done on that score. There are a large number of farm families who are socalled owners in this top group that I spoke of, 500,000 to 1,000,000 families. Then there is this other tremendous group of farmers, sharecroppers and tenants that somebody is going to have to help. Mr. COOLEY. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for Dr. Alexander to answer the question of Mr. Hope.

Mr. ALEXANDER. But I do feel that this proposal covers one of the things that can be done. I agree that it is inadequate; it does not provide enough expenditure to meet the problem. I feel that I would be trespassing again on what will be found in the President's committee report, which will come to you soon.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we wait until that has been submitted to the committee, then? I suggest that we adjourn now until 10:30 o'clock. Could you be here tomorrow?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I can be, if you want me.
Mr. HOPE. I would like to have you here.

The CHAIRMAN. Or, if you prefer, we could remain a little longer. Mr. ALEXANDER. I am at your disposal, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there are several questions the members of the committee would like to ask you, and if you do not mind, suppose you come back tomorrow morning.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Speaking of the report: I think the Secretary should come with the report, and I suppose he will.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow.

(Thereupon, at 11:55 a. m., an adjournment was taken until 10:30 a. m. of the following day, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 1937.)

FARM TENANCY

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee this day met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Marvin Jones (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please.

Dr. Alexander was testifying at the close of the hearing yesterday. Some of the committee members, I believe, had a few question they wanted to ask Dr. Alexander. I do not know whether those members have come in as yet.

Was there any further statement you desired to make, or have you covered the subject?

STATEMENT OF WILL W. ALEXANDER, ADMINISTRATOR, RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION-Resumed

Mr. ALEXANDER. I desire to refer to the selection of these families. It is very apparent that, if these people are going into this thing a long-time pay period-you have got to take young people. I think that is particularly true in the South. In our selection of families the emphasis has been placed on the younger families, young married people, just starting. In some sections of the country tenant families are in bad physical condition. We have made a careful analysis of the physical condition of families chosen. It is our feeling that those who start to buy this land ought to be of the younger group, 30 years old or not more than, say 45 years, and that a good deal of attention should be given to the health of the family before they are selected.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hope had some questions. I do not think he had finished.

Mr. HOPE. No; I had not. I do not think you had completed your answer to the question which I had in mind. Would you care to do so at this time?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Will you just repeat your question?

Mr. HOPE. I have forgotten just how I phrased the question, but what I had in mind was this: Assuming that you had only $50,000,000 annually to spend on the class of farmers that we have been discussing, wouldn't it be more helpful and wouldn't the money go much further if you spent it purely on rehabilitation of a larger group rather than in establishing a comparatively small number on their own farms. Certainly you could spread it out a good deal further considering the estimate that we have had up to this time that it would take from five to twelve thousand dollars a family, to set up people on a farm or home of their own; whereas, assuming you could

spend, say $500 per family, you might be able through that smaller amount to take care of, rehabilitate 100,000 families, by spending the money for rehabilitation rather than land purchases. Now, my question was whether you did not feel you might be able to accomplish more for this class of farmers by spending the money in that way rather than by the purchase of land.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I were forced to make the choice, I think you are right. I do not think that choice is necessary; however, if that choice had to be made I should agree with you that you could.

Mr. HOPE. Well, are you going to be able to get all the money you will need to rehabilitate the farmers of this type?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not know what is contemplated. When the President's committee report is in there will be a rather full and complete statement on that.

Mr. HOPE. Well, in your judgment is the immediate emergency problem that of attacking farm tenancy through this method of buying farms and establishing these farmers on their own land, or is it in otherwise rehabilitating the farmers who are in these difficult circumstances either as tenants or as landowners? In other words, taking in the whole field of the distressed farming population or just simply taking a few that you can relieve with this amount of money when used for the purpose of buying land.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If this is to be the only money available I think it would be wiser to spend it for rehabilitation. It would be my opinion, however, that you should not be forced to make that choice. Of course, I do not know what other program may be developed. Mr. HOPE. This is a greater emergency, is it not?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes. You have got probably around 600,000 families that are going to have to be helped to even get back to selfsupport.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that you are doing that work now. Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And it is not contemplated that that will be abandoned on the passage of such a measure as this.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I did not understand that it was a substitute for that.

Mr. HOPE. Are you doing it to the full extent that it ought to be done?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Now, we have, Mr. Hope, 300,000 of the rehabilitated families, and as I say there are about 300,000 more classified as distressed families that are going to have to receive the same kind of help.

Mr. HOPE. And you say there are from 500,000 to 1,000,000 who are gradually slipping into tenantry.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. HOPE. At the present time?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. HOPE. And that is a serious emergency situation at this time. Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; undoubtedly so.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. HOPE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask if you have information in that connection on the report of the President's drought committee? Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not have that.