445

Obligations Imposed

by the Ownership of
Cut-Over Lands

By

CLEMENT S. UCKER

Vice-President Southern Settlement and Development Organization

Baltimore, Md.

Address Before The
Third Annual Meeting

Southern Pine Association

New Orleans, La.,
February 19-20, 1918

Obligations Imposed by the
Ownership of Cut-Over

9445
“2 Lands
By Clement S. Ucker, Vice President Sou-
thern Settlement and Development
Organization
Baltimore, Md.

T WAS my very good fortune, as well as a great pleasure, to

| have been with you gentlemen in April, 1917, on the occasion

of your holding the great Cut-Over Land Conference, in fact,

it was my privilege to have presided for two days over that gather-

ing. It was also my privilege to be with you in September last,
and to have further addressed you on that occasion.

I naturally felt somewhat reticent with respect to any further
remarks in the premises. It must, of necessity, begin to appeal
to the minds of some of you that I have covered practically all
phases of this so-called cut-over land problem in some of my various
addresses to you. Notwithstanding all of this, I could not but
accept the recent invitation extended to me by your officers to be
with you on this occasion and to discuss another phase of the topic,
viz, Obligations Imposed by the Ownership of Cut-Over Lands.

In consideration of this subject, it is obviously necessary that
we give some brief consideration to the general conditions now
existing—those that must of necessity have more or less bearing
upon any effort, however great or however small, that may be
made, by the lumker cperators and the producers of and the owners
of these cut-over lands to solve their so-called cut-over land
problem.

The Diminishing Public Domain.
You have very often heard of late, the expression used, “the

public domain is gone.” It is, in fact, substantially gone. Accord-
ing to the figures cf the Commissioner of the General Land Office

at Washington, there were remaining at the end of the fiscal year,
June 30th, 1917, as yet unappropriated in the public domain of
Continental United States, 230,657,755 acres of land. This 230,-
657,755 acres, you must remember, necessarily contain the “culls.”
They are, in part, at least, the mountain tops, the mountain sides,
the more or less inaccessible semi-arid areas, marsh and swamp
areas and land of very low productive power—literally the “culls.”

Notwithstanding all of this, it is noted that the operation of
the so-ealled 640 acre homestead law, between the date of its enact-
ment, December 29th, 1916, and August 1st, 1917, upon which date
we have the latest available figures, resulted in the appropriation
of 23,963,456 acres. In other words, Congress by increasing the
area per homesteader from 160 to 640 acres of lands admittedly
less valuable and of less potential possibilities, thereby stimulated
homesteading of the remainder of the public domain to the extent
of 23,000,000 acres in a little over seven months of time.

All of this is mentioned to bring out the obvious deduction that
the land hunger of our people is not yet quite satisfied and that the
vast balance sheet of public domain in the hands of the Federal
Government is about exhausted, and that we must look elsewhere
in the future and through other sources to satisfy this world old
yearning of our people for land ownership and land possession.

Let us bear in mind that on July 1st, 1917, as I stated above,
we still had 230,657,755 acres of land in the public domain. Let
us also bear in mind that east of the Mississippi River—Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida
were public land States and that west of the river every single
State was a public land State with the exception of the State of
Texas, which, by the compact which admitted her to the Union,
retained and administered within her own borders all her unappro-
priated lands—so that the 239,657,755 acres represents what is
left in all that vast area.

Canada’s Feat of Colonization.

From 1900 onward we witness another very remarkable move-
ment—the peopling and appropriation for agricultural purposes, of
the public domain or free homestead lands of Western Canada.
That was largely accomplished with and through the very best
blood and the very best types of cur American farmers. It is not
necessary here to go into in detail the elaborate carefully planned
campaign that brought this about. It is sufficient for our purpose

to know that the free public domain of Western Canada is
practically exhausted.

Now let us note that we have approximately 300,000,000 acres
of cut-over lands in the South Atlantic and Gulf States. In other
words, the frontier is rapidly shifting. The responsibility for
satisfying land hunger is passing from the Federal Government,
whose balance of public domain is rapidly diminishing on to the
shoulders of those who now own or who are now producing the
next available area which is far more desirable and adaptable, viz,
the Southern Cut-Over Lands. The only difference, or in fact the
great fundamental difference, is that the public domain was free
so far as cost in dollars and cents per acre was concerned and the
cut-over lands, being in private ownership, must necessarily carry
some fixed cost in dollars and cents per acre. In the case of Govern-
ment land while there is no cost per acre there was a service to be
performed, generally five years of actual residence with cultivation
and improvement. So much for the land phase.

Now let us note a very pertinent factor in consideration of
present day conditions.

A Decreasing Percentage of Rural Residents.

In 1880 the total population of the United States was
50,155,783. Of these 14,772,438, or 29.5%, resided in cities, and
the remainder, 35,383,345, or 70.5% resided in the country.

The Census of 1890, ten years later, gives us a total population
of 62,947,714, of which 22,720,223, or 36.1%, resided in cities and
the remainder 40,227,491, or 63.9%, resided in the country.

The Census of 1900 gives us a population of 75,994,575, of
which 30,797,185, or 40.5%, were in the cities, and 45,197,390, or
59.5%, were rural or resided in the country.

Now the last Census, 1910, gives us a population of 91,972,266,
of which 42,623,383, or 46.3%, resided in the cities and 49,348,883,
or 53.7%, remained in the country.

Taking the mid-census estimate as made by the Bureau of
Census in the Department of Commerce, the total population of
the United States was in 1917, 105,118,000. Applying the running
ratio of shift from urban to city from 1880 to 1910, to the estimated
population of 105,118,000 in 1917, our present division between
urban and rural population should be expressed in a ratio of 50%
to 50%.

From this you will note that since 1880 there has been a most
decided swing from rural to city life, and that it is still on and will

probably continue until we very radically change our system of
education. Just what effect our entrance into the world war, our
consequent demobilization and reconstruction will have upon the
trend of our people towards the city, remains to be seen. It may,
and it may not have bearing upon what is generally termed ‘the.
back to the land movement.” It depends, in my judgment, very
very largely on how intelligently we handle the problem and just
how soon we unitedly get down to a consideration of the basic
factors underlying its solution. So much for our population.

Some Comparisons in Food Production.

Now let us glance for a moment, having considered our land
conditions and the state of our population, at just what progress
we have made in food production. Remember that al) of these
figures which I have been giving you, are taken from the United
States Census Reports and they apply to Continental United States.
I think that we already agree that wheat, corn and meat production
form the great back-bone of our consumption.

With respect to wheat production, in 1880 we _ produced
459,483,187 bushels on 35,430,333 acres, being 13 bushels per acre
and a per capita production of 9.2 bushel.

In 1890 there were raised 468,373,968 bushels of wheat on
32,579,514 acres, being 13.9 per acre and a per capita production
of 7.4 bushel.

In 1900 there were raised 658,379,259 bushels of wheat on
52,588.574 acres, being 12.5 bushels per acre and a per capita pro-
duction of 8.7 bushel.

In 1910 there were raised 683,379,259 bushels of wheat on
44,262,592 acres, being 15.4 per acre and a per capita production of
7.4 bushel.

The following is quoted from the 13th Census Report of the
United States, 1910, Vol 5, Page 585:

“The production of wheat increased from 459,483,000
bushels in 1879 to 683,379,000 bushels in 1909, an increase

of 223,896,000 bushels or 48.7 per cent. The population of

the country increased 83.4 per cent during the same

period, and the per capita production of wheat thus

declined from 9.2 bushels in 1879 to 7.4 bushels in 1908.

But the exports of wheat also declined during this

period, so that the per capita amount of wheat retained

for home consumption increased from 6.1 bushels in 1879

to 6.5 bushels in 1909.”

The Record Of Corn Production.

Our production of corn was as follows:

In 1880 there were raised 1,754,676 bushels of corn on
62,368,504 acres, being 28.1 per acre and a per capita production
of 35.0 bushel.

In 1890 there were raised 2,122,327,547 bushels of corn on
72,087,752 acres, being 29.4 bushels per acre and a per capita pro-
duction of 33.7 bushels.

In 1900 there were raised 2,666,324,370 bushels of corn on
94,913,673 acres, being 28.1 bushels per acre and a per capita pro-
duction of 35.1 bushels.

In 1910 there were raised 2,552,189,630 bushels of corn on
98,382,655 acres, being 25.9 bushels per acre and a per capita pro-
duction of 27.7 bushels.

The following is quoted from the 13th Census Report of the
United States, 1910, Vol. 5, Page 576:

“The area of corn harvested in 1909 was 98,382,665
acres; in 1899 it was 94,913,673 acres, the increase for the
decade thus being 3,468,992 acres or 3.7 per cent. The
production of corn, however, decreased from 2,666,324,000
bushels in 1899 to 2,552,190,000 bushels or 4.3 per cent.

“The acreage of corn has shown an uninterrupted
increase for the past 30 years, the greatest gain occurring
between 1889 and 1899. Starting with 62,368,504 acres
in 1879, it rose to 72,987,752 in 1889, to 94,813,673 in
1839 and to 98,382,665 in 1909, a gain for the 30 years of
36,014,161 acres or 57.7 per cent. The production of corn
was 1,754,592,000 bushels in 1879, 2,122,328,000 bushels
in 1889, 2,666,324,000 bushels in 1899, and 2,552,190,000
bushels in 1909. The production in 1909 was thus
114,135,000 bushels or 4.3 per cent less than that in 1899,
while that in 1889 was 543,997,000 bushels, or 25.6 per
cent greater than that reported ten years earlier. The
increase in production for the 30 years, 1879 to 1909, was
797,598,000 bushels, or 4.5 per cent, as compared with an
increase in population for the same period of 83.4 per
cent, the production of corn thus appearing not to have
kept pace with the growth in population. In 1899 the
per capita amount of corn for home use was 32.3 bushels,
in 1909 the amount was 27.3 bushels.”

Population Outstripping Food Production.

So that you will note that with respect to each of these grains
there has been an increase in population without the corresponding
increase in volume of production. There has of course, since 1880,
been tremendous areas of new land put into cultivation but the per
capita yield has declined and in my judgment will continue to
decline until we have settled down to a system of agriculture in
this conntry that aims primarily at soil enrichment and conserva-
tion of soil fertility. Until there is bought under cultivation
additional areas or until a system of soil enrichment and conserva-
tion of soil fertility is followed, we cannot hope to increase our
aggregate production. An increasing population under such condi-
tions means a lower per capita production which in the end can
only be supplied by the importation of grains from abroad and it
is a matter well known that we had either actually taken the initial
step or had this under serious contemplation at the time of the
outbreak of the European War.

A Decrease In Meat Animals.

Now with respect to our meat animals. Since 1900 there has
been an increase of approximately 29,000,000 in population and a
decrease of about 7,000,000 in our animal production.

Since August Ist, 1914, to September Ist, 1917, according to
United States Government figures, there was a decrease in the
world supply of meat animals—cattle 28,000,000; hogs 32,000,000;
sheep 56,000,000; while the ratio of destruction, it is reasonable to
assume, has not abated since September Ist, 1917. Some recent
figures coming under my observation indicate that it is the belief
of men who have made a careful study of this phase of the problem
that at least 40,000,000 head of livestock will be required by Europe
in her work of rehabilitation after the War, to serve as foundation
flocks.

The foregoing leads to the very decided view point, earnestly
asserted by some and rejected with equal earnestness by others,
that the greatest problem that now confronts the American people
is to be assured of an adequate supply of food at reasonable prices
for her people and an adequate supply of raw materials for her
industries. It will not avail us greatly if we send abroad our coal,
our iron, our phosphate, our timber, in fact our capital and with the
proceeds buy back food and clothing. Sound economics unequivoc-
ably points the way. We must feed and clothe ourselves in every

particular and that in abundance. Then shall our national
prosperity rest upon absolute bed rock. Let it be remembered
that I am not discussing this problem from the standpoint of the
present day war emergency condition. I am not unmindful of the
tremendous duties and tasks imposed, but I am discussing this
matter from the standpoint of its broad enduring aspects.

Time To Pay For Spendthrift Habits.

The figures quoted above with respect to grain would tend to
indicate that we have been doing that which has often been charged
that generally speaking we have been a spendthrift nation, living
up to our natural resources and existing upon the present day fer-
tility of our soil while waiting for the unearned increment and
that we have now reached the day of final readjustment.

With respect to the condition presented in our domestic animal
resources, it is not a far cry to understand how this has occurred.
After the Civil War it became the practice to raise both cattle and
sheep in tremendous herds on the open public domain of the
Western States; free, if you please, and at no cost per acre for
grazing. The United States Government tacidly acquiesced in the
indiscriminate use of her public domain until the actual settler
demanded it for homestead purposes. The result of this was that
meat and wool and hides were produced at less cost and with
greater profit in that area than it could be produced in the old
sections where there was a rising land value, increased taxation
and a decreasing fertility, and so the East dropped out of both
sheep raising and beef cattle production and finally the homesteader
and now the 640 acre homestead law has operated to the exhaustion
of the public domain, and he who raised sheep and cattle on the
free Government land has suddenly found himself face to face with
abandoning his occupation, removing to South or Central America
or finding a new location within the United States, where conditions
most nearly approximate those to which he had formerly been
adapted.

The World’s Need Of Southern Lands.

That brings us to the consideration of this question: Does or
does not the world need the 300,000,000 of idle acres in the South
Atlantic and Gulf States, the larger portion of which lies in the
South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Area and were produced as
a by-product of the Naval Stores and Timber operators? And is

there any burden upon the owners of these lands, either legal or
moral, in the premises under present day conditions?

I cannot forebear here to quote at some length from the
address delivered before you in this hotel on the twenty-seventh
day of last September by Dr. George M. Rommel, Chief, Animal
Husbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C. That address was so very thought-
ful, so very well prepared and so very pertinent, that I have taken
the liberty before and do again take the liberty on this occasion to
refer to it and quote from it at some length.

“The area of these lands is estimated at approxi-
mately 76,000,000 acres, to which the cutting of timber is
adding about 10,000,000 acres each year. Eventually the
total extent of the cut-over timber lands of the South will
be in the neighborhood of 300,000,000 acres, which is
greater than the present unsettled public domain of the
United States. The utilization of these lands is therefore
very much in the nature of a public obligation, and the
immensity of the problem leads me to discuss the subject
somewhat extensively even at the risk of repeating some
of the statements made at your conference in April last.

I shall also take the liberty of touching on some subjects

which do not pertain directly to the necessity for increased

meat production but which are vital in a consideration of

the use of these lands for live stock raising.

The Features Of Constructive Development.

“Permit me to state in simplest terms the principles
of the problem as an introduction to the elaboration of the
argument. The cut-over lands of the South need con-
structive development based on economic possibilities and
economic needs. To develop them for live stock produc-
tion means (1) a minimum requirement for capital, (2)
a minimum need for man power, and (3) the production
of human food for which there is now and has been for
a decade and a half the keenest need and of which there
is very little danger of overproduction. To develop them
at this time as farming regions on the other hand means
(1) exceedingly heavy demands for capital from resources
already taxed to the utmost, (2) a large demand for man
power on a supply already undermanned, and (3) the

production of crops in a market already adequately sup-
plied.

“The question of equipment and man-power seems to
me among the first which must be considered. You
gentlemen are concerned with the effective utilization of
areas of many millions of acres. Livestock ranches of a
hundred thousand acres are common and ranches of
several hundred thousand or even a million acres are in
suecessful operation. The equipment, expense, therefore,
to put into operation the ranching business on these unde-
veloped Southern lands, can be worked out by studying
the requirements shown by the business as already estab-
lished elsewhere in the United States. In proportion to
the total area involved, there does not seem to be anything
insurmountable in this phase of the problem.

“We may take a similar view of the question of man
power. The ranching business is like any other business—
the big, constructive leaders are rare, but, again, like any
other business, there are sufficient well trained men to
take hold of any new development of the business which
is justified by circumstances, which promises to be suc-
cessful and which is backed by sufficient capital to develop
it.

The Question Of Capital.

“Now let us apply these two factors to the develop-
ment of the cut-over lands on a purely agricultural basis
under present conditions. Use the 160 acre homestead
factor and suppose we start in with the 76,000,000 acres
now on our hands. Where, in the first place, would the
money come from to develop more or less half a million
additional farms in this territory? We must not ignore
the fact that the great obstacle to the diversified farming
movement in the South is not the colored brother, nor the
landlord indisposition to grow anything but cotton until
the boll-weevil wakes him up, nor even the cattle tick.

“Tt is the fact that many, if not most of the banks
in the South which make a business of agricultural loans
have only sufficient capital to finance the cotton crop. To
develop these lands as farms will not only require im-
mense sums to equip them, but equally great amounts to
clear them and make them ready for crop production.

With the present shortage of agricultural capital in the
South, it does not require the exercise of much imagina-
tion to realize what would be the effect of an attempt to
develop them at this time as farming regions.

The Problem Of Man Power.

“To get enough competent men to develop these areas
for cattle or sheep ranching will be a serious problem but
not an insoluble one. To get approximately half a million
farmers to develop 160 acre homesteads or a quarter of a
million to develop 320 acre homesteads is a practical im-
possibility. There are approximately six million farmers
in the United States. If the drafting of a small percentage
of their employees into the army is working a hardship on
the owners, what hope is there then to get nearly ten per
cent of the owners of farms elsewhere to undertake the
agricultural development of these cut-over lands? Men
of no experience in agriculture could not be depended upon
if they were available, and this phase of the question
seems to settle itself with a mere statement of the fact.”

It would, therefore, seem to me that while there is no legal
obligation imposed or entailed upon either the man who now owns
a large or small area of the so-called cut-over lands or the timber
operator who is now engaged daily in the production of additional
areas or acres of cut-over land, to do aught than he has hitherto
done, it does seem to me that out of all of the foregoing there arises
a very distinct moral obligation. I would say that ten years ago this
obligation was just beginning to evolve; that twenty-five years ago
it did not exist. Let me be more explicit. Does any one contend
that under our system of property rights that the owner of these
lands has not the right to remove the resources therefrom, provided
always he complies with the regulations locally enforced with
respect to fire and kindred potent possibilities for neighborhood
damage? Having removed the timber and produced an area of cut
over land, no one will dispute his right to have allowed it to again
grow un in trees or to pay taxes thereon and allow it to remain idle
or to decline to pay taxes and allow it to revert to the state and
that for the very simple reason that all things considered his cut-
over lands were in competition with the free public domain of the
United States and all of the education and all of the trend and all

of the psychology of our people was westward and not eastward or
southward ?

An Increasing Moral Obligation.

The world wanted his naval stores and it wanted his lumber
and he had an undoubted right to sever it and sell it and he must
perforce leave a by-product, cut-over lands, behind him and I can-
not consider that there existed either a legal or moral obligation to
do more than that which he did. If there was a great underlying
problem involved, the problem belonged to the state under all the
circumstances then existing rather than to the individual owner.
But it seems to me that beginning about ten years ago there has
been a shifting and while there still remains so far as the legal
obligation is concerned, no change in the status, there has been a
growing and ever increasing moral obligation. And, added to this
there can be no doubt that the assumption of this obligation on the
part of the owner and operators is also fraught with tremendous
possibilities in the way of profit. This is essentially an era of
service. Sooner or later those of our people who are unable to
satisfy their land hunger from the remaining portions of the public
domain, will turn to and should be brought to the more fertile areas
of our cut-over lands of the South. All of this means land classi-
fication and sooner or later land classification must become an
accomplished fact if we are to have a maximum or even a minimum
for that matter, of efficiency with respect to the transition of our
privately owned, idle lands into actual, active agriculture. With
your permission I will quote from an address delivered by me
before the North Carolina State Forestry Association at Wilming-
ton, North Carolina, on January 25th, 1918.

The Necessity For Land Classification.

“It seems to mé that the day has now arrived when
we are face to face with land classification as a basis for
further agricultural development; and with land classifi-
cation there undoubtedly comes reforestation. If I were
to suggest a practical plan of operation of the South
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Area, I would suggest the
enactment by the congress of legislation creating a com-
mission to be composed of one representative from the
Department of Agriculture, one from the Department of
Labor and one from the Department of the Interior which
has been charged with the disposition of the public domain
of the United States. These three should consitute a
permanent federal classification and colonization com-

mission. It is true that they would have no jurisdiction
except in government owned land, but they should stand
ready to aid and assist whenever the state of North Car-
olina or the citizens of that state sees fit to avail them-
selves of the co-operation. I would have them divide the
lands into A, B and C classes.

“Class A—Those immediately available for general
agriculture.

“Class B—Those adapted to grazing and where prac-
ticable, reforestation.

“Class C—Those which will not be during our gen-
eration or the next, fit for either farming or grazing,
those I would devote to reforestation.

“Now comes the crisis of the entire reforestation
problem upon lands under private ownership not within
national forests. Who will defray the expense? Per-
sonally my mind is very conclusively made up—that the
state must either remit the taxes and furish ample pro-
duction for a period of forty years, or else the owners of
such lands must eventually relinquish them to the state
for taxes and the state will find itself under the necessity
of engaging in this form of activity; unless, on the con-
trary, we are going to admit that we are going to continue
to allow the owner or his agent to exploit the poorer areas
for practical development, to the unsuspecting home-
seeker.”

The Situation Summed Up.

So that to sum up in a few words;—the great proportion of
the idle lands of the South are cut-over lands ;—that these lands
have been produced by the naval stores and timber operators that
the flood tide of production is now in the territory of the Southern
Pine Association; that there has never existed and does not now
exist under our great Anglo Saxon system of land tenure, any
legal obligation upon the operator to do aught else than that which
he has done save to properly safe-guard the lives and property of
his neighbors under the local police regulations; that owing to the
shifting of conditions generally and perhaps too a shift in the
public mind and the public attitude, a moral obligation is being
forced upon those who own or who are producing these lands to
aid and assist both collectively and individually in their prepara-
tion for and their actual transition, so far as the more adaptable

and more fertile areas are concerned into the hands of actual
settlers for general agricultural purposes; that pending the day
when there shall be a sufficient number of applicants to people all
of this area, it should be classified and that which it not now
fit for immediate profitable, general agriculture should both
individually and collectively be devoted as far as possible to the
production of live stock and the still less adaptable areas to the
reproduction of timber; that the Federal Government has no direct
legal responsibility in the premises but she has a moral obligation
and she would, no doubt, acknowledge it and stand ready to co-
operate out of the abundance of her knowledge and experience in
disposing of the public domain; that the various states affected will
co-operate when an awakened public conscience has been brought
to see the necessity; that the primary move which by every con-
sideration is fraught with expectation of profit, must come from
the owners of these lands themselves acting intelligently, unitedly,
concertedly and with persistent purpose and sustained effort.

Soldiers Who Will Turn To Farming.

There is one other phase that I cannot conclude without
referring to. These United States in support of a great principle
of humanity, in support of common justice, in support of decency
amongst nations, has entered the great world’s struggle. How long
or how short its duration no man can say. Sooner or later we will
be mobilized a million, two million, or even five million of the
flower of American manhood. The experience of all wars tends to
point that the majority of these men will never again return to
sedentary life; that their preference will be for the great out of
doors. Where shall they go? Remain in Europe, go to South
America, Australia, Asia, or come back to take their place in the
great upward march of the great American Republic? What would
be more to the point than to prepare to give these men available
homesteads? Remember, the public domain is gone. The approxi-
mate 300,000,000 acres of land remaining in the South Atlantic
and Gulf States is the only great body of low price lands on the
American continent capable of high development. It is under
private ownership. There is no legal obligation on the part of the
United States government and none on the part of the states to
meet this problem, but to my mind there is a tremendous moral
obligation. Whether it will be ultimately met remains to be seen.
Recently the National House of Representatives by a vote of 101

to 31 declined to take this question under consideration at this
time, holding that we were now mostly concerned with winning the
war, and not with what we would do after the war had closed.
Nevertheless, I apprehend that this question will not down. Eng-
land has foreseen it, and is preparing for it and has been for some
time past. A commission headed by Sir Rider Haggard has been
making a thorough investigation with respect to the available land
in Great Britain, of the Colonial possessions available after the war
for agricultural pursuits for her demobilized soldiers.

In an article prepared a few weeks since with respect to this
question I used the following language:

A Federal Classification Commission.

“It has always seemed to the writer that sooner or
later since the near exhaustion of the public domain, that
we must come to land classification as a basis for intelli-
gen, efficient, and economic use of our remaining unused
lands, especially for agricultural purposes. A reference
to the census returns very readily indicates the areas of
unused and idle lands in the respective states. Great areas
are to be found in the upper lake states, known as cut-
over lands. Quite a respectable balance sheet is to be
found in some of the middle Atlantic and even in the New
England states, known as abandoned farms. Millions
upon millions of acres can be found in the Southern states
and quite a balance in the Southwestern states and still
other areas in the Pacific northwest. Is it not good
reasoning to assume that only the very fertile areas
should be adapted to our requirements and that as our
requirements lengthen through the years and our standard
perhaps lowers, that the less fertile areas be then
absorbed? Ought we allow the less fertile areas to be
exploited from the purely commercial standpoint, to the
unsuspecting and uninitiated but willing seeker for agri-
cultural lands? It was earnestly to have been hoped that
Congress would have seen fit to have established a com-
mission in Washington, of one representative from the De-
partment of Labor, one representative from the Depart-
ment of the Interior and one representative from the De-
partment of Agricultural these three representing the
respective secretaries in charge of these Departments;

these three to be known as the Federal Commission on
Land Classification and Agricultural Development and
Colonization.

Directing The Seeker For Land.

“Whenever a state or the citizens of a state should
see fit to avail themselves of the services of that commis-
sion, a classification of any lands within the state could
be had, fixing the economic area of each unit, adaptability
to use and financing through the Federal Farm Loan
Bank would seem easy of accomplishment. The joint
state and Federal commissions having pronounced their
judgment, it remains for the owner to comply or other-
wise. If he accepted the classification and the so called
standardization with respect to the area of unit, adapta-
bility and financing, the Federal Government and the
State Government should undertake to turn the seeker in
his direction. In the case of demobilized soldier, it ought
to be very easy for the Federal Government to ascertain
before discharge his wishes in the premises. In other
words, we ought to have some preparation for him when
the day of demobilization comes. If it is left to private
citizens, human nature, being as it is, we are quite likely
to fail utterly. Since congress made its recent pronounce-
ment, the questions arise—Was it worth doing? Is it
worth doing? Will congress yet realize that it perhaps
passed over a wonderful opportunity to lay a foundation,
strong and enduring, against the rising tide of social
unrest within our gates? It would seem now to rest upon
the erystallization of public sentiment and expressed
demand for early solution.”

The Land Owner’s Great Opportunity.

As a concluding word, I would say to the members of the
Southern Pine Association that there has never existed such an
opportunity as does exist today in their hands for concrete con-
structive work of fundamental advantage both to the nation and
to the state and that there is also the added advantage and lure
of profit far greater perhaps than that which has come to them
hitherto from the exploitation of the naval stores and timber.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

(iii)