money that could be spent wisely on land purchases for the first few years.

Another question has been raised as to the cost of administering this act. Our experience would seem to indicate that it would probably cost from 3 to 5 percent to administer a program of this sort; in the earlier period the expenses would be higher; the acquisition cost, cost of appraisal, and that type of thing. Afterward the administration cost on a particular project would be very much less.

The thing the chairman has asked me to mention particularly is the question of land costs. Dr. Gray, in the Land Utilization Division, has purchased submarginal land to the extent of 92 million acres. On this land were people who were not making a living. The purpose of the purchase was twofold: (1) To assist these families to find location on more productive lands; (2) to put these submarginal lands to more economical use. Because we had to move those families we have had to buy some farms. Much has been said here about farm communities. I should like to emphasize the fact that at least four-fifths of these farms are individual scattered farms of the typical American sort. Only a small proportion of these farm lands are in organized or close communities.

Mr. COOLEY. Which do you prefer?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Cooley, I do not think anybody can say with finality now. There are some important things to be learned from the community projects. It may be that through cooperative ownership of machinery and through cooperative buying and selling they might improve their situation and have more security on such projects than working as isolated, individual farmers. But the mind of the country, however, is on the individual farms. The psychology runs toward individual farms.

I can give you the land prices on the farms that have been bought. Our experience indicates that a part of the trouble with these lowincome farmers that we have been dealing with and that have been mentioned here as those who are just above the relief rolls is that they are on very poor land. They have in the past used very poor judgment in the acquisition of the land. Dr. Gray has been cooperating with the States in the study of farm lands and their classification in order to be able to designate the land areas where the soil fertility is such as to support a farm population. The farms which have been bought by the Resettlement Administration are in good land areas. There should be very close cooperation with the land. unit to insure that the land that is sold to tenants is good land. That is very important in such a program as is here contemplated.

These farms have been appraised by the Farm Loan Bank appraisers, by their method, and bought for the appraised price. We bought these farms when farm land was selling lower than it is now. The same land would perhaps cost us 20 percent more now than when we purchased it. The Government could dispose of this land at a profit.

In Minnesota we bought 200 farms, the average size of the farm being 103 acres, and the cost was $23.50 an acre.

In New York we bought 100 farms; the average was 95 acres, and that cost $31.50 an acre.

In Ohio we bought 160 farms, the average size being 56.6 acres, and the average was $76.90 an acre.

127413-37-ser. a- 6

In Indiana we bought 115 farms, averaging 68 acres, for $67.40 an

acre.

In Missouri we bought 80 farms, averaging 74 acres, at $52.30 an

acre.

In Oregon we bought 190 farms, Governor Pierce, and they cost an average of $69 an acre.

Mr. PIERCE. A very high price.

Mr. ALEXANDER. They were your best land.
Mr. PIERCE. Not all of it.

Mr. ALEXANDER. So the land experts said.

In Colorado we bought 120 farms at $24.10 an acre.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will you tell me in what part of the State that land was located?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I cannot tell you that without looking at a map. Mr. CUMMINGS. It is a poor farm that you could get for $24 an acre, and I pity the people you are going to put on it.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am under the impression that that land was in the irrigated section.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Not in Colorado.

Mr. ALEXANDER. In Montana, 150 farms have been bought; they cost $36 an acre; and 33 additional farms at a cost of $21.90 an acre.

I think I will say something about our experience with the farm buildings. We found that the cost of putting people on these farms in New York, for instance, was relatively less. We expected that when we started to put the people on the farms it would cost a great deal more in New York than it did in some other sections. What we found is that the farms had excellent buildings, with good foundations, and so forth; therefore only a small expenditure was needed to put them in very good condition, whereas in some other sections of the country the buildings had to be completely replaced. In such cases, even though the land was cheaper, the units when completed were as expensive as those in New York.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, growing out of this experience, it would be very wise if we made a provision in this bill by which some of the improvements would be made by the tenant himself. He should make as much of that improvement himself as possible. Mr. PIERCE. I think that is fine.

Mr. ALEXANDER. He can do a great deal of this building with a little help, and it is better for him to do it. He can do a great deal of land improvement of terracing, ditching, and things that are needed to be done. I am sure that there are many things that should be done by the tenant himself, and that could be done during this preliminary period of 3 or 5 years, in order that he may be tested out in his ability to succeed with the farm. Such a policy will be a saving to the tenant and it would be a splendid training.

I think probably the time has about expired.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose we might as well stop here. You can come back here Monday or Tuesday?

Mr. PIERCE. Suppose we make it Tuesday, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 Tuesday next.

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Tuesday, Feb. 2, 1937.)

FARM TENANCY

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 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.

At the time of adjournment Dr. Alexander was just beginning his testimony. We will be glad to hear further from him.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Alexander, you may proceed with your statement, if you prefer.

Mr. ALEXANDER. There are one or two general points that I would like to develop.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed to finish such statement as you wish without interruption.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may, I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Glover, a former member of this committee, is in the room. We would be glad to have you sit up here with us, Judge Glover.

Mr. GLOVER. I think I will just stay back in the audience, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you here.

Mr. GLOVER. Thank you.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Someone raised the question the other day concerning the percentage of tenancy in the United States. I have that information, broken down by States, and if you desire that table can be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have that go into the record. Mr. ALEXANDER. It shows by States the total number of farmers, total number of tenants, and the percentage of farmers who are

tenants.

(The table above referred to is printed in the record, as follows:)

Percent of tenancy in the United States, 19351

Percent of tenancy in the United States, 1935-Continued

Mr. ALEXANDER. Also, someone raised the question as to the amount of this equity of owner-operators in their farms. I have those figures here, and if you care I can make them a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be very interesting to have those figures in the record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The percentage of equity of owner-operators for the United States is 42.

For the State of Maine it is 77.7 percent.

For New Hampshire, 70.4 percent.

For Vermont it is 61.2 percent.

For Massachusetts, 62.7 percent.

Rhode Island, 61.2.

Governor PIERCE. What is the figure for Oregon?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Oregon, 50.2.

Mr. FLANNAGAN. What is the figure for Virginia?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Virginia, that is 63.8 percent.

Mr. LORD. The percentage of equity is higher in the New England States and New York and gets lower as you go to the South? Mr. ALEXANDER. The South and West seem to be lower.

Mr. LORD. I would like to know what the percentage is for New York State, if I may ask.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; if I have that. New York is 59.8 percent, apparently.

Mr. LORD. Farmer-operators-men who operate their farms?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; the man who operates the farm.

Mr. LORD. Yes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Farmer-operators, their equity is 59.8 percentthat is, for operators-in the State of New York.

Mr. PIERCE. How is that value fixed?

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we let him complete his statement before we take up questions.

Mr. PIERCE. All right.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may, I will file these figures for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The table above referred to is printed in the record, as follows:)

Percentage of the value of farm real estate owned and not owned by the
operator, 19301

Mr. ALEXANDER. Now, I shall make one or two general statements
about land ownership and the problem of acquiring it, and at the
conclusion of those two general statements you may ask what ques-
tions you want to on that phase of the question.

One is a problem that will be encountered in any such program as
this; it is the problem of dealing with the people who are living on
this land that will be bought. The hope is to buy land now in cul-
tivation rather than to bring new land into production. The clear-
ing of that land is very expensive, unless the clearing is done by the
operator after he goes on the farm, and this is a slow process. But,
on the basis of our experience, I do not recommend to you the settling
of people on that class of land; it is better to get land that is already
in cultivation. But when you secure land already in cultivation, you
have a problem of what to do with the people who are on it. In
some cases the tenant on the land can be selected as the prospective
owner. This should be done whenever possible. In any case, the
Government has an obligation to families living on land to be pur-
chased. If they are not capable of becoming owner, then they will
have to be moved. In that event, I think the Government is under
obligation to get a location for them where they will be just as well
off as they were on the farm from which they were moved.

The other problem that I mentioned the other day, when I said
that probably $50,000,000 was as much as could be administered the
first year, is the problem of land acquisition. Appraising, optioning,
and clearing title, as done under Government procedure, is a slow
process. In many instances 12 months or more will be required. In