.'iM
Given By
^3rU \\- ovi*'<^^^^^iAiL
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE TO ISYESTIGATE THE
INTEESTATE MIGRATION OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS
HOUSE OF BEPEESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS
THIRD SESSION
PtTRSUANT TO
H.Res. 63, 491,and629
RESOLUTIONS TO INQUIRE INTO THE INTERSTATE
MIGRATION OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS, TO STUDY,
SURVEY, AND INVESTIGATE THE SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC NEEDS AND THE MOVEMENT OF
INDIGENT PERSONS ACROSS STATE LINES
PART 8
WASHINGTON, D. C, HEARINGS
NOVEMBER 29, DECEMBER 2, 3, 1940
Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO
H. Res. 113
A RESOLUTION TO INQUIRE FURTHER INTO THE INTERSTATE
MIGRATION OF CITIZENS, EMPHASIZING THE PRESENT
AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MIGRA-
TION CAUSED BY THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE PROGRAM
INDEX TO PART 11
WASHINGTON HEARINGS
MARCH 24, 25, 26, 1941
Printed for the use of the Select Committee Investigating
National Defense Migration
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1941
JJ. S. SUPER1NTFNDEM 1 ^^^ iwuufetiVu
SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING NATIONAL-DEFENSE
MIGRATION
JOHN H. TOLAN, California, Chairman
LAURENCE F. ARNOLD, Illinois CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Alabama FRANK C. OSMERS, Jr., New Jersey
Robert K. Lamb, Staff Director
Mary Dublin, Coordinator of Hearings
John W. Abbott, Chief Field Investigator
Harold D. Cullen, Asuociate Editor
Josef Berger, Associate Editor
NOTE
This index has been prepared for the use of Members of the Con-
gress, other Government officials, and others who have occasion to
refer to the hearings of this committee. It may be inserted in the
back of part 11 for ready reference.
A comprehensive topical index covering parts 1 to 10, inclusive
(dealing especially the subject of interstat'e migration) will be found
in part 10. In part 12 and all succeeding parts, a topical index is
found in each individual volume.
INDEX
Agriculture: Page
Defense housing to be rebuilt on farms after emergency, _ 4410
Training courses for rural youth under National Youth
Administration 4324
Aircraft industry. (See also under Employment, Defense and
Industry, Aircraft.)
Alabama: Migrant problems summarized 4619-4623
Albany, N. Y.: Commimity problems surveyed 4256
Bath, Maine:
Migrant problems surveyed 4598
Report, effect of defense program on child welfare in area. _ 4499
Budgets: Requirements for public-health activities by Army
corps areas (tabulations) 4377
Burbank, Calif. : Community problems surveyed 4258
Bureau of Employment Security (see also Office of Education) :
Forecasting employment needs 4324
Labor surveys in San Diego, Calif 4315
Need for accessible employment offices 4296
Personnel listings in job areas 4273
Radio as employment medium 4296, 4308
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Analyses of employment trends and defense labor require-
ments 444 1-4447
Estimated labor requirements, aii'craft industry (with
tables and charts) 4450-4464
Estimated labor requirements, shipbuilding industry
(with tables and charts) 4464-4482
Burlington, Iowa: Survey of health and medical-care needs in
defense area 4353
California: Migrant problems of State summarized 4703
Camp at Anniston, Ala. (see also Fort McClellan, Ala.):
Attitude of townspeople toward 4292
Camp Biandmg, Fla.:
Commuting problems at 4322
Construction on 4266,4268,4297,4304
Recruiting of labor for construction 4482
Survey of health and medical care needs in defense
area 4348-4349
Camp Croft, Spartanburg, S. C: Relocation problems under
defense program 4752-4754
Camp Joseph T. Robinson, Little Rock, Ark.: Survey of health
and medical care needs in defense area 4354-4356
Camp Livingston, La.: Construction work on 4267
Camp Murray. (See under Fort Lewis, Tacoma, Wash.)
Camp Shelby, Miss.: Survey of health and medical care
needs in defense area 4350-4351
1
2 INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Pag«
Camp Stewart, Hinesville, Ga.: Relocation problems under
defense program 4742-4749
Casper, Wyo. : Community problems surveyed 4258
Cliarlestown, Ind.:
General problems occasioned by defense prograrti 4284
Survey of health and medical care needs in defense
area 4351-4352
Child Welfare: Reports by Childrens Bureau on effect of defense
program in named areas 4498-4505
Childersburg, Ala.:
Community problems surveyed 4256
Relocationproblems under defense program _ _ _ _ 4622, 4754-4755
Civilian Conservation Corps: Traming courses, importance of _ 4324
Colorado: Migrant problems in State summarized 4686-4688
Columbus, Ohio : Community problems surveyed 4257
Community facilities in defense areas:
Community centers, need for provision of 4328, 4329
Inadeciuacies in face of defense influx 4325, 4526
Mobile school and laundry units 44 1 5
Need for coordinated planning for 4265
Payments in lieu of taxes for 4419
Recreation. (S'^e w^rfer Recreation.)
Recreational activities, need for provision of 4328,
4329, 4582-4585, 5669
Sanitary conditions compared with air raid shelters in
England 4326
Schools (see also under Schools):
Expansion requirements in District of Columbia 4513-
4525, 4547
Legal limitations on increase for capital outlay and
current expenses 4327-4328
Need for assumption of responsibility by Federal
Government 4378-4382
Surveys of general needs in designated localities 4256-4258
Connecticut: Child welfare surveys 4498-4499
Corpus Christi, Tex.: Survey of health and medical care needs
in defense area 4357-4358
Davenport, Iowa: Survey of health and medical care needs in
defense area 4353
Defense program {see also Community facilities in defense
areas) :
Amounts involved in expansion of plant capacity, by
regions (table) 4449
Concentration of defense industrial demands 4449, 4450
Digest of developments in named localities 4360-4371
Labor requirements forecast 4443
Need for coordinated planning 4302-4305, 4496
Need for relief of transients increased by- 4329
Percent distribution of direct defense contracts by States
(map) 4766
Population increases in Charlestown, Ind., as example 4330
Recommendations and report of school needs in defense
areas 4378-4409
Strain on community and school facilities by 4326-4327
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 3
Defeiise program — Continued. Faga
Survey of community problems under 4256-4258
Value of civilian morale in 433 1
Demountable housing. (See under Housing; see also under
Division of Defense Housing Coordination.)
District of Columbia (see also under Schools; see also under
Housing) :
Anticipated labor needs 4489-4490
Child-welfare interviews 4504-4505
Health problems and public health facilities 4571, 4572
Housing requirements under defense program. _ 4552-4554, 4563
Migrant problems summarized 4729-4732
Substandard housing in 4565, 4570-457 1
Division of Defense Housing Coordination:
Cooperates with Bureau of Employment Security 4315
Discourages nondefense migration by exclusion from
program 4319
Distributes housing allocations between Government and
private industry 4413
General duties outlined 4313
Homes registration offices 4319, 4417
List of requested labor surveys, by localities 4320, 4321
Policy, to keep construction at a mmimum during emer-
gency 4420
Selects construction agency for defense housing 4410
Sphere of activity 43 12
Types of housing provided by 43 14
Types of restrictions upon sphere of operations 4311-4312,
4317-4318
Education. (See under Schools; see also under Vocational
training.)
Employment:
Advertising by radio recommended 4295, 4296
Defense see also under Industry):
Aircraft Industry:
Employee and pay-roll increases (chart) 4448
Employee totals, by regions (tables) __ 4452,4453,4460
Estimated anticipated new workers 4455
Estimated totals by months 4455
Index of employment 4456
Labor turn-over as factor in migration 4490.
4492-4493
Labor requirements estimated (with tables and
charts) 4450-4464
New air-frame assembly workers required, by
occupation, region, and total (table) 4463
New engme and propeller assembly workers re-
quired, by occupation, region, and total
(table) 4464
New workers required, by location (map) 446 1
New workers required, site of final assembly, by
occupation (chart) 4462
New workers required to complete program
(chart) 4458
Potential labor requirements analyzed 4459
4 INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Employment — Continued.
Defense — Continued.
Aii'craft industry — Continued. Pag«
Total employees, plants of final assembly (table). 4460
Total employment, annual averages (chart) 4457
Wases and hours, averages and quit rates (with
tables) - 4490-4492
Analysis of employment trends and labor require-
ments .\ 4441-4447
Anticipated labor needs in San Diego, Calif 44S8
Anticipated labor needs, Seattle-Tacoma area 4503
Anticipated labor needs, Washington (D. C.) area
(with table) --_- 4489-4490
Anticipated labor needs, Wichita. Kans. (with
table) - ----- 4485-4486
Anticipated labor requu^ements, by occupation. _ 4460-4464
Du'ect defense contracts and Work Projects Adminis-
tration employment, by States (chart) 4764
Distribution of, by sections 4323
Distribution of primary- defense contracts in relation
to labor, by regions 4768-4770
Effect of defense program on coal-mining industry. 4732— i733
Expansion totals, nonagricuhural 4440,
4441^442, 4447
Manufacturers' estimates of labor needs bv indus-
tries -_ r_-- 4443-4447
Month-to-month variations. Work Projects Admin-
istration report (with tables and charts) 4759-4770
Need for migration guidance by Employment
Service 4485
New employees in District of Coliunbia area 4552— i553,
4559, 5663
Recruitment, as increasing migrant problem 4323
Relation of dkect contracts to employment, by
States (charts) 4763-4765
Shipbuildmg mdustiy:
Additional slolled workers needed, by occupations
(chart) 1 4481
Additional workers needed, by area (map) 4478
Additional workers needed, by occupation
(table) - 4479,4480
Annual averages and estimates (chart) 4473
Anticipated future labor requirements, bv cities
(table) -^ 4484
Effect of labor turn-over on new workers re-
quired 4474
Employment totals analyzed (with table).-- 4470-4471-
4474
Labor turn-over rates per 100 on pay roll (chart) _ 4476
Monthly labor turn-over rates, private ship-
^ yards 4474
New worker requirements, by months (table and
chart) 4474. 4475
Total employment estimates, by area (with
table) ' - 4477
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION
O
Employment — Continued.
Defense — Continued. Page
Total employment on United States vessel con-
struction (chart) 4472
Unemployment among skilled labor in 4482
Wages and hours 4494^495
Discrimination against local workers 4281
Industrial:
Alcoholic beverages industries, by States (table) -1423
Building materials industries (table) 4421
Changes in manufacturing industries, by States and
industry (table) 4424-4433
Commuting areas, New England 4281, 4497
Declines in number of wage earners, by industrv 4434
Dilution of skilled workers in I _'_ 4270.4272
Employees, nonagricultiu-al, by States (table) 4434-4440
Employers' attitude toward migrants 4290
Geographical trends 4430
Increases, by industry 4433
Labor supply. New England 42S1
Manufacturing industries (table) 442 1-4422
Motor vehicle industries (table) 4423
Rubber-tire and umer tube industries (table) 4423
Southern labor pool 4301
Spreading of work areas, suggested ^ 4300
Teclmological unemployment 4299-4300
Interrelation of agricultural and industrial labor proDiei^is. 4264
Surveys by Bureau of Employment Security 4315
Unemployment: Percent distribution, by States (map)-__ 4767
Wages and hours:
Spread, in New England 4277
Unemployment compensation pavment increases sug-
gested! 1 4334.4335
Employment Service. {See tinder Bureau of Employment
Security.)
Fama Security Administration:
Defense housing project at Radford, Va 4410
Defense land purchases, displacement and relocation prob-
lems... __ 4264,4735-4755
Federal Housing Administration: Construction surveys 4319
Federal Security Agency: Surveys of health and medical-care
needs in defense areas summarized 4340-4373
Federal Works Agency: Authority to select housing construc-
tion agency 4410
Florida: Migrant problems in State sumimarized 4619
Fonda Mesa. {See under San Diego, Calif.)
Fore River Shipyard: Private housing program in 4412-4413
Fort Belvoir, Alexandria. Va.: Survey of health and medical-
care needs in defense area 4341-4342
Fort Benning, Columbus. Ga.: Survey of health and medical-
care needs in defense area . 4347-4348
60396—41 2
Q INDEX TO AVASHINGTON HEARINGS
Fort Bragg, Fayettesville, N. C: Page
Commuting of workers at 4322
Construction on 4260, 4263
Digest of defense developments on 4364-4365
Survey of health and medical-care needs in defense area., 4349
Fort Eustis, Va. {See under Newport News (Va.) area.)
Fort Jackson, Columbus, S. C:
Digest of defense developments on 4368-4370
Displacement problems 4749-4751
Fort Lewis area, Wash.:
Digest of defense developments on 4370-4371
Survey of health and medical-care needs in defense
area 4358-4359
Fort McClellan, Anniston, Ala.:
Attitude of townspeople toward 4292
Digest of defense developments on 4367-4368
Fort Myer, Arlington, Va.: Survey of health and medical-care
needs in defense area 4342
Fort Story and naval area, Va.: Survey of health and medical
care needs in defense area 4344-4345
Fortress Monroe, Va.: Survey of health and medical care needs
in defense area - 4346
Fourth category of relief. (See under Social Security Board;
see also under Travelers Aid Societies.)
Grants in aid. {See under Social Security Board.)
Hampton Roads area, Virginia:
Digest of defense developments on 4360-4364
Housing program, projects approved in (table) 4362
Health {see also under Housmg) :
Communicable diseases, nonenforcement of laws regu-
lating 4269
Conditions in camps, general 4269
Digest of defense developments in named localities relating
to .--.-.---. 4362,4365,4367,4368-4370
Federal responsibility in defense areas 4279
Garbage and trash collection and disposal, estimated costs
by Army Corps Area 4378
Hazards for construction workers in Army camp areas 4279
Hazards in overcrowding 4259,4261, 4284
Mosquito control, estimated costs by Army Corps Area__ 4378
Problems created by migratory movements 4325, 4326
Public water supply, requirements by Army Corps Area_ _ 4377
Rodent control, estimated costs by Army Corps Area 4378
Sanitary privies, requirements by Army Corps Area 4378
Sewage disposal, requirements by Army Corps Area 4378
Surveys of health and medical care needs in defense
areas 4340-4360
Venereal disease in South 4280
Wells, requirements by Army Corps Areas 4378
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION 7
Page
Housing {see also under Division of Defense Housing Coordina-
tion ; see also under Surveys — Health and medical care needs
in defense areas) :
Defense:
Allocations in Muscle Shoals area 44 13
Allocations of dwelling units, totals 4313
Concentrations of dwelling units 4314
Construction contracts, totals 4313
Contractors' responsibility for workers 4317-4318
Determination of construction agency in _ _ 4410
Digest of defense developments in named localities 4361 ,
4364, 4367, 4369, 4370, 4372
Dwelling units completed, totals 4313
East Hartford (Conn.) trailer camps 4274
Estimated total requirements 4416
Expansion of school facilities required by (table) 4380
Hampton Roads area housing program (table) 4362
New construction in District of Columbia area_ _ 4566, 4567
Problem of utilities for demountable houses 4275
Requirements anticipated through labor surveys 4316
Requirements by Armv Corps Area (tabulations) 4377-
4378
Requirements in Pennsylvania defense areas 4608-4610
Temporary shelter, provision of 4314
Families of enlisted personnel, no provision for in program _ 4318
Federal Housing Administration construction surveys 43 19
Home and room registration 4319
Market analyses by Federal agencies 44 14
Overcrowding in Charlesto"\vn, Ind i 4284-4286
Overcrowding in District of Columbia 4554-4564, 4572
Private building in San Diego 4315
Program in Europe, 1918-34 4412
Program in Holland, 1911-34 4411,4417,4418
Rehousing problem occasioned by Government land
purchases 4267
Rent control, to be applied only as last resort 4417
Rent rises, Alexandria, La 4269
Rent rises in District of Columbia 4555, 4558, 4564
Rent rises, general T 4261
Slum clearance legislation 4418
Slums in District of Columbia 441 1
Social aspects of rehousing 4411, 4412
Washington Housing Association, composition of board. _ 4561
Idaho : Migrant problems in State summarized 470 1
Illinois: Migrant problems in Will County summarized 4647
Indiana: Migrant problems in State summarized 4644-4645, 4648
Indianapolis, Ind. : Commimity problems surveyed 4257
Indus tiy:
Aircraft:
Floor space requirements, principal factories (table). 4454
Labor turn-over as factor in migration 4490, 4492, 4493
Manufacturers' estimates of future labor require-
ments 4443-4446, 4455
o INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Industry — Contmued.
Aircraft — Contmued. ^age
Principal firms producing military engines, with
amounts of orders (table) --_ 4453
Principal firms producing military planes, with
amounts of orders (table) 4452
United States Government advances for expansion
(table) 4451
Coal mining: Lack of labor variations in 4732-4733
Defense centers: "Boom towns" pictured 4259
Defense contracts:
Concentration of activities by 4324
Labor distribution under . 4223
Defense plant expansion, distribution of amounts involved
in (table) 4449
Shipbuilding:
Capital advancement for, by United States Govern-
ment (with table) 4470
Construction contracts, totals 4464-4465
Construction on United States Government vessels,
by type and value of contract (table) 4467-4469
Migration of skilled labor in (with table) 4483-4484
Types of vessels included in construction program
(with table) 4465-4466
Sugar-beet industry:
Mexican migrant workers, interstate transportation
for 4698-4699, 4773-4822
Specimens of agreement between grower and field
worker 4784-4786,4797-4799
Specimen of settlement account between grower and
worker 4801
Specimens of agreement between grower and employ-
ment agency____ 4806-4812
Kansas: Migrant problems in State summarized 4691-4694
Kentucky: Migrant problems in State summarized 4627-4631
Labor. {See under Employment.)
Labor, Department of. {See under Child Welfare.)
Labor Surveys by location 4320-4321
Langley Field, Va. {See under Newport News area.)
Lanham Act. {See under Federal Works Agency ; see also under
Legislation.)
Legislation:
H. R. 3570, construction of physical facilities in defense
areas 4330
Lanham bill. Public 849, housing restrictions 4410
Public 781, housing restrictions for Army and Navy 4410
S. R. 324, authorizing study of school facilities in defense
areas, cited — 4379
Slum clearance under George-Healcy Act and United
States Housing Authority Act of 1917____ 4418
Louisiana: Transient problems in State summarized 4662-4672
Louisville, Ky . : Community problems surveyed 4256
Louisville and Hnrden County, Ky.: Child welfare interviews, 4500
Maryland: Migrant problems in State summarized 4611-4612
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION Q
Page
Massachusetts: Benefits to State from defense program.. 4599-4600
M'Chord Field. {See Fort Lewis, Tacoma, Wash.)
Mechanization: Labor displacement caused by ■ 4310
Mexican labor. {See under Sugar-beet industry.)
Michigan: Migrant problems in State summarized 4649-4669
Migration {See also Recreation):
Causes:
Extension of employment radius thi'ough automobile. 4274
Geographical location of plants 4291
Inadequate vocational training 4333
Mobihty of populations 4263, 4274
Summarization of 4258
Tendency to seek new frontiers 4289, 4292
Unscientific recruitment 4323, 4497
Distribution of migratory load at Jefferson City, Tenn_ 4260, 4268
Effects on established community " 4275, 4276
Efforts to meet problem at Portsmouth, N. H 4275
Estimated totals, migrant defense workers 4415
Guidance by United States Employment Service recom-
mended 4485, 4495, 4496
Health problems in new concentrations 4325
Increased by reliance on prime contractors 4482
In-migration:
Points of destination ^ 4255
Sources in Wichita, Kans . 4486
Tennessee Valley Authority policies at Jefferson
City, Tenn 4260, 4268, 4269
Labor turn-over in aircraft mdustry as factor in 4490,
4492, 4493, 4495
Local attitudes toward 4291,4297, 4604
Public Health Service estimates of movement, totals 4330
Relation to Army construction projects 4260, 4263, 4267
School children. {See under Schools.)
Skilled labor in shipbuilding industry (with table) 4483, 4484
Skilled labor, need for directed movements of 4324
Social problems arising out of 4325
Sources of defense migration 4267, 4604
Surveys in designated localities 4256, 5258
To national defense centers — 38 reports. {See under area or
State designation) 4597-4733
Transient relief by Travelers Aid Societies 4585-4595
Types of movement analyzed, construction workers 4322
Types of movement:
Industrial to large centers 4322
Industrial to small centers 4322
Military 4322
Tourist as Federal problem 4294, 4295, 4297
Useless 4323
Useless, as contributing factor in housing problem 4416
Migratory life:
Savings programs of and for persons in 4277 ,
4278, 4286, 4287, 4288
Social consequences of 4274
IQ INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Page
Minnesota: Migrant problems in State summarized 4659-4660
Missom'i: Migrant problems in State summarized. _ 4647, 4660-4662
Montana:
Migratory farm-labor problems summarized 4698-4699
Out-migrant problem summarized 4700
Montgomery, Ala.: Community problems surveyed 4256
Muscle Shoals, Ala . : D ef ense housing allocations 44 13
Nashville, Tenn. : Community problems surveyed 4257
National Resources Planning Board: Cooperation with Social
Security Board 4331
National Youth Administration: Establishment of 1,000 rural
workshops 4324
Nebraska: Migrant problems in State summarized 4694-4697
Nevada: Migrant problems summarized 4702
New Hampshire: No migrant problems in State 4599
New Jersey: Migrant problems in State summarized 4610-4611
New Mexico: Migrant transients passing through State
(table) ' 4688-4690
Newport News area, Virginia:
Digest of defense developments 4360
Survey of health and medical care needs in defense area. _ 4346
New York State: Migrant problems in State summarized- 4603-4606
North Carolina:
Labor placements by Employment Service 4613-4616
Migrant problems in State summarized 4616-4619
North Dakota: Migrant problems in State summarized 4648
Occupational concentration of defense program - 4324
Office of Coordinator of Health, Welfare, and Related Defense
Activities: Digest of defense developments in named areas
by 4360-4371
Office of Education (see also under Bureau of Employment
Security) : Recommendations and report on school needs in
defense areas . 4378-4409
Office of Production Management: Suggestion for assistance in
post-emergency planning 4336
Ohio: Migrant problems in State summarized 4631-4644, 4649
Oregon: Migrant problems in State summarized 4709-4724
Photographs:
Migrant workers in defense centers 4568-F-4568-P
Housmg conditions in District of Columbia area
4568-A-4568-D
Pennsylvania: Migrant problems in State summarized 4606-4610
Population :
Increases under defense program at Charlestown, Ind 4330
Mobility of, m United States 4294, 4295, 4306
Present and expected increase in defense areas (tables) 4373-4376
Portland, Maine: Migrant problems in State summarized, 4597-4598
Portland , Oreg. : Community problems surveyed 4256
Post-emergency planning:
At—
Muscle Shoals, Ala _. _ 4273
Radford, Va 4273
Federal aid required for 4276
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION H
Post-emergency planning — Continued. Page
Housing replanning 44 12
Industrial problems, general 4270, 4271
Need for coordination of Federal activities in 4335-4337
Need for increase of opportunities for employment 4307
Relief for nonsettled persons 4330
Resettlement problems in 4309
Public-works program suggested 4282
Urgency of need for 4283
Providence, R. I.: Community problems surveyed 4258
Public Health. (See under Health; see also under Community
services in defense areas.)
Public Health Service:
Defense migration totals as estimated by 4330
Methodology in surveys and reports by 4371-4373
Population and expected increase in defense areas, tabula-
tions by - 4373-4376
Surveys of health and medical-care needs in defense
areas __. _ _ 4340-4360
Public services (see also under Community facilitiesin defense areas):
Federal responsibility in defense areas 4299
Pulaski County, Mo.: Communitv problems surveyed 4256
Radford, Va.:
Defense housing project at 4410, 4414
Relocation problems 4739-4740
Recreation (see also under Community facilities in defense
areas) :
Digest of defense developments in named localities 4363,
4365,4367,4369,4371
Problems arising from defense migration into District of
Columbia area 4581-4585
Relief:
Fourth category of. (See under Social Security Board;
see also under Travelers Aid Societies.)
Magnet for migration 4339, 4340
Report and recommendations on school needs in defense areas
by United States Office of Education 4378-4409
Rhode Island: Defense-program requirements in State 4600-4603
Riclunond, Va. : Community problems surveyed 4258
Rock Island Arsenal, 111.: Survey of health and medical care
needs in defense area 4352-4353
Sacramento, Calif.: Community problems surveyed 4257
San Antonio, Tex.:
Community problems surveyed 4257
Survey of health and medical care needs in defense area__ 4356-
4357
San Diego, Calif.:
Child welfare interviews 450 1-4503
Defense labor needs 4488
Dwelling units constructed, totals 4315
Fonda Mesa project 4316
Housmg problems 44 15
Labor surveys 4315
Survev of health and medical care needs in defense area__ 4359-
4360
12 INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Page
San Francisco, Calif.: Labor requirements in area 4494
Schools (see also under Vocational training) :
In defense areas:
Congressional appropriation for 4304
Estimated additional families, pupils, and teachers by-
State and area (tables) 4383-4387,4388-4389
Estimated capital outlay and current expense require-
ments per child of school age (table) 4381
Estimated capital outlay and current expense require-
ments, totals 4381
Estimates of funds needed for plants, transportation,
and salaries:
Off Federal reservations (tables). 4396-4402,4406-4409
On Federal reservations (tables). 4390-4395, 4403-4405
Financial problems:
Legal restrictions on capital outlays 4327
Legal restrictions on increases for current expenses. 4327,
4328
Inability of communities to provide facilities 4382
Obligation of Federal Government to assume re-
sponsibility for 4382
Overcrowding 4262, 4285
Report and recommendations on needs by Office of
Education 4378-4409
Study of facilities at or near navy yards 4327
Summaries of anticipated school populations (table) _ 4380
Intrasemester turn-overs in District of Columbia area 4525
Migration of school children into District of Columbia,
report of Superintendent of Schools 4507-4543
Seattle-Tacoma area, Washington:
Child-welfare interviews 4503
Community problems surveyed 4258
Defense laljor needs summarized 4503
Settlement laws:
Lack of uniformity in 4309
Recommendations for abolishment of 4592
Social Security Board (see also Bureau of Employment Secur-
ity):
Recommendations of:
Fourth category of relief, establishment of 4330-4332
Variable grants for general rehef 4332-4333, 4337-4338
Surveys (see Work Projects Administration):
Community problems in designated localities 4256-4258
Employment in San Diego, Calif., area 4315
Federal Housing Administration construction surveys 4319
Health and medical care needs in defense areas 4340-4371
Housing market surveys 44 14
Labor, by locahties : _ _ . 4320-4321
Vacancies in District of Columbia by Work Projects Ad-
ministration 4552, 4553, 4560
Taxes: Gross income tax for relief purposes recommended 4333
Tennessee: Migrant problems in State summarized 4623-4627
NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION J3
Tennessee Valley Authority: Page
Assumption of responsibility for public health on projects
of- - - - 4280
Housing in Muscle Shoals area 44 13
Migration poUcies of 4260, 4268-4269
Texas: Migrant problems in State summarized 4673-4686
Topeka, Kans. : Community problems surveyed 4257
Travelers Aid Societies: Transient relief for defense migrants
supplied by 4585-4595
Tuberculosis: Percentages and mortality rates in District of
Columbia 4576-4577
Unemployment compensation: Value of increased pay-
ments 4308,4309
Utah: Migrant problems in State summarized 470 1-4702
United States Government:
Bankhead-Jones tenant-purchase program, effect of land
purchases 4264
Bureau of Employment Security. _ _ 4273, 4296, 4308, 4315, 4324
Bureau of Labor Statistics 444 1-4447, 4450-4482
Children's Bureau 4498-4505
Civilian Conservation Corps 4324
Department of Labor 4498-4505
Dislocation of landowners under defense-land purchases. _ 4266
Division of Defense Housing Coordination 4311-
4321,4410-4420
Farm Security Administration 4264-4410, 4735-4755
Federal Housing Administration 4319
Federal Security Agency 4340-4373
Federal Works Agency ^ 4410
Office of Coordinator of Health, Welfare, and Related
Defense Activities 4360-4371
Office of Education 4378-4409
Office of Production Management 4336
Public Health Service 4330, 4340-4360, 4371-4376
Rehef , provision by, discussed 4337, 4338, 4339
Responsibility in defense expansion '_ ' 4299
Social Security Board 4330-4333, 4337-4338
Tennessee^ Valley Authority 4260, 4268-4269, 4280, 44 1 3
Work Projects Administration; 4757-4770
Virginia: Migrant problems in State summarized ~_4612-4613
Venereal disease: District of Columbia ratios 4576
Vocational training:
Advertising by training schools, examples 4679-4684
Advocated as part of public education system 4333-4334
Integration of courses 4324, 4604
Hartford (Conn.) night schools ' 4272
Helena (Mont.) high school airplane courses _. 4290
Needed to supply defense labor requirements 4447
San Diego (Calif.) training program 4488
Seattle-Tacoma program 4487
Training school "rackets" 4272
Wichita (Kans.) refresher courses 4485-4486
]^4 INDEX TO WASHINGTON HEARINGS
Pag«
Wages and hours. {See under Employment; see also under
Industry, Aircraft.)
Washington wState: Migrant problems summarized 4724-4729
Welfare^ public: Federal responsibility for, under defense
program 4280
Wichita, Kans.:
Anticipated defense labor needs summarized 4485-4486, 4496
Survey of health and medical care needs in defense area-- 4353-
4354
Work Projects Administration:
Report on depressed areas in defense program 4757-4759
Report on employment variations 4759-4770
Wyoming: Migrant problems summarized 4700-4701
X
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
INTEESTATE MIGEATION OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS
HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS
THIRD SESSION
PURSUANT TO
H.Res. 63, 491,and629
RESOLUTIONS TO INQUIRE INTO THE INTERSTATE
MIGRATION OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS, TO STUDY,
SURVEY, AND INVESTIGATE THE SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC NEEDS, AND THE MOVEMENT OF
INDIGENT PERSONS ACROSS STATE LINES
PART 8
WASHINGTON, D. C, HEARINGS
NOVEMBER 29, DECEMBER 2, 3, 1940
Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens
n;.^/o
%
.§>
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1941
ti, & SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMtWll
JUN 10 ib^,
/H*. ^-/o
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERSTATE MIGRATION
OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS
JOHN H. TOLAN, California, Chairman
CLAUDE V. PARSONS, Illinois CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Alabama FRANK C. OSMERS, JE., New Jersey
Dr. Robert K. Lamb, Chief Investigator
ViKGiNiA Elliott, Acting Seeretary
Richard S. Blaisdbll, Editor
Harold D. Cur,LBN, Associate Editor
^ lif^
LIST OF WITNESSES
Washington Hearings, November 29, December 2, 3, 1940
Page
Alter, Ben K., operator and repairman on mine macliinery ; address, 520
Bear Valley Avenue, Shamokin, Pa 3437
Bondv, Robert E , Director, Public Welfare Board, District of Columbia ;
address, Washington, D. C 3109,3117
Casaday, L. W., labor economist, Maritime Labor Board ; address, Wash-
ington, D. C 3400
Dodd, Maj. Charles H., divisional commander, the Salvation Army ; ad-
dress, Washington, D. C 3154
Evans, Rudolph M., Administrator, Agricultural Adjustment Administra-
tion, Department of Agriculture ; address, Washington, D. C 3229, 3235
Fleming, Col. Philip B., Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Depart-
ment of Labor; address, Washington, D. C 3368,3370
Haller, Mabel, assistant clerlv of Conmiittee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives ; address, Washington, D. C 3089
Hetzel, Ralph, Jr., director of the unemployment division. Congress of
Industrial Organizations; address, Wasliinnton, D. C 3409,3414,3427
Houston, Charles H., associate counsel, Narioual Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People ; address, 615 F Street NW., Washington,
D. C - 3154
Jones, Alice Elizabeth, executive secretary, Washington Travelers' Aid
Society; address, Washington, D. C 3154
Lapp, Mrs. Roy, wife of migrant electrician from IVIaryland ; address,
Rhode.sdale, Md 3221
Lewis, Macon, 18-year-old former farm worker ; address, Sullivan Annex,
Wilson, N. C 3432
Linden, David G., assistant director for nonresident service. Public Assist-
ance Department, District of Columbia ; address, Washington, D. C_ 3109, 3130
Linzel, Mrs. Frank A., chairman, family welfare division, Council of
Social Agencies; address, Washington, D. C 3154
Lynch, Hurcles Ronnell, former farmer from Tennessee; address, Cheri-
ton, Va 3187
McKenney, Clarence, lather from Virginia ; address, 518 Thirteenth Street
NE., Washington, D. C 3150
O'Connor, Mrs. John J., chairman, transient committee, Council of Social
Agencies ; address, Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C 3154
Packard, Walter E., private consultant ;. address, Berkeley, Calif 3267,3303
Perkins, Hon. Frances, Secretarv of Labor; address, Washington, D. C 3329,
3338, 3359
Randolph, Hon. Jennings, Member of Congress from West Virginia,
chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representa-
tives; address, Washington, D. C 3089
Richard, Dwight, former salesman and laborer, from Texas ; address,
Washington, D. C 3101
Robinson, Edward, tailor, resident in Washington, formerly from Swan-
sea, S. C. ; address, 222 K Street NW., Washington, D. C 3146
Ruhland, Dr. George C, Health Officer, District of Columbia ; address,
Washington. D. C 3109, 3120, 3125
Ryan, Philip E., director, inquiry and information service, American Red
Cross; address, Washington, D. C 3092
StaufEer, William H., commissioner, Virginia Department of Public Wel-
fare, representing Hon. James H. Price, Governor of Virginia ; address,
Richmond, Va 3132, 3135
III
IV LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
Taylor, Dr. Paul S., professor of economics, University of California ; ad-
dress, Berkeley, Calif 3245. 3253, 3257
Thomas, Mike B., and wife Ruby, migrant construction laborer, from Vir-
ginia ; address, Washington, D. C 3444
ToUey, H. R., Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Department of
Agriculture ; address, Washington, D. C 3194, 32 J3, 3213
Tomlinson, Percy Buxton, former textile worker; address, care Veterans'
Home, Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue SE., Washington D. C 3442
Watson, Edgar, former fisherman and truck farmer; address, Salisbury,
Md 3226
Watson, Elmer, former fisherman and truck farmer ; address, Salisbury,
Md 3226
Wyatt, John (with wife and children), former truck driver and meat
cutter; address, Baltimore, Md 3105
Young, J. Russell, Commissioner, District of Columbia 3085, 30S6
STATEMENTS AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Subject
Page
Statement for the District of Columbia gov-
ernment.
Statement on public welfare in the District of
Columbia.
Proposed amendment to the Social Security
Act.
Health prollem among migrants in the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Migrants in Virginia
Migration in Maryland
The problem of migration in Pennsylvania by
Raymond T. Bowman.
Letter and statement from West Virginia
Department of Public Assistance.
Transiency as it affects Negroes in the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Statement of Council of Social Agencies of
the District of Columbia and Vicinity.
Statement of the transient committee of the
Council of Social Agencies of the District
of Columbia.
Statement of Washington Travelers' Aid
Society.
Statement of the Salvation Army
Potential migration as a problem of Ameri-
can agriculture.
Costs of developing new agricultural lands in
the Mississippi Delta and Pacific North-
west.
Agricultural Adjustment Administration pro-
gram and migration.
Letter and table from Agricultural Adjust-
ment Administration.
Forces that jeopardize the security of farm
people.
Letter and clipping from Farm Management,
Inc.
Can migrants be placed to advantage on
lands to be served by the Central Valley
project?
Can the low-income and destitute farm popu-
lation improve their status through coop-
eration?
Letter and enclosures from Dr. Walter E.
Packard.
Letter and clippings from J. Lacey Reynolds
Letter from John Lipscomb
Letter from Hugh B. Helm
Statement
New Jersey child-labor laws
The Fair Labor Standards Act in relation to
interstate migration.
Proposed Federal legislation in relation to
interstate migration.
J. Russell Young
Robert E. Bondy
Robert E. Bondy
Dr. George C. Ruhland. .
William H. Stauffer.
J. Milton Patterson.
Charles H. Houston
Mrs. Frank Linzel
Mrs. John Jay O'Connor.
Alice Elizabeth Jones
Charles H. Dodd.
H. R. ToUey
H. R. Tolley
Rudolph M. Evans.
Paul S. Taylor.
Walter E. Packard.
Walter E. Packard
Hon. Frances Perkins
Hon. Frances Perkins
Philip B. Fleming
Philip B. Fleming.
3085
3109'
3115
3120
3133
3139
3141
3145
3173
3177
3179
3180
3183
3194
3211
3229
3244
3246
3256
3268
3295
3317
3319
3325
3326
3329
3352
3368
3377
VI
STATEMENTS AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Subject
Page
Labor in the fisheries
Statement of Philip Murray, president of
the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Excerpts from report of former president of
the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
John L. Lewis.
Economic effects of minimum wages in agri-
culture.
Recommendations of the Interstate Confer-
ence on Migratory Labor, Baltimore, Md.
Report of committee on migratory labor of
Seventh National Conference on Labor
Legislation.
Recommendations of Interstate Conference
on Migratory Labor, Atlanta, Ga.
L. W. Casaday-.
Ralph Hetzel
Ralph Hetzel
Robert K. Lamb
3400
3410
3423
3447
3458
3459
3461
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1940
House of Representatr^s,
Select Committee to Investigate
The Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens,
Washington^ D. O.
The committee met at 10 a. m., in the caucus room, Old House
Office Building, Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman), John J.
Sparkman, and Carl T. Curtis.
Also present : Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator ; Henry H. Col-
lins, Jr., coordinator of hearings; Creekmore Fath and John W.
Abbott, field investigators; Ariel V. E. Dunn, and Alice M. Tuohy,
assistant field investigators; Irene M. Hageman, hearings secretary;
Richard S. Blaisdell, editor; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor.
The Chairman. The committee will please come to order.
Commissioner Young, we will be glad to hear you as the first wit-
ness this morning.
For the purpose of the record, will you please give me your name,
your official position, and state in what capacity you appear before
the committee today.
TESTIMONY OF J. RUSSELL YOUNG, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT
or COLUMBIA
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I appear before you this morning as
a member of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
I have filed a statement with you, of which I will give you a brief
summary.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Washington, D. C, is unique among the cities of the Nation because it is the
Nation's Capital. Being the seat of the Federal Government, many of the citi-
zens of the Nation from the several States not only come as visitors but also
come in search of employment, to secure benefits due them under Federal
legislation, and to utilize the various facilities that it offers. The life of
Washington has a national character. Much of its ground area and public
services is devoted to the Federal Government. Its biggest industry is em-
ployment in the Federal service.
The public welfare and health facilities of the Government of the District
of Columbia, therefore, are inevitably drawn upon to a considerable extent for
3085
3086 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
service to nonresidents coming to Washington because it is tlie Nation's Capital.
The statements filed with this committee by the Director of Public Welfare and
the Health Officer of the District of Columbia give more detailed, supporting
information on this point.
In the early thirties, particularly during 1932 to 1935, the heavy influx of
nonresident persons into the District of Columbia brought problems of public
care and service in which the Federal Government recognized a large respon-
sibility. The Transient Bureau was financed from Federal funds. Other serv-
ices calling for return of nonresident persons to their home States were cared
for from Federal sources. Following 1935 Federal assistance for the nonresi-
dent problem was discontinued. The extent of the problem did diminish follow-
ing 1935 but it continues to represent a heavy drain upon the community's
resources.
The Government of the District of Columbia can readily give service and
organize the necessary public welfare and health care of nonresidents while
they :'re in the District of Columbia, but the cost of rendering that service
and giving that care, in view of much of it being due to the existence of Wash-
ington as the Nation's Capital, can very properly be viewed as a joint respon-
sibility of the Federal Government with the Government of the District of
Columbia.
It would seem entirely sound, therefore, that some form of Federal aid for the
public welfare and health service to nonresident persons should be extended
to the District of Columbia. Such Federal aid could vei'y properly follow the
precedent of matching of Federal with State and local funds as in the highway
and social-security program. Under such an arrangement the Government of
the District of Columbia would administer the necessary .services for care of
nonresidents with the financing jointly shared by the District of Columbia
and the Federal Government.
TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER J. RUSSELL YOUNG— Resumed
I think you will find in investigating or studying this problem
of migration in Washington that there is a peculiar situation here,
entirely different from that in any other section of the country, due
largely to its geographical location and the fact that Washington
is unique because of its position as the National Capital. As the
result of that fact, a great many people come here thinking there
are a lot of jobs available. Most of them are misguided into believ-
ing that there are a lot of jobs waiting for them here. Many of
them come here thinking they will get a chance to make some money
on their way north or south, where they get employment due to the
seasonal changes in occupations.
We, of course, are doing everything we can to help them. We
have an organization here. We can take care of a certain number,
but, as you know, it is a question of money.
Take the situation, for instance, in the fall of 1933, when there
was a great influx of people. We established what was called a
transient bnreau. I think that was entirely financed by Federal
money. That took care of the problem for several years, to a great
extent, until about 1935 when the situation was eased, but it was
not entirely eliminated.
We have had a problem ever since.
I think you will find out from Mr. Bondy, our welfare director,
and from Dr. Ruhland, the District health officer, who will appear
before you later and give you the details, that to a great extent,
this problem is due to the peculiar relationship between the District
and Federal Governments.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3087
We have the facilities for giving aid and for health service, but inas-
much as this problem, to such a large extent, is attributable to this being
the capital city, I think you will find, in your conclusions, that the Fed-
eral Government has a large responsibility in connection with this mat-
ter; and I think if it were put on the basis of a 50-50 proposition so far
as financial help is concerned, it will go far toward the solution of the
problem with which we are faced.
It seems to me the Federal Government has such a responsibility.
For instance, they might go along the line of matching our money, as
they do in the case of highways, and also in connection with social secu-
rity. Mr. Bondy, the Director of the Public Welfare Board of the Dis-
trict, and Dr. Ruhland, have all the details in connection with that, and
they will be glad to go into those matters. I can just touch upon them.
I can tell you, however, on the basis of some figures from the police,
just what sort of police records the transients have had.
I think during the last 6 months or 12 months about 70 percent of the
vagrants arrested here are what the police refer to as transients.
A great many of the transients arrested had criminal records. I think
that, out of the total number, 37 were wanted in other cities for murder.t
Of course, that is a small percentage compared with the total number of
arrests.
I think also the police records show that a large percentage of them
hang around missions and charity places, trying to get help at night,
and a good many of them do nothing but loaf around the city.
That about summarizes the statement I have given to you, Mr.
Chairman, and the details will be furnished by Mr. Bondy and Dr.
Ruhland.
The Chairman. Commissioner Young, this committee started with
its hearings in New York City, and continued them in Alabama, in
Chicago, in Oklahoma, and in California. So far, the record discloses
that no part of the country is entirely free of the migration problem.
But the record also discloses, as to those people, particularly as to
those who leave farms and go to other places, that there comes a time
when they cannot make a living because of the wom-out soil and other
things. American citizens will not starve standing still, so they move—
4,000,000 of them moved last year.
We went into the police end of the matter, to which you have referred,
and we would like to have you put into the record any figures you have
in connection with that.
Mr. Young. Those figures I have do not necessarily cover that, be-
cause that takes in a lot of people whom you might not call transients.
They might not be classed in that group that you are working on now.
There is, of course, the transient who needs help.
The Chairman. What this committee is deeply interested in is figures
mdicatmg the approximate number of migrants or transients here, so
we can get the facts. You have proposed one solution that we have in
the record many times.
One of the great problems in connection with this whole matter is
that of the settlement laws of the United States, with the time neces-
sary to qualify for settlement running from 6 months up to 5 years.
3Qgg INTERSTATE MIGRATION
You might be interested to know that the census report is being held
up because hundreds of thousands of such citizens have lost their
settlement in one State, and have not been able to establish a new set-
tlement, so they do not know to what States to allocate them.
Mr. Young. That would apply to this police record also. Tliey may
have been here for years, but do not claim Washington as their place
of residence.
The Chaii MAN, One of your solutions is — of course, the committee
has made no recommendations yet — that the principle of grants-in-
aid to States be applied to the District of Columbia.
Mr. Young. I say if you study the situation here, it seems to me it
is very obvious that the Federal Government has a large responsibility,
because there is no question in my mind, and I think there will not
be in yours, that a large percentage of these people are drawn here
merely because this is the Capital of the United States, and they are
looking to the Federal Government for some benefits. There may be
a veteran, for instance, coming to the Veterans' Administration, and
then some of them hear of civil-service positions that are open. That
draws people here. Some of them think that a lot of shipbuilding is
being done here, and they come here and become stranded.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Young, do you have any figures or any tabulation
by which you could tell us from where most of your nonresident relief
families come?
Mr. Young. Mr. Bondy has that information in his detailed figures.
He can give you the statistics on that.
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Young, I would like to ask you one question.
I was interested in your suggestion in reference to grants-in-aid, such
as those given to various States, to take care of this problem.
But I believe you said it might be done in the same manner as is done
with reference to social security. Would you base that upon an exact
matching by the States, or would you base it upon need ?
Mr. Young. I would say it should be based upon the need. That is
a detail that probably Mr. Bondy's figures will bring out. I would not
want to go on record as saying definitely just how that should be based,
but I would be tempted to say it should be based on need, as the aid
for highways is based on need.
Mr. Sparkman. Of course, the Social Security Board has recently
recommended that the allotment be according to need, rather than
offhand matching.
Mr. Young. Offhand, I would say it should be based on need.
The Chairman. We thank you very much for your statement, Mr.
Young.
Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. At this point the Chair takes pleasure in intro-
ducing the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia
of the House of Representatives, Hon. Jennings Randolph. We will
be very glad to have a statement from you at this time, Mr. Randolph,
in reference to the matter which this committee has under consid-
eration.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3089
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A REPRE-
SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIR-
GINIA AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ACCOMPANIED BY
MISS MABEL HALLER, ASSISTANT CLERK, COMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Randolph. Mr. Qiairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity
of cominor before your committee this morning.
When I received your invitation in a letter under date of Novem-
ber 18, I realized that my schedule called for me to be out of the city
today. But I did return from West Virginia to Washington this
morning so that I might show by my presence here that we appreciate
the problems which confront the District of Columbia and nearby
States in relation to the migration of destitute citizens and others
who come here to the National Capital, asking for help.
If I might, I should like to say that I really was surprised at the
scope of your investigation.
This problem is so far-reaching and so important that I feel this
committee should be complimented upon the thoroughness with which
you have gone into the problem which confronts you.
I hope that in the next few days when you will make a recom-
mendation, and of course a report to the House, that recommendation
will be accepted and adopted.
This niorning I wanted to say that, as you know, the Committee
on the District of Columbia of the House is a legislative committee,
and, due to our peculiar set-up in the District of Columbia, not a
small number, but a large number of men and women do come to
the offices of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House.
Not desiring, of course, to ask the indulgence of the committee for
too long a time, I have requested Miss Mabel Haller, the assistant
clerk to the Committee on the District of Columbia, to come into the
room this morning so she can verify statements which I want to make,
and have the record show the correctness of them.
Miss Haller and other members of my staff are faced with this
problem to a greater extent than I have realized. I am told that
there is a daily average of from three to five persons who come to the
offices of the Committee on the I)istrict of Columbia, seeking help,
from the standpoint of food or shelter, or any type of work they
can get to tide them over.
I think that in some instances those individuals come to us because
they have been told that we have a Committee on the District of
Columbia functioning.
Miss Haller, have those individuals been to other agencies in the
District before they come to us?
Miss Haller. As a usual thing, they are people who have come
into the District and have probably been here for 1 or 2 days, but
have been unable to obtain any assistance.
Mr. Randolph. Where have they gone for that assistance ?
Miss Haller. They go to various private agencies which are unable
to take care of them, and therf they come to us.
3090 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Eandolph. These are people usually equipped and able to do
work only on certain jobs?
Miss Haller. They are unskilled and untrained for any technical
work. As a usual thing they are unskilled laborers, or people who
have lived in small towns, who have finished high school, but have
had no positions.
Mr. Randolph. From what States do they come, usually ?
Miss Haller. From all over the country, because they are brought
here by the information they have received that the Government has
positions for both skilled and unskilled laborers, and who think that
if they can get positions with the Government it will bring them
higher salaries.
Mr. Randolph. ISIr. Chairman and members of the committee, if
there are any questions you desire to ask in reference to this particular
matter, we will try to answer them.
I want to express my very deep interest in this subject, and I do
hope that your hearings will be productive of good, practical results
which will be translated into any needed legislation which Congress
might desire.
The Chairman. I want to say that as this problem has begun to
unfold, we who are particularly concerned with it have been startled
at the implications involved.
Mayor LaGuardia, of New York, was the first witness before our
committee, and he said 5,000 people were deported from New York
State last year, and that State expended $3,000,000 a year for the
care of nonresident citizens.
There are statutes in some States making it a misdemeanor for a
citizen to cross State lines. South Dakota makes it a felony to trans-
port an indigent citizen into the State.
I make this suggestion to you, that in considering this matter wo
will have our record before us, and it will be open for at least the
next 10 days. When you revise your remarks, I will be glad if you
will extend your discussion of the matter to include the situation in
West Virginia. We will be glad to give you that permission.
Mr. Randolph. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be glad to
show you the situation as we see it.
Mr. Curtis. In reference to those people who come to the offices
of your committee, about whom you have told us, are they families
or for the most part individuals?
Miss Haller. For the most part they are individuals.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Randolph, knowing that the problem exists, do
you feel that it is a problem, the answer to which lies at the points
from which those people come, or is the remedy to be applied by
Congress as to the manner of caring for them and getting them to
their destination ?
Mr. Randolph. I feel that there is a real responsibility on the
authorities back home. I have felt that for quite some time.
I realize, of course, that it is not easy always for the local com-
munity or any political subdivision at the place of origin to take
care of that situation. So many of them are just roving about
that it is hard to keep your hands on them.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3091
Mr. Curtis. Of course, in the District of Columbia it does pre-
sent a problem different from that of the States and it is entirely
possible that some remedy may be applied here, while it is not nec-
essary that the same procedure shall be applied throughout the
various States. Is not that true?
Mr. Randolph. I am sure that tjiat is largely correct.
The Chairman. I want to call attention to this fact, that the
causes of this migration of destitute citizens include the drying opt
of the soil, unemployment, and other causes. So there probably will
not be any single answer to the question.
One possible solution, as the record will disclose, is to keep them
at home. But there comes a time when they cannot stay at home.
They may have a farm which has dried out. They will not starve
standing still, and they are going to move.
We had a hearing in Lincoln, Nebr., in the State in which the
district of the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Curtis, is located.
The record discloses that one-half of the people in his district had
to leave.
Do you know that in the Great Plains States they lost 1,000,000
people last year? You had in the Great Plains States, where the
soil was productive, at one time 5,000,000 acres, but 25 percent of
the topsoil was gone.
The Farm Security Administration has taken care of about 500,000
people in the stricken States, but there are about 1,000,000 more to
be taken care of. So, finally, they proposed a solution to keep
them at home.
Mr. Randolph. May I proceed for another moment, following
that observation? In West Virginia we have had in the last few
years a tremendous mechanization of coal mines. In my congres-
sional district, composed of 15 counties, the eastern county within
55 miles of the District of Columbia, 9 of those counties have been
bituminous coal-producing counties. They have mechanized all
those mines. Within the last 2 weeks I have talked with a mine
operator who had attempted to keep from mechanizing his mine,
so as not to bring about a condition of unemployment. But he had
to comj^ete with other mines in that locality.
Today, with the coal-loading and cutting machines, there are ap-
proximately 150 miners producing as much coal as 300 were produc-
ing before mechanization began. That means 150 men thrown out of
employment, and the problem is acute in that locality.
Those miners who have been going down into the darkness of the
mines and digging the coal cannot adjust themselves to other con-
ditions. They have worked so long at that type of employment that
it is most difficult for them to get themselves in line with other work,
and they wait, wait, and wait, looking for work.
Also, we find that in our steel mills in West Virginia, with the
improved methods of production, other men are being laid off. And
I know of an instance of one installation of one mechanized piece of
equipment in a glass factory which displaced 11 workers.
I am sure that what has taken place in West Virginia in the coal,
glass, and steel industries is taking place all over the country.
3092 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
It has become a very vexing problem, and I hope and believe this
committee will make recoimnendations which will help to improve the
situation.
The Chairman, We thank you very much for your statement, Mr.
Randolph.
Mr. Randolph. I am very (^rateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for
givin<T me this opportunity to express my views on this important
subject.
The Chairman. I now take pleasure in introducing as the next
witness Mr. Philip E. Ryan, director, inquiry and information serv-
ice, American Red Cross, and former executive secretary. Council on
Interstate Migration.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP E. RYAN, DIRECTOR, INQUIRY AND INFOR-
MATION SERVICE, AMERICAN RED CROSS
Mr. Ryan. I am employed as director of the inquiry and informa-
tion service of the American Red Cross. I speak this morning, not
so much as a Red Cross representative, but as one who for a number
of years has worked with the problems with which you are concerned.
Mr. Sparkman. I have read your prepared statement with much
interest, and I wonder if you would like to discuss that further.
Mr. Ryan. I would like to give you a digest of it.
I have followed with a great deal of interest the work of this
committee from its original organization, because for a number of
years my work has been closely associated with the problems of inter-
state migration. I think this committee has a real opportunity to
point the way toward the solution of these problems.
Now, in reference to the sources from whicli I draw this testimony
I am giving you, I would like briefly to outline my experiences in this
field.
My first contact with the problem came in the winter of 1932-33
as assistant director of the first experimental camp for homeless men
in New York State. In the following year the Federal transient
program was organized, and I served in various positions there, both
in the field and in the central oflice of the transient division of New
York State. Following the liquidation of the Federal transient camp
program, I became executive secretary of the National Committee of
Transient and Homeless, and also of its successor, the National Coun-
cil on Interstate Migration.
This experience gave me a national point of view, because the
Federal organizations throughout the country had representatives in
the various organizations concerned with interstate migration.
In the fall of 1938 I was engaged with the New York State Depart-
ment of Social Welfare in a special study of the New York State
program for nonsettled persons in that State.
In September 1939, the Council on Interstate Migration had to
close its doors, and its work has been carried on by the National
Travelers' Aid Association. Since that time I have been employed
by the American Red Cross, but have been allowed to maintain
my interest and contacts in connection with interstate migration.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3093
That completes the presentation of my background material.
But you are concerned this morning with the problems of interstate
migration as they affect the District of Columbia. You will prob-
ably hear again of the lack of lacilities for their care and the lack
of funds for the care of nonresidents, and the problem which they
present before District officials here.
I also hope that in your consideration of the problems in the Dis-
trict of Columbia you do not lose sight of the fact that no State, no
city, nor the District of Columbia, can solve or meet the problems
which are presented, alone. The real transient, or migrant, comes
from one place, sojourns briefly in many places, and eventually lands
in some place else where he tries to settle down. There are also to be
considered the technical migrants who, because of settlement or resi-
dence laws, may not have a local settlement, even though they may
have been away from their home towns only a short time, or may not
even have left it at all. These people, too, must be considered
migrants.
Just as in the fields of interstate commerce and interstate trans-
portation, no State can handle the problem alone. It is true that in
connection with the business of migration you must have the assist-
ance of a higher governmental agency.
In order to control the problems of the movement of people and
the redistribution of population, no locality alone can solve those
problems, unless it has the cooperation of other cities and States and
the National Government in a well-rounded, far-reaching program.
This is really a national problem requiring national attention.
If the solution is to be found, it requires a coordinated program, in
which the cities and States have administrative responsibility, as well
as responsibility for financing.
So, in the District of Columbia, as everywhere else, you will find
that the migrants present many different kinds of problems. We are
just now beginning to realize that the migration of people has an
effect on nearly every phase of community life. It creates problems
related to education, health, employment, family life, civil liberties,
housing, and, of course, relief.
This should not be a startling discovery. After all, these are the
things with which people have difficulties, and transients are people.
In the case of transients, however, the difficulties are multiplied be-
cause they lack residence status in the community. That is not
strange; it is not a strange thiiig to realize. These problems of
education and so forth arise because people are people. You and
I and every man in this room have problems of education and health,
and employment, and so forth, and we have them because we are
people, and not because of any particular geographical location in
which we may live. And it is about time we begin to treat these
people who are transients as people, and not just as statistics or some
other thing to be studied without considering their individual
problems.
My remarks this morning, Mr. Tolan, are directed toward two
aspects of the problem with which you are concerned. And I want
to make two recommendations in the light of those aspects. In the
3Q94 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
first place I want to talk briefly about the problems of providing
relief for transients, and, in the second, to point to the need for some
continuing responsibility in the Federal Government to direct efforts
toward the solution of these problems.
The provision of relief alone, of course, will not solve the problem.
As you have said here, there is not one technical method that is going
to solve the problem of relief alone, but such provision will help a
great deal toward solving the acute problems in the temporary
emergency.
Prior to 1933, the responsibility for providing aid to the needy
rested almost entirely upon the localities. Of course, there was some
help from the Federal Government, but the depression increased the
load so tremendously that the Federal Government established the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, by which assistance was
given to the State 'in caring for needy people, and a Federal agency
was established for transients, the Federal Government assuming the
entire responsibility.
After the fall of 1935, that program was continued through an-
other agency ; since the W. P. A. was established in the hope that
the Federal' Government would assume responsibility for providing
jobs to the employable unemployed.
The Social Security Act provided some relief to the States in
caring for the resident load of unemployed groups, and caring for
the aged and blind and dependent children, but the residue that are
not provided for through the medium of the Social Security Act, and
for whom there is nothing available, fall entirely on the States with-
out any Federal aid. This is the group that requires relief, gen-
eral relief. The States, with their limited funds, are incapable of
caring adequately for that group of people.
The Chairman. Could I interrupt you right there?
Mr. Ryan. Certainly.
The Chairman. As I understand, what you indicate is that there
are two approaches to the possible solution of this problem : First
is what you might call the short term, which means food and clothing
and shelter ; and, second, the long term, possibly including the reset-
tlement of these groups. There are really two approaches.
Mr. Ryan. That is right, Mr. Chairman. I am aiming my re-
marks at this time toward the short-term solution, and that is
urgently necessary; and the second recommendation, which I am
about to describe, works toward the long-time solution of the problem.
Our States, without enough money to care for their own resident
groups who need real aid, liave been unable to provide care for the
nonresidents, that particular group for which the Federal Govern-
ment had at one time assumed total responsibility, in a program
that seemed to lead the States to the acceptance of them as needy
people. . . 1 xi • V.
Now we are faced with the new situation with regard to this prob-
lem because people used to say that, just as soon as the factory
whistles began to blow, the transient problem was going to be solved
and we would not have transients looking for work any longer. But,
factory whistles are blowing with the added impetus given through
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3095
the national-defense program, and we still have the transient prob-
lem, possibly aggravated.
More people are getting jobs; that is true, but more people are
on the move in the hope of getting jobs; they leave one place, just
as you gentlemen have found out, iii the hope of getting a job at
some other place.
And, Mr. Chairman, we cannot just talk about 4,000,000 migrants;
we have got to talk about another group, this group that has been
sitting, has not been moving, but now in the hope of jobs, is going
to start moving from place to place, facing such situations as that
at Jacksonville, where Camp Blanding is being built. The possi-
bility of finding jobs has resulted in a tremendous number of people
moving into that small area.
There is no shelter for them ; there are no sanitary facilities. These
men go there with their families, and stand in line night and day
in the hope of getting a job.
Many of them have been employed, others are there in the hope
of getting employment, and more are moving about in the hope of
getting work either there or at some other place in this program.
It is taxing the resources of the health officials and their facilities,
public and private, everywhere to meet the problem and furnish aid
in caring for the hundreds of thousands of people who are mov-
ing in the hope of getting work.
That situation is reproduced throughout the country, I believe,
particularly because of the plan, as I understand it, to build for
the defense program in small localities where people are located, with
the result, however, that many of these transients are moving into
the small communities in the hope of securing employment. Many of
them were considered just tramps and bums, but now they are re-
garded as employable labor because they are needed. It is just a
difference in point of view. Some of them, as I say, are tramps
and bums. Others are migrants seeking work and are on the move
under the impetus of this defense program solely in the hope of
getting jobs.
This movement of people from one section to another particu-
larly affects the small communities which are not capable of doing-
more than taking care of their own residents. Yet many of these
people are moving into these communities in the hope of getting
employment — in the hope that they might get on the pay roll— are
in need of relief. And there is ho question but that the small com-
munities are unable to furnish this assistance.
In order to preserve our resources, both natural and human,
which are so vitally a part of our whole country, it is necessary to
provide relief for these people who are in need. It is my belief,
Mr. Chairman, that the best way to provide that relief is by the
establishment of a division under the Social Security Act of what
you might call a fourth category.
Now, that fourth category, for general relief, would establish the
rules under which these people should be helped, with such assistance
as they must have. In other words, to provide for the people who
have been described here, those who are not now cared for under
260370— 41— pt.
3096
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
the three categories of the Social Security Act and for whom \york
on public projects is not available or suitable. It is the residue
p'oup that needs help, and it is through the establishment of this
fourth category to which I have referred that such help can be
given. I believe that offers the best opportunity to solve the prob-
lem that arises from the settlement and residence laws, because we
can make these jjrants to the States, navino- jreneral relief, contin-
gent upon the States' willingness to care for all needy persons re-
quiring help in those States, regardless of settlement or residence
requirements.
Those are the points I wanted to bring to your attention. Congress-
man Tolan, in connection with the long-time problem. There are
many Federal agencies, departments, and commissions which, of
course, have been interested in this problem and the various aspects
connected with it. I think, in fact, there are some 25 Federal agen-
cies that have something to do with it. There have been stud'es
made by different departments and agencies, and there should be
some central agency to coordinate these efforts.
This Tolan committee has again shown the interest of the Fed-
eral Government in the problem of interstate migration. There
needs to be within the Federal Government some central agency to
continue to direct attention to the problem with which you are here
dealing. There needs to be some central agency to which the States
and their localities can come in dealing with the multiple problems
involved in interstate migration. And there needs to be established
a national policy in dealing with interstate migration.
For that reason I think that this committee should include in its
recommendations a proposal that there be established in the Federal
Government a national commission on interstate migration which
would have the responsibility of dealing with the things which I
have just enumerated.
Let me conclude by giving a brief summary of the two recom-
mendations : One, that there should be added to the Social Sjcurity
Act a fourth category for general relief which possibly could be
best described as one to aid the other three categories, to take care
of those for whom work is not available or suitable and to provide
aid to those unable to obtain relief because of the settlement and
residence requirements of the States.
And my second recommendation is the establishment of a Govern-
ment or national commission on interstate migration.
The Chairman. Mr. Sparkman wants to ask you some questions.
Mr. Ryan Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. I want to ask you one or two things regarding
your recommendations.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. I was interested in both recommendations that
you made and a great many points throughout your narration.
First, let me ask you a question with reference to grants-in-aid to
States for general relief. As I understand your recommendation
you would set up a fourth category within the social security law?
Mr. Ryan. That is right.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3097
Mr. Sparkman. And would provide for grants-in-aid from the
Federal Government to the States in order to carry on this general
relief jDrogram ?
JNIr. Ryan. That is right
Mr. Sparkman. Do you think that it is better to set up a separate
category under the Social Security Act or simply provide for
transient relief?
]\Ir. Ryan. I think it is preferable to set up a separate category.
We have had experience with the entire problem, particularly
with regard to transient aid, and I believe could handle the work very
well. The other aspect is this, that if you have to distinguish be-
tween transients and residents there would be a temptation on the
part of the States to classify as transient as many people as possible —
to turn the people into this other category because of the possible
responsibility of the Federal Government.
Mr. Sparkman. As a matter of fact, that is what is happening
now in the reverse, the States have taken care of their residents, to
the neglect of the transients.
Mv. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. Because they do get Federal aid.
Mr. Ryan. They do get it. '
INIr. Sparkman. I mean they are now taking care of their own
resident cases?
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mv. Sparkman. Through the various categories of the Social
Security Act to the neglect of the transients.
Mr. Ryan. In the various States the general relief is set up to
take care of the aged and to take care of the blind, and many of
them take care of dependent children, and the general relief poor are
ill cared for because of lack of funds.
Mr. Sparkjnian. And because a dollar goes twice as far with the
resident as witli the transient.
Mr. Ryan. That is particularly true with the aged.
Mr. Sparkman Yes. How would you provide the aid to the
States; strictly on the basis of need?
Mv. Ryan. I am not sure. I can see problems on both sides, and
I believe that a considerable amount of study has to be given to the
whole problem in considering the question of whether it ought to be
on a straight 50-50 basis. I am .afraid I am not in position to give
yon a flofinite reconnnendation at this time as to the better method.
Mr. Sparkman. Certainly when the States are required to match
dolhir tor dudar a great number that need relief most get the relief.
Mv. Ryan. That may be true. I am afraid I am not in a position
to make a satisfactory recommendation at this time.
Mr. Sparkman. I was also very much interested in what you said
about various defense jobs being created, particularly in small com-
munities. Now, where are these small communities going to find
tli(>mselves when the emergency blows over?
Mr. Ryan. Where are they going to find themselves ?
Mr. Sparkman. Yes; what is going to be their relief problem
then ? They will be in hot water, will they not ?
3098 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Ryan. They find themselves in hot water even before the
emeroency has blown over. Tliousands of people are comin<; into
the coninmnities that are without adequate educational facilities,
without sanitation facilities, and without sufficient food supplies;
communities with limited facilities with which to meet the require-
ments of the thousands of people who are thrown upon them. Of
course their problem will be that much oreater when the emergency
dies down and these ])eople become jobless. Those who have been
working on the defense program will find themselves out of em-
ployment.
Mr. Sparkinian. With the result there is going to be a greatly in-
creased migratory ]:)roblem.
Mr. Ryan. Definitely.
Mi-. SrAKKMAN. I was also interested in what you said about the
elimination of settlement and resident laws. One of the solutions
to that problem, of course, is the removal of the great variation in
these laws.
]\[r. Ryan. I see an opportunity to overcome the difficulties in the
settlement and residence laws by broadening and extending the ad-
ministration of ]nd)lic welfare. This is the metliod of overcoming
that particular difficulty. There may be some advantage to the resi-
dence and settlement laws in some instances, but the suggestion that
lias been made here this morning does not necessarily limit itself to
the residence and settlement laws; the real question is: how are you
going to take care of the relief program, the general relief of every-
body within the State.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you think there is a greatly reduced need in
the relief program as a result of defense activities?
Mr. Ryan. It is certainly true that more people will get jobs;
whether those peo]>le will come from W. P. A. or general relief, or
from peo]ile who have been employed in other industry that is slow-
ing up, it is hard to tell. There probably would be a decrease in the
amount of need felt by local residents in the particular place, because
many of the residents will be given a job first, but there will be a
great increase in the need among the nonresidents, because that group
that has started to move is the grou]) that is on the road, and does
not come within the settlement requirements for getting relief.
Mr. Spark^sfan. In other words, while you are building up one end
the other is coming down.
]Mr. Ryan. While you build u]) one you cut down your general
relief; you build u}> the transients.
INIr. Sparkiman. How would this national conunission on interstate
migrati(m which you reconnnend be appointed?
Mr. Ryan. Probably by Presidential ai)])ointment.
Mr. Sparktsfan. In other words, you would set up another Govern-
ment connnissicm or agency for handling that one problem?
I^Ir. Ryan. For continuing to direct the attention of the country —
to serve somethiiiii- like the Tolan committee is doing — to coordinate
the work of tlie Federal Government and work out remedies for the
various as])ects of interstate migration as you have seen the whole
problem of interstate migration presented. There are many Federal
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3099
agencies dealing with tlie problem in its various aspects, but there
needs to be this continuing central organization which can carry on
the work.
Mr. Sparkman. That is all I wish to ask you.
Mr. Curtis. I want to inquire into one of the suggestions which
you made. As I understood it, you said the Federal Government
should, among other things, control the movement of people through
the States. You mean that there should be restriction or prohibi-
tion against the movement of people because they are destitute or
because they are penniless, and that they would have to get permis-
sion to go from one end of the country to the other?
Mr. Kyan. Absolutely not; there have been already too many re-
strictions on the rights of people under the Government to move from
one State to another. You have heard testimony in regard to depor-
tation cases, and so on, which I believe can be attacked as being
entirely unconstitutional. My reference to control is directed almost
entirely to the kind of thing contemplated by the unemployment
service, to the furnishing of information to people going from one
place to another looking for jobs, to overcome the waste in the mis-
directed movement of people in the hope of finding employment some-
where. For instance, 5,000 people may be wanted and 50,000 people
may apply. That cannot be restricted by rigid Government control,
but direction can be given to people in the form of suggestions and
information.
Mr. Curtis. The next thing 1 was going to ask you about is this :
You have had a wide experience and have made a valuable statement
to the committee. Have you found, in your experience, that there
is a lack of accurate information available for these people who start
out to find work at some place?
Mr. Ryan. I think that practically every study that has been made
on the subject of labor shows a lack of available information about
what possible opportunities there are in the place for which mi-
grants are headed.
Mr. Curtis. Do you think private employment agencies that oper-
ate on an interstate basis are a good thing?
Mr. Eyan. I have not had close experience with private employ-
ment agencies operating on an interstate basis. I have read and
talked with representatives, and talked with people who are some-
what familiar with the system of tlie so-called row boss and the
padrone, who nnport labor for agriculture work— primarily across
State Imes— and the experience of those with whom I talked is such
that they condemn the padrone or row-boss system.
Mr. Curtis. I wish that, for the record, you would be a little bit
more explicit as to what this new commission would do, because this
committee could not say, merely, that a new commission should be
set up and that would solve the problem.
Mr. Ryan. I hope you will not just say that.
Mr. Curtis. That is where many others have failed.
Mr. Ryan. I believe that I could present to you at a later time a
prepared statement containing the special duties and responsibilities
3100 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
of such a commission if the committee would like to have it. I will
be glad to do that.
Mr. Curtis. As I understand its major function would be a sort
of clearing bourse of information on the problem,
Mr. Ryan. That is correct.
Mr. Curtis. That will be changing from time to time?
Mr. Ryan. Yes; I am sure that is true, and it has been changing.
Mr. Curtis. And this problem will be in the reverse when the
defense work is over.
Now, you understand there are standing committees in both the
House and the Senate on Interstate Commerce, with adequate per-
sonnel, without enlarging the Federal Government, that deal with the
problem, make special studies and deliver their information to the
entire Congress. In that connection a clearing house of information
focusing attention on this subject, such as standing committees on
migration in the two Houses of Congress would probably meet the
need.
Mr. Ryan, Members of such committees would be subject to change
at 2-year intervals.
Mr. Curtis. Possibly.
Mr, Ryan, Possibly change, I have not considered the possibility
of a standing committee in Congress as a possible agency, but I be-
lieve there are other duties and responsibilities that this commission
would have that possibly should not be assumed by a congressional
committee, or at least standing congressional committees, I have not
given enough thought to the setup of a congressional committee to
say just what they are.
Mr. Curtis. This commission, if it were appointed, would deal
with the short-time remedy as well as the long-time problem.
Mr. Ryan. It would depend upon the aid to be given, if short -time
aid, but certainly it would have to direct attention to that ; but the
result is the same, to work toward a solution of the whole problem
through some central agency,
Mr, Curtis. I am very much interested in your recommendation;
we have had a lot of suggestions but this is the first time we have had
a recommendation for the creation of a new commission.
Mr. Ryan. There may be peo})le who say there are too many com-
missions, but if there is a job that needs to be done and it can be
done by a commission, that is no reason for not appointing another
one.
Mr. Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. Really there has not been any problem as im-
portant as the migratory problem that has been so badly neglected.
Do you feel that way, Mr. Ryan?
Mr. Ryan. Well, I am not sufficiently experienced with other prob-
lems to know how badly they have been neglected.
The Chairman. Our records disclose, Mr. Ryan, that there have
been instances of private employment where people would come up
to a State line after they had met with unemployment problems in
other States.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3101
The Chairman. Of course, we have had jurisdiction where they
cross State lines, but one of the bad situations we have had presented
to us is the way they were treated; the hxck of information, too much
misinformation. They start out to some phice from some point where
they do not have employment, and they start out with their families.
Perhaps they have farmed all their lives, and they get information
which leads them to believe they can find employment elsewhere, and
they are now found living in poverty, without any means of support.
The point I am trying to make is this : That it does not help the
national morale, it does not help our national security to have such
a condition. To my mind it presents a serious Federal question to
have this migratory group of people constantly increasing in these
overnight camps, let they were given the best information then
available to them. I am of the opinion that something of this kind
might be helpful.
Mr. Ryax. I think that some extension of the Farm Security Ad-
ministration would help a great deal. Certainly it does not con-
tribute to the general morale of the jDeople to permit them to continue
to live under conditions such as you have seen in these migratory
camps, and especially since men of military age would certainly be
brought into the National Army in the event of an emergency.
The Chairman. Mr. Ryan, within the next few days if you will
present for the record, especially in answer to Congressman Curtis'
question with reference to special duties of this commission, we will
be glad to have you do so. And I want to say that I think you have
made one of the most intelligent and helpfid statements that have
been presented to us.
Mr. Ryan, Thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF DWIGHT RICHARDS, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The Chairman. State your full name for the record.
Mr. Richards. Dwight Richards.
Mr. Curtis. How old are you ?
Mr. Richards. Fifty-six.
Mr. Curtis. Are you married?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Is you wife living ?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. She is living with you here in Washington?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Do you have any children ?
Mr. Richards. No.
Mr. Curtis. Do you have any employment at this time?
Mr. Richards, Yes.
Mr Curtis. What kind of work ?
Mr. Richards. Work Projects Administration.
Mr. Curtis. In the District of Columbia ?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis, How long have you been on W. P, A. work here?
3102 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Richards. Well, this last time I think I have been on rio-ht
about 3 weeks; I am not just sure the first day. I have not been paid
yet.
Mr. Curtis. When did you first receive W. P. A. work in Wash-
ington ?
Mr. Richards. In 1935.
Mr. Curtis. What particular type of w^ork have they assigned to
you?
Mr. Richards. Labor.
Mr. Curtis. Ordinary labor. You are in good health?
Mr. Richards. Yes ; I guess I am.
Mr. Curtis. Reasonably so ?
Mr. Richards. Yes ; according to my age.
Mr. Curtis. How long have you lived in Washington ?
Mr. Richards. I have been here 5 years; since 1935.
Mr. Curtis. Where were vou living prior to 1935 ?
Mr. Richards. I was in Texas.
Mr. Curtis. In what place in Texas?
Mr. Richards. In Houston and Galveston.
Mr. Curtis. How long did you live in Texas?
Mr. Richards. I was there about 4 or 5 years.
Mr. Curtis. What work, if any, did you have in Texas?
Mr. Richards. Well, I was working as a bar-candy salesman; sell-
ing candy and stuff like that, and when I went to Galveston I helped
on a banana boat.
Mr. Curtis. Doing what ?
Mr. Richards. Unloading banana boats, and stuff like that.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Richards, are you a native of Texas?
Mr. Richards. No; a native of Ohio.
Mr. Curtis. You went directly from Ohio to Texas ?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. You left Ohio, then, about in 1931; did you?
Mr. Richards. Yes; I left around that time in the summer.
Mr. Curtis. Up until your going to Texas, had you spent most
of your time in Ohio?
Mr. Richards. Yes ; most of my time.
Mr. Curtis. You were bom there?
Mr. Richards. In Columbus, Ohio.
Mr. Curtis. How much of an education have you had?
Mr. Richards. I went through common school.
Mr. Curtis. Since 1935 have you stayed right here in Washington ?
Mr. Richards. No; I left last May and went back home.
Mr. Curtis. You went back to Ohio?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr Curtis. What was your reason for going back ?
Mr. Richards. That is my home and I thought I would find some
employment there. I went to make my home there.
Mr.* Curtis. Was there any particular industry that you had in
mind that you thought might open up when you w^ent back?
Mr. Richards. I thought that an air])lane factory was going to
open up there and that I would get a job.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3103
Mr. Curtis. Did the factory open up ?
Mr. Richards. It had not when I left. They were talkinc; about
buildino- one.
Mr. Curtis. Were you able to find any other work ?
Mr. Richards No; I did not find very much of anythini? to do.
Mr. Curtis. Wliat month of the year did you go back to Ohio?
Mr. Richards. May.
Mr. Curtis. How iong did you stay there?
Mr. Richards, I was there 5 months.
Mr. Curtis. Durino- that time did you get as much work as a
a total of a week or — about how much work did you ^et ?
Mr. Richards. I was sellinjr house utilities from house to house.
Mr. Curtis. Was that very successful?
Mr. Richards. No; not very.
Mr. Curtis. Did it become necessary for you to apply for relief
while you were in Columbus ?
Mr. Richards. I did toward the last ; yes.
Mr. Curtis. Did they provide you with any?
Mr. Richards. They did until they established my residence.
Mr. Curtis. What did they tell you about your residence?
Mr. Richards. They sent back here and they found that I had
been here all of that time, and they said my residence was in the
District. They wired here and I was authorized to be sent back,
so they sent me back here.
Mr. Curtis. Who paid your transportation expenses back ?
Mr. Richards. I do not know whether it was the relief or the
Travelers' Aid, but I got my tickets through the Travelers' Aid.
Mr. Curtis. Did that money come from the Travelers' Aid of Ohio
or here in Washington ?
Mr. Richards. I could not say where it came from — I do not know.
I got my tickets in the Travelers' Aid office, in the Columbus depot.
I do not know where the money came from.
Mr. Curtis. The real point was that they told you you were no
longer a resident of the State of Ohio ; that was the reason they gave
you.
Mr. Richards. They did not say that. They claimed that my
working residence was in Washington, D. C. ; my voting residence
was in Columbus.
Mr. Curtis. They conceded that you still had a voting residence
in Columbus?
Mr. Richards. I registered while I was there, yes.
Mr. Curtis. You said that you were in Texas 4 years. Had you
gone to Texas with the intention of making your home there, and did
you consider it your home during those 4 years ?
Mr. Richards. No; I did not figure that way. I just went down
there.
Mr. Curtis. Did you vote at any time in Texas ?
Mr. Richards. No ; I did not vote this time, either.
Mr. Curtis. But you were able to register.
Mr. Richards. I do not know whether I was allowed to vote or
not. I did not go into it very deep, because I had to come back here.
3104 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Curtis. You have always considered, and you spoke of your
home, as Cohimbus, Ohio ?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Were you able to find work when you came back here
to Washington?
Mr. Richards. As soon as they could place me on the W. P. A.;
yes, sir.
Mr. CuiiTis. How much were you able to earn on that ?
Mr. Richards. My wages were $52.80, I think.
Mr. Curtis. A month ?
Mr. Richards. A month.
Mr. Curtis. Did you come directly from Texas to Washington?
Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Did you stop at any place along the way and attempt
to find work ?
Mr. Richards. No; I did not, only just maybe a w^eek at a time.
Mr. Curtis. When you left Texas, was Washington your destina-
tion ?
Mr. Richards. Well, I did not know just where.
Mr. Curtis. You just started out to try to find some work.
Mr. Richards. Yes; and I was cominix this way.
Mr. Curtis. You were in West Virginia a while, were you not?
Mr. Richards. No; I was not; only just come through there and
stopped 1 night.
Mr. Curtis. Where was it suggested, or where did they tell you
that you might find work in the city of Washington ?
Mr. Richards. I was talking to some fellows when I came through
Cincinnati.
Mr, Curtis. Wliat kind of work did they say might be available?
Mr. Richards. They did not say much of any kind, just to come
here.
Mr. Curtis. They thought it was a pretty fair place to get a job,
was that the idea?
Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. How did you and Mrs. Richards travel from Texas to
Washinfrton?
Mr. Richards. Hitchhiked.
Mr. Curtis. How did you travel when you went back to Ohio last
May?
Mr. Richards. Went back on the bus.
Mr. Curtis. You paid your own way?
Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Is Mrs Richards in good health ?
Mr. Richards. No, sir.
Mr. Curtis. You would still like to get a job in private industry,
would you not ?
Mr. Richards. I would rather have a job in private industry; yes.
Mr. Curtis. You would rather have that in your home in Colum-
bus, Ohio, tlian any place else, would you not?
Mr. Richards. I would, at the age I am right now ; yes.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3105
Mr. Curtis. But under the present circumstances, you could not
go back there and wait it out, and try to find a job, could you?
Mr. Richards. Well, not with the questions they ask you. They
would not let me go to work. They claim I am not a resident there
any more.
Mr. Curtis. Did they bar you from employment as well as from
relief?
Mr. Richards. I guess so.
Mr. Curtis. What I mean is, were you turned down for any job
because they said you did not belong there ?
Mr. Richards. How is that?
Mr. Curtis. Were you turned down when you applied for any job
because you were not a resident of Ohio ?
Mr. Richards. No ; I was not turned down exactly on that. I was
turned down on account of my age a couple of times.
Mr. Curtis. Do you feel that the fear that men have, if they go
away from home and try to find work, causes them to stay on
W. P. A. and on relief, once they are on it?
Mr. Richards. Yes. When you once get off, it takes a little time
and trouble to get on again.
Mr. Curtis. Most of the people would rather have jobs, would
they not ?
Mr. Richards. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. But it is true that the fear that if they let go, they
will not get back on prevents them from getting out?
Mr. Richards. It might take them quite a while to get back on.
Mr. Curtis. How long a wait did you have before you got back
on after you returned from Ohio this year?
Mr. Richards. About 2 weeks. But in my case, though, I guess
they kind of pushed it.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Richards, your story illustrates certain aspects of
the problem we are studying, and we thank you for your testimony.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank vou very much, Mr. Richards.
We will call Mr. John Wyatt.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN WYATT, BALTIMORE, MD. (ACCOMPANIED
BY MRS. JOHN WYATT AND CHILDREN)
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Wyatt, have you given your name and address
to the reporter?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. You are now living in Baltimore ?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How old are you, Mr. Wyatt?
Mr. Wyatt. Forty-one.
Mr. Sparkman. Where were you born?
Mr. Wyatt. Chester, Pa.
Mr. Sparkman. Mrs. Wyatt, where were you born?
Mrs. Wyatt. Bridgeville, Del.
Mr. Sparkman. How many children do you have ?
3106 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mrs. Wyatt. Six.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is the oldest?
Mr. Wyatt. l\Yelve ; he will be thirteen next month.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is the youngest?
Mr. Wyatt. Four months old.
Mr. Sparkman. You are living in Baltimore now, you say?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What are you doing over there ?
Mr. Wyatt. We have a house there, and I get a couple of days'
work a week, and manage to keep things going, until I get a steady
job.
Mr. Sparkman. How long have you been there?
Mr. Wyatt. Two months.
Mr. Sparkman. Where did you come from?
Mr. Wyatt. From Chester, Pa.
Mr. Sparkman. You came from Chester to Baltimore?
Mv. Wyatt. No. We went from Chester and worked the fairs
through New York State, selling jewelry and engraving the names
and initials on the jewelry.
Mr. Sparkman. You have done that work at county fairs, and such
as that?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How did you happen to come to Baltimore ?
Mr. Wyatt. Well, it was a large city and there are quite a few
markets down there, and I thought if I came down there I would be
able to work those markets in the winter months and keep going
until a steady job turned up. I did work for a few weeks, and then
I have been getting week ends with Wagner Bros. Markets, cutting
meat.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you been able to make a living since being
there ?
Mr. Wyatt. No; we have not been able to make a living, but we
have been able to keep something to eat on the table,
Mr. Sparkman. How long have you been following this type of
work, following fairs and engaging in the type of work you have
been describing?
Mr. Wyatt. We have been going out during the summer months,
once in a while; not that we really had to, but this last summer we
really had to, because we had nothing else to do and no place to go.
They levied on our furniture and we had to get out.
Mr. Sparkm.an. What tvpe of work did vou do back in Chester?
Mr. Wyatt. Truck driving and meat cutting.
Mr. Sparkman. Truck driving?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. How did you happen to lose that work?
Mr. Wyatt. The company went out of business.
Mr. Sparkman. Wliat kind of a company was it?
Mr. Wyatt. Gasoline transport.
Mr. Sparkman. What did you do before that?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3107
Mr. Wtatt. Well, worked aroiiiKl, meat cutting, with other com-
panies up there ; other truck companies up there. I worked for them.
They got mostly colored help up there, prefer them to the white.
Mr. Sparkman. You are not a skilled mechanic of any type?
Mr. Wyatt. Only as far as meat cutting and truck driving are
concerned. That is what I follow mostly.
Mr. Sparkman. Chester is quite a manufacturing center, is it not?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes. They manufacture about everything that there
is; mostly gasoline refineries, oil refineries.
JNIr. Sparkman. Why were you not able to find work with some
other company there?
Mr. Wyatt. I have put applications in with about every company
up there, and they tell me there is nothing right now, and if some-
thing turns up they will send for me. I do know that they have
hired people from Delaware and Maryland and New Jersey in
preference to people around Chester.
Mr. Sparkman. You mean the manufacturing plants there prefer
out-of-Siate labor to local labor?
:Mr. Wyatt. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever registered with the employment
office?
:Mr. Wyatt. I registered the other day with the employment office
in Baltimore. I was also registered with them up in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sparkman. In Chester?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. Have they not been able to find anything for you?
Mr. Wyatt. They sent me one application, to apply to a store for
a meat-cutting job, and when I got there he said, 'T sent down there
2 weeks ago for a man."
Mr. Sparkman. That was in Baltimore?
Mr. Wyatt. That was in Chester. But it was only the other day
that I registered up in Baltimore. I do not know — they have not
had time to get things through for them to send for me.
Mr. Sparkman. You have not heard anything yet?
Mr. Wyatt. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. You plan to stay on in Baltimore?
Mr. Wyatt. Providing I can get a position where I can take care
of my family and make my home in Baltimore. Wherever I can
get a job and support my family,-, that is where I will make my home.
Mr. Sparkman. If you do not find any work there, do you i^lan to
go back to Chester?
Mr. Wyatt. I do not know if I will go back, but I will go some-
where until I do find something. I can always manage to make a
few dollars to give us something to eat until I do find something.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you are going to stay on and look
out for something to do, and go wherever it may take you.
Mr. Wyatt. Wherever I can find a job to support my family, that
is where I intend to make my home.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever applied for public or private
relief ?
3108 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Wyatt. I did have to up in Chester, but not here, because I
think I hardly need it. In Chester we did have reHef a couple of
times, but we have not applied for it here [Baltimore] because we
have not had need for it yet.
Mr. Sparkman. Are your children in school ?
Mr. Wyatt. Yes, sir. One reason why we settled down for the
winter was to send the children to school.
Mr. Sparkman. You have never had any trouble about their
schooling, because you have simply gone out during the summer
months ?
Mr. Wyatt. Mostly, though maybe once in a while, about a month
or so, when we would be late getting them in. But at the end of the
term they were always up in their marks and passed.
Mr. Sparkman. How much have you been on the road? In how
many different States have you been or how many different places?
Mr. Wyatt. Truck driving, I guess I drove in every State east of
the Mississippi Kiver.
Mr. Sparkman. I do not mean in connection with your truck
driving, but I mean looking for jobs.
]\Ir. Wyatt. Looking for work, I guess I have traveled in about
8 or 10 different States on the eastern seaboard.
Mr. Sparkman. Mrs. Wyatt, do you like to travel around?
Mrs. Wyatt. No; if he had steady work I would be perfectly
satisfied.
Mr. Sparkman. You would much prefer for him to have steady
work?
Mrs. Wyatt. Yes, sir.
Mr, Sparkman. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Wyatt, it is simply a question of eating that
impels you to move around, is that right? You move around to get
something to do so that you can eat?
Mr. Wyatt. And keep our bills paid up. In other words, our rent
and our electricity, and one thing and another. In other words, we
were not making enough to support the family the way we should
do, and we drifted back with our rent, and they cut our electricity
off. We stored our stuff in a garage and started to travel. I had a
truck. I had a little owing on that, and since coming back to Balti-
more I have lost it.
The Chairman. You traveled in a truck, did you?
Mr. Wyatt. I had a little Chevrolet truck, three-fourths ton.
The Chairman. Have you still got that?
Mr. Wyatt. No, sir ; I had to give it up.
The Chairman. Are you on relief now ?
Mr. Wyatt. No, sir.
The Chairman. How much money have you at this time?
Mr. Wyatt. At the present time I do not have any. Tomorrow
night I will have.
The Chairman. How is that ?
Mr. Wyatt. I do not have any right now, but tomorrow I will
have.
The Chairman. Where will you get it tomorrow ?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3109
Mr. Wyatt. I will go and get a job cutting meat in some butcher
shop for Saturday.
Ihe Chairman. Will you have your children come up to the table,
and state their names and ages for the record ?
(The children came forward.)
Mr. Wyatt. Their names are: James, 13; Myrtle, 12; Thelma, 9;
Junior, 7 ; Howard, 5 ; Norman, 4 months.
The Chairman, How old dicl you say the baby is?
Mrs. Wyatt. Four months; slie has been in three States.
The Chairman, How about going to school in the summer months?
Mr. Wyatt. We generally travel during the vacation months, and
they go to school in the wintertime.
The Chaiisman. In your travels, where did you live?
Mr. Wyatt. We have a big tent.
The Chairman, How big is the tent?
Mr, A\ YATT. Twelve feet square.
The Chairman. And where did you put the tent up, near cities?
Mr. Wyatt. Generally on the fair grounds. They generally have
one section of the fair grounds for trailers and tents of the different
ones working the fairs.
The Chairman, And the eight of you would live in the tent ?
]Mr, W^yatt, Yes,
The Chairman, Thank you very much, Mr, Wyatt, I hope you
get that job tomorrow.
Mr. Wyatt. I hope so.
PANEL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. BONDY, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
WELFARE BOARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; DAVID G. LINDEN,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NONRESIDENT SERVICE, PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND DR.
GEORGE C. RUHLAND, HEALTH OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Bondy, do you have any general statement to
make first, or would you rather that we just ask some questions?
Mr. BoNDY. Whatever you wish, sir. I have, as you know, sub-
mitted a statement to the committee, and if you like I can make a
very brief resume of that statement.
(The matter referred to follow^:)
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BONDY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Public Welfare in the District of Columbia
historical
Prior to the depression period of the 1030's responsibility for service in the
District of Columbia to nonresidents, homeless persons, and transients was
shared by the District of Colmnbia government and certain private social
agencies. The District of Columbia government, under an act of Congress,
approved in 18D9, conducted a nonresident service which, upon authorization
of the home state of the nonresident, provided transportation for the return of
the nonresident to his home jurisdiction. A municipal lodging house was con-
3X10 INTERiSTATE MIGRATlOxN
ducted by the District of Columbia government, and it carried on a service of
deporration of insane persons to rlieir liome Spates upon autliorization.
Througli private funds the Salvation Army, the Volunteers of America, the
Travelers Aid Society, the American Legion and, to some extent, the family
societies of the community, namely, the Family Welfare Association, the Jevpish
Welfare Society, and the Catholic Charities, together with the Gospel Mission
and the Central Union Mission carried on programs in behalf of the non-
resident. The Salvation Army served single unattached men with lodging and
other facilities; the Travelers Aid Society, unattached women and families;
the American Legion and the American Red Cross the needs of veterans and
their families; and the missions gave lodging facilities.
During IS 30, 1931. and 1932, funds were made available from the community
chest for certain of these activities, but the relief burdens of the early depres-
sion years due to unemployment became so heavy that the District of Columbia
government and the Federal Government assumed responsibility in 1932 for
unemployment relief and for care of nonresidents and transients.
The years 1932, 19' 3, 1934, and 1935 became peak years in the volume of
persons coming to Washington from other States and requiring care in the
community. The first Bonus Army in the fall of 1932 brought the first wave.
The Bonus Army was predominently made up of single men, although there
were over lOU families with children. Emergency care was given jointly by
private agencies and Governnent agencies, but predominantly by private agen-
cies; shanty towns were erected on the Mall with 300 shacks, and at Fort
Dupont. As much as $90,000 was expended in 2 weeks for transportation to
the home Srates of the members of the army. Most of the members of the
army returned home, but some continued in the District of Columbia, thereby
setting up the first residue for local care.
A community chest fund of $100,000 administered by the Citizens' Commit-
tee on Unemployment then came into being and was the start of the local
relief agency with a local work program. The Federal Emergency Relief Ad-
ministration early in 1^33 took over this local relief and work program, and
in November 1933. the Transient Bureau, directed and financed by the Federal
Government, was organized in the District of Columbia. This Bureau con-
tinued until September 1935. and during its existence was responsible for the
housing, and feeding, and other care of nonresidents in 13 different imits, and
there were camps at Beltsville and Fairfax. Port Eustis was later opened as
a camp to which 4.500 men were sent. Hospital facilities were available at
that point. Contract care was arranged for families and individuals in rental
quarters covering about 30 percent of the total of nonresident persons.
The liquidation of this Transient Bureau program brought the transfer of
1.300 nonresidents to the Works Progress Administration project at Greenbelt,
an additional 400 families with work'ng persons in the families to the same
project : 200 were absorbed by the Public Assistance Division of the Board
of Public Welfare, which had become the public relief agency in the District
of Columbia: and 4 500 veterans were provided transportation under a Fnleral
Emergency Relief Administration grant of $100,000. the Transient Bureau
being responsible for certifying veterans and sending them to points of legal
residerce, including points for hospital care.
It was upon the liquidation of this Transient Bureau program that the non-
resident service of the Public Assistance Division of the Board of Public
Welfare was created under its present form, jilthough there had been a service
for return of persons to their home States under a law enacted in 1899 as
previously indicated.
The largo numbers of people who came to Washington and became responsi-
bilities of Government during these years, 1932 to 1935, came for a variety of
reasons.
There was inadequnte relief and public care provision in many of the States
and looal communities; Members of Congress and others in the Nation's Capital
promised positions to per.sons back home ; the Bonus Army and other groups
came to exert pressure upon Congress and the executive branch of the Gov-
ernment ; veterans to the extent of probabl.v one-third to one-half of those
coming to Washington nnd requiring service came to exert pressure in legisla-
tive and executive matters and to lobby; many veterans came for presentation
of claims and hospitalization benefits ; others came to seek employment and
INTERSTATE IMIGRATION 3111
because they felt that at their Nation's Capital some aid in securing employ-
ment could be obtained.
With the creation of the nonresident service in the Board of Public Welfare
with a small annual appropriation of $20,000, the residue of the Federal Emer-
gency Relief Administration funds established to transport persons to their
home communities was utilized by the nonresident service for a period of 2
years in the amount of .$55,000 to return veterans to their home States and to
Government hospitals. But with the exhaustion of this fund Federal aid was
discontinued, although a considerable residue of persons and families from the
1932 to 1935 years remained for care in the District of Columbia and in dimin-
ished volume the influx of nonresidents continued because of the attraction of
the Nation's Capital.
THE NONRESIDENT PBOBlLEM TODAY — ITS CAUSES, NATURE, AND EXTENT
The nonresident problem in the District of Columbia seems to arise prin-
cipally from the following causes:
1. The central office of the United States Veterans' Administration is located
in Washington as is Mount Alto Hospital, one of the important diagnostic centers
of the Veterans' Administration. Many veterans come on official business to
secure settlement of claims and to arrange for hospitalization and diagnostic
care. Veterans' preference on the defense-program employment brings veterans
to Washington who think that employment is available here.
2. The present defense program seems to be responsible for some of the non-
resident influx. The applications for care at the nonresident service of the
Board of Public Welfare during the summer months of 1940 remained high in
contrast to the usual drop during the summer, about 60 percent being un-
classified laborers and 40 percent white-collar and skilled workers. Skilled
mechanics have come from as far away as the State of Washington thinking
that announcements made from a Washington date line by the United States
Civil Service Connnission of the need of skilled mechanics in the defense
program meant that the employment was available in Washington, D. C.
Similarly, announcements by the War and Navy Departments and the Advisory
Commission to the Council of National Defense have brought people to Wash-
ington although employment existed in industrial and military camp communi-
ties elsewhere. Many others have become stranded in Washington en route to
employment prospects in national defense communities. The Government
building program has attracted others.
3. Seasonal migrants moving to the South in the fall and winter and to the
North in the spring become stranded, including persons going to work in the
fruit industry of Florida and the South, those seeking winter hotel and
restaurant employment, those following race tracks. Washington's bottleneck
junction point between North and South results in many of these seasonal
workers and others moving across country for other employment becoming
stranded here. Included in this latter group are seamen moving from Gulf
coast ports to New York and other northeastern coast points in search of
anticipated employment.
4. Related to the prt'ccdin.u i»ara;irai)h is the usual movement of persons
about the country seeking cniplKynicnt, health facilities, and for other reasons
who become stranded in WashiH,i;t<in because of its junction-point facilities
between the North and South.
5. Christmas industries and employment, such" as at the post office and at
the railroad terminal, bring out-of-town i^eople who arrive broke and at the end
of their employment are often stranded and need help In returning to their
own home community.
6. Others are attracted to Washington, as is true of Baltimore, to secure
civilian hospitalization. Emergency cases arise, and in instances when hospital
care has been completed but convalescent care is necessary these persons in
need of convalescent care become public-welfare charges in the absence of
adequate convalescent facilities in the District of Columbia.
7. Many persons are attracted to the Nation's Capital who are mentally and
emotionally unbalanced. Some come to the White House in search of confer-
ence with the President. (As many as 50 to 75 cases a year are referred by
Secret Service officers at the White House for mental institutional care and
260370— 41— pt. 8-
3112 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
ultimately become the responsibility of the Board of Public Welfare for return
to their home States after authorization has been secured. Meanwhile, the cost
of care in the local municipal hospital and the St. Elizabeths Hospital is, of
necessity, borne by the District of Columbia government.) Others call upon
other branches of the Federal Government with panaceas, and particularly
that is true during the presence of great unemployment periods and of
national emergencies. During the 1940 fiscal year, the Board of Public Welfare,
through its service for deportation of nonresident insane, returned 204 insane
persons to their home States after authorization.
The nature of the nonresident problem, therefore, is largely determined by
these causative factors. The causative factors that are unique for the District
of Columbia because it is the Nation's Capital, counterbalance causative factors
creating nonresident problems in other cities of the country. The observation
of those acquainted with nonresident service in the District of Columbia and
familiar with similar service in other cities is that there is, relatively, about the
same volume in proportion to popnlation, but the cause is different, although
some causes are common to Wasliinnton and other cities.
The actual extent of the ndui-esidcnt problem in the District of Columbia
is not known statistically. It is known that 4,1.57 unattached individuals and
106 families, a total of 4,263 cases, were received for service by the nonresident
service of the Board of Public Welfare for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940.
A statistical summary of the work of the nonresident service for the year
is attached to this statement.
The municipal lodging house of the Board of Public Welfare has capacity
for about 45 men and is generally filled except in the mild sunmier months.
The nonresident insane service handled the deportation of 204 nonresident
insane to their home States after authorization during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1940, 149 of the number being deported at District of Columbia
expense. Nine hundred and four patients were admitted to St. Elizabeths
Hospital from the District of Columbia during the year 1940, a total of 4,454
District of Columbia patients being under care in the hospital at the close of
the fiscal year.
It is estimated by those acquainted with the problem that during the cold
months of the winter, from 2C0 to 500 homeless, unattached men are without
suitable lodging facilities and find what comfort they can standing through
the night over grates in front of buildings, occupying quarters at police precinct
stations, and otherwise caring for themselves within or without the law.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT PKOGRAM FOH NONRESIDENTS
The program of the District of Columbia government has been indicated
in a measure in the previous section on problem, its causes, nature, and extent.
In the public-welfare field, a program is carried on through the nonresident
service, the nonresident insane service and the municipal lodging house. All
of these are agencies of the Board of Public Welfare.
The nonresident service called in the appropriation act for the District of
Columbia of 1940 "Transportation of Nonresident and Indigent Persons" is stated
in that act as providing "for transportation of indigent nonresident persons .to
their legal residence or to the home of a relative or relatives, including mainte-
nance pending transportation, and transportation of other indigent persons,
including indigent veterans of the World War and their families, $20,000, of
which amount not to exceed $7,100 shall be available for personal services."
There is no fund available to this service for care of nonresidents, except imat-
tached men at the Municipal Lodging House, during any extended period of inves-
tigation for nuthorization for return to their home State, or for care of individ-
uals or families in the event that no ivsidence is established. The nonresident
service of the Board of Public Welfare must depond upon the services of certain
private agencies, including the Travelers Aid Society, the Salvation Army, the
American Legion, and others for certain care during the period of investigation
and otherwise. Suffering ensues because of the lack of funds for such care.
Such suffering cannot be measured statistically. The number of families and
individuals ntfected cannot be definitely determined, and further, there is no
known yardstick for human suffering. It may be said safely that hundreds of
families and individuals are in this category of unmet need.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3113
The iioiiresideut service has a close scheme of cooperation with the private
ageucies named, and upon reference by them, considers cases for transportation to
home States where authorization is given. The principal division of responsibility
is homeless men by the nonresident service, families and children by the Travelers
Aid Society, and veterans by the American Legion, with the Salvation Army,
Volunteers of America, and the missions giving lodging care, and the nonresident
service, itself, handling the actual transportation on returns.
The nonresident insane service under the wording of the appropriation was
established "For deportation of nonresident insane persons, in accordance with the
act of Congress entitled 'An act to provide for Insanity proceedings in the District
of Columbia,' approved June 8, 1938, including persons held in the psychopathic
ward of the Gallinger Municipal Hospital, .$12.(100."
This service is responsible for deportation of nonresident insane, 204 being:
deported during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940. The service is also respon-
sible for securing the largest possible measure of support by relatives and the
friends of insane patients in St. Elizabeths Hospital and for giving general over-
sight to the interests of the District of Columbia under contract arrangement for
care of District of Columbia patients in St. Elizabeths Hospital.
The Municipal Lodging House occupies two residence buildings in a blocli owned
by the District of Columbia and ultimately to be used for the ni'w Public Library.
The buildings have a capacity of about 4.") men. It operates as an adjunct to the
nonresident service in the temporary lodging of men who are under consideration
for return to their home States.
The fields of the private agencies nave been referred to at various points in this
statement and will be covered in special memoranda by the agencies themselves.
The community program, both governmental and private, for tlie care of non-
resident persons may be said to have the following defects and lacks :
1. Lack of uniformity in residence laws of the States makes for problems of care
of persons who have lost residence or who, for other reasons, cannot receive
suitable care.
2. There is no provision in the District of Columbia for care of persons either
by governmental or private ageucies, where there has been loss of residence or
residence cannot be proved.
3. While the colored population is proportionately low in the number receiving
nonresident care by Govei-nment agencies — the number being about one in four —
there is, at the same time, almost a total lack of suitable lodging or temporary
family living facilities for colored persons.
4. Public and private lodging facilities for nonresident unattached men is
inadequate and fall short during the winter months of providing care for from
200 to 500 men.
5. The lack of District of Columbia facilities for care of convalescents and
chronics leaves no facilities available for these persons when they are non-
resident here.
6. There is no fund available in the Government agency for care of nonresi-
dents during the period of investigation of possible return to the home State
except the Municipal Lodging House, and no fund for care of those who are
found to lack residence.
7. General relief funds in the District of Columbia, because of lack of ade-
quate appropriation, are not sufficient to care for persons who are employable.
Further, the limitations in Congressional appropriation on the amount that
may be given in grant to individuals and to families receiving any category
of assistance makes relief given inadequate. A basic need in the entire relief
program, therefore, including the nonresident relief program, is more adequate
lelief appropriation for general relief and removal of the limitations or ceilings
in the appropriation.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
The following proposals are made :
1. Uniform settlement laws for the various States and the District of
Columbia.
2. Adequate general relief to be accomplished under the Federal Social Se-
curity Act by making provision for the District of Columbia that the Social
Security Board match local expenditures with general public assistance in the
3114
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
same way that it matches local expenditures for old-age assistance, aid to the
needy blind, and aid to dependent children.
(Note. — Appended to this statement is a proposal for general public assistance
in the District of Columbia providing for the matching of local funds by Federal
Social Security funds with a suggested draft of amendment to the Federal
Social Security Act.)
3. As part of a Federal program, suitable provision of funds for care of
nonresident persons and families during the period of investigation of residence
for return to the home State and, in the event that residence is not found to
exist, a period of care until a plan is developed in each instance.
4. A Municipal Lodging House with suitable services that would meet a rea-
sonable part of the need for lodging facilities for homeless men, both white and
colored.
Received subsistence and/or transportation.
Average amount per recipient
Nonresident service, fiscal year, July 1, 1939,
to June SO, 1940
Classification
Total
Number of
unattached
individuals
Number
of
families
2
4,263
2
4,157
106
4,265
4,159
955
2,855
455
896
2,826
437
59
Received service onlv - - --
29
18
4,230
35
4,135
24
95
Analysis of action taken
Number Percent
Service completed (temporary care pending adjustment)
Minor aid
Sent home
Sent to veterans' facilities
Authorization refused
Referred to other agency (including hospital)
Refused plan
Money sent by relatives --
Other
Service refused.
Failed to cooperate
Requested employment or clothing. Civilian Conservation Corps enlistment, etc
Legal residence within 50 miles of District of Columbia
Not indigent
Service not completed .-
J, 776
2,379
579
255
202
144
131
61
24
55.8
13.6
6.0
Proposal for Genjir-^l Pubijc Assistance, Dist|rict of Columbia
Under the Federal Social Security Act, the District of Columbia and the States
are reimbursed by the Social Security Board for certain expenditures made in
behalf of the aged, the blind, and dependent children under the provisions of
the Social Security Act for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to
dependent children.
In addition, the District of Columbia and the States provide in their public-
assistance program a plan of general public assistance to those needy families
without sufficient resources to meet their needs who are not covered by these
three .social-security titles or by work relief under the Work Projects Adminis-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3115
tratioii or otherwise. In most States the municipalities receive aid from State
fuuds for this purpose. Such funds are not available in the District of Columbia.
In the District of Columbia funds for general public assistance are part of the
District of Columbia annual appropriation by Congress and these funds approxi-
mate $750,000 of the $900,000 voted in the first of the public-assistance appropria-
tions for the District of Columbia. This appropriation is not sufficient to meet
the needs of all those who have insufficient resources to meet their own food, rent,
clothing, and other expenses. The District of Columbia position may be shown
by the following points :
1. According to a study in 1938 by the United States Children's Bureau, the
District of Columbia expended $1.38 for general public assistance from public
funds per capita compared to $5.59 for 29 of the larger urban areas of the Nation.
2. Of the 19 largest cities of the Nation covered in reports of the Social Security
Board the District of Columbia is the only city, with one exception, that does not
have sufficient funds to give general relief to employable persons.
It is proposed in this situation that Congress enact legislation authorizing the
Federal Social Security Board to reimburse the District of Columbia on an equal
matching basis for local expenditures for general public assistance, on the same
basis as is done for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent
children. This procedure is justified because —
1. It is logical that in the Nation's Capital Congress assume this matching
responsibility for general public assistance as is done with the other social-
security titles.
2. In the Nation's Capital no State funds are available to supplement local
funds for general relief.
3. The Nation's Capital should not be outstanding among the great cities of the
ctjuntry where human need is not met.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representaiives of the United States
of America in Congress assemUed, That this Act may be cited as the " "
Title I — Amendment to the Social Security Act by the Addition of Title XII
Title XII — Grants to the Disrict of Columbia for General Public Assistance
Sec. 1201. For the purpose of enabling the District of Columbia (hereinafter
referred to as the District) to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable
under the conditions in the District, to needy families, as well as to needy indi-
viduals (who have not been found eligible for assistance under titles I, IV, and X
of this Act), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1941, the sum of $ , and there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the
purposes of this title. The District is hereby authorized to submit a plan for
general public assistance to the Social Security Board for its approval in accord-
ance with the provisions of this title and upon such approval the sums made
available under this section shall be used for making payments to the District
as hereinafter provided.
district plan for general public assistance
Sec. 1202. (a) The District plan for general public assistance must (1) provide
for the establishment or designation of a single District agency to administer the
plan; (2) provide for the granting to any individual, whose claim for general
public assistance is denied, an opportunity for a fair hearing before the District
agency; (3) provide such methods of administration (including methods re-
lating to the establishment and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit
basis, except that the Board shall exercise no authority with respect to the
selection, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual employed in ac-
cordance with such methods) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the
proper and efficient operation of the plan; (4) provide that the District agency
will make such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the
Board may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the
Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and veri-
3116 IN^TERSTATE MIGRATION
fication of such reports; (5) provide that the District agency shall, iu determin-
ing need, take into consideration any other income and resources of the family
or individual claiming general public assistance; and (6) provide safeguards
which restrict the use or disclosure of information concerning applicants and
recipients to purposes directly connected with the administration of general
public assistance.
(b) The Board shall approve any plan which fulfills the conditions specified in
subsection (a), except that it shall not approve any plan which imposes, as a
condition of eligibility for general public assistance under the plan —
(1) Any residence requirement which excludes any resident of the District
who has resided therein continuously for one year immediately preceding
the application ; or
(2) Any citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen of the United
States.
PAYMENT TO DISTRICT
Sec. 1203. (a) From the sums appropriated therefor, the Secretary of the Treas-
ury shall pay to the District, upon approval by the Board of the District plan for
general public assistance, for each quarter, beginning with the quarter commenc-
ing July 1, 1940, (1) an amount, which shall be used exclusively as general public
assistance, equal to one-half of the total of the sums expended during such quarter
as general public assistance under the DistiMct plan with respect to each needy
family, as well as with respect to each needy individual who at the time of such
expenditure is not an inmate of a public institution, except to the extent that such
need may be provided by employment on Public Works projects, wholly or par-
tially financed l)y the T'ederal Government, and not counting so much of such
expenditure for any month as exceed;? $40 with respect to any individual or head
of a family, and $12 with respect to each additional member of any such needy
family,'^ and (2) an amount equal to one-half of the total of the sums expended
during such quarter as found necessary by the Board for the proper and efficient
administration of the District plan, which amount shall be used for paying the
costs of administering the District plan or for general public assistance, or both,
and for no other purpose.
(b) The method of computing and paying such amounts shall be as follows:
(1) The Board shall, prior to the beginning of each (luarter, estimate the
amount to be paid to the District for such quarter under the provisions of
subsection (a), such estimate to be based on (A) a report filed by the District
containing its estimate of the total sum to be expended in such quarter in
accordance with the provisions of such subsection, and stating the amount
appropriated or made available by the District for such exiienditures in such
quarter, and if such amount is less than one-half of the total sum of such esti-
mated expenditures, the source or sources from which the diffei-ence is ex-
pected to be derived, (B) records showing the number of families and indi-
viduals in need of general public assistance, (C) such other investigation as
the Board may find necessary.
(2) The Board shall then certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the
iimount so estimated by the Board, (A) reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any sum by which it finds that its estimate for any prior quarter was
greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to the District
under subsection (a) for such quarter, and (B) reduced by a sum equivalent
to the pro rata share to which the United States is equitably entitled, as deter-
mined by the Board, of the net amount recovered during a prior quarter by
the District with respect to general public assistance furnished under District
plan ; except that such increases or deductions shall not be made to the extent
that such sums have been applied to make the :>mount certified for any prior
quarter greater or less than the amount estimated by the Board for such
prior quarter: Provided, That any part of the amount recovered from the
estate of a deceased recipient which is not in excess of the amount expended
by the District for the funeral expenses of the deceased shall not be considered
as a basis for reduction under clause (B) of this paragraph.
^Alternative: $40 in the case of any individual over 18 years of age, and $12 addi-
tional with respect to any child under 18 years of age.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3117
(3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall thereupon, through the Division
of Disbursement of the Treasury Department, and prior to audit or
settlement by the General Accounting Office, pay to the District, at the
time or times fixed by the Board, the amount so certified.
OPERATION OF DISTRICT PLAN
Sec. 1204. In the case of a District plan for general public assistance which
has been approved by the Board, if the Board, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the District agency administering such plan, finds —
(1) That the plan has been so changed as to impose any residence or
citizenship requirement prohibited by section 1202, subdivision (b), or
that in the administration of the plan any such prohibited requirement
is imposed, with the knowledge of the District agency, in a substantial
number of cases ; or
(2) That in the administration of the plan there is a failure to comply
substantially with any provision required by section 1202 (a) to be included
in tlie plan ;
the Board shall notify the District agency that further payments will not be
made to tlie District until the Board is satisfied that such prohibited require-
ment is no longer imposed, and that there is no longer any such failure to
comply. Until it is so satisfied it shall make no further certification to the
Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the District.
ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 1205. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1941, the sum of $ for all necessary expenses of the
Board in administering the provisions of this title.
DEFINITION
Sec. 1206. When used in this title the term "general public assistance" means
money payments to needy families or needy individuals.
Title II — Amendment to Title XI ^
Title II— Amendment to Title XI
Sec. 1101. (a) When used in this act —
(1) The term "State" (except when used in section 531 and in titles
I, IV, and X) includes the District of Columbia, and (except when used
in section 531) includes Alaska and Hawaii, and when used in title V
and VI of such Act (including section 531) includes Puerto Rico.
(2) (No change in remainder of title XI.)
TESTIMONY OF ROBEET E. BONDY— Resumed
Mr. Spakkman. I ^yill ask you a few questions, if I may. We have
your statement. That has been filed, of course, and becomes part of
the record. These questions I sliall ask are based u])on the statement
that you have filed with us.
Are there nonresidents comin<r to Washin<>ton now in as large
numbers as they did in the early 1930"s ?
Mr. BoNDY. No, they are not. The years 1932-35 were peak years,
beginning with the nationally known bonus-army march on Washing-
- To be inserted only if there is an elimination of the reference to titles I, IV, and X
in proposed title XII.
31 Ig INTERSTATE MIGRATIOiN
ton, followed, by the coming of a great many people because of de-
pression situations throughout the country.
During that period, the Federal Government, through its Transient
Bureau and otherwise, assumed a rather considerable responsibility for
financing — the large responsibility of caring of nonresidents in Wash-
ington during the years 1932-35.
Today, compared with that time, there is not as heavy an influx, as
my statement points out, but the last 2 or 3 months have shown some
significant increase in the number of nonresidents coming to Wash-
ington compared to last spring or a year ago.
Mr. Spakkman. Mr. Bondy, when you refer to nonresidents coming
to Washington, do you mean all nonresidents, not necessarily simply
those that are destitute ?
Mr. BoNDY. I am referring to all nonresidents.
CAUSES OF MIGRATION TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Sparkman. Are there any causes for their migration to the
District of Columbia differing from the causes affecting their migration
to other large cities?
Mr. BoNDY. Mr. Sparkman, Commissioner Young stated this morn-
ing that there are some causes that are unique in bringing nonresidents
to the District, because this is the Nation's Capital. That clearly is
true. Washington has the central office of the United States Veterans'
Administration. It has one of the important diagnostic centers of the
United States Veterans' Administration. Therefore, there are many
veterans who come to Washington to prosecute claims, to secure benefits
to which they are entitled, and for hospital care and treatment here.
Secondly, the national-defense program itself seems to occasion some
increase in the nonresident population, and is one of the causes for
nonresident problems here in the National Capital. For instance, the
Civil Service Commission will issue a public announcement through
the newspapers that there is great need for skilled mechanics in the
national-defense industries of the countries. That goe« out through
the papers of the country over a Washington date line. The jobs are
not in Washington. There might be a few^ at the navy yard. But the
jobs may be in Alabama or Nebraska or California.
Mr. Curtis. Thei-e are no defense jobs in Nebraska.
Mr. Bondy. Maybe they are in California, then, Mr. Congressman.
The Chairman. I find them coming away from California to get
jobs here.
Mr. BoNDY. We had the instance of one man who read that civil-
service announcement over a Washington date line, who was a skilled
mechanic, and who came from the State of Washington to the Nation's
Capital to secure that job that had been announced. Of course, the
job was not here.
Similarly, the War Department, the Navy Department, and the
National Defense Advisory Commission in their announcements of
the need for employment give out news releases from the city of
Washington, and that again creates a mistaken idea that there is
employment here. That is one of the reasons for the bringing of
nonresidents to Washington. And the reason growing out of the
fact that Washington is the National Capital.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3119
Another reason relating to the unique causes of migration due
to this city being tlie Nation's Capital, is that a great many people
over the country have the idea that they have panaceas for the cure of
some of the ills of the world and of the Nation. They think that
if they can have an opportunity for an audience with a Member of
Congress or the President, as soon as they can have their panacea
presented, the matter will be cared for. Some of those who come here
with that in mind are emotionally and mentally upset.
One illustration of that is that on the White House receiving line,
the Secret Service men will, during the period of a year, find any-
where from 50 to 75 mentally deranged persons who come seeking to
present their cures for the ills of the country to the President of
the United States. Those people inevitably will go through the ma-
chinery of local District of Columbia care, at the municipal hospital,
and then on through St. Elizabeths Hospital, and then through our
service for the deportation of the insane, which must take them back
to their home States again.
Meanwhile, all of this process and expense of local care has gone on.
That is one of the causes growing out of this being Nation's Capital.
Another thing that brings nonresidents to Washington is true
of other cities. This is the north-and-south gateway, the point of
railway transportation and highway transportation, through which
people and merchandise must go north and south. Well, with the
movement of seasonal labor in the fruit industry, vegetables, race
tracks, hotel and restaurant business, people move out of the North
into the South in the winter months and back in the spring months,
from the South to the North, coming through Washington as the
gateway, and inevitably there are a good many stranded here who
require*^ care and aid in getting to their home communities.
Then Washington, like other communities, has a certain seasonal
employment. The holiday time brings a heavy load on the post-
office terminal stations, and people come from nearby States, who
get here without funds, and even those on relief and out of employ-
ment, and require assistance to return home. Many people come
because of the existence of civilian and public hospital facilities and
medical care. No doubt Dr. Ruhland will speak more about that
phase of the question.
Those are the principal causes why people come, as nonresidents, to
the Nation's Capital, and I want to emphasize that not only are
there the usual causes here that Baltimore, or New York, or San
Francisco would have, but there are several very important causes
that are unique because Washington is the Nation's Capital.
We here are on the receiving end, in other words. You talk about
short- and long-term programs. There is no way in which Wash-
ington can develop a long-term program. We are on the receiving
end. If the Nation as a whole does not develop its long-term pro-
gram, there is nothing we can do here, insofar as these people who
come to us are concerned; because the number of Washington resi-
dents in other States who are suggested for proper return to the
District of Columbia, as residents here, is very small in comparison
with those who come to Washington from other States and may pos-
sibly have a better chance for employment back in their home
communities.
3120 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Linden, you are director of the nonresident
service ?
Mr. Linden. That is right.
SERVICE TO NONRESIDENTS
Mr. Sparkman. What service do you render nonresidents ?
Mr. Linden. Of the persons who come to our office our primary
purpose is to find out what they want to do. Of course the desire is,
mostly, for employment; I mean that is their primary purpose in
being here. After we have discussed our plan — what we could offer
them — why, we do offer them the opportunity of going back home.
If they are agreeable to that, we make every effort to reastablish
their resources in their home community. That represents about a
third or a fourth of our intake of individuals.
Mr. Sparkman. How do you happen to get in touch with them ; or,
rather, how do they happen to come to you? How do they come to
you ?
Mr. Linden. They are directed to us by ^-arious organizations in
the District of Columbia — the Police Department and all of the
municipal organizations. Oftentimes tlieir answers are that they
have been told by someone else on the street that Ave have this service.
TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE C. RUHLAND— Resumed
Mr. Sparkman. Dr. Ruhland, would you please give a copy of
your prepared statement to the reporter ?
Dr. Ruhland. I will be glad to.
(The statement is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE C. RUHLAND, HEALTH OFFICER, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Health Problkm Among Migrants
In 1930 tho population of the District of Columbia was recorded as 486,869
in the Fifteenth Census, and the preliminary lisiures for tlie 1940 census in-
dicate an increase to approximately (i(i:i.nil(i pcrsdus. This increase of about
176,000 was for the most part the result of migration into the District because
the natural increase (excess of births over deaths) accounted for only 25,000
of the 176,000 during this period.
In the 1930 census it was found that 60 percent of the native white and
colored populations of the District were born in other States. Approximately
15 percent of the native population (white and colored) in 1930 were born
in Virginia, 10 percent in Maryland, 4 percent in Pennsylvania, 3 percent in
North Carolina, 3 percent in New York, and 2S> percent in South ('arolina.
It is evident from the Census Bureau data that more than half of the popula-
tion in the District of Columbia is made up of persons who were born in other
States and have migrated into the District. The rcniaiiulcr of the 60 percent
were born in various other States. In 1938 the Washington Housing Asso-
ciation estimated from available statistics that there were 608,494 rooms avail-
able for occupancy in all types of dwellings in the District. At the same
time it was estimated that the population was about 627,000, or an increase
of 141,000 from 1930, which indicated an increase of approximately 47,000
families. During this period from 1930 to 1937, inclusive, 22,564 dwelling
units were constructed. On the basis of tlie above figures about 18,(X)0 persons
lacked adequate rooming facilities and only about one-half of the 47,000
families had no separate dwelling units in which to live. This naturally
resulted in increasing the number of persons per room or number of families
per dwelling unit. This becomes even more evident when the higher-income
groups and better-housing units are eliminated.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3121
On one of the attached maps (fig. 1, p. 3122) the density of population in the
District of Columhia by census tracts is shown. In many of these census
tracts with high densities of population are to be found some of the worst
housing conditions in the city. In such areas where many of the families
on relief are living are to be found dwellings containing whole families in
one or two rooms. Many such dwellings are rented by single individuals
to people in the very low income groups and those on relief. Other units
are parts of estates and some are owned and rented by Government employees.
It is not uncommon now for many of these dwelling units originally designed
to house one family to contain three or four families consisting of three or
more members. That such conditions do exist may be seen in the attached
memorandum from the Bureau of Nursing on several home investigations of
certain maternal-welfare eases. This memorandum also shows the presence
of certain migrant families in the low-income group in the areas of crowding
and poor housing.
Various statistical studies carried on by the health department show that
the mortality rates from tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, and other com-
numicable diseases are generally higher in the areas where the concentration
of population is greatest and housing conditions are the poorest. Infant
and maternal mortality rates show a similar distribution. Admission to the
social hygiene clinic for the treatment of syphilis and gonorrhea are also
most numerous in the same areas. Hospital admissions made through the
hospital permit bureau for the medically indigent are most numerous in the
.same sections of the city. The attached maps ^ clearly indicate this association
between crowding and mortality from various causes of death in the District
of Columbia, a fact which has been proved in numerous studies in other communi-
ties of this and other countries.
Definite data are not available to the health department regarding numbers of
persons or families now residing in the District of Columbia who have migrated
from other States in recent years, nor is it possible to state why any given number
has migrated. Many in the low-income group undoubtedly have migrated, in the
hope of obtaining employment, and still others in the hope of obtaining medical
care or relief after establishing residence.
To be eligible for certain types (if medical care, particularly hospitalization,
supported by tax funds, the applicants for such care must have been residents of
the District for at least 1 year and be unable to pay. During October 1940 there
were 1,6( 9 applications for hospitalization at the Hospital Permit Bureau, operated
by the Health Department. Of these, 122 were rejected because of their financial
condition, and 77 were admitted as part-pay patients. Seventy applicants who
had not been residents for 1 year also presented themselves. An analysis of 50
of these 70 applications was studied and the following information was obtained :
1. Eiiiploinucnt. — Seventeen had been employed for periods of 1 day to 8 months
immediately prior to application, 20 were not employed, 7 were classified as house-
wives, and 5 as children, and for 1 there was no statement.
2. Former residence. — Ten were formerly residents in Maryland, 9 in Virginia,
6 in New York, .3 in South Carolina, 4 each in Georgia and North Carolina, 3 in
Pennsylvania, 2 in Florida, 1 each in Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Texas, and in 2 instances there was no statement.
3. Location of re>iidruce in the Di>^trief of Columbia. — All but 4 of the 50 appli-
cants were living in the heavily congested areas previously mentioned in this
report.
4. Size of f am ill/. — Including the applicants, the 50 families totaled 176 indi-
viduals, or an average of 3.5 persons per family.
i>. Reason for application. — In 8 instances an accident (3 fractures) was given
as the reason for requesting hospitalization ; in 5 pregnancy or related conditions ;
in 5 pneumonia ; in 4 tuberculosis or suspected tuberculosis ; in 4 an acute abdomi-
nal condition; in 4 alcoholism; and 4 were mental cases. The remainder were
miscellaneous conditions.
(). Di.<ipositiO)i of the cases. — In 9 cases no form of hospitalization was provided
by the Permit Bureau, but in some instances the applicant was referred to the
Health Security Administration. lu the remaining 41 cases the condition of the
patient was regarded as sufficiently serious to require some form of hospital care.
Of these, 24 were admitted to Gallinger Municipal Hospital, 7 to Casualty, 4 each
to Emergency and Children's, and 2 to Freedmen's.
Other maps are held in committee files ; not printed.
3122
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3123
These data indicate that in spite of ineligibility because of nonresidence it was
necessary to provide hospitalization for a large proportion of this low-income group
at the expense of the District of Columbia budget.
The above group of persons represents one type of migrant for which the Health
Department has been called upon to provide care. Another srouB is the transient
type, who usually remain the city for short periods of time. The Health Depart-
ment has less contact with this group, but on certain occasions when certain com-
municable diseases appear among transients promptly instituted procedures are
necessary. In 1929 a small outbreak of smallpox occurred, in which the initial
cases were traced to transients. In 1935 an epidemic of cerebrospinal meningitis-
started in a group of these migrants occupying certain rooming houses for such
groups.
In addition to the acute communicable diseases noted in the paragraph
above, tuberculosis is not infrequent in the transient and other low-income
groups of migrants. The report on persons applying for hospitalization included
four with tuberculosis indicating the presence of the disease in this group. A
study of moi'tality statistics for certain sections of the city has indicated, how-
ever, that only a small percent of those dying of tuberculosis have lived in the
District of Colmnbia less than 5 years. It appears more of these migrant
groups die of tuberculosis because they are crowded into areas where housing
conditions are poor and contact with the disease is frequent.
Still another group of migrant is now entering the District of Columbia. The
development of the defense program has made it necessary to employ largte
numbers of workers, approximately 15,(X)0 to date, in some departments or
bureaus. Many of these persons are compelled to seek living quarters in a
city already crowded. Some seek quarters in rooming houses of which there are
an inadequate number of the better class. This is a repetition of conditions,
as yet on a smaller scale, which existed during the World War. Should there
be an epidemic of influenza or an unusual prevalence of other respiratory dis-
eases, the danger of spread will be multiplied unle.ss adequate housing facilities
for this group of persons are provided.
SUMMARY
1. Data from Census Bureau records indicate that a large proportion of
persons residing in the District of Columbia have migrated from other States.
Available data on housing appears to indicate that housing conditions in the
District are inadequate. Statistical studies made by the Health Department
indicate that there is a concentration of population in certain sections of the
city, and in these same areas mortality rates from various causes are higher
than in other less densely populated sections.
2. Destitute migrants of interstate origin have a tendency to gravitate toward
areas inhabited by low-income and indigent groups. These, as we have seen,
are the most congested areas, the residents of which have the poorest health
record and the greatest need for medical and public health services in the
city. These services, which have been shown to be inadequate for the persons
of established residence, are even more deficient or inaccessible to the newly
arrived destitute migrant. Attached to this statement are nine maps illustrative
of health conditions in the District of Columbia, which I should like to file as
exhibits A to I, inclusive. Attached also is a set of case history records which
we regard as typical of conditions we find among destitute migrants. Only
the identifying names and addresses have been changed ; otherwise the condi-
tions described are those the Health Department nurse reported.
Abbott Nttbsing Office],
Wunhington, D. C, November 26, 19>f0.
To : Mrs. Prescott.
From : Miss Ferguson.
Subject : Cases of interstate migrants requested by Dr. Dauer.
Martin-Roberts-Dell family (Negro) : David and Mary Roberts moved to the
District of Columbia about 10 months ago from Lynchburg, Va. The family at
that time consisted of father, mother, and four children. On July 8, 1940, an-
other baby was born at Freedmen's Hospital, .thus making seven in the family.
The father does odd jobs — average income, $10 per week.
Family lives with sister of man and her husband in a basement apartment —
two bedrooms and a kitchen.
About 4 months ago Frances Deli, who is a sister of Mary Roberts, and her hus-
band, Benjamin Dell, also moved in. Soon after coming to Washington FroneesB
Dell was delivered at Freedmen's Hospital, making three in this family.
3124 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
On tlie uurse's last visit to tlie home, the mother of David Roberts and Faimy
Martin was visiting tlie family. She, also, is from Lynchburg, Va.
Georgianua Taylor (Negro) : Georgianna Taylor, age 18, came to Washington
from North Carolina in March 1940. She secured employment as a domestic
servant in a private home and was so employed until August.
Since her arrival in Washington Georgianna has shared a two-room basement
apartment with three friends. Tliere is no privacy since all members of the
household sleep in the same room, w^hich serves also as a sitting room.
In August Georgianna ceased work because of pregnancy and has been de-
pendent on her friends for her support. She has tried unsuccessfully to obtain
aid from the father of her baby. She plans to appeal to the juvenile court after
the birth of the baby.
Georgianna has been attending the Maternal and Child Welfare Center at
Weightman School.
Cartwright family (Negro) : The Cartwrights started from South Carolina 7
years ago: Father, mother, and seven children. Although they insisted they
vpanted to stay in the District of Columbia, they were sent home by Traveler's Aid
as they were unable to be self-supporting. Soon they were back again in Wash-
ington where they have been ever since — most of the time being partially or
wholly on relief.
'A, year ago the house where they lived burned up and they lost all their furni-
ture and clothing. Since that time they have lived in several places, usually in
one room.
The family has grown to 12 children, 4 of whom have homes of their own. How-
ever, 2 of the girls also have infants of less than a year, so now in 1 room live :
Tlie father, mother, B'anche (age 17) and her newborn infant. Elfrida (15) and
her 9-month-old boy, 2 boys, ages 13 and 15, 3 girls, ages 5, 7, and 11, and a boy, 3 —
12 persons in 1 fairly large room with 2 double beds and a davenjiort. Several
of the younger children sleep on folded coats on top of trunks.
Evergood family (white) : The Evergood family never stays long in one place,
but this time they had lived nearly 3 years in New Jersey before coming to the
District of Columbia. When Mr. Evergood could not find work the Public Assist-
ance Division would give some help for the family which already consisted of
Mrs. Evergood (who expected a new baby the next month) and five children rang-
ing in age from 11 months to 10 years. She had been attending the prenatal
clinic at the general hospital and had been accepted for hospital delivery, so was
opposed to starting out at this time. However, Mr. Evergood was manager of
this household, so all they owned — clothing, a few cooking utensils, and five chil-
dren— was loaded on the half-broken-down Ford truck (assessed value $10) and
they started for the District of Columbia. Two weeks later they arrived. No
food — no money — no place to sleep. Two weeks till delivery of Mrs. Evergood
and she did not feel very well.
The Salvation Army Emergency Home gave shelter and food to Mrs. Evergood.
the two little girls, and baby boy, but house rules kept them from taking the 8
and 10-year old boys or Mr. Evergood. They slept in the truck at the tourist camp.
The Public Assistance Division was unable to help as the family were nonresi-
dents; however, they did give a surplus-food order which was the only food the
boys and Mr. Evergood had for nearly a week.
It was impossible to get a permit'for delivery for Mrs. Evergood. but due to
the emergency she was sent to Gallinger and delivery by order of Dr. Jacobs.
As the family had no address it is assumed that they loaded up the truck and
went on after Mrs. Evergood was discharged from the hospital on her eighth day
post partum. They have never asked for any further help from any agency and
were never seen after they left Gallinger.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3125
Dunbar family (Negro) : Katheriue and John Dunbar had been living in
Stamford, Conn. Katherine was born there and when, late in 1939, John
secured work there he met and married her. Soon afterward he decided to
move to Washington. About the time they learned that Katherine would have
a baby in November 1940, John deserted her.
She was unable to work due to illness, so a cousin took her in to a two-
room apartment where she "does the housework" for her room and board.
These rooms are already overcrowded — they are both small and dark. The
one bedroom is used by the cousin and her husband. The living-dining room
contains a studio couch and a davenport. Two '"roomers" sleep on the studio
couch and Katherine, the expectant mother, sleeps on the stiff, short daven-
port. She is unable to extend her full length.
She has attempted to locate her husband with the help of the Woman's
Bureau, but, outside of rumors of friends who think they have seen him back
in Connecticut, she has been unable to locate him.
TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE C. RTJHLAND— Resumed
Mr. Sparkman. Dr. Riihland, I suppose this heavy increase has
developed some rather serious problems for your Department, too,
lias it not ?
Dr. RuHLAND. Inevitably, Mr. Congressman, the influx of masses
of people here is reflected in the health history of the community.
Mr. Sparkman. I notice the Census of 1940 gave the city of Wasli-
ington, the heaviest increase in population, I believe, of any of the
large cities in the United States. I do not remember what it was,
but probably around 60 percent increase, was it not ?
Dr. RuHLAND. Well, there has been a 60 percent increase since the
last census, since 1930 — between 1930 and 1940.
Mr. Sparkman. That is what I mean.
Dr. RuHLAND. There has been an increase of approximately 60
percent.
Mr. Sparkman. Was not that the heaviest of any city in the United
States?
Dr. RuHLAND. No. As I recall, offhand, those statistics, Washing-
ton was in third place among cities that experienced a very marked
expansion in population.
HOUSING PKOBLP.M
Mr. Sparkman. It has produced quite a housing problem, among
other things?
Dr. Ruhland. Yes. According" to the information that we have
on the available dwellings, there is a definite shortage to house the
people that have come here. And that, of course, in turn, means
that there is a doubling-up in such housing as is available. And
that means close contact, including the well-known attending evils
of the spread of communicable diseases.
Mr. Sparkman. Can you give us any idea as to the extent of over-
crowding in the area wliere it is worst?
Dr. Ruhland. Well, from the data we have been able to get on that
subject, from the Washington Housing Association, they have esti-
inated that, for the year 1938, there were some 608,000 rooms available
for occupancy, of all types of dwellings in the District. At the same
time, it was estimated that the popuUttion was about 627,000, or an
increase of 141,000 over 1930. which indicated an increase of approxi-
mately 47.000 families. So. on the basis of those figures, there are
3126 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
about 18,000 persons who lacked adequate rooming facilities, and
about one-half of the 47,000 families had no separate dwelling units in
which to live. Obviously, this made for overcrowding and the attend-
ing ill effects.
Mr. Sparkman, What relationship is there between such overcrowd-
ing and improper housing, and the health condition ?
Dr. RuHLAND. Well, we feel it is rather significant that from the
areas in the District where we have the greatest density of population
and overcrowding come the largest number of cases of communicable
diseases and hospital admissions. That, I think, tells the story.
Mr. Sparkman. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Bondy, what kinds of people make up the non-
resident population of Washington?
Mr. Bondy. Mr. Chairman, I think the character of the nonresident
population is somewhat reflected by the causes that I gave a moment
ago.
The Chairman. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Bondy. There are a great many unskilled laborers who come.
In our own nonresident service, probably 60 percent of those who
come to us for attention are unskilled laborers ; the other 40 percent
are professional workers and skilled people — so-called white-collar
persons. Of course, thinking of the nonresident population as includ-
ing those who are not seeking assistance in the way of relief at the
moment, there are many here in Washington who come from the whole
country, interested in Government employment — clerks and semipro-
fessional people. But the problem, as we get it from the relief and
transportation standpoint, is concerned more largely with unskilled
persons and a considerable number of the skilled group, for the reasons
I have given.
The Chairman. In other words, there are more white-collar tran-
sients who come into Washington than would go to any other State?
Mr. BoNDY. I think that probably would be true.
The Chairman. Have there been any figures made up, or is any
survey being made, Mr. Bondy, that would throw any light on the
transient load for a given year in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Bondy. I know of no survey that has drawn a circle aroimd it.
We can get a glimpse at it by some of the figures in the services that
are rendered. For instance, in our nonresident service, there are
approximately 4,200 individuals and family cases that come to our
attention in the course of a year.
The Chairman. How many ? I did not get that.
Mr. Bondy. Forty-two hundred. We know that our small nnmicipal
lodging houses only 45 and is always full ; that lodging facilities are
short during the winter months from 200 to 500 beds ; that is, 200 to 500
homeless men are estimated as having no place of lodging. You can
test some of that by looking at the grates in front of buildings where
men stand through the night for warmth.
This nonresident insane problem that I mentioned is not nearly so
large in extent, of course, as the other, and I would not wish to place
it out of proportion in the minds of the committee.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3127
TRANSIENT RELIEF FACILITIES
The Chairman. What does the District of Cohimbiu itself do for
the care of those nonresident transients ?
Mr, BoNDY. The District of Columbia, as a government, has three
services — one is the Nonresident Service which Mr. Linden is respon-
sible for and on which he can give any information the committee
wishes. It deals primarily with the return to their home States of
persons who are properly authorized for return by the home State.
It deals also with a person who is transient here and may be helped
through the period of nonresident stay.
Then there is the small, municipal lodging house to which I referred,
caring for 45 men, and third, this service for the return transportation
of nonresident insane.
The Chairman. Do you know of any deficiencies in the general relief
set-up of the District of Columbia ?
Mr. BoNDY. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of deficiencies in our
District of Columbia situation that relate to this nonresident problem.
I should like to name very quickly four or five of them.
We, like all other communities, feel the effects of the lack of uni-
formity of settlement and residence laws. We here, and in our Non-
resident Bureau, hear of the unequal way in which the States of the
country deal with that question, some States being more generous and
liberal in their authorization for the return of people, and others being
very tight on it. That is a clear deficiency. There is no provision
in the District of Columbia, in our own public funds, for the care of
persons during the period of investigation of their residence, other
than for homeless men through the lodging house. Private organiza-
tions, from whom you will hear this afternoon, do give certain care to
families and other persons; but the public agency, the District Gov-
ernment, has neither facility nor funds for that. And in the instances
in which residence is lost, there is no available relief fund to provide
for care until some plan can be developed.
Third. There is a striking deficiency in the facilities for lodging and
the care of colored people in the District of Columbia.
In the fourth place— I mentioned the deficiency in lodging facili-
ties
The Chairman (interposing). Right there: Where do these colored
people go; if they do not find shelter, what do they do?
Mr. BoNDY, I suppose that their care is apparently worked out in a
way that comes less to our notice; because the coloi-ed community
itself seems to take on some measure of responsibility. Many of them
go into cheap lodging houses ; some are taken in by people, "and there
are some church missions, but no organized system of care. Of course,
colored homeless men may be cared for at the municipal lodging-
house.
The Chairman. Of the incoming migrants that come to the District
of Columbia, what proportion are whites and what proportion colored
people ?
Mr. BoNDY. Well, the proportion that comes to us, in our nonresident
sei-vice, for attention is about 65 or 75 percent white. That is,
among tlie unattached individuals. Among the families, it is nearer
a 50-50 division.
2603T0— 41— pt. S 4
3128 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
I would like to mention one or two other significant lacks here,
Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ruhland can speak on the lack of adequate
facilities for the care of convalescents and those who are chronically
ill in the District of Columbia. When nonresidents are here and in
need of convalescent care, they sutler from the same lack that the
District itself does. One of the principal lacks I want to stress is the
inadequacy of the oeneral relief funds in the Board of Public Welfare.
No program for the care of nonresident persons can be adequately
handled unless there is an adequate program of general care — general
relief. Here, because of the limitations in the appropriations, we are
able to extend relief only to unemployable pei-sons, so that an employ-
able person who cannot find private employment or W. P. A. employ-
ment falls betw^een the cracks. That, therefore, leaves us no basically
sound foundation of general relief adequacy for a nonresident program.
I think those are the principal deficiencies in the situation, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Linden, do you have any funds for the care of
nonresidents while an investigation of residence is being made, or until
the plans are completed ?
Mr. Linden. Well, we have $20,000 a year of funds.
The Chairman. For that purpose ?
Mr. Linden. Yes. That includes funds for transportation.
The Chairman. Now, are the facilities for the care of homeless men
adequate; if not, to wdiat extent are they inadequate?
Mr. Linden. Well, they are not adequate, as Mr. Boncly has told
you. The only facilitv we have is the muncipal lodging house, wiHi
50 beds.
MEDICAL CARE
Tlie Chairman. Dr. Ruhland, what qualifications must migrants
meet to receive medical care and hospitalization from the Health
Department ?
Dr. Ruhland. The qualifications are the same that Mr. Bondy has
already stated. There should be at least a history of residence for
1 year and then, of course, it must be proved that the person is
economically unable to take care of himself. Obviously, lioweA^er, ill-
ness or accident cannot wait, at times, for the determination of these
points, and our service must be rendered under emergency conditions.
Tlie Chairman. Now. during October of 1940, for example, were
there any applications for liospitalization of migrants?
Dr. Ruhland. Yes.
The Chairman. Any from people who could not satisfy residence
qualification?
Dr. Ruhland. Yes. During that month, we had over 1,600 such
applications for hosjjitalization through our hospital-permit service.
The Chairman. What became of them ?
Dr. Ruhland. Well, after being interviewed by the Hospital Per-
mit Bureau, it was found tliat 122 had to be rejected because of their
financial condition. That means it must be presumed they had some
resources that could first be used.
Seventy-seven were admitted as part-i)ay ])atients. Seventy ap-
plicants had not been residents for 1 year. And we also, in thi<
group, do not and of course we cannot, deal with them.
INTERSTATE MIGKATION 3129
The Chairman. Is there any int'onnution concei'niii<j; those appli-
cants— their employment, former residence, length of residence in the
District, size of family, reasons for application, and things of that
sort?
Dr. RuHLAND. So far as this particular group of applicants is con-
cerned, 17 of them showed a history of employment varying from
1 day to 8 months immediately prior to application; 20 were not at
all employed; Twere classified as housewives and 5 as children, and for
1 there was no statement at all.
The Chairman, Has the migrant intensified tlie problem of deal-
ing with tuberculosis in the District of Columbia {
Dr. RuHLAND. Undoubtedly. So far as tuberculosis is concerned,
I think the evidence is rather strong that the influx of persons who
come here in the hope of getting a job, without knowing they will
get a job, forces them into economically undesirable conditions — bad
conditions of housing, i^nd so, sooner or later, they will break down
with tuberculosis or contract infections. And that, I think, defi-
nitely contributes to the somewhat still imdesirable high mortality
rate in certain categories of communicable diseases in this connmmity.
RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR RELIEF
Mr. Curtis. ^Ir. Bondy, I believe you testified that the residence
requirement for relief in the District of Columbia is 1 year?
Mr. Bondy. For general relief: yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. To what extent must they be residents — just merely
being here? Do you discriminate against them if they have ob-
tained a voting residence in one of the States?
Mr. Bondy. That is not a consideration of eligibility for relief — •
the maintenance of a voting residence in another State. I mean the
existence of a voting residence in another State does not mitigate
against eligibility of a person for relief.
Mr. Curtis. From what States or areas come most of tlie nonresi-
dent relief families that you have?
Mr. Bondy. You mean to limit tluit to families, or unattached
individuals and families?
Mr. Curtis. Primarily to families at this stage.
Mr. Bondy. Primarily the neighboring States; the Cai'olinas, Vir-
ginia, Maryland, and New York State; although there is a scattering
from greater distances. But that is the predominant source.
Mr. Curtis. From how far west do family migrants come into
AVashington?
Mr. Bondy. As far as California, Mr. Linden says.
Mr. Curtis. That is quite a way. Could a local problem of non-
resident care in the District of Columbia be effectively conducted,
independently of a national or Federal ])rogram?
Mr. Bondy. Mr. Congressman, my judgment is that it could not;
that any local program that would be adequate w^ould find itself
overpowered, overburdened, unable to deal with the needs, if it were
not also a part of an equally adequate program dealing with the
})roblem elsewhere. That could be illustrated by the lodginghouse
facilities, for instance. If the 200 to 500 men were provided for,
who are not now given lodging in the winter here, it would not take
more than 24 hours for the eastern seaboard to know that that ])ro-
3130 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
vision existed, and there would then be another 200 to 500 that could
not be cared for. Similarly, in matters of working with individual
families and their actual relief outside of lodginghouse facilities,,
there should be, to be adequate and effective, a balanced national
program of which the local program is a coordinated part.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Bondy, do you think of anything else that you
would like to mention, or amplify, in the way of any proposal for
the care of nonresident destitute persons in the District ?
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. BoNDY. I should like to reiterate the four points that I placed
in my statement, for the committee's information, some of which the
committee undoubtedly has had from other sources.
First of all, our situation here would be greatly helped with uni-
form State residence and settlement laws. I think I need not am-
plify that. The committee is acquainted with the point of view back
of that proposal.
Second, the District of Columbia, because it is the Nation's Capital
and because so much of its nonresident and general relief problem ulti-
mately is created because it is the Nation's Capital, can very properly
look to the Federal Government for aid beyond what is now given,
in the financing of that general relief and that nonresident work.
My proposal is that there be added to the Federal Social Security
Act a section which would recognize the uniqueness of this District
of Columbia situation and which would provide for the matching
of District of Columbia funds for general relief on a 50-50 basis
with Federal Social Security funds, in the same fashion that there
is a matching of local funds with Federal funds for old-age assistance,
aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind. I have submitted
to the committee in my statement a draft of an amendment to the
Federal Social Security Act to accomplish that.
My third proposal is that, as a part of a Federal program, in the
way I spoke of a moment ago in answer to a question, suitable pro-
vision of funds should be made for the care of nonresidents during
the period of investigation of residence, and for the care of non-
residents whose residence is lost, here in the District of Columbia.
And my final proposal is that there be a reasonable — I do not
name any figure at the moment — addition to the municipal lodging-
house facilities beyond the 50 beds that are now provided.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID G. LINDEN— Resumed
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Linden, what happens to persons for Avhom you
are unable to care ?
Mr. Linden. Well, a great portion of the men who come to our
Bureau are on their way through, north or south, and perhaps stay
for one or two nights. We take as much care of that group — of
as large a group — as we can, and the other groups are referred to
the facilities that have been mentioned — lodging-houses in the District
of Columbia.
Mr. Curtis. And private charitable agencies?
Mr. Linden. That is right.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3131
Mr. Curtis. Does the lack of uniform residence and settlement laws
show up in your work ?
LACK OF UNIFORM SETTLEMENT DETERRENT TO RELIEF PROCEDURE
Mr. Linden. Yes ; it does, for the simple reason of loss of residence
in another State, the nonresident leaving one Stat«, and going into
:another State and losing his residence in his home State.
Mr. Curtis. Well, do you have more cases from States that have
rigid settlement laws than from those that have liberal settlement
laws?
Mr. Linden. Well, as I say, our intake is generally from the eastern
seaboard, and the laws in the eastern seaboard States vary from 1 year
to 5 years on residence. Massachusetts and New Jersey have a longer
term" for establishing residence. I do not have the number of States
that have uniform 1-year residence laws. California has a 3-year
residence law.
The Chairman. It is 5 now ; they are raising it a little bit all the time.
mounting health PROBLEM
Mr. Curtis. Dr. Ruhland, you have stated that the employment of
more workers on the defense program here in the District has had its
effect upon the general health situation. What might be done by the
Health Department to meet the needs of these destitute persons that is
not now being done?
Dr. RuHLAND. Obviously, if we cannot stop the influx of those who
have not a definite job in prospect that will enable them to maintain
themselves, then, for humanitarian as well as health-protection rea-
sons, there must be an enlargement of the existing facilities and ma-
chinery of the Health Service to give those persons such aid as they
may require.
Mr. Curtis. Dr. Ruhland, what facilities do you require at the pres-
ent time?
Dr. Ruhland. Personally, I am strongly convinced that it would be
good economy if there were in Washington a greater development of
the so-called Health Center. By that I mean development, regionally,
in the districts that house economically disadvantaged people, or dis-
ti-icts from which experience shows that we draw the largest number
of clients who ultimately go to hospitals. There we should set up such
iDuildings as are required, where facilities would be offered for the
-diagnosis of cases and for emergenc}' or temporary treatment. It
would be by such a development that we would be able to prevent the
complete break-down of health, involving a much more costly hos-
pitalization.
Mr. Curtis. Do you liave many pauper burials in the District of
Columbia ?
Dr. RuHLAXD. That does not fall under the Department of Health,
and my answer to that would not be adequate or competent. But, un-
doubtedly, there is quite an item required to meet those contingencies.
Mr. Curtis. Do you know what percentage of the deaths are prema-
ture, or the percentage of deaths at a premature age?
Dr. Ruhland. That, again, is a large question that I do not believe
I can answer competently in full. Our history shows among the eco-
3132 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
nomicalJy disiiclvantaged group quite a number of premature deatlis.
in the literal sense of children bom prematurely. Then, it is obvious
that all those deaths that happen from ])reventable diseases are defi-
nitely premature, because they have not lived their nonnal life expec-
tancy. Into that category would fall, for example, tuberculosis. While
tubercidosis moi'tality is lower in the District than it has been heretor
fore, it is still high for cities in the Washington population group,
and there is considerable room for improvement.
Mr. Curtis. What suggestion do you wish to make with reference to
providing improved housing accommodations (
Dr. RuHLAND. The Department should be enlarged by the addition
of competent sanitary engineei-s who can deal with housing problems^
There should be close coo])erati()n with the existing private agencies.
For example, the Washington Housing Authority has done very admir-
able work in this field. The construction work is being subsidized by
the Federal Government. However, it is realized that the housing
program cannot keep pace with the influx of people. Apparently,
also, the more it becomes known that Washington is stirring itself in
providing this housing, the more it will act as a stimulus to bring
migrants here hoping to land jobs. That idea of obtaining jobs seems
to mark the somewhat tragic and undesirable cycle of the migrant.
Mr. Curtis. Do you have any further recommendation to offer in
reference to this migrant problem^
Dr. RuHLAXD. No, sir. I think that it has been stated in large part
by the witnesses you have heard. I have only touched on the high spots
of the problem from the public-health viewpoint, as well as suggesting
some remedies that might be apjilied to it.
Mr. Curtis. I want to say to you gentlemen that we appreciate very
much your ai)pearance. Your presentation has been very valuable in
giving us a picture of the situation in the District of Columbia.
The Chairman. Your prepared statement Avill a])pear in the record.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Thereupon, the committee took a recess until 2 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Upon the expiration of the recess, the conmiittee resumed its hearing
at 2 p. m., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding.
The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. The first
witness this afternoon is Mr. Staufler.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. STAUFFER. COMMISSIONER, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, REPRESENTING GOV.
JAMES H. PRICE
The Chairman. Please give your full name, address, and the official
position you hold, if any.
Mr. Staufter. My name is William H. Stauflfer. and I am the
Commissioner of Public Welfare of the State of Virginia.
The Chairman. Mr. Stauffer. would you give the conmiittee your
o-eneral observations as to the extent of the problem of migration in
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3133
Virginia, especially as to the causes and the number of persons
involved?
Mv. Stauffer. Mr. Chairman. I have submitted a statement in wi-it-
ing- to the committee which I would be glad to read. I assumed tliat it
M'ould be made available to the committee.
The Chairman, Yes; and it will be made a part of the record.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. STAUFFER, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
WELFARE OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, REPRESENTING GOV. .JAMES
H. PRICE
Migrants in Virginia
la presenting certain observations regarding tlie migratory Msiject.s of labor
in Virginia, it seems appropriate first to offer several general comments involv-
ing matters of which your committee is no doubt already aware.
1. I'eople do not move from place to place either for the sake of inconvenienc-
ing themselves or in order that they may fare worse by their movements.
2. The motivating factor in interstate migration of able-bodied workers must
be found to arise out of economic self-interest. This instinctive urge may be
misguided, or it may be the result of ill-planned sojourning. Whatever its
results, its causes are definable.
3. The basic cause is a .system of agi'icultural economy which does not
provide a year-around labor market for all the individuals whose services are
required in the growing and harvesting of crops. If the agricultural economy
of a particular community were in respect of its labor aspects self-sufficient,
the problem of migratory movements of large numbers of persons to meet
seasonal harvesting needs would not exist.
4. Assuming that the powers of the soil cannot, under the prevailing system
of agricultural economy in a particular community, sustain on a year-round basis
its maximum labor needs, it might nevertheless be possible to plan for. the
community a program of total economy (agricultijral and nonagricultural)
which under coordinate functioning would provide a year-around living for
permanent residents in a number suflScient to meet the peak needs of agriculture.
SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS ON THE VIRGINIA SITUATION
When j)ublic interest and attention has been focused on a particular social
problem, little difficulty is experienced in "lime lighting" in a sensational manner
incidents which are no different from the day-to-day occurrences in the general
social structure and organization of a community.
The migratory movement of harvesting labor in and out of the Eastern
Shore counties of Virginia has been an accepted practice for many years. The
permanent residents of this area are no doubt aware of the fact that the social
well-being of migrants leaves much to be desired. It is equally true, however,
that the social life of some of the periiianent residents of the area is little
different from that of the migrants.
Economic ill f<n-tune is a potential hazard confronting every citizen. The
average community daily experience shifts in the economic well-being of its
individual members. The significance of these changes is not impressive
because of their scattered nature. It is only when the concentration of
instances occurs that the attention of the public is drawn to the unsavory
results.
Housing. — Conditions on the Eastern Shore for the accommodation of the
migrant population insofar as housing is concerned are admittedly bad. They
are not, however, by comparison a great deal different from conditions sur-
rounding a good segment of the permanent i>opulation.
Health. — The movement of so large a group of migrants into any area con-
stitutes a serious health hazard. On the Eastern Shore Virginia has two
counties — Accomac and Northampton. The former has no organized health
unit, the latter has such a unit. The local welfare department in Accomac
had no funds with which to provide medical care for the migrants who, during
The past summer, were taken sick on their movement through the county.
Fifteen cases were referred to the local welfare department with the request
3134 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
that they accept responsibility for medical care. All of these had to be
rejected. The nature of the maladies affecting the migrants was not known
to the welfare department of Accomac. In Northampton county, where the
health unit was in operation, record was kept of diseases affecting the migrant
population. This record indicates that there were cases of typhoid, dysentery,
tuberculosis, syphilitic and venereal diseases. There was one case of polio-
myelitis, which entered the county from Charleston, S. C. Northampton
County expended out of welfare funds the sum of $240 for hospitalization
and burials for the transient group, while Accomac paid out only $20 for
such services. The Northampton governing board has adopted a local ordinance
regulating the matter of sanitation with sewerage disposal in hcimes and
camps housing transient labor. Such an ordinance does not exist in Accomac.
Educational facilities. — No especial problem is found in the Eastern Shore
counties in the matter of children of school age, for the reason that the dates
as of which this movement occurs in Virginia are within those months when
the average child has completed the school year.
Aftei'math of the migratory movement. — The group generally moves on en
masse after the harvesting is completed. Those who remain behind are there
because of illness and other incapacity. The welfare department endeavors to
dispose of these cases as rapidly as possible. Some problems have resulted
in effecting a return to the place of settlement of some of these cases. Those
who employ labor are, in some instances, most reluctant to assume responsibility
for returning incapacitated transients who are employed by them back to their
place of settlement. Occasionally, surplus commodities are made available to
these cases. It is very difficult in some instances to establish the place of
settlement.
Moral conditions. — Various and sundry rumors periodically get abroad re-
garding the conditions of morality among the transient group. Such informa-
tion as is available to the Commissioner leads him to the conclusion that,
while the levels of morality are not ideal, they are far from being as abject
as they tend to be portrayed in the popular mind. Practically all of the
migrants are colored. Illegitimate children have sometimes been left behind,
but it is questionable whether tlie rate of illegitimacy among the group of
transients is greater than that for the population at large.
Conditions elsewhere in the State. — Outside of the Eastern Shore area the
problem of the migratory agricultural labor group may be regarded as con-
stituting no serious problem. In some of the southwest mining counties, where
operations have substantially slowed down in recent years, there is, however,
a problem of what might be termed "stranded populations." The relief loads
in some of these areas are disproportionately high when compared to the aver-
age of the State as a whole. There being little other alternative by way of
(X!cupational opportunity to these stranded families, it would be in the interest
of social welfare if such groups were enabled to migrate to places where work
opportunities could be found. In tidewater Virginia there are 15 or 20 counties
which today have populations less than were found there in the census of
1790. A decadent agriculture has made it impossible for the population to
be maintained as in earlier times, in consequence of which there has been,
over a period of several generations, a movement out of the areas. It can
hardly be argued that governmental programs should have been instituted to
subsidize the agricultural comnuinities within such areas. Such areas are in
no favorable position to compete with other areas more naturally productive or
better suited to the maintenance of an agricultural project. A goodly bit of the
agricultural population which left tidewater Virginia in recent years has un-
doubtedly been absorbed in the cities and towns. The growth of Richmond as
a tobacco-processing center has undoubtedly operated as a device to absorb
some displaced agricultural labor. Development of industrial activities else-
where throughout the State has no doubt operated in a similar manner. Fur-
ther expansion of industry in the South will undoubtedly operate to alleviate
some of the problems arising from the insecurity of land tenure, just as it
has in the past.
Virginia is concerned with the well-being of Its people. It recognizes that
there are many problems which have already been met in part. It is not.
however, particularly alarmed over the problem of migratory agricultural labor.
It will welcome and lend support to any sound and constructive devices which may
look toward a better balance in its internal economy.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3135
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. STAUFFER— Eesumed
The Chairman. Independent of that statement, have yon any fur-
ther observations to make abont this problem!'
Mr. Stauftee. Mr. Chairman, I feel very inadeqnate to get up lieie
and discnss a problem which we must admit is a big one.
The Chairman. Yes; it is certainly a big one.
Mr. Stauffer. Yes, sir; and the problem does exist in Virginia. We
recognize it as a problem about which we would like to do something.
The problem is confined primarily to the Eastern Shore counties of the
State, the counties of Accomac and Northampton. The problem arises
out of the employment of a labor group which is engaged in following-
crop maturities fi'om Florida, through Virginia, and on up to New
Jersey, I believe. It is a most serious problem. The greatest concen-
tration of this group comes through Virginia during the strawberry-
picking season, which occurs about the second week in May, when
anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 persons come through the State. They
go over to the Eastern Shore and are there employed to help in har-
vesting that product.
The Chairman. Where do they come from mainly?
Mr. Stauffer. On the basis of the information I have, it seems tiiat
a count of heads would show that the largest number come from Flor-
ida. Whether they are residents of Florida. I cannot say.
The Chairman. We found that to be true in Ncav Jersey also.
Mr. Stauffer. Checking the automobile license plates was one index
we had of the fact that most of them started from Florida. Whether
they happened to pick up at that point, or whether they were residents
of Florida, it is difficult to say. It is difficult to establish the residence,
of people, because under the local settlement laws it is difficult to prove
where they have residence, or Avhether they have residence anywhere.
RESIDENCE LAW
The Chairman. What is your residence law in Virginia (
Mr. Stauffer. If we speak about the eligibility of a person for relief,
our statute provides that a transient cannot become a public charge
until he shall have attained a residence of at least 1 year. That ]3rob-
lem, of course, raises a question upon which I would like to make brief
comment, because under the settleinent law we are prohibited from
affording relief to such of those persons who come there, and who,
either through lack of employment during the season or because of
becoming disabled or sick, are unable to care for themselves. The local
communities in which they reside are under no obligation to afford
them anj" relief, but the communities or local subdivisions there may
give them relief on their own initiative — that is, it would not be violat-
ing the Virginia statute if they did it. However, public sentiment, of
course, would support the argument that you should grant aid first to
those who are legal residents of the community.
The Chairman. In other words, to take care of their own families
first?
Mr. Stauffer. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I understand you thoroughly on that, and I think
our records will bear me out when I say that every State in the Union
has as much as it can do to take care of its own residents.
3136 INTERSTATE MIGKATION
Mr. Stauffer. I can certainly say that is true as to Virginia. Our
general relief program is quite definitely limited, and I can honestly
say that there is a good deal of distress and need for public assistance
among our own people. I do not know what the solution for the
problem is.
The Chairman. Something that Mr. Kyan said this morning keeps
recurring to my mind : We have an Interstate Commerce Commission,
and we have spent millions of dollars through Congress and the
highest courts of the land to establish and maintain the status of
coal, iron, steel, and other commodities flowing freely through the
States, but the human creators of those commodities have never hacl
any commission of any kind for their benefit. That makes a j^eculiar
situation. Now, imagine such restrictions among the States in the
cari-ying of commodities by transportation agencies. For instance,
the State of South Dakota would never dream of raising a barrier
against the shipment of wheat from North Dakota, although South
Dakota has all the wheat it could ever use or sell. Yet, we make this
other movement of destitute human beings a crime. Tliat is why this
committee has been functioning.
Now, what means of transportation do these migrants who come
to Virginia use ?
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Stauffer. I must ask pardon for not being able to give firet-
hand information. I cannot give it from first-hand knowledge, and
that is true of many of the statements I make. I have not made as
detailed an investigation of the subject as I wish I might have done.
I wish it might have been possible for the State department of public
welfare to do that. I hope to be able to give the necessary time for
such a study. So far as I can learn, most of them come in by
automobile.
The Chairman. We have testimony that these migrant workers
who are being transported out of Florida across State lines are
charged $17.50, $5 down and then the remainder is collected after
they get jobs. We also found that to be true in Texas and Oklahoma.
There is no rest for them, because when the transporters start them
out, they shoot them right through, not like cattle, because cattle are
given a rest every 24 hours.
Mr. Stauffer. I have heard stories like that. I do not know, but I
undei-stand that some of them are so transported into the State of
Virginia.
The Chairman. Has the migrant problem become rather acute in
Virginia?
Mr. Stauiter. I consulted the local welfare superintendent of
Accomac County just before coming up here. His problem this year
was apparently no more acute than it has been in previous years.
Some sickness developed in that particular county. There being no
local public health unit in the county, there was no requirement for
the observation of adequate sanitation by those people. It was stated
that there was a constant threat there of an epidemic breaking out.
The Chairman. Where do they live while waiting for work?
Mr. Stauffer. I am told that they live in shacks. Sometimes they
may be proA'ided Avith houses.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3137
The Chairman. Have you seen those shacks yourself?
Mr. Stauffer. No, sir.' I have seen the pictures on the wall here
(exhibit in the hearino- room), indicatino- what sort of houses they
fire. I did not see anythino- from Viro-inia on that side (indicatmg),
but there may be some here.
The Chairman. It presents a problem of health as well as of
education.
Mr. Stauffer. It is much more a problem of health than of ecUica-
tion, because at the time these people come throuoh the State, the
diildren, for the most part, would not be going to school if they wei-e
living in rural areas anyhow. They come through there about the
middle of May. /-,!,!
The Chairman. Speaking about sanitation, at Los Angeles, Calif.,
there was a familv of whom 8 were children. They had made the
trip from Oklahonia. The committee also traveled from Oklahoma to
California. It was testified that the family lived 12 or 14 in a tent.
I asked the head of the familv this question : "I suppose that in the
tent you had the latest sanitary facilities.'" He added, "What?"
I said, "I suppose you had the latest sanitary facilities," and he said,
^'No, we had the earliest."
What kind of work do these migrants do ?
seasonal crops
Mr. Stauffer. We have several crops that these laborers work on.
Beginning with berry picking, they continue on through the potato
-eason. I have never seen them at work.
The Chairman. How long does the season last?
Mr. Stauffer. The strawberry season lasts, I believe, from 4 to 6
weeks.
The Chairman. Do you know what pay they receive?
Mr. Stauffer. I saw some figures on that, and I was particularly
impressed with the low total net earnings that some individuals and
family groups received over a given period. Frankly, I cannot
understand how they can very well exist on the basis of the figures
I saw.
The Chairman. Do they get so much per basket for picking straw-
berries ?
Mr. Stauffer. Yes; I believe it is based on the quantity of produc-
tion. The more efficient ones enjoy larger earnings.
The Chairman. Has the migrant problem been on the increase in
3'our State recently, or on the decrease?
Mv. Stauffer. t cannot say whether it is on the increase or not.
There is one very interesting thing to observe, and that is that with
the introduction of labor-saving machinery in the cultivation of the
soil it is true that a good bit of agricultural labor automatically has
been displaced, but in the application of mechanical methods to
harvesting in our agricuUural system the work is still largely con-
fined to the work of tlie individual, and. therefore, we find ourselves
in the rather strange position of diminishing the need for labor in
the cultivation of the soil and increasing the need for labor in the
harvesting of the crops.
The Chairman. Now, I have read your statement here, and it is a
very good one. Have you covered what you wanted to say in this
statement ?
3138 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Stauffer. Yes; I believe so, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If there is anything additional that you want to
call to the attention of the committee we will be glad to hear it.
Mr. Stauffer. If you will permit some further observations, this-
may not be particularly pertinent to the matter that you are dis-
cussing, but it does bear upon the question or problem of labor. We
have, in some of the southwestern counties of our State, a situation
in which I would like to see some migratory influences at work. In
some of the southwestern counties there have been coal-mining opera-
tions in the past. Those mining operations have sustained the groups
residing there. Now, when that production has gone down so far
that it is no longer profitable to operate the mines, there is a
stranded population in some of those areas. It has become a problem
for the welfare workers, and the W. P. A. has helped out in a
large measure. In other cases, however, where the W. P. A. has
not been able to function, we have aiforded some general relief under
our direct relief program. That is not a problem of migratory labor,,
but of static stranded labor. The situation with respect to the
migrants is an agricultural one. That labor must be in the State»
and I do not believe the situation is particularly acute. That is true
throughout the northern part of the State during the apple-picking-
season. That is really a higher type of labor than we find on the
Eastern Shore. The labor there has to be recruited locally for the
harvesting operations.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to come up here and
talk to you. I came not so much because of w^hat I might contribute
to the discussion, but for wdiat I might learn from you.
The Chairman. Do you know anything about the apple-picking-
operations around Winchester?
Mr. Stauffer. Not much. I discussed that with the labor com-
missioner last week, and asked him if there was any acute problem
there, and he said virtually what I have stated, that while there was
some movement in there, the social and economic conditions surround-
ing the people in there was entirely different from those that at-
tended the people on the Eastern Shore.
The Chairman. From the study you have made of this problem,,
and the more you think about it, I think you will come more definitely
to the conclusion that it is really a national problem. Certainly thi&
migration of destitute citizens from State to State constitutes a
national problem.
Mr. Stauffer. In my judgment, it is a problem that can best be
dealt with through a national authority, rather than leave it to the
responsibility of the States.
The Chairman. That is the way the Federal Government handles
the free flow of commodities through the States. That is something
we watch pretty closely. Now, you are a resident of the State of
Virginia, but you are also a citizen of the 47 other States. But if
you start out traveling, and are broke, you will find many obstacles.
Mr. Stauffer. You will find many fences erected against you.
The Chairman. We thank you very much for your appearance.
The statement you have filed will appear in the record.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3139
The next witness is Mr. J. Milton Patterson, director of the Mary-
land Department of Public Welfare, representing Governor O'Conor.
Mr. Collins. I would like to file for the record the statement of
Mr. J. Milton Patterson, director of the Maryland Department of
Public Welfare, representing- Gov. Herbert R. O'Conor. Mr.
Patterson was unavoidably detained, and cannot be present.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF J. MILTON PATTERSON, DIRECTOR, MARYLAND DE-
PARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, REPRESENTING GOV. HERBERT R.
O'CONOR
Migration in Maryland
It goes without saying tliat tliere is considerable migration wJiich. except iu a
general way, does not come to the attention of this department by reason of the
fact that these persons manage to get along without relief. The migration of
labor and the housing and health conditions resulting from this type of migratory
living we assume are being reported upon by other governmental departments
closer to the problem.
Within the experience of the State departmnt of public welfare and the local
departments of public welfare of Maryland, we find a tendency for the problem
to divide itself into three classes of persons. These are :
1. Honielesjs persons who are actually "on the road" and who constitute that
group of persons who apply to overnight shelters such as are conducted by the
Salvation Army or to agencies like the Traveler's Aid Society for care and
assistance. Very often these are unattached persons, although many of them
are also in family groups.
2. Persons or families who have moved from one community to another State,
who have established a home but wiio become destitute before they have lived iu the
new community as long as a year, and who are therefore not eligible for public aid.
These persons are not migratory any longer. Usually it is illness, accident, o'"
failure to find work which precipitates their need to apply for help.
3. Persons or families who have lived for many years in the community,, who
become destitute and when they apply for assistance find that due to some technical
reason they are not eligible for assistance on the score of residence.
In the State of Maryland the public depai-tments do not maintain shelter care
for transients. The city of B;iltinior(\ liowcvor. pays most of the operating expense
of a shelter for men maintained by the Salvation Army.
The problem of the person on the road has not been so acute iu the counties of
this State as to bring it to the attention of the State department. In any
county a traveling person who becomes stranded may be able to have some over-
night arrangements made for him at local expense entirely. There are no State
funds participating in expenditures for assistance to persons who are not regarded
as residents of the State. In a few communities, the Salvation Army maintains
shelters ; in others the county homes or jails offer overnight care.
We find the most serious problem for this department and its local units arises
;Tround the second and third groups listed, above. This State has a year's residence
requirement estalilis^hed by rule and regulation of the State department as a condi-
tion of receiving general assistance. Other States have similar residence limita-
tions, frequently requiring longer periods to establish residence-. We liave become
increasingly aware of the liai'dship that is being caused by tliosc residence restric-
tions to families who have moved from one State to another to establisli a home,
and who find themselves in need of assistance before they have been residents
for a year.
We cite below a few of the situations which have come to our attention
recently and which we believe reflect the undesirable social results of efforts on
the part of the States to keep down their relief burden by invoking a residence
requirement.
1. A county in this State has recently received a request from another State
to "authorize return" of a woman who has become dependent upon the public
hospital care in another State. The woman ha.s never lived in county X, to
which the letter was sent. Her husband, from whom she had been separated
for 1.5 years, died in county X 2 years ago. Due to the fact that the State
3140 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
in which she has become ill and destitute interprets its residence law to mean
that the residence of a widow continues to be that of the State in which her
husband dies, the aforesaid State wishes to have county X "acknowledge legal
residence and authorize return" of this woman. There can be no question of
the undesirable results for one individual to be moved to a new and strange
community where she has no ties of any description.
2. A woman who has been separated from her husband for a number of
years and who has been working in another State, loses her job and finds it
necessary to apply for assistance. By reason of the fact that a divorce has
never taken place (and poor persons frequently cannot afford to pay for the
cost of the divorce) this woman's residence is interpreted to be that of her
husband, even though it means moving to a community where she lived for
less than a year a number of years ago. The State where she now has become
dependent wishes to have county Y "authorize her return." Both this and
the previous case reflect the hardship caused by the inability of a woman to
establish an independent residence under certain conditions.
3. A man deserts his wife and three children and leaves them in county Z.
where the wife and children have lived all their lives. The man wanders from
place to place and after many years' absence is known to be living in another
community, with seasonal employment.
The mother and children now become destitute and apply for assistance.
Fortunately the Federal Social Security Act will not permit a State to par
ticipate in benefits from the Federal Government if it denies assistance on
the basis of residence to a child who has lived for a year within the State.
However, the shortage of funds for aid to dependent children in many locali-
ties means that assistance is not available and efforts may be made to move
this family from the State in which it has always lived to the new place
where the father and husband, who has never assumed any responsibility for
their care, now has established a "legal" residence.
Many cases of this description come to our attention. "We receive such
requests from other States, and we also send them. In the city of Baltimore,
when there is reason to believe that a family has residence elsewhere, only
temporary assistance is given and when arrangements have been completed to
return them, assistance is discontinued. This type of activity is precipitated
by the shortage of general relief funds which causes every local and State
department of public welfare to seek to keep its expenditures down.
We believe there are two major changes which would create a more humane
situation and that would, in the long run, be more economical than the present
system. These two changes would be :
1. Federal participation in general relief expenditures with a provision for
100 percent reimbursement by the Federal Government for payments to non-
resident persons.
2. Standardization of State residence requirements. This will undoubtedlv
take a long time, and in order to bring it about there will be required some-
national leadership lodged in a permanent organization which would develop
uniform terminology, design recommended legislation, and facilitate the de-
velopment of reciprocal arrangements between the States.
The aspects of the problem pertaining to migratory labor will be dealt with
in a later memo to be submitted to the committee.
Statk Departmknt of Public Wexfare,
Bait i more, Md.. December 12, lO-'fO.
Hon. John H. Tolan,
Chairman, Committee to Inrestir/ate the
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens,
House of Represmtatives, Washington. D. C.
Dear Mr. Tolan : We are enclosing a report prepared by the Marvland Com-
missioner of Labor and Statistics relating to migratory labor.
Sincerely yours,
J. Milton Patterson. Direetor.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3141
Office of Commissioner of Labor and Statistics,
Baltimore, Md., Deccmher 11, lithO.
Mr. J. Milton Patterson,
Director, State Department of Piihlic Welfurc,
Baltimore, Md.
Dear Mb. Patterson : In compliance with your request of December 5, 1940, I
am submitting herewith answers to the questions pertaining to migratory labor
as .set forth in your letter.
Very truly yours,
John M. I'ohi.haus. Conntii.ssioner.
Question 1. What are the seasons for the various crops which bring migra-
tory workers?
Answer 1. (a) May to July, inclusive; chiefly intrastate labor, by which we
mean residents of the State following State crops.
(6) May to November, inclusive; intrastate as set forth in paragraph A, sup-
plemented by interstate help or nonresidents of the State. From July 1 to
November 15 the orchards of western Maryland secure approximately 500
migrants from the States of Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Question 2. What are the methods of getting the workers into the community?
Answer 2. The method by which workers are secured is primarily through row
bosses or the padrone system.
Question 3. How are the workers recruited?
Answer 3. Row boss makes contract with employer, whereby he supplies
labor and pays labor. Row boss usually works on bonus system. Some farm-
ers do not contract with row bosses but secure own help, paying on hourly or
piece-work basis. In the case of the orchard workers, the foreman of the or-
chard usually goes into the mentioned States and brings them to the orchards.
Question 4. What kind of contract is made with the employer?
Answer 4. No information available.
Question 5. Approximately how many workers come into the State for the
various seasons?
Answer 5. Since so many conflicting estimates have been given by various
agencies, it is believed that even an approximate estimate would prove mis-
leading.
Question 6. What are the housing conditions and sanitary facilities?
Answer 6. This question should be referred to the State health department.
We are enclosing herewith a copy of regulations adopted by the State board
of health, effective as of June 12, 1930, and refer you to pages 3 and 4, captions,
"Toilets," and "Living Quarters," paragraphs 15 to 33, inclusive.
Question 7. What happens to the workers after the season is over?
Answer 7. No information available.
We regret that it is not possible to supply the committee with information
relative to the subject of the hosiery and garment industries which are moving
into the State, especially to small towns and rural sections, as we have no prior
indication of such intention, our flrst contact being from the filing of registra-
tion cards as required by law, after the establishment is in operation.
(The following statements were later submitted to the committee
pnd accepted for the record:)
STATEMENT BY RAYMOND T. BOWMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, PENN-
SYLVANIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
The Probiem of Migration in Pennsylvania
The following statement regarding the problem of migration of nonresidents
in Pennsylvania is based on information collected by the Pennsylvania State
Departments of Public Assistance, Labor and Industry, Welfare and Public
Instruction. On July 24, 1940, the writer was designated by the Honorable
Arthur H. James, Governor of Pennsylvania, to prepare a statement for presen-
tation at a hearing before the Special Congressional Committee Investigating
3142 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens. This statement is submitted
in writing at this time for the committee's records in accordance with the sug-
gestion of the Honorable John H. Tolan, chairman.
I. THE PROBLEM
The problem of migration of nonresidents who become destitute while in
Pennsylvania concerns primarily the following classes of persons :
1. Workers and other persons who come to the State with the intention of
establishing residence. Such persons usually come because of the hope or prom-
ise of a job in Pennsylvania. The journey may be motivated also simply by
lack of employment opportunity in the home State, sometimes coupled with
lack of provision for general public assistance.
2. Workers and other persons passing through the State as transients with
no intention of stopping for any appreciable period.
3. Workers who come to the State to obtain seasonal or other limited em-
ployment with intention of leaving again (the true migratory workers).
From a public-assistance standpoint, persons in the first group constitute a
more serious problem than those in the second and third. In fact, available
evidence indicates that the number of true migratory workers coming into
Pennsylvania at the present time is relatively small, due to reasons which will
be mentioned further on, and that transients passing through the State who
become public charges are coniparalively few.
Such problems as exist with lespoct to the three groups combined, however,
are definitely accentuated by the nature of the State's imblie-assistance program.
Pennsylvania is virtually unique amoiiK Stales in tlie extent to which the State
government has assumed financial resiKmsihility for general aasistance. This
portion of the program of the State department of public assistance (which also
administers old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, blind pensions) is 100
Ijercent State financed. Moreover, general assistance is provided to residents on
a uniform State-wide basis. Tliere are no county or other local settlement
restrictions. In terms of average grants the program has an outstanding record
with respect to the relative adequacy of the aid given.
Under circumstances such as these, it is readily understandable that the State
public-assistance law should include definite restrictions as to the assistance
which may be given nonresidents. To do away with State residence and settle-
ment requirements, while wide disparities continue to exist between public-
assistance provision in Peinisylvania and other States, would inevitably place a
heavy and mounting new burden on th(> State's taxpayers. An economically
unjustified influx of unemployed and unemiiloyaliles would be encouraged. The
entire assistance program for needy residents would be threatened.
At the present time the public-assistance law requires that an applicant, to be
eligible for general assistance, must have:
(1) Legal settlement in the State (acquired by 1 year of continuous residence
without becoming a public charge) ; and also
(2) Two years' continuous residence in the State immediately prior to appli-
cation (unless a person previously Jiaving the required 2 years' residence has lost
it solely by leaving the State for employment purposes and has not acquired
settlement elsewhere).
The only provision by which a destitute person who does not meet these
requirements can be aided is through temporary emergency assistance, if the
family or individual is lodged in a fixed domicile. Such assistance continues only
until arrangements can be made for removal to place of legal settlement. Trans-
portation costs for removal may also be provided if the person is willing to
return to place of settlement. If he is unwilling or if settlement elsewhere has
been lost, further assistance may not be granted.
No provision is available for public assistance to the person who is strictly
a transient or wanderer, although the State deijartment of welfare reports that
in most counties such individuals may receive overnight shelter at county homes.
In a few larger cities there is also some municipal subsidization of private shelters
which accommodate transients.
Although the nature of the problem is such that no conclusive statistics are
available on the actual numbers of destitute persons who, because of lack of
lesidence or settlement, cannot receive needed assistance, it is clear that those
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3143
hardest hit by the existing State and Nation-wide situation include: (1) Persons
who have valid reasons for having cume to the State and whose own welfare
and chances of return to self-support would perhaps be advanced by remaining;
(2) persons who cannot meet Pennsylvania residence requirements but who
have no settlement elsewhere; (3) persons who have settlement elsewhere but
who, if returned, face serious privation due to lack of any adequate general assist-
ance provision in their home State or community; and (4) transients who have
no desire to remain in Peuusylvaia but who ueed public assistance and possibly
other services to enable them to travel to a destination other than place of
settlement in the expectation of employment or other means of support.
From a health standpoint, the Pennsylvania State Department of Health
reports :
"While Pennsylvania has been more fortunate than some States with respect
to the problem of interstate movement of transients who become or who are
likely to become public charges, it has some very definite problems that must
be considered.
"1. The transient population that moves into the oil fields of western Pennsyl-
vania from time to time from the western States has always been a cause of
worry to the department because of the possibility of carrying smallpox into the
area from these States. There have been definite scares from this source in the
past and there is a possibility of recurrence of this danger in the future.
"2. The transient population traveling with fairs, circuses, and camp shows
is always a danger to the general public from the standpoint of communicable
disease. These people are likely to become public charges if they take ill during
their sojourn within the State. This type of wandering population is a definite
menace from the standpoint of venereal disease, and occasionally as active
cases of tuberculosis or carriers of organisms of the gastrointestinal gioup.
"3. In the southern tier of counties we have a problem of transient labor
moving into the State, especially Negroes from Baltimore, for the fruit-picking
season. Sanitary conditions under which these laborers live are often extremely
dangerous, plus the fact that if these people become ill while in this State they
usually become public charges.
"4. With the increase in employment throughout this State, due to the marked
increase in industry because of defense contracts, every care must be taken
to prevent the importation of large groups of chronically ill laborers who may
accept employment and then 'break down' under the stress of work and become
public charges."
From an industrial standpoint, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and
Industry reports as follows :
"Migrator-y labor has not presented a major problem to the department of labor
and industry. The strict application of the school code requiring compulsory
attendance and the requirement that employment certificates be issued by the
school authorities to childreir in conformity with the State child-labor law h:ive
made it very difiic-ult to use children in industries employing migratory labor.
"In the southern part of the State there is a slight flow of labor over S^ate
lines in the fruit, berry picking, and canning seasons. However, the inspection
bureau and the bureau of women and children of the department have strictly
enforced the State's labor laws as they relate to women and children.
"The department of labor and industry has opposed the encouragement of
migrant labor in the defense industries in Pennsylvania. Its position has been
that it is first necessary to reemploy th^ State's own unemployed befoi-e giving
jobs to residents of other States. The State employment service, which oper-
ates within the depaitment of labor and industry, maintains the closest coopera-
tion with the Federal authorities and is in close contact with employment
services in other States. An effective control of labor contractors has been
established both as to inter- and intra-state placements.
"The secretary of the department is of the opinion that the strict application
of the labor laws and the school attendance laws has decreased and almost
eliminated the migratory labor problem in Pennsylvania."
From an education standpoint, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department
of Public Instruction reports as follows :
"The problem of school attendance in connection with interstate migrant working
families in Pennsylvania has not beerr so acvrte as might have been anticipated.
This was found to be true, especially in connection with the electrification program
260370 — 41— pt. 8-
3144 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. and the consti'uction of the Pennsylvania
Turnpike. It appears that school districts rather willingly accepted the children
in their schools, without serious objection with respect to the question of residence
as related to tuition, presumably on account of the increased purchasing power
coming to their immediate vicinities. The parents of these children likewise seemed
to send them to school willingly, without enforcement of the penalties for non-
attendance. We know that in certain counties these submarginal families received
clothing through the cooperation of the local school district and the county
superintendent's office.
"The question of employment of children of migrant families appears to have
diminished throughout the years. This fact has been corroborated by the bureau
of women and children of the State department of labor and industry, which
assures us that the child labor law has been widely accepted. This has been
augmented, of course, by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act which has had a
salutary effect in eliminating problems in connection with interstate commerce.
"The problems in Pennsylvania have existed largely in connection with the
cranberry harvest in New Jersey and the canning industry along the Maryland
border. These problems were quite acute, but during the past few years very
few have been brouglit to the attention of the department. One of these along
the Maryland border reported a year ago was cleared up through a visit by the
county superintendent of schools."
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the problem of interstate migration is of Nation-wide scope and since it is
Impossible for any State to deal effectively witli tbe problem by itself, an approach
to the solution of the problem must involve greater participation by the Federal
Government in helping the States to initiate a program of care for nonresidents
where no such program now exists, and to expand and improve such programs as
are now in effect. Even if the great variety of settlement and residence laws
pertaining to eligibility for public assistance were reduced to uniformity, participa-
tion by the Federal Government would still be necessary to equalize the burden.
The department of public assistance therefore recommends the enactment of a
Federal program of grants-in-aid to tlie States for general assistance to all indigent
persons, including nonsettled persons. Federal participation solely in the care of
transients, as such, would be unsalisfac (dry and unworkable since this would tend
to encourage migration by placing i he transient in a more favored position in many
States than the residents of these States themselves.
In any program of Federal grants-in-aid the following principles are es.sential :
1. Federal participation should be contingent upon tlie acceptance by the Federal
authority of State plans which conform to minimum standards established by the
Federal Government.
2. To be acceptable, a State plan for general assistance should not provide a
residence requirement which exceeds 1 year's residence in the State prior to the
application for assistance, regardless of the length of residence in any particular
locality within the State. The degree of Federal participation for persons meeting
the State residence requirement should be somewhat less than for those not meet-
ing this requirement. A higher degree of Federal partieiiiation for the nonresident
group would help to mitigate the reluctance of many local authorities to care for
outsiders.
3. There should be provision for a single State agency to administer the plan
or establish regulations and standards for local administrative units, such units
to be supervised by the central agency.
4. Removals :
(a) Removal of persons to their place of settlement should be decided pri-
marily in accordance with the best interests of the family or individual and
the communities concerned. Where two State agencies are unable to agree on
whether a family should be permitted to stay where it is, or to be removed to
the place of settlement, provision should be made for appeal by the State agency
to a Federal referee, whose decision would be binding on both States.
(&) A person residing in a State .should be returned to a State in which he
has settlement upon receipt of acknowledgment of settlement and authorization
for return by the proper public- welfare official in the receiving State.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 314S
(c) Regardless of settlement status, it should be possible for a person to be
sent to another State, provided he so desires, and authorization is received from
the proper welfare official in the receiving State.
5. Minimum standards of relief and health care, including but not limited to
medical aid in hospitals, clinics, and other institutions, should be established in
the State plan, with Federal participation provided accordingly.
6. Registration with Federal or State employment services should be required
of every employable person under care who has reached the legal age for
employment.
7. A division of an appropriate Federal agency should be set up to study-
specific labor needs in various sections of the country and to disseminate infor-
mation guiding would-be migrant workers. The publicity of such an agency
should be both positive and negative, encouraging migration to areas of increased
employment opportunities, as well as discouraging futile migration to parts of
the country where it is known that employment opportunities are not available.
State Depaiitjxent of Public Assistancse,
Charleston, W. Va., November 9, 1940.
Hon. John J. Tolan,
Chairman, Special Committee Investigating the
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Tolan : I am enclosing a brief report on problems of migration
in our State. This report was prepared by our department at the request of
Governor Holt, who referred your request for such information to our depart-
ment and that of unemployment compensation. As you will see, the latter felt
that they had experienced no particular problem in this respect.
West Virginia has no serious race problem now, and our industries are fairly
stable. Our county departments tell us that the number of destitute migrants
has decreased considerably even during the 4 years since the creation of this
department.
If I or any of my department can be of any further help to you in this study,
we shall be very glad to do so. I am sorry that w^e have been somewhat late in
sending this report.
Very truly yours,
A. W. Gaunett, Director.
STATEMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
West Virginia has no widespread problem as to destitute migrants. Estimates
based on this department's experience indicate that there is no concerted migra-
tory movement either in or out of the State and that fluctuations in our relief
case load result almost entirely from changes in business conditions and seasonal
employment opportunities within the State and variations in eligibility require-
ments for the various kinds of relief.
Last month (July 1940) somewhat less- than i percent of the general: relief
cases of the State were closed because the recipients had moved outside the
State. Approximately this same proportion of the general relief case load for
July represented families which had moved into West Virginia within the past
3 years. (Eligibility requirements for relief in West Virginia include 1 year's
residence in the State.) For the classified assistance cases, the proportion for
both was slightly under one-half of 1 percent.
Since our department, by the very nature of its residence requirements for
eligibility, is not in touch with the families which have come into our State
most recently, family welfare societies and various private and municipal welfare
agencies w^ere asked as to their experience.
Their reports seem to justify the following general conclusions :
A great many families are now moving into certain sections of West Virginia,
notably the Kanawha Valley section (where are located the industrial plants
of Carbide and Carbon and Du Pont and the United States Naval Ordnance
3146 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Plant) and the northern part of the State, where much industrial expansion ia
now in prospect (a new Du Pont plant is to be built in Moriiaiitown, Morionsalia
County, near the Pennsylvania line). Very few of these i'ninilit's, h(iwev<'r, are
destitute and local charitable organizations estimate that only about one flfth
could be called borderline cases.
The largest number of destitute migrants come to the attention of the relief
agencies in the southern counties. Many of these migrants are from Kentucky
and welfare workers attribute tiie movement to the fact that Kentucky's assist-
ance awards are smaller than those of West Virginia. A large percent of these
people, however, return to Kentucky after realizing the necessity of waiting
1 yeiir to establish residence in West Virginia before securing assistance in
this State.
Although almost 50 percent of our Negro population has migrated from other
States (iirincipally Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina), the rate of niigra-
tJon during the past decade is somewhat lower than during 1020-30 and there
is no serious problem indicated.
It is the opinion of many welfare workers that almost half of the destitute
families coming into West Virginia are those who had lived here prior to
1920-30 (during which West Virginia lost 100,041 of her native white popula-
tion). During this period the good wages of industries in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and other neighboring States attracted all classes of persons and many of them
have returned to West Virginia during the past several years. An example of
this is furnished in the case of persons, notably from our northern counties,
who found employment for several years in the tire factories of Ohio and who
were cut off and returned to the rural sections of West Virginia during the
depression.
DePAUTMFNT of llNEAfPLOYMENT COMPENSATION,
WlOST VlIlCilNIA S;ATK EMPI.OYAfrNT SSltVICE,
Chaiicston, October 10, 19J,0.
It is not felt that the employment service can oiTer any factual data signifi-
cant to the problem of interstate migration of destitute persons. The service
does not take registrations nor make referrals to jobs on the basis of need, hence
it keeps no records which would provide information pertinent to the problem.
Thei'cfore, it is deemed more practical to let the report of the dejiartment of
public assistance constitute the Slate's reply to Representative Tolan's request.
It might bt? added that while we have recently observed a fairly considerable
migration of highly skilled workers from the State to manufacturing centers
further east, there has been no noticeable movement of destitute persons to or
from the State.
The Chairman. We will now hear the testimony of an unemployed
Negro tailor from South Carolina.
TESTIMONY OP EDWARD KOBINSON, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Sparkman. State your name and address.
Mr. Robinson. E'lward Kobinson, 222 K Street N. W., apartment 3.
Mr. SPAiiKMAN. How old are you?
Mr. KoniNsoN. Fifty-four years of age.
Mr. Sparkman. Are you married?
Mr. RoniNsoN. I am.
Mr. Si'AKKiMAN. Do you have any children?
Mr. KoHiNsoN. Nine.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is the oldest child?
Mr. Robinson. Seventeen years old.
Mr. Sparkman. And the youngest?
Mr. RoBiN.soN. Two months.
Mr. Sparkman. How long have you been here in Washington ?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3147
Mr. Robinson. Since July 2, 1939.
Mr. Sparkman. When did your family come?
Mr. EoBiNSON. They came here on Armistice Day, in November
1939.
Mr. Sparkman. Where did you come from ?
Mr. Robinson. From Swansea, S. C.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you have any ])rofession?
Mr. Robinson. I am a tailor by trade.
Mr. Sparkman. You did tailoring work in South Carolina?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you own your own shop there ?
Mr. Robinson. At one time I did.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you done any tailoring here ?
Mr. Robinson. I have been doing little jobs. I have not been able
to obtain regular work.
Mr. Sparkman. You have been picking up jobs wherever and
whenever you could find them?
Mr. Robinson. Yes; I am age-handicapped.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you ever applied for public or private relief
here?
Mr. Robinson. Indeed, I have.
Mr. Sparkman. Have j'ou ever gotten it?
Mr. Robinson. A few emergency orders.
Mr. Sparkman. Now, if you went back to South Carolina, you
would be eligible for W. P. A. relief there, would you not?
Mr. Robinson. I do not know. I cannot say whether I would be,
or not.
Mr. Sparkman. Is there any reason why you could not be employed
on a W. P. A. project?
Mr. Robinson. Of course, you see, I have been on this sort of job
since 1911. I have been running a shop.
Mr. Sparkman. Operating since 1911?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. They have no place for such as me in
the work they have. As you know, a man who has been working
at a trade as long as I have, has nothing offered that he can do
except stump digging or road building. As you see, I would not be
eligible for those jobs.
Mr. Sparkman. Had you been in Washington before?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. When?
Mr. Robinson. In 1929 and 1930.
Mr. Sparkman. How did you happen to come up here then?
Mr. Robinson. I came up here _
Mr. Sparkman (interposing). Looking for work?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you find it?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How did you come to go back to South Carolina?
Mr. Robinson. The family was there.
Mr. Sparkman. You decided to come up here for work, and then
decided to go back there?
•3148 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you try to find work anywhere else in South
•Carolina ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Where?
Mr. Robinson. I tried in other places. I stayed over at Columbia
for 2 days before I came here.
Mr. Sparkman. And you were not able to find anythino- to do
there?
Mr. Robinson. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you think there is a better chance for you to
get permanently settled in Washington than there is in Swan-
sea, S. C?
Mr. Robinson. It seems to me there would be.
Mr. Sparkman. You are hopeful of making some connection here?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir; I came here to establish residence.
Mr. Sparkman. You came here for the purpose of establishing
residence ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir ; that is my purpose.
Mr. Sparkman. You are still hopeful of finding something to do?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. You say your oldest child is 17 years of age?
Mr. Robinson. Eighteen last December.
Mr. Sparkman. Is the oldest a boy or girl ?
Mr. Robinson. A boy.
Mr. Sparkman. Is he doing any work ?
Mr. Robinson. He is doing a little work, such as he can do.
Mr. Sparkman. What does he do ?
Mr. Robinson. He has been working in shoe-shine parlors some-
times, and he is working this week in a grocery store.
Mr. Sparkman. Does he go to school ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. He goes at night?
Mr. Sparkman. Are the other children in school ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir ; except one.
Mi". Sparkman. Are all of the members of the family in good
health?
Mr. Robinson. They are fairly well. My wife has been sick
about 6 months since she has been here. She was unable to do
anything.
Mr. Sparkman. What kind of place do you live in here?
Mr. Robinson. We first lived in a basement. I lived in a base-
ment, but it did not seem to be healthy, and I rented a top-floor
apartment.
Mr. Sparkman. You went from the bottom to the top ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. I lived there awhile. There were no
conveniences while I lived there. Now I am in an apartment where
there is heat and hot water.
Mr. Sparkman. What is the size of the apartment ?
Mr. Robinson. Three rooms.
Mr. Sparkman. Does all of your family live there together ?
Mr. Robinson. That is their home.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3149
Mr. Sparkman. The children are still at home?
Mr. EoBiNsoN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. You have definitely made up your mind to remain
in Washington ?
Mr. EoBiNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you thought of going anywhere else ?
Mr. KoBiNsoN. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you have been a migrant, but do
not want to be a migrant any longer ?
Mr. Robinson. That is right.
The Chairman. What sort of basement did your family live in?
Mr. Robinson. It was not very much.
The Chairman. How large was it?
Mr. Robinson. Three rooms.
The Chairman. How were you able to put all of your people in
those accommodations ?
Mr. Robinson. We did the best we could. Of course, we had three
rooms and a bath. It was cold, and we did not have much heat.
The Chairman. Did you have plenty to eat all the time?
Mr. Robinson. Part of the time it is pretty fair, but sometimes
we are a little short. It is so now.
Tlie Chairman. Do you have your own furniture ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How^ many beds do you have ?
Mr. Robinson. We have three and a cot.
The Chairman. How much rent do you have to pay for your
apartment ?
Mr. Robinson. Twenty-five dollars and fifty cents.
The Chairman. What did you pay for the basement ?
Mr. Robinson. Sixteen dollars.
The Chairman. Are you fairly comfortable now ?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir; w^e are finding it pretty comfortable, but
we would like to have larger quarters. However, we have to do the
best we can uutil we get something better. I am a little distressed
in a way, I might say. We are short of funds, and I owe rent now.
The Chairman. You are sticking it out, and will stay there?
Mr. Robinson. We will try to stay if possible.
The Chairman. Did you receive any help from the Salvation Army
or the Travelers Aid?
Mr. Robinson. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever apply to them for aid ?
Mr. Robinson. Once I applied to the Community Chest, and they
shot me to public assistance. That was the first of this year. In
March they pushed me over to the place at Sixth and A Street, to the
Travelers Aid. I asked the Travelers Aid for help, and they helped
me four times. I was helped four times, and they turned me loose. In
fact, I tried to get my social security, but was turned down there. I
had worked for a man at Swansea for 5 or 6 months, and he collected
social securit}^; so thinking I had social security to fall back on, I
asked for it. I wrote to the Columbia people at Fifth and K, or the
3150 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
labor place, to forward the letter to them. Of course, they never could
get anythino^. They only said I was not eligible.
The Chairman. Why was that ?
Mr. Robinson. I have never learned why.
The Chairman. Did they explain why you were not eligible, or was
it on account of residence ?
Mr. Robinson, They collected social security at that time.
The Chairman. In other words, you paid in, but did not take
anything out?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you get anything out of it ?
Mr. Robinson. They said there was nothing for me.
The Chairman. How much did you pay ?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I paid in 2 cents on the dollar.
The Chairman. For what period of time?
Mr. Robinson. It run between 5 and 6 months, I know, because I
know when I went there and when I came away, on the 1st of May.
The Chairman. They simply told you that you were not eligible ?
Mr. Robinson. That I was not eligible. They said that a man that
wasn't under that limit didn't get under the law ; he didn't hire enough
help to cover the law. But I would like to know as to why he didn't,
and collect the money. I never have been able to find out.
Mr. Sparkman. Edward, you realize that under the Social Security
Act there are several different parts and several different types. The
chances are that what you paid in went toward the old-age payment
fund and not toward unemployment. What you were trying to collect
was unemployment, and your amount was not covered by the unem-
ployment, probably, and what you were paying in was for the old-age
fund rather than for the unemployment.
Mr. Robinson. Well, I didn't understand it that way.
Mr. Sparkman. My guess is that that is what happened.
The Chxirman. Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. McKenney.
TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE McKENNEY, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The Chairman. Mr. McKenney, will you please state your full
name and address?
Mr. McKenney. Clarence McKenney, 518 Thirteenth Street NE.
The Chairman. Where were you born, Mr. McKenney ?
Mr. McKenney. Westmoreland, Va.
The Chairman. And how old are you?
Mr. McKenney. Thirty-eight,
The Chairman, How much education have you had?
Mr. McI^NNEY. Seventh grade.
The Chairman. Are you married?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir.
The Chairman. Is tliis the first time you have ever been in Washing-
ton?
Mr. McKenney. No, I have been here several different times.
The Chairman. Since what year ?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3151
Mr. McKenney. Well, off and on since 1921.
The Chairman. Do you have any relatives here?
Mr. McKenney. All my people are here.
The Chairman. \Vliat do they consist of, a father and mother?
Mr. McKenney. Father and mother, sisters, and brothers.
The Chairman. Wliat does your father do ?
Mr. McKenney. Nothing.
The Chairman. Is he on relief ?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir; he is too old to work. He just stays at
home and my sisters take care of him.
The Chairman. When did you come to Washington the last time?
Mr. McKenney. In March.
The Chairman. Last March ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What do you consider your legal residence; the
District of Columbia or the State of Virginia?
Mr. McKj=:nney. The State of Virginia.
The Chairman. Have you ever applied for public assistance?
Mr. McKenney. I applied for a W. P. A. job.
The Chairman. How did you come out?
Mr. McKenney. No residence. I didn't get it— I mean, not a resi-
dent of this town.
The Chairman. Since coming here have you had any employment?
Mr. McKenney. I get 2 or 3 days some weeks, and some weeks 1 day.
The Chairman. You are a lather now, are you not ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Congressman Sparkman would like to have you
explain what a lather is.
Mr. McI^NNEY. You just nail laths on the walls for the plaster,
that is about all I can tell you.
The Chairman. From your record it would seem that you came from
Virginia, and got some work for a time, and then became discouraged
and went back south ; is that correct?
Mr. McKJENNEY. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How did your father make a living?
Mr. McKenney. He used to work on: the road, just like I did —
fishing, crabbing, and oystering, which is all we do in that section
where I came from.
The Chairman. You have always followed that line of work?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir. That is all I know.
The Chairman. Why didn't you continue that line of work?
Mr. McKenney. It just got so rotten we couldn't make a living.
The Chairman. How is that? Don't they do as much of that
work now as they used to ?
Mr. McKenney. They are doing just as much work, but it got
so tough to make a living, and for the last 2 or 3 years the fishers
couldn't hire anybody.
The Chairman. Is that on account of shortage of fish?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They were not biting ?
Mr, McKenney. No, sir; we catch them in nets, you know.
3152 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The Chairman, Is Westmoreland County, Va., mainly an agri-
cultural district ?
Mr. McKenney. It is about 50-50, I guess, sea food and agri-
culture.
The Chairman. There are canneries there, are there not?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever try to find work at any of them?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir. I have worked for lots of them, but
that only lasts about a month and a half, or something like that,
and then it is all off.
The Chairman. What wages did you receive?
Mr. McKenney. The last I worked in, I received $3 a day for
10 hours' work.
The Chairman. You could not find anything permanent there,
could you ?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir.
The Chairman. How far are you from Richmond?
Mr. McKenney. About 60 miles.
The Chairman. Did you ever try to find work there ?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir.
The Chairman. You were 17 when you left Virginia the first time,
were you not — 17 years old ?
Mr. McKenney. I guess I must have been something about like
that. I know it has been a long time.
The Chairman. Did you ever get any work there, at Richmond?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir; I never went over into Richmond for
work in my life.
The Chairman. Did you go back to Virginia and go to work on
the water ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Where?
Mr. McKenney. Down the lower Potomac and Chesapeake Bay.
The Chairman. What year was that ?
Mr. McKenney. Oh, it has been off and on practically all mv
life. .
The Chairman. You were in business there with your father, were
you?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir ; that is, when I started.
The Chairman. How old is your father?
Mr. McKenney. He is 67.
The Chairman. Did he make any money there?
]\Ir, McKenney. He would make a living; that is all he ever
made — not so much.
The Chairman. At one time you owned two boats together, did
you not?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What did you do after that?
Mr. McKenney. Well — what year was that?
The Chairman. This was when you and your father owned the
two boats.
Mr. McKenney. I am 38 years old, and I left home when I was 17.
The Chairman. Did you ever work in Philadelphia?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3153
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What did you do tiiere ?
Mr. INIcKenney. I was in an automobile factory.
The Chairman. How long did you work in the automobile factory ?
Mr. McKenney. From 1926 until some time in 1928 or 1929; I
am not sure.
The Chairman. How much did you get?
Mr. McKenney. Six, seven, and eight dollars a day; piece-work,
you know.
The Chairman. Why did you quit?
Mr. McKenney. I didn't quit. They laid us all off.
The Chairman. Besides being a lather, you are also a sailor, are
you not ?
Mr. ]\IcKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Where did you sail?
Mr. McKenney. From here to Newport News, to Norfolk, and
from home to Baltimore.
The Chairman. Why didn't you stay at that?
Mr. McKenney. It didn't pay any money.
The Chairman. Can you think of anything in your home vicinity
that would give you a living?
Mr. ]\IcKenney. No, sir.
The Chairman. Will you go back there this winter?
Mr. McKenney. I don't think so ; at least we haven't any home to
go to any more.
The Chairman. Do you find many people from your home district
coming to Washington ?
Mr.^McKENNEY. Everyone, pretty near, sir, that is 16 years of
age ; practically all of them, girls and boys.
The Chairman. Girls and boys, from 16 years of age, practically
all of them, are coming to Washington?
Mv. McKenney. From around my section; yes, sir.
The Chairman. What starts it?
Mr. McKenney. Well, there is nothing there for them. There
are no amusements; you have to clrive 25 miles to see a movie; and
the young people, as soon as they get through school, they are gone.
The Chairman. Are they living on farms?
Mr. McKenney. Most of them; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Can they make a good living on the farms there?
Mr, McKenney. Not hardly; not on the farms they have dow.n
there. You see, they haven't §-ot any great big farms ; they are small
farms, and they just make a living ; that is about all you can say. Two-
thirds of them haven't even got a car.
The Chairman. But as soon as they are old enough, and out of
school, they strike for Washington ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are you doing anything here now — working?
Mr. McI^NNEY. I haven't this week. I got 3 days last week.
The Chairman. What did you do ?
Mr. McKenney. Lathing.
The Chairman. Where are you living?
Mr. McKenney. I am living with my brother-in-law.
3154
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The Chairman. Have you applied to any agencies here for relief?
Mr. McKJENNET. No, sir.
The Chairman. You have never been on relief, have you?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you find in your home vicinity there in Vir-
ginia that machinery has displaced a lot of people from work?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What kind of machinery ?
Mr. McKenney. Well, it used to take about 16 men to pull a haul
seine, in fishing ; now they have an engine to do it. Then in threshing
one man will do what it used to take 10 or 12 men to do.
Tlie Chairman. You find that one of the chief causes of unemploy^
ment in your home district ?
Mr. McKenney. Plenty of it ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are you registered here in the District Employ-
ment Service ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So I take it from your testimony that you intend
to stay here in Washington?
Mr. McI^nney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You figure that you have got just as good chance
here as you would have at your home or any other place ?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, sir. I think I have got a better chance, be-
cause there may be something come up some day down here and there
certainly ain't anything coming up down there.
Mr. Spaekman. Mr. McKenney, have you made any inquiry of the
Civil Service Commission as to whether or not you might fit into some
of the building-trades jobs in the defense program?
Mr. McKenney. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. I do not know about your particular line of work,
but I do know that they have been trying very hard to get people
who did have experience in the building trades, as well as other skilled
trades. I would suggest that you make inquiry there.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McKenney.
PANEL TESTIMONY OP MRS. JOHN J. O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN,
TRANSIENT COMMITTEE, COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES; MRS.
PRANK A. LINZEL, CHAIRMAN, FAMILY WELFARE DIVISION,
COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES; MISS ALICE ELIZABETH JONES,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, WASHINGTON TRAVELERS' AID SO-
CIETY; MA J. CHARLES H. DODD, DIVISIONAL COMMANDER OF
THE SALVATION ARMY; AND CHARLES H. HOUSTON, ASSOCIATE
COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE
The Chairman. Mrs. O'Connor, Mrs. Linzel, Miss Jones, Major
Dodd, Mr. Houston.
(The witnesses referred to appeared before the committee.)
Mr. Curtis. I want to say to this group that I have read the state-
ment that each of you has submitted. Incidentally, I want to say
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3155
that I think a great deal of the groups that you represent. We held
hearings throughout many parts of the United States, and mention of
the work of these social agencies that you represent appears often in
our testimony. We know that you are doing very many worth-while
things, and we know, too, that you are able to furnish very valuable
information.
For the purpose of the record I am going to have each of your
identify himself.
Mrs. O'Connor, will you give your full name and your address and
what organization it is that you represent here ?
Mrs. O'Connor. I am Mrs. John J. O'Connor. I represent the
Council of Social Agencies, as chairman of the transient committee. I
live at the Shoreham in Washington.
Mrs. LiNZEL. I am Mrs. Frank A. Linzel, chairman of the family
welfare division of the Council of Social Agencies. I also am a resi-
dent of Washington, D. C.
Mr. Curtis. And Miss Jones?
Miss Jones. I am Miss Alice Elizabeth Jones, executive secretary,
Washington Travelers Aid Society.
Mr. Curtis. And your residence is Washington ?
Miss Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. And Major Dodd?
Major DoDD. Maj. Charles Dodd, divisional commander of the Sal-
vation Army, Washington, D, C.
Mr. Curtis. Is Mr. Houston here yet?
Mr. Houston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Houston, we have just started a discussion with
this group, and I have liad every one of them give their full names
and addresses and what organization they represent. We would ap-
preciate it if you would do the same thing.
Mr. Houston. My name is Charles H. Houston. My address is
615 F Street NW., Washington, D. C, and I am on the national
legal committee of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People.
Mr. Curtis. Now, as I have told you, I have read the prepared state-
ments that have been handed to us by each one of you, and I have a few
questions in mind that I am going" to direct to you individually con-
cerning your statements. But I have three or four things that I want
to ask you about before we go into that individual questioning, and I
want all of you to feel free to speak^up and give your opinions.
CAUSES
First, I am confining our discussion to the family migrant. I would
like to have you people tell this committee what you think is the basic
cause or causes of families becoming migrants and just getting out and
moving.
Mrs. O'Connor. May I suggest that Miss Jones, who deals with the
migrant family and is in charge of that work in the Travelers Aid
Society, answer that question ?
Mr. Curtis. We will be glad to have her answer it.
Miss JoisEs. I think it is very difficult to say what is the fundamental
cause. It seems to me there are a great many causes and, considering
the cases on an individual basis, as we do in our agency, I think we are
apt to find almost as many causes as we do people coming to us.
3156 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Of course, obviously, there are certain general factors which are ex-
tremely important. I think one of them is the desire to better them-
selves by finding better opportunities, possibly, than are available in
their local area. And it has always been, I think, more or less charac-
teristic of the people of this country to move from one place to another
in an effort to improve their conditions.
Likewise, I think, a factor is the inadequate resources for the resi-
dents of many communities and the care for residents, which forces
people many times to go elsewhere. It is not so much that they want to
leave the security of their home community, but they are forced to do
so by inadequate care of all sorts.
Mr. Curtis. For example, you will find at a given time, perhaps, a
Baltimore family stranded in Philadelphia, and on that same day a
Philadelphia family stranded in Baltimore. Both have gone for the
identical purpose. You will also find, in a given area, certain hard-
ships coming to a group — the closing of a mine or something like that —
and three families remain and one starts to move. What do you think
about that, Miss Jones?
Miss Jones. Well, I think that may go back to many personal factors
in those individual situations. There are many people that have some
unsatisfactory famil}' relationships, and there are other factors which
I think of in terms of personal, individual factors, which may be a
cause for their moving.
Mr. CuKTis. Major Dodd, what do you have to say about this general
proposition that I have discussed with Miss Jones ?
Major DoDD. Due to the fact that in the District of Columbia we
have no responsibility — of course you understand that in Washington
the social services of the community, through the Council of Social
Agencies, are planned, and those agencies that are best fitted to handle
the particular problems of the related fields handle them. In this in-
stance it has been the Travelers Aid, and consequently the Salvation
Army has no budgetary provision or any assignment of responsibility
in the community, and we do not enter into that field. My personal
viewpoint on it
Mr. Curtis. That is what I want.
Major DoDD. Is very much as Miss Jones has described to us. We
have varying levels of relief, and some communities are, to some de-
gree, adequately taking care of that. I think our own situation here
might very properly add something to the whole transient problem.
The relief payment ceiling of $48, high rents, the high cost of living
in Washington, that regardless of the size of the family there must
be a celling of $48 — immediately, if the family has an opportunity,
or hears of a chance to improve their status, that family may move.
I think that very largely the country has been developed because
moving and transiency has been a part of our history. It is the
desire of the people to improve their status that impels them to be
continually on the move.
Mr. Curtis. Mrs. O'Connor, what do you think about this general
subject?
Mrs. O'Connor. I think, as has been expressed, that the individual-
ity itself is the prime reason. I believe that there are two groups
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3157
that can be considered in the family migrant problem: First, per-
haps, there are those people who are more or less chronic wanderers,
who go from place to place, unable to get what they want, and still
going on, feeling that over the hill, perhaps, is the very pleasantest
place. On the other hand, I do think it is truly an expression of
what we might call the American people's right to find work, to lind
a place, to find security, to find wages, to find education in some place,
and particularly the family that has children.
We find, of course, people coming in here from other cities; and
I remember that at the time of the survey made by the transient
committee we had about 2,000 or more in Washington on that special
day, and there were 1,700 and some Washingtonians elsewhere. In
other words, I think the American spirit is to get on the way and
find an opportunity, and some of them never get settled.
I think the point has been well made today by one of the council
workers that the time is coming, because of the seasonal work and
because of defense operations, when we will have to deal in larger
degree with families that have no definite settlement, or who have
no legal settlement.
Mr. Curtis. Now, Mrs. O'Connor, with regard to these families
who start out to better themselves, do you think that for the most
part they do so, or do their difficulties increase when they get away
from home?
Mrs. O'Connor. Oh, I think that by and large, Mr. Congressman,
the thousands of people who go out on the road to seek better em-
jDloyment, better education, better health, find it. I think we get a
very small percentage
Mr. Curtis (interposing). My question applies to the destitute
people.
Mrs. O'Connor. The destitute; yes.
Mr. Curtis. People who have just reached their last ounce of re-
sources of their own, and they start out. Now, in your opinion, do
those people, as a class, better themselves, or are they worse off ^
Mrs. O'Connor. No ; I think — I am not sure that one could make a
general statement, and I would like to hear Miss Jones speak on
this — but from the little observation I have had in studying the case
records I should think that a large part of them start out — we call
them destitute when they get here, but they start out with a per-
fectly good plan in mind, and on the way, perhaps, that plan has
failed, and they are destitute when they get here. But I honestly
feel that there are many self-reliant people who leave the bread
lines at home because they believe that they can get off the bread
lines here, or get a fairly secure job elsewhere, and they get lost,
perhaps, here in Washington. I think that is equally true of other
cities. I shall be interested to read the committee's findings on this
matter. But, although many of these people are chronic wanderers,
I have great confidence in the ability of the average fine American
family to start out, even though they have not quite the wherewithal
to make their goal, but who feel that somehow they may make it.
3158 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Linzel, what do you think about it? Do you
think that destitute families better themselves by starting out and
getting on the move?
Mrs. Linzel, Well, by and large, I think, with Mrs. O'Connor,
that it is very difficult to answer that question yes or no. It would
seem, from most of the information that we have, that the general
reply to that would be "No," because of the difficulty with the various
settlement laws, because they lose their citizenship and their right
to relief by going from one place to another. They hear these
rumors of a national-defense program, and they feel that because
this is their Nation's Capital, and here is their Congressman, they
can come here for relief. They cannot understand, when they get
here, that we do not have the facilities for looking after them —
which, of course, comes right back to our community. So, on the
whole, it would, of course, seem as though they do not better them-
selves under existing conditions.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Houston, you did not file a written statement,
but I want to ask you this question : Among your colored people,
when they are destitute and start out to leave, do they better them-
selves, or are their troubles increased?
Mr. Houston. I will have to answer that in several ways. To
answer the first question, about the migration of family units, I
think, on the whole, the migration of Negroes has been more on
an individual basis. Where families have moved, it is because some-
one has preceded them and gotten a stake in a northern community,
because most of that migration is from the South to the North.
Where you have family units, I think they fall in the class of migra-
tory workers or families that have had some particular crisis which
caused them to pull up stakes and move, regardless of consequences.
I think that, as to migratory workers, the further north you go
the better off the Negro is from the standpoint of living. So, I think,
generally, the Negro betters himself.
But that, of course, is a general statement, subject to all the
qualifications that a general statement carries.
Mrs. O'Connor. At the time you asked the question I did not get
the emphasis on destitute. I do not think any social agency, when
it is considering this problem, would ever advise people starting
with no funds, no plan, or no security, even though it may seem
that they have nothing at home. I think they must have some funds
and some plan. I think just going out into the open is not very
successful, although I do not blame them, frequently. Often they
do it because it is their last resort, and their self-respect and self-
reliance is challenged, and they meet that challenge in that way.
Mr. Curtis. Major Dodd, assuming that a family has been located
in a given community over a period of years, that they have certain
community ties, church ties, and family reputation, does the breaking
up of all of those ties ancl becoming a wandering family have an
inevitable effect on these people?
Major DoDD. Again, Mr. Congressman. I must make this Durelv per-
sonal observation, because we have had no particular experience in
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3159^
dealing with tliat group in Washington. But it seems to me to be
obvious, in the case of a family which leaves a community where they
have friends, where some of their children may have gone to school,
where they have a work record and church affiliations, that especially if
there is a subsequent passing on of that familj^ to another community,
with each move their circumstances become increasingly bad. I do
not know how it is possible for such a family to go through such an
experience as that without suffering very seriously, physically, men-
tally, and in every other way.
SETTLEMENT LAWS
Mr. Curtis. In that connection, in regard to settlement laws, a great
deal has been said about eliminating some of their provisions and mak-
ing them uniform. But it seems to me we must all be agreed as to
this : That if a family stays in a given community for many, many
years, and they have their attachments there, and have carried their
responsibilities there, it does seem rather unfortunate that in a few
short months, througli errors of judgment in thinking they could bet-
ter themselves some place else, they should lose that legal residence and
not attain one elsewhere.
Do you agree with that, Major Docld?
Major DoDD. I do, very much, and I think still further that the
policy of some jurisdictions in declaring a person not a resident of that
community because they may have declared an intention of going to
another community and then found they could not carry through
their plan is unfortunate. They intended to move elsewhere, but were
unable to carry through such a plan, so they return to their own State
or community and find that because of a declaration of intention they
have lost their status in that community. It seems to me when we talk
about democratic processes, we are doing a great deal to tear them
down in an instance of that kind, by such treatment. That is true
where they may, with the best intention, be leaving a community to
better themselves, and then have to return and find that everything
they consider dear has gone in the meantime. I think that is a bad
situation.
Mr. CuETis. Mrs. Linzel, I believe you have worked with the Wash-
ington Council of Social Agencies on this migrant problem. Do you
have any comment to make on the question I asked Major Dodd about
the breaking of all these home ties, community ties, and church ties
where a destitute family starts out? In your observation, are many
of those people subjected to those same forces that cause people to
take to the road ?
Mrs. Linzel. We find it very difficult to contact them, because they
are loathe to identify themselves again. We take our program to them,
but it is very difficult to assimilate them into the church group. They
seem to have lost touch and lost their spirit. It is difficult to tie them
up again.
Our women this year are making a very definite study of migration
problems in the local mission work, but in that connection it is rather
difficult to make progress. There is an organization of women under
Miss Lowry, who, I think, was a witness who appeared before you
in New York, and we participate in that type of work. But it is
very difficult to assimilate those people again.
260370 — il— pt. 8 6
3160 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Curtis. What I am trying to get is an answer to this question —
if yon will permit me to say so, I am very deeply interested in this
matter of the migration of destitute people, thousands and millions of
people, who have no homes, but are out hunting jobs, with the number
increasing every year — as to whether or not that is a good thing, and
are those i^eojjle bettering themselves? The moment they become
transients, are they losing something, and is the country at large los-
ing something?
Mrs. LiNZEL. Yes; I should say. It seems to me they are losing
something, and at the same time something is being lost in oiu' whole
democratic process. They go from place to place and they have lost
their security completely. In that case, a family is not bettering
itself. That would be my observation.
Mr. Curtis. In that connection, Mrs. Linzel, what forces, or what
influences stabilize such a population? What wall prevent a Balti-
more family, for instance, going to Philadelphia, getting into as
much difficulty as a Philadelphia family going to Baltimore?
Mrs. Linzel. Perhaps employment is the first thing the man seeks,
and if he could get that employment in his own community he would
not move.
Mr. Curtis. AVill the moving better his chances of employment?
Mrs. Linzel. Offhand, I should say no, if you are speaking of the
destitute person, unless, as Mr. Houston said, someone has gone before
him to make him feel more secure. We have found that sometimes
people coming from the South may get security and work, or they may
get some temporary employmeiit.
Mr. Houston. I want to call attention to the last question you asked
and say, yes, that is true. Where you have a dislocation of the
family, after the family has had its home in a community for a large
number of years, you liave the attending problems of crime, and so
forth, which would increase much more than where you have only
temporarily lost community control.
But there are two factors to be considered. One of them is this :
We talk about the family which moves as a unit, and there are many
instances where they have no choice. We do not have as nuich of
that in the East as there is in the INIississippi Valley, but you do have
it in the South. That is one thing you must take into consideration.
The second thing is this. The Negro church has a large influence,
which is perhaps more striking than in the Avhite church. The Negro
church is the only organization the Negroes had ])rior to the Civil
War. After the Civil War, wdien you had such a tremendous dislo-
cation, the Negro church was the one factor to which Negroes gravi-
tated. It was there that they had physical relief, companionship,
and social aid, and they were in many senses employment centers.
Many of our people are so destitute that "they go to the churches, which
serve not only to give them religious consolation, but they have put
social work into each of these communities, and in many cases have
actually given shelter and food to these people.
So you have these two factors operating at the same time. I can-
not give you a final answer, but I do want to call attention to those
forces.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3161
Mr. Curtis. Do tlie rest of you folks have any comment to make?
Miss Jones. Employment has been mentioned, and I think em-
ployment is extremely important; but it seems to me that not only
is employment one factor, but other adequate resources must be
developed in the community.
We have had any number of cases come to our attention where
a person has felt forced to leave his home community because of the
lack of medical care, perhaps of a specialized type.
Mr. Curtis. From what areas do those people come ?
Miss Jones. Principally from the small southern communities.
Mr. Curtis. Do you mean there is no local doctor there?
Miss Jones. Yes'; and they may be requiring hospital treatment of
a prolonged nature, or seme special type of surgery, which probably
is not available in that county area. Very frequently there is no
adequate State project for that sort of thing.
I know of two situations recently among the colored group where
they have come to Washington because Freedmen's Hospital is prac-
tically the only resource in this section of the United States that can
offer the type of medical care indicated.
So I think employment is extremely important, but I also think
it must be a complete program, as far as concerns housing, recrea-
tion, medical care, psychiatric care, and all the things necessary to
meet the needs of individuals to prevent their destitution.
Mr. Curtis. You deal primarily with these people. Miss Jones,
after they have left their homes ?
Miss JoNES. Yes; nonresidents coming to Washington.
Mr. Curtis. Suppose a family wanted to get in consultation with
you, and they wanted to know what to do, but had no friends and no
funds, with skilled laborers in the family, but with no work and
none in sight. But they can get together and get a few gallons of
gasoline for their old car, and they want to know whether to start
out in order to better themselves. What do you tell them in a case
of that kind?
Miss Jones. As I said in the beginning, I think that goes back
to the individual situation. I think it is rather dangerous to gen-
eralize with a remark of that kind. By and large I think it would
he inadvisable for them to leave
Mr, Curtis. Assuming that there are some small children, or per-
haps some babies.
Miss Jones. I think it would depend on how well we had our plan
worked out, if it were possible for them to get em])loyment, whether
they had any definite, or even probable job in view, whether they
had any relatives or resources in the community to which they were
going, and what resources they had in the place they were leaving.
Mr. Curtis. Assuming that they had no destination and no
relatives.
Miss Jones. Well, I think it would be probably rather poor
planning to start out WTth nothing at all. There are no work
projects, and they are feeling sufficiently desperate so that they feel
forced to leave.
3162 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
But if some information about available job opportunities in the
country could be made available to that group, possibly through
the United States Employment Service, so that when they are start-
ing out it would not be a matter of aimless wandering, but they
might have some more definite plan in mind, and that would be a
different proposition.
Mr. Curtis. As I said when this group took their places, I have
great respect for the work they are doing. That work is fine, and
growing, for the victims of this problem.
Mr. Houston. May I ask a question in reference to the matter you
were talking to Miss Jones about?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Houston. I think the Congressman has left out a factor there-
He asked Miss Jones about the situations they would be facing; he
did not ask about conditions they would meet if they should stay in
the same community. I think that question would be better put to
give a better basis on which to advise a family. In other words, what
is the situation of a unit which has lost its stake, because I take it
that is the question you refer to. In other words, conditions may be
so bad in that community that almost any change is a change for the
better. I call that to your attention, because I think it is very im-
portant as to whether to advise them to take to the road.
Mv. Curtis. Do you have anything further to say about that. Miss
Jones ?
Miss Jones. No; I think that point is extremely well taken. It
depends on the resources, where they are going, and what may be the
greater hazard, to remain where they are, or to go on elsewhere, with
the probability of no assistance.
Mr. Curtis. These factors have been there, that cause people to
take to the road, and they affect the rest of the people back home who
do not take to the road, do they not?
Mr. Houston. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. As I started to say a moment ago, I think you are
doing splendid work in caring for the victims of this problem. But
I hope that an increasing number of people and organizations will
give some attention to the positive factors in their communities that
stabilize population, because when we make, a Government expendi-
ture and create a program to take care of that fraction of the people
who have left a community we still have not reached his neighbors
back home, suffering from the same thing.
Mr. Houston. May I say this? I think today, when we talk about
stabilizing conditions, that, above all, the question of education can-
not be neglected, because people stay in their localities, provided they
have the means to live. People move because they are desperate. I
think, as we face this problem of national defense, when it looks like,
for the first time in 10 years, there will be more jobs than there are
men to fill them, it seems to me one of the greatest things to stabilize
a community is not to cut down the appropriations for schools, but
to increase such appropriations so that people who stay there will be
able to get those jobs at home.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3163
I think one of the most important things in the matter of stabiliz-
ing popuhition is education, so that the adults will stay in the com-
munity, because, no matter how hard it is for them, they will feel that
the children have a chance.
Mr. CuETis. Is there anything else you wish to say ?
Mrs. O'Connor. I would like to make just one statement relative
to the point of view as to the resources in the community which go
to build family life. I do not believe anyone in the group of these
agencies treating and dealing with the transient problem has any
other thought in mind in any way, except as an expediency, than to
put these people in a community where they would have the advan-
tages of community life. In other words, I do not believe that any-
one of these various agencies feel that any family can develop unless
it lives in a community with all the community resources. That is
the objective of what we call the case and welfare workers who deal
with transients. They realize and face the fact that there is always
going to be a wandering back and forth, but we feel that, by Miss
Jones' and Major Dodd's case workers' methods, we sometimes reluc-
tantly take them away from communities in which arise such hazards
as those about which Mr. Houston has been talking.
The question of moral character is involved ; there also is the ques-
tion of where the community can supply hospitalization; it is a case
in which we reluctantly take them, with the hope that in the new
<3ommunity they may "find" themselves and build up family life.
Mr. Curtis. Now, is the improvement in the treatment of the victim
going to make more victims?
Mrs. O'Connor. I should like to hear the others on that, but I
should think that the expenditure is an investment that is being put
into the transient program for the purpose of getting jobs, an invest-
ment in the community where they can secure an education, get
Iiospitalization, and get to a place that should come to every American
family, because it is not the fact that $50 spent would cause them to
stay here, but that we should find some constructive national plan of
community living for these people who have not had an opportunity.
Under such a plan they can go back again and plan their family
development with the assistance of experts, and develop the ability
to secure those things that are necessary in order to rebuild. It is my
firm opinion that this would furnish them a new opportunity and the
case workers' job, it seems to me, is to make that new opportunity a
real good start on a definite and settled living plan.
The Chairman. I would just like to say before we leave that ques-
tion which has been asked you : I have lived with this subject about
a year now and I know less about it than when I started.
Mrs. O'Connor. We all feel happy that you have lived with it.
The Chairman. I think the questions that have been asked by
Congressman Curtis are very important and go right to the merits
of this whole thing. But I am interested in all of these migrant
people, particularly those who have no alternative, those who have to
move on account of circumstances over which they have no control.
They find themselves without means of support, and the law of self-
preservation, over which they have no control, compels them to move.
3154 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The last appropriation for the W. P. A. was reduced, I thiiik, by
a billion and a half dollars. Approximately 800,000 men went out.
A lot of them had families. They cannot get any relief ; they are not
going to just sit still and starve. Now, what are they going to do?
Those are the people that I am most interested in.
Now, of course, the people, many of them, have friends who are val-
uable to them. Many of these people came from the farm, were not on
W. P. A. work. We have many people who have lived on the farm all
of their lives. In the last 10 years I have talked to many of these peo-
ple, and I have yet to find a one who would not like to go back on the
farm. But in Nebraska, for instance, they had 8 straight years of
drought, and they simply could not stay there and starve, so they
moved.
Now, what are these people going to do? Many of them came to
California. We went through much of that State, and I asked many of
them, and other members of the committee asked them, if they would
like to go back home. The usual answer was, "Yes ; we would like to go
back home if farming was what it used to be. We do not want to go
back if we cannot make a living." Now, that is the kind of people in
whom I am particularly interested.
The trouble with the situation is, we do not have 48 States; we have
48 nations, raising barriers against each other, so, if the destitute try
to get through, they find it rather difficult.
I think you will agree with this committee that it is a national prob-
lem; that no single State can solve it.
In the early days of this country, why, we encouraged migration.
Lincoln and others moved into the Middle West. Many groups moved
into Montana, others went to California to take advantage of the re-
sources. But those early days are gone. At that time they had almost
unlimited resources. Now we do not have frontiers, and States have
had to erect barriers, not arbitrarily, but because they have a terrible
time trying to provide for their own people.
Let me say that the record shows that 895,000 people moved into Cali^
fornia in the course of 5 years, and 495,000 were destitute. Now, sup-
pose they had an earthquake over here in Pennsylvania and something
like 495,000 moved into Ohio. Congress would convene in special ses-
sion to take care of that situation.
I am very glad that Congressman Curtis pursued that line of ques-
tioning. We are faced with a problem, a great human problem, and I
am very pleased that you have covered these broad points.
TRANSIENT COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AGENCIES
Mr. Curtis. One other question, Mrs. O'Connor: Will you, briefly,,
tell us what the transient committee of the Council of Social Welfare
Agencies is?
Mrs. O'C^ONNOR. Yes. The transient committee of the Council of
Social Welfare Agencies is a federation of 94 agencies in Washington,
public and private, who plan and cooperatively execute the welfare
program. It is made up of both lay and professional representatives ;
so we have the point of view of the public who support it and the ad-
ministrative point of view of the professional group. The transient
committee was a subcommittee of a special committee appointed about
1929 for the District of Columbia, because we felt that this problem was
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3165
one that was going to be of increasing concern to Washington. I think
the testimony this morning will show why Washington was a center.
We nndertook, by getting together the 21 agencies who deal in some
small part with the transient problem, to work out a plan that would
be more effective, more centralized, and more adequate for the needs
of the transients as they come here. After a year of study we under-
took a very careful research survey, and from that survey we think we
have developed a reasonably satisfactory program.
Mr. Curtis. That survey had two major recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mrs. O^CoNNOR. It had several recommendations, Congressman
Curtis, but the interesting point that will be made to you at this time.^
and as the chairman has pointed out, is that this was a national prob-
lem. Migration was deep-rooted in industry and agriculture, and
should have a Federal i)rogram, if possible, in order to help. We had
ji definite recommendation for the District of Columbia, and we still
make it, and the interesting point, as I said, is that after 12 years — this
committee has been in operation for 12 years — we are still taking the
point of view that it is a national picture entirely. The job especially
relates itself to uniform settlement laws, uniform relief, and removal
of State barriers. We found that at that time, and we are very happy
indeed to find you are doing what you are along this line, and you have
our hearty support,
Mr, Curtis. Do you care to say anything about those recommenda-
tions in those years?
Mrs. O'Connor. Yes ; for the District of Columbia. They were very
definite. The first was that it was a Federal program and required
Federal action ; the second was that, as far as the District of Columbia
was concerned, and as far as the 21 agencies interested and working on
it, it was very necessary to have a cooperative scheme whereby the
paramount function of one special unit would be to aid transients. A
transient bureau was set up with the cooperation of all 21 agencies,
being identified with the Travelers Aid and the Salvation Army, par-
ticularly, with a program for transients in the District of Columbia.
After a year the transient bureaus were set up. At that time the
private agency did a piece of work that was considered very valuable ;
and the Travelers Aid and the Salvation Army, under the Travelers Aid
program, helped several people. But the problem was very great.
After 18 months the transient bureaus were disbanded and that work
was thrown back again on local facilities. Private agencies undertake
to do the work to the vei^y limit of their budget, but there is no adequate
program.
At that time, and now, we feel that in this assistance program grants-
in-aid should be provided to be administered under a cooperative plan
between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia.
We feel, certainly, that there should be more shelter space, more
room in the lodging house, which is very inadequate. Major Dodd
will tell you a story of hundreds of men lying on grates trying to
keep warm.
I think that Mr. Bondy raised, this morning, an extremely important
question, when he said that we are on the receiving end and should be
in position to furnish accurate information about employment, espe-
^\QQ INTERSTATE M [ORATION
cially to men who pass through here looking for work. And we want
grants-in-aid which can be utilized for certain definitely related items
in a large transient program, particularly in relation to unemployed
men.
I think, too, that there should be sufficient funds to take care of
cases of families with no legal residence whatsoever. We are quite
well equipped, I think, to set it up ; we are still following the coopera-
tive plan between private and public agencies in dealing with groups
of people, men seeking employment, who have no legal residence.
Mr. Curtis. I will say, Mrs. O'Connor, that your prepared paper
as submitted will be made a part of the record.
Mrs. O'Connor. Thank you. I would like to add that we want a
municipal lodging house, with more facilities for both white and
colored. The colored facilities have been extremely bad. We would
also like to have more shelter places for boys.
Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Linzel, your prepared statement will also be in-
corporated in the record.
Mrs. Linzel. Yes.
FAMILY welfare
Mr. Curtis. At this time will you tell us briefly something about
the scope of work of the family-welfare division of the Council of
Social Agencies of the District of Columbia and Vicinity ?
Mrs. Linzel. The family-welfare division brings together the social
agencies, civic organizations, and individuals who are particularly
concerned with the preservation and strengthening of family life, of
course, in the District of Columbia.
The division now has a membership of 45 organizations, and is made
up of 23 social agencies which are supported by the community chest ;
13 public agencies and 9 other private agencies and organizations.
And it is from these various organizations that our information is
obtained and through them that our work is done.
I should like, also, to mention particularly our intake committee
from which we secure the definite detailed information, which is in-
cluded in the statement that you will have in the record. There is a
list of 22 agencies which are represented on that committee.
Does that give you an answer to your questions?
Mr. Curtis. Yes. You deal with the family primarily ?
Mrs. Linzel. Yes; and family welfare in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Curtis. What aid do you give them ?
Mrs. Linzel. We ourselves do not give the aid ; we are a federation
of the agencies that do the work.
Mr. Curtis. What does your committee do; does it handle the in-
dividual family cases?
Mrs. Linzel. We do not handle individual family cases. We are
a federation of agencies that brings together in a cooperative way
these various groups that go down to the individual cases.
The Chairman. You are a sort of clearinghouse?
Mrs. Linzel. That is correct.
Mr. Curtis. In order to prevent duplication ?
Mrs. Linzel. To prevent duplication wherever possible.
Mr. Curtis. Do these various agencies that exist here in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, reach in some manner every destitute family that
-comes along?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3167
Mrs. LiNzEL, I think it does not, Congressman, because our own ap-
propriation cannot cover all of the destitute families that come here.
That is the reason for the recommendation that Federal gi'ants-in-
aid are so very necessary in Washington and in coordinating the local
assistance vrork.
travelers' aid society
Mr. Curtis. Miss Jones, I wish you would give the committee some
idea of the scope of the work of the Travelers Aid Society.
Miss Jones. The Travelers Aid Society, with respect to the com-
munity and its assistance to nonresident groups that have been talked
about here, deals with two major aspects: The single, or unattached,
homeless men of 18 years and over, and second, the World War vet-
erans and their families.
The first group that I mentioned are referred to the nonresident
division of the public agencies here; and the second group referred to
the welfare division of the American Legion. However, that leaves
all of the women, and girls and boys 17 and under, and families as
the responsibility of the Travelers Aid Society, for service and plan-
ning, as well as for financial assistance where necessary.
But I would like to emphasize this point, that our interpretation,
as we have been forced to make it — and we quite agree to it — is that
a transient is a person who has been in Washington for less than 12
consecutive months. Now, that is not the present interpretation, as
I understand, of the residence policy of the board of public welfare,
their interpretation being 12 consecutive months self-supporting. So,
it is quite obvious that at that point there is a gap in the service in
the District of Columbia. A person may have been here 18 months
but have received help from friends and relatives, or something of
that sort, making him or his family ineligible for public-agency care
and yet who would not come within the scope of in-take policy. And,
I might point out to you that the private residence agencies have
been forced to follow pretty much the same interpretation in regard
to intake throughout the country.
Mr. Curtis. How long, on the average, do these cases remain ?
Miss Jones. That is difficult to say. I should say something less
than 3 months ; a comparatively few remain longer than 6 months.
Mr. Curtis. From where do most of them come ?
Miss Jones. Well, we made a sample study of intakes in January
and February of this year, 1910, and we found that people came from
32 States and Alaska. Of the total group 15 percent came from Vir-
ginia; 11 percent from each North Carolina and New York; 9 percent
from both Maryland and Pennsylvania. Of course, many persons go
back and forth. They came from as far away as California and
Colorado. Of course, I would say that a majority came from the States
along the eastern seaboard.
Mr. Curtis. You would say the average time is about 3 months ?
Miss Jones. Possibly less.
Mr. Curtis. What happens to them when you no longer continue to
care for them ; what becomes of them ?
Miss Jones. Of course, there is nothing arbitrary ; there is no arbi-
trary limitation of time that we would just stop caring for them at any
given period. We handle all of them on an individual-case basis, and
3168 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
we would either assist them to get employment in this community, or aid
them until they can get help, find work in some place or in some
community, or develop some resources, secure some type of assistance,
or be assured that resources of some kind are available.
Mr. Curtis. I notice the figures in your statement that since 1935
there has been a marked increase each year.
Miss Jones. There has been a marked increase every year since 1935.
I might add that the most pronounced increase has come, I think, since
June of 1940. Since June of this year we have had an increase of ap-
proximately 200 cases per month until August, a month in which we
had 400 cases more than we had in August of last year.
Mr. Curtis. What is the total budget for the District of Columbia ?
Miss Jones. It is approximately $40,000.
Mr. Curtis. It is a national and international organization ?
Miss Jones. Well we do have representatives all over the world.
We are members of the National Travelers Aid Association, vv^hich I
believe, is the only private national organization which devotes its full
time to studying the problems of moving people, and we have for many
years, of course, done work that is extremely valuable to all local em-
ployment agencies in meeting the problems that come to us.
Mr. Curtis. I notice in your paper that you mention that the railroad
cx)mpanies and transportation companies have been of assistance. In
what way do they help ; in reduced railroad fares?
Miss Jones. In situations where that is warranted we have the priv-
ilege of asking them to furnish rates which make transportation at
i-educed fare available.
But I would like to point out that, through the cooperation of the
bnard of public welfare, the transportation funds are appropriated
for the District of Columbia by Congress, as I understand it. We do
secure transportation for practically all of our cases.
Mr. Curtis. I notice this statement in your recommendation :
I feel that in the District of Columbia the nonresident problem is not such as to
warrant "mass treatment" of the nature of a broad Federal transient program.
Will you tell us just what you had in mind in that regard ?
Miss Jones. I was speaking exclusively from the point of view of
the problem as seen by our agencies in the District of Columbia. I
am not prepared to discuss it from the national angle.
But it seems to me that the problem is such as to require emphasis
on stabilization as a means of preventing a transiency and that sort
of thing, and possibly the setting up of a transiency program that
might take care of that problem without increasing it. I realize the
need at this time of meeting the problem, but it seems to me that it is
not meeting the fundamental cause of transiency, that we are more or
less putting the cart before the horse. We ought to have some provi-
sion, either through the extension of the social-security program or in
some other way to make adeciuate provision for the residents, so that
the families that you are talking about would not feel desperate, would
not feel forced to leave the communities in which they live. If a
proper Federal program could be set up, it would help solve the prob-
lem of this group of people with no legal residence. It is that group
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3169
that we are concerned about, which is increasing every year, and in the
future is likely to continue to increase.
Mr. Curtis. Miss Jones, we all know that in this group of transients
there will be found the few chronic wanderers for whom such a pro-
gram would be of little benefit. We all know they exist. There is
no use to try to give everyone a job. It cannot be accomplished 100
percent. 15ut would you be kind enough to venture an estimate as to
what percentage of the unfortunate people that your agency comes in
contact with who are just chronic wanderers, who get some help here
for a few months, probably, and then go to some other place and get
some help and then move on to some other place ?
Miss Jones. I think a very small percentage.
Mr. Curtis. Would you care to estimate it at all ?
Miss Jones. No ; I believe not.
Mr. Curtis. Would you think it would be as much as 5 percent ?
Miss Jones. I ^YOuid hesitate to give any definite percentage. I
think the number is certainly comparatively small.
Mr. Curtis. Now, you also say the group you cannot help is that
inifortunate group of people who liave no legal residence anywhere?
Miss Jones. Yes ; and also that group for whom the community has
no resources to offer, who need to be taken care of on a sort of tem-
porary basis in order to try to lielp them develop either some resources
of their own or some community resources, whether locally or out of
town.
Provision should be made for residence agencies, which would per-
haps make special arrangements for that group of people, because they
are not eligible for assistance at the public agencies and, having no
residence elsewhere, it would probably be a very long time before they
were cared for. We feel thej^ should be a definite public-agency
responsibility.
Mr. Curtis. And that is the group that has a very definite claim
on the Nation to which they belong.
Miss Jones. Yes. Because of the State residence laws in some
cases use the word "intent," a term that is comparatively ambiguous
and susceptible of so many interpretations it works very grave injus-
tice on many people.
For example, we have a case of a woman from the State of Illinois
who, after 3 years' residence, because of the State law, lost her resi-
dence on the basis of intent. The woman had lived in Chicago for
5 consecutive years. She went to a small community in the southern
part of the State, and therefore Chicago interpreted that as meaning
an intent to move elsewhere. After 3 weeks she left the small com-
munity and came to Washington. We could not get an authorization
or verification of her residence from either Chicago or the small com-
munity in Illinois. We did not feel that it was her intent to leave
the State of Illinois, but the fact that Chicago said it showed an
intent to move to Bloomington, and Bloomington said she had only
been there 3 weeks. The fact that she had been in Chicago for 5 years
showed she had a Chicago residence.
3170 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Ctjrtis. May I say that we are glad to have that statement of
fact, because parallel cases like that could be found throughout the
country.
Miss Jones. Yes.
Mr. Curtis, Your statement will be included in the record.
Miss Jones. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. I believe that is all I care to ask.
Miss Jones. Thank you.
SALVATION ARMY
Mr. Curtis. Major Dodd, what particular phase of the trans-
ciency problem does the Salvation Army have to meet?
Mr. Dodd. Congressman Curtis, may I develop something that was
suggested in your discussion with Mrs. Linzel?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Dodd. You asked whether there were families who came here
in considerable numbers who were not cared for, and I think you
had particular reference to migratory families.
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Dodd. And Mrs. Linzel said that was quite possible, but that it
is a situation that is unavoidable.
The Chairman said that 800,000 were cut off from the Federal
rolls, and if that happens to a migratory family; as may have hap-
pened time and time again to people who were not migrants ; and who
were certified to the W. P. A.; there is no help for these migrant
families. The private agencies in the field just simply do not hav&
the budgetary provisions sufficient even to meet their local situa-
tions. And that must be the situation in thousands of communities
throughout the country.
Necessarily, because of what is happening to local families, there is
a similar problem for the migratory family ; that has been the situa-
tion in Washington, D. C.
Now to come to the question you asked about the part played by the
Salvation Army. In the field of the homeless, the Salvation Army
has responsibility for care of women and children, and for home-
less men ; the women and children being cared for in the Women and
Children's Emergency Home. The Travelers Aid does that char-
acter of work in that connection, and for the homeless men we have
the sheltered workshop, the Men's Social Service Center, as we term
it; and our institution will serve approximately 93 men.
I had occasion to go over the population in the institution on Novem-
ber 25, and my inspection revealed that there were 27 States and 4
countries represented among them, so that it is a migratory group,
very largely. However, it is not just a question of staying for today
and on their way tomorrow. The average stay of these men would be
around 3 months, and as they leave the institution, I would say it is
generally with the hope or belief that they will find employment in
some other community. We have no budgetary provision for the
large transient program such as we participated in prior to the Federal
program. Our budget in those years went up to $-60,000 in carrying
on our program, but, with the coming into existence of the Federal
progi-am, we liquidated. Since then the local needs have been such
that it is not possible for us to secure finances to enable us to fulfill
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3171
-the program with transient men as we might really do in order to meet
the situation.
Mr. Curtis. Does the increase of Federal funds make it more diflB,-
cult to raise funds for private purposes ?
Mr. DoDD. I do not know. Our community chest has been for the
past several years endeavoring to raise $2,000,000 as its goal, and last
year and the year before that, and the year before it, was not able to
achieve the goal. Usually not more than about 95 percent of the total
has been raised, and because of the inability to raise sufficient funds
to take care of the local needs consequently, no provision is made for
the care of the migrants.
Mr. Curtis. Of course, your paper will be made a part of the record.
Mr. DoDD. Yes ; thank you.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Curtis. Do you have any recommendations that you want to
'emphasize to the committee at this time?
Mr. DoDD. I have three, and the fourth has been suggested.
First. Because of vicious practices in many jurisdictions, particu-
larly as they relate to settlement laws, it is hoped that this committee
will use its influence in promoting uniform settlement laws throughout
the Nation.
Second. Due to (a) the presence in every community of the citizens
•of some other community for whom care must be provided; (b) the
fact that States are unable to maintain adequate standards of relief
(materially adding to transciency) without the assistance of the Fed-
eral Government, it is recommended that provision be made for a pro-
_gram of grants-in-aid by the Federal Government to States, rather
tiian have the entire responsibility shouldered by the Federal Govern-
ment.
Third. That locally, because of inadequate provision which forces
men to sleep out, panhandle, and so forth, with all the dangers and
menace to the community, a municipal lodging house with case work
and medical services included, sufficiently large to meet the need, ig
recommended.
And in connection with the fourth suggestion, I would like to add
to the recommendation of Mrs. O'Connor — I think Miss Jones also
touched upon it — that some provision should be made in connection
with the employment service. Then, if there is employment oppor-
tunity in a given area, the agency where these men stay could be fur-
nished information that can be made available to them by the employ-
ment service. Thus, when they, as transients, come to us asking for
-employment we will know what to tell them. And I might say that
out of the same 93 men that I mentioned, who came to Washington, 57
of them came here seeking employment.
We have not been able to help them because of lack of capacity,
lack of facilities; and we should be in position to call upon some
agency that could tell us whether the employment opportunity —
for instance, in Florida, under the defense program — is still avail-
able; or to tell them of some other place where they might have an
■opportunity to secure employment.
As it is, if they hear that something is developing in Florida, they
anay move in that direction. We ought to be in a position to look
3172 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
into the situation. We may find that so many people have ah^eady
gone to Jacksonville, as I understand is the case, that they are faced
with an almost insurmountable relief problem, because of the num-
ber of unemployed people. If we now had information of that kind
regarding other places, we could advise them it would be useless to
go there. AVe would be in position to give a little guidance, where-
as, at the moment, we just do not have sufficient factual information
to help us to do that kind of thing.
Mr. Curtis. Do you think we should also recognize the human
trait in everyone to feel perhaps the pasture is greener in some other
community ?
Mr. DoDD. Yes; absolutely.
Mr. Curtis. And to guard against that error ?
Mr, DoDD. It is typical, it is inherent, you might say. You will find
it all over the country.
PROBLEM OF NEGRO MIGRANT
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Houston, how old is your organization?
Mr. Houston. Our organization is now 31 years old.
Mr. Curtis. What is the primary purpose of the organization?
Mr. Houston. Civil rights.
Mr. Curtis. How does your organization come into the field of
the destitute and migrant situation?
Mr. Houston. It comes into the field, I might say, due to the fact
that our population is affected more than any other group. I mean,
to use this statement, they are the last to be hired, and the first to
be fired. The organization is not simply for the purpose of meet-
ing the migratory problem ; we back into it.
]\Ir. CuRiTS. Mr. Houston, today's hearings were set aside for the
District of Columbia. It is a very far-reaching matter we are investi-
gating, and it is easy to go far afield in the discussion, but, with
particular reference to the District of Columbia, what are a few
of the problems that face the destitute Negro man who comes to
Washington ?
Mr. Houston. Congressman Curtis, I think Mrs. Linzel has spoken
about the inadequate provision for relief, the relief needs for both
white and Negro,
There is also the problem of employment from the standpoint
of wages, which is one of the things that affects the District of
Columbia, so far as Negro women are concerned, particularly. Most
of the Negro women are domestics, and the employment of migra-
tory Negro women has brought down the standard of wages, not only
for that group, but also for the local domestics, so that they are
faced with a sort of depression from that source for the domestics.
That is one of the very difficult problems.
Now, as to other problems, I think there is a serious lack of authen-
tic information, and we have tried to make studies. This morning
I went to the budget committee to try to get some information as
to whether the migrant presented a much more serious i^roblem than
the delinquent and there were no figures on it ; there is no break-
down.
I went to the probation office and tried to get the same informa-
tion so far as adult crime was concerned, and again there was no
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3173
break-clown. I went to the clerk of the United States District Attor-
ney, and ahhough he had certain notions, he had no figures. I went
to the police headquarters to try to get information and could not
get it, and then I went to the Criminal Justice Association to see
what information I could get, and the only thing they had was a
study made about 2 years ago, of persons in the jail, as to places of
birth, and even then there was no check-up as to such places of
birth.
So I shall have to say to you that I cannot give you any definite
answer, but it seems to me that one of the things we ouglit to do,
in order to bring this on a scientific basis, is to get more real, factual
information.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Houston, our records will be open for several
days, although w^e must report to Congress at the beginning of the
next session in January. Inasmuch as you have not submitted a
written statement, if you decide that you can make some contribu-
tion, we will be happy to have it and incorporate it in our hearings.
Mr. Houston. I shall be very glad to, Congressman. I should
simply call your attention to my limitations. I am simply a lawyer
in private practice, and I am not an expert in this field. But I shall
continue to try to reach some of the agencies that are working, and
if I do get information, I shall be only too happy to send it in.
Mr. Curtis. I think the chairman of this committee will agree —
and I think we all will^ — that all lawyers are experts.
The Chairman. In what?
Mr. Curtis. Well, just generally. Being a law3'er does not mean
that you are not an expert. We all are.
The Chairman. In any event, Mr. Houston, you have the privi-
lege of filing such a statement if you should see fit to do so.
(The following statement was later submitted to the committee and
accepted for the record :)
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF CHARLES II. HOUSTON, OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED
PEOPLE
Some Aspects of Transikncy as it Affects Negroes in the District of Columbia
The amount of all transiency for the District of Columbia is difficult if not im-
possible to determine. It is equally or more difficult to ascertain with an appreci-
able degree of accuracy the percentage of, existing transiency which is supplied by
movement of the Negro population. District welfare agencies concerned primarily
with the needs of nonresident individuals and families are unable to furnisli
specific data as to the numbers of Negroes in the distressed groups. A rough esti-
mate seems to indicate that nearly one-third of the needy migrants applying for
assistance in the District are colored. This figure seems surprisingly low in
view of the evidence submitted in the Work Projects Administration study Migrant
Families, that the District of Columbia is in the area furnishing proof of con-
siderable movement of Negro population north along the Atlantic coast.' Also it
is so far below the percentage of Negroes in the relief population in Washington
that inquiry into some of the reasons seems indicated.
First there is the strong probability that needy Negro migrants find other ways
of managing than appeal to welfare agencies. Foremost among these is recourse
xv/m" ^"i^^^'^ ^°*^^ Malcolm Brown, Migrant Families (W. P. A. Research Monograph
3174
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to the unorganized welfare services such as the "store front" church and to other
members of the race residing in the District. The appeals for relief by resiuents
of fairly recent establishment of settlement strengthen this belief, although the
number of such applicants is not great.
Secondly, inadequate facilities for care might act as a deterrent to application.
There are 10 beds for Negroes in the boarding department of the municipal lodging
house. The Salvation Army has a small shelter for Negro men, but since a small
fee is'charged for accommodation there it is reasonable to assume that some arfe
unable to pay it. The various local missions affording shelter for transients, in
general exclude Negroes. The Travelers Aid Society includes Negro families in
its services to family groups, but limitation of funds make it necessary for that
agency to restrict its intake to those whose needs can be met out of funds
available.
Another factor tending to lessen Negro applications for nonresident aid is
probablv the habit often observed among Negroes, of the husband and father com-
ing on ahead to find work and establish a home before sending for his family. This
means that most of the Negro migrants would be classified as "unattached indi-
viduals," many of whom manage to subsist for a year with income derived from
odd jobs, panhandling, or help of friends. The low standard of living previously
maintained means also the possibility of maintenance at a very low level during
this period.
The fourth factor is based on personal opinion and might be open to question
from those holding contrary opinion. That is the lack of Negro personnel in the
administration of services to the migrant group. Neither of the private agencies
offering some services to Negroes employ any Negro case workers. Likewise
there are no Negro case workers in the nonresident service of the Board of Public
Welfare although colored case workers are employed in other divisions of the
Board. There is a tendency for Negroes in need to seek service or aid more freely
where they see members of their own group. This tendency may arise out of a
fear of rebuff or a suspicious attitude toward white people. This would be par-
ticularly true of the ignorant southern migrant who has been conditioned by
earlier adverse experience.
In considering the reasons for migration of Negroes, some attention must be
given to factors other than economic, though that one is paramount with colored
as with white. Negro migration has been largely from the South to the North, in
contrast to the prevailing trend of general migration westward. That social and
political factors enter into Negro migration to a considerable extent is shown by
the frequent reports in Negro newspapers regarding members of the race forced
to flee from southern homes. Also the lack of adequate health and educational
facilities, especially in the rural south, influence some Negroes to leave to secure
these advantages in the North.
Any effective remedy must apply throughout the country and not to a particular
section. Some provision for Federal aid for general public assistance, including
nonresident families, should be made. However, for such a remedy to have a
real effect on Negro migration, it would have to stipulate minimum essentials ade-
quate to insure health and decency, below which no community must fall.
It should be noted that Federal legislation to relieve the problem will have to be
so drawn as to require explicitly that, both in the number of clients aided and in
the standards by which the extent of aid for a given client is determined, there
shall be no discrimination on the basis of race. AVithout such legislative stipula-
tions the social and political conditions which obtain in certain areas of the Nation
would operate largely to exclude needy Negro migrants from the federally sub-
sidized program, or to administer aid to them on the basis of differential standards,
or both. Legislation to meet this general problem can, in our opinion, best be
incorporated as an addition to the Social Security Act.
PANEL TESTIMONY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— Resumed
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have greatly appreciated the discus-
sion we have had with this group. I feel very much like our chairman
who says that he has studied this for months and knows less about it
now than when he started.
I am inclined to think, however, that the interstate migration of des-
titute citizens is not the sole problem, but it is evidence of a lot of other
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3175
problems in a great many places in the United States. It is what they
rim to because they meet those problems somewhere else.
I ha\"e nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
The Chaieman. I think you have covered the field very well, Mr.
Curtis. I certainly do not want to duplicate what is already in the
record.
Mrs. O'Connor, you depicted very well your explanations, so I shall
not ask you about that.
Mrs. O'Connor. May I add one more to those, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mrs. O'Connor. I heard this morning Mr. Ryan's recommendation
for a committee or a commission of some sort to be appointed to go on
witli the study of this problem.
I think this is such a changing problem and the needs are so chang-
ing, that it is very necessary to keep up with the demands of the times.
I agree, too, that I think more information all along the line is very
necessary. So I think, without getting anv action from the transient
committee, that we might put ourselves down on record as strongly
favoring a commission or a committee such as you might suggest.
The Chairman. Mrs. Linzel, did you have anything further to say
along the line of recommendation?
Mrs. Linzel. Nothing, except to pass on to Chairman Tolan the rec-
ommendations from our intake committee, which are embodied in our
prepared statements. Mrs. O'Connor is president of the National
Travelers Aid Association, which is the Nation-wide body of which
Miss Jones is the local representative.
The Chairman. Miss Jones, could you give me the percentage of
people coming to your agency who are employable ?
Miss Jones. I do not know it. I do not think I could give you a defi-
nite percentage. I notice in our statistics for 1939 that approximately
1 in 10 had either some physical disability or some temporary illness.
That would not mean, necessarily, that they were unemployable. It
might be some physical disability which could be corrected rather
quickly, and might make them unemployable for only a certain time,
or for certain types of labor. They may have a particular craft. So
I think that is a difficult question for me to answer.
The Chairman. Major Dodd, have you anything further to say con-
cerning recommendations to this committee as to any possible solution
of this problem other than has already been said ?
Major Dodd. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you touched on it yourself
when you mentioned this release of such a large gi'oup of men locally.
It seems to me, as has been indicated all through the afternoon, that
the reason, outside of the natural tendency perhaps of the American
to be on the move and to improve his status — tlie basic cause for all of
that is unemployment. That is one thing. And second, that where
there is unemployment, the inadequacy so often of the local committee,
which makes it almost mandatory for a person, as you suggested, to
move on ; that and more jobs, plus better local care, I think would cut
down very materially the problem of the migrant.
But for that group who are on the move and in search of work, it
seems to me that, while they are not residents of the District of Colum-
)60370— 41— pt. 8-
3176 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
bia or of California, they are residents of the Nation, and the Nation
has a responsibility.
The Chairman. That is the way I feel about it. The idea is simply
this: As near as we can get the records, there were about 4,000,000
destitute people crossing State lines last year. All through your testi-
mony here today, and all through our record, we have instances — the
record is replete with them — of lack of information and a plethora of
misinformation. In other words, we are dealing now with American
citizens, and it does not help the morale of this country to kick them
around. After all, this country has got to be worth living for and
dying for.
We had the head of the Labor Department in California on the
stand, and he told us all about labor conditions there. I finally asked
him this question. I said :
Do you think it is possible to have in some of these States where the greatest
migration exists, either a State or a Federal employee, such as a Forest Reserve
man, stationed where there were overnight camps, and if a family were to pull up,
to ask them courteously where they were going ; and if they said they were looking
for work, this man could suggest to them that they get out of their car. inform them
that the Government was maintaining overnight camps where they might have
supper and wash up, and that afterward he would come over with maps and give
all the information possible as to where there might be employment, or advise
them as to whether they should go back?
He said :
Yes ; of course that is possible. We are doing it now for pests, to control
diseases of fruits.
"But," I said, "you are not doing anything for the diseases of
human life."
There is the old question of the dollar in there again. It is a peculiar
thing, ladies and gentlemen, that all through our existence we have
concentrated on that dollar and that free flow of commodities — and I
cannot get that out of my mind, I have repeated it so often ; that it is
pathetic, but somehow, some way, we think that these millions of
transients are going to get along without anything to do. I think they
deserve attention and I think they are going to have to get it.
In years gone by there were masses of reports from various depart-
ments that were filed, concerning these problems, and nothing has been
done about it at all. We hope to make recommendations to the Con-
gress. We do not know what we can do. We may want to contact you
again and talk over some of these reconunendations.
Speaking as chairman of this committee, and as an individual, I feel
very grateful to you for coming here and helping us out. We thank
you very much.
Mrs. O'Connor. Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman. I will ask the reporter to have incorporated in the
record at this point the prepared statements of Mrs. O'Connor, Mrs.
Linzel, Miss Jones, and Major Dodd.
(The statements referred to are as follows :)
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3177
STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANK LINZEL, CHAIRMAN, FAMILY WELFARE
DIVISION OF THE COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND VICINITY
The family welfare division, of which I am chairman, hrings together those
social agencies, civic organizations and individuals vitally concerned with the
preservation and strengthening of family life in Washington'. Now repre-
sented on the division membership are 45 organizations, including 23 social
agencies supported by the Community Chest, 13 public agencies, and 9 other
private agencies and organizations.
Our close contact with human need as it comes to the attention of the many
different agencies in Washington has made us thoroughly familiar with the
problems of the migrant or nonresident families who come to the Nation's
Capital for many reasons. We believe that the most fundamental causes forc-
ing these people to our community are :
1. Nation-wide economic conditions.
2. Divei'se settlement laws.
3. Lack of adequate provision for public assistance to needy persons regard-
less of their residence status.
The inadequate public assistance program in Washington is well known, as
is that of many of the communities to the south of Washington where many
migrant families originate.
Since the liquidation of the Federal transient program, as referred to by
Mrs. O'Connor, our agencies have tried to help where their funds would permit
but without a basic program to assist the nonsettled person the agencies have
been able to meet but a very small proportion of the total need.
I have asked the members of the intake committee of the family welfare
division to give me their experiences to bring to you today. Inasmuch as the
members of this committee are the intake workers of the various agencies who
meet the problems of the migrant families day after day and are concerned that
are able to give very little real help. This committee includes the following
agencies : American Red Cross, Protective Services Unit of the Board of Public
Welfare, Catholic Charities, the Woman's Bureau, Juvenile Court, Public Assist-
ance Division, Travelers Aid Society, Family Service Association, Federation
of Churches, Children's Protective Association, American Legion, Salvation
Army, Jewish Social Service Agency, Instructive Visiting Nurse Society, Prince
George's County Social Service League, Prince George's Board of Public Wel-
fare, Prince George's Catholic Charities, Montgomery County Social Service
League, Montgomery Welfare Board, Alexandria Social Service League, Wash-
ington Self-Help Exchange, Community Chest Application Bureau.
To give you an accurate picture of this problem we shall mention certain
groups who come most often to our attention :
I. Families who have wandered here to better tliemselves socially or eco-
nomically and have lost their legal settlement anywhere.
II. Migrant families who are unable to gain residence here because of the
various legal and administrative restrictions established by the Work Projects
Administration and the public-assistance division, or other authorities in their
standards of "eligibility."
III. Persons who come to Washington because it is the Nation's Capital.
They are sure there are better opportunities here than in their home com-
munities and believe that they have "a right to come to tlieir Government in
Washington." Many persons are brought here on the promise of patronage
jobs that do not, for one reason or another, materialize. Within each of these
groups are many cases, but these few will serve to illustrate :
We know of a family who moved to Washington from Maryland because
they had had a hard time getting along in the other State and felt they
could get some work here. The Travelers' Aid Society gave these parents
and their five children assistance while they investigated the possibility of
their return to their home community. The family would not return because
of lack of economic opportunities back home. They struggled along against
heavy odds until the husband became ill. The resident family agencies could
not assist, nor could the Travelers' Aid. They had lost their legal settlement
and were not eligible to assistance through our public agency.
3178 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
In another family known to ns, the man had an admirable background as
a painter and glazer. During the depression he could find no private employ-
ment and went to work on Work Projects Administration. Standards of living
being such as they are, he found his Work Projects Administration wage inade-
quate for his family, composed of a wife and eight children. When he learned
of a house and garden into which he could move free for doing painting for
the landlord, he was delighted with this prospect. He moved into an adjoining
Maryland county, continuing his District Work Projects Administration em-
ployment. A tragic accident followed. Wliile the man was preparing to paint
at night for his landlord, a gasoline lamp exploded, seriously injuring him.
Months of hospitalization were to follow. The family moved back into the
District and appealed to the public assistance division for financial aid and
were rejected because they had lived 2 years in Maryland. The Maryland
Public Welfare was unable to help as the man had not gained residence there
because of his District Work Projects Administration work. It seemed a
clear-cut case for public relief but our diverse settlement laws could not adjust
to the human factors involved. Here the private agency and a church stepped
in to tide the family over at least for a little while.
There is a definite conflict between relief restrictions and cases Involving
prisoners who are paroled to the District of Columbia Parole Board. Such
men must remain here for parole because they were incarcerated from the
District of Columbia ; witness the following : A man whose home is in Virginia
has been paroled to remain under the supervision of the District of Columbia
Parole Board until February 24, 1942. His wife has come here to be with
him during his readjustment to civil liberty. Unfortunately the man's back-
groimd is that of farming; his work opportunities here are practically nil,
Should he re<iuire financial assistance he will find him.self ineligible by lack
■of residence. Social workers feel that we have in this man potential material
tor further crime, the treatment of which may be more costly than aid during
the period of rehabilitation.
News from Washington is of concern to the whole Nation. Those individuals
involved in financial difficulties in the home commiuiities oftentimes hear
through their local newspapers of the need for workers in connection with the
national-defense program. We know of one man and his wife who read a notice
of the many positions available, took their last money and came quickly to
Washington to be among the first to be employed. They could not understand
the lack of resources since they were "citizens of our country and this is the
Nation's Capital." They were manifestly unable to understand why agencies
could not help imtil the job materialized. They refused the offer of return
to their home community because they wished to see their Congressman in
connection with the job and an appointment was scheduled a week ahead
because of the Congressman's absence from the city.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the day-to-day experience of intake workers in meeting these people
who are in need, these recommendations are based: (1) imiform settlement
laws and (2) a program of Federal grants-in-aid to the States for case-work
treatment of migrant problems. We cannot conclude without indicating, how-
ever, that such a program must be prepared hand in hand with a Federal
program of grants-in-aid to the States for general public assistance following
careful study as to the interrelationship of transient and migrant problems
to the adequacy of local assistance.
May we point out that the groups mentioned, lacking faith in the democratic
way of working things out, become potential material for crime and the high
promises of those who do not believe in democracy.
LACK OF INFORMATION
Frankly, we do not feel that we have accurate information as to the extent
or volume of the migrant problem in Washington at the present time. There
are several reasons for this: Each agency handles some one small segment of
the total group as its funds and program will permit. We do not have central
reporting of services to transients from the various missions and shelters Avho
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3179
for the most part do not have facilities for keeping accurate records. Though
the Travelers' Aid Society, Salvation Army, and nonresident service of the
public assistance division do send us their regular reports, this is only the
count of those individuals actually receiving their help and does not include the
numbers who may aijply to them but for one reason or another are not eligible.
The true picture can scarcely be determined without a centralized service
where all migrants or nonresident persons and families could be registered.
Similarly, we cannot answer the question "what happens to these families
who cannot get help?" We know they are among us in this community and can
only guess at the human waste in future ill health, delinquency, crime, and
broken minds that will result from our neglect today.
PKOBLEM BELONGS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
We in Washington are acutely aware that the problem of transiency is inter-
state and national in character. In the absence of a comprehensive public-
financed program, national in scope, each State and each community within the
States must continue to erect legal or administrative barriers in self-protection.
For this reason the States are enacting increasingly rigid settlement laws. Like-
wise within each community the social agencies, public, private, establish the
various eligibility restrictions as illustrated earlier in this statement to conserve
their limited funds for those that "belong" and therefore have first claim. The
obvious result is a pathetic picture of the migrant or unsettled family, caught
in a hopeless maze of State and local barriers that will rise higher and higher
unless we are willing to face this problem realistically here and now.
STATEMENT OF MRS. JOHN JAY O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN, THE TRAN-
SIENT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES
The transient committee of the Council of Social Agencies has been in existence
12 years. Its function is to coordinate the work of all agencies dealing with
transients and through the conference method to make plans for more effective
administration of the work. After trying for a year to solve the problem in
Washington, the committee decided that a survey of the whole situation should
be made and funds were made available for the conduct of this survey. After
months of study which was participated in by 21 social agencies of the city
and with the leadership of a research worker, certain definite recommendations
were made for future procedure. The study urged first, "The incorporation of
employment into any plan made for service to transients," and legislation gov-
erning commercial employment service was urged; second, "The establishment
of a bureau for transients under the supervision of one agency in order that all
work with transients should be concentrated in one place." This bureau would
have social-case workers who would make the welfare of the individual its
paramount concern and to concern itself with all phases of the work such as
employment, health, transportation, lodging, etc.
The transient committee at once began to carry out the recommendations of
the study and a bureau for transient men was established in the office of the
Travelers' Aid Society. This bureau cooperated actively with all social agencies
and particularly with the Salvation Army shelter which was enlarged and
offered shelter to the men with whom the bureau was working. This arrange-
ment continued with reasonable success until the Federal Government came
into the picture with the establishment of the Federal Transient Service which
included lodging houses. When the Government took this step the bureau for
transient men discontinued its service, the Salvation Army shelter was closed
and its work with transient men stopped as there seemed to be no valid reason
for private agencies to duplicate the work of the governmental agencies. It is
now a matter of history that after assuming responsibility for this work, the
Government after about 18 months decided to liquidate its program and threw
back upon the community the responsibility of transient care.
In the meantime, however, the plans of the private agencies had become
dislocated and financial stringency made it impossible for them to revive
their work along previous lines. The only possible arrangement which could
be made was interagency agreement on the handling of specific types of
^IgQ INTERSTATE MIGRATION
service. For instance, the Travelers' Aid Society agreed to liaudle all children
under 17, nonresident families, and unattached women. This the agency has
continued to do up to the' present time. Fortunately the nonresident service
of the Board of Public Welfare was kept alive and this gives assistance to
men with residence elsewhere, and the Salvation Army gives shelter care to a
limited number of women.
Realizing that this seemed to be the extent to which private funds could
be used, the committee made definite recommendations for a permanent pro-
gram for transients in Washington which included the establishment of a
bureau under the Board of Public Welfare responsible to the director of public
welfare and managed by a trained supervisor, the services of the bureau to
include the management of the Municipal Lodging House, the transportation
of indigents, and provision for a younger group of men and boys. The com-
mittee felt that "No permanent plan should be considered unless it be a
part of a grant-in-aid program of the Federal Government, which would en-
courage each State to establish its own program for the care of indigent
nonresidents within its borders." The committee believes that uniform
settlement laws are a prime necessity in planning for transients. It has
constantly urged an adequate municipal lodging house where both men and
women could be lodged while plans are being made for them. The committee
will continue to follow along these lines, and is deeply interested that a
committee in Congress is working toward the solution of the problems of
the migrant.
STATEMENT OF MISS ALICE ELIZABETH JONES, EXECUTIVE SEC-
RETARY OF THE WASHINGTON TRAVELERS' AID SOCIETY
The Travelers' Aid Society, an agency supported by the community chest
of this city, is primarily concerned with the nonresidents or transients in
the District of Columbia. Aside from our travel service for children or any
other inexperienced travelers who wish it, and our information, direction,
and referal services to travelers at the terminals, the main program of our
agency is a casework-service program for the migrants or nonresidents of
the District. The Washington Travelers' Aid Society is a member of the
National Travelers' Aid Association, which maintains an intercity chain of
service with member agencies all over the country. It is, I believe, the only
private national organization which devotes its full time to the study of
moving peoples. Our program in Washington includes individualized service
to these moving people as well as financial assistance wherever necessary. It is
extended to all nonresidents in the District of Columbia, with the following
two exceptions: First, single or unattached homeless men 18 and over,
who are referred to the nonresident service of the public assistance division,
and, second. World War veterans with an honorable discharge and their
families, who are referred to the American Legion welfare department. The
definition of "transient" as interpreted by the Travelers' Aid Society is that
person who has resided in the District of Columbia for less than 12 consecutive
months and who requires some type of assistance from an agency. The
Travelers' Aid Society has, ever since the close of the Federal transient program,
assumed responsibility in the District of Columbia for assisting all girls and
women, boys 17 and under, couples and families (with the previously noted
two exceptions), who are nonresidents in the District. Our field of service
has been worked out in conjunction with the other agencies in the District,
both public and private, to cover as nearly adequately as possible all the
welfare needs of the community. However, certain gaps in the service still
exist for which there is no resource in the community. Well known in this
group are those people who have no legal residence anywhere. The Travelers'
Aid Society may accept individuals or family groups in this category for a
temporary ^ exploratory period to try to develop resources either locally or
out of town, or to establish residence for them somewhere in the United
States. If these efforts fail the agency does not have sufficient resources
to continue to care for the indefinitely, and, too, it is our feeling that this
should be a public-agency responsibility. However, none of the public or
private agencies in the District are willing to accept this group for care,
with certain rare exceptions, which may be made by the private resident-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3181
family agencies. Also, as mentioned above, tlie Travelers' Aid Society interprets
the establisliment of settlement in the District of Columbia as 12 consecutive
months of residence here although the present inteiT3retation of the residence
policy by the Board of Public Welfare requires that an individual be "self^
supporting" in the District of Columbia for 12 consecutive months. The
delinition of this rather ambiguous term has caused much confusion and hard-
ship for many people.
Since 1935 the case load and the service of the Travelers Aid Society has con-
tinually increased. During 1935 we had 3,640 cases under care ; in 1936, 4,497 ;
in 1937, 4.606 ; in 1938, 4,866 ; in 1939, 4,956 ; and for the first 10 mouths of 1940,
4,850. However, I would lilve to emphasize at this point that these are the total
number of cases under care by the agency and include many incidental and travel
service problems and other difficulties not primarily connected with migration,
and only about half of the number are either exclusively or primarily "transients"
in the general sense of the term. Of the entire case load, approximately three-
fourths have been white people, the rest Negroes or other nationalities. Our
statistics show that they use all means of transportation in coming to the District,
although most of them hitchhike. That they come from every part of the United
States is clearly indicated by a sample study which was made in the agency on
our intake for the months of January and February 1940. We found that during
that 2-month period our new applicants came from 31 different States and
Ala.ska. From the various States, about 15 percent came from Virginia, with
slightly more than 11 percent from both North Carolina and New York, and
slightly over 9 percent from both Maryland and Pennsylvania. Other States rep-
resented were : Connecticut. Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nebraska, Missouri,
Tennessee, California, Illinois, Arkansas, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, New Hamp-
shire, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Indiana, Minnesota, South Caro-
lina, Texas, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Colorado. The majority
of the nonresidents under our care remained in the District for less than 3 months
with comparatively few staying longer than 6 months.
In every instance the Travelers Aid Society considers each case on an individual
basis and'offers both the service and financial assistance best adapted to meet the
need of the individual or family concerned. In working out plans, we are always
appreciative of the help and cooperation of tlie Board of Public Welfare for their
assistance with transportation funds, of the Salvation Army in allowing us to
use their emergency home for the board and lodging of some of our white wohien,
and of the Young Women's Christian Association for their reduced rate given
us for our clents staying there ; and of all the other agencies and iu'j'.ividuals who
are of assistance to us. Each situation is studied very carefully before any
attempt is made to plan with the client either to remain here or to return to his
liome community, whichever place seems to offer him greater opportunity to make
a satisfactory and permanent adjustment. The Travelers Aid Society has always
taken the position that the moving people are a very important part of our
population, and likewise we know that this group does get into difficulty and very
often needs assistance. As we all know, the policy of "shipping people from one
place to another" without some satisfactory constructive plan having been made
for them upon their arrival only increases the problem of transiency. However,
moving people are necessary to our national growth. The need of a mobile popu-
lation for the development of our industries at the present time is self-evident.
Traditionally, this country always has believed that people must be free to better
themselves. Much of our existing settlement legislation has destroyed this right
and thus has tended to place a premium on the courage and self-reliance of these
people. Unfortunately, of course, there are instances when our limited financial
resources make it necessary for a person to return to his home community, even
though the plan worked out for him there is not as complete and encouraging as
we might like. Then too, there are certain cases which we feel it necessary to
reject entirely. This group includes those few chronic wanderers to whom we
feel our service would be of no benefit, and that unfortunate group of persons
who have no legal residence anywhere. With the increasing restrictions and
residence barriers which are being set up by the various States, it seems to me
that the group with no legal residence must be steadily increasing in number.
Extremely harmful are those laws which include such terms as "self-support"
and "intent" which may unfortunately be so misinterpreted that they work a
grave injustice and hardship upon many people. For instance, one State refuses
3;[g2 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to accept or authorize the return of persons who may have lived there all of their
life but who left "intending to stay away" because they felt they might be able
to get work in some other community.
An excellent example of this is the Gray family. They were from a State
nearby, and they came to the District where Mr. Gray had secured work. They
sold what little furniture they had to pay their traveling expenses and living
costs until the first pay day. Unfortunately, after they had been here less than
a year, a business reorganization eliminated Mr. Gray. He was unsuccessful in
finding other work, and so the family came to us. When we communicated with
the State from which they came we were told that because the Grays had sold
their furniture and stayed away 6 months, indicating they had not planned to
return, they were no longer legal residents of that State. Thus their "intent" to
remain away from their home State forced them into that group with no legal
residence anywhere.
The Smith family was referred to the Travelers Aid Society because they were
nonresidents and thus ineligible for service from any other agency in the District
of Columbia, either public or private. Mr. Smith was 29, his wife 28, and they
had three children of the ages 5, 4, and 2yo. Mr. Smith had lost his position which
had been a field-service job for some years. Thus they had been unable to stay
in one place long enough to acquire legal residence. They had been away from
the community in which they had originally lived too long to maintain their
residence there. Consequently, the legal residence barriers raised against them
by this city, in which they had been born and had lived until Mr. Smith was forced
to leave to take the only available job, cost Washington and the Travelers Aid
Society many dollars in food and lodging, medical and psychiatric care. There-
fore, i would strongly recommend the enactment of uniform settlement laws in
the United States which would do much, it seems to me, to alleviate the suffering
and injustices of many present State laws, and such legislation would prevent
the increasing in the future of that group of people with no legal residence
anywhere.
However, I wonder if it would be "putting the cart before the horse" to some
extent to think primarily in terms of a broad Federal program for "transients."
Such a program might meet an existing need, but certainly it would not seem to
offer a solution to the basic and fundamental problems which are the cause of
transiency. It has certainly been the experience of the case workers in our
agency that these moving people are not anxious to give up the security of their
homes and established groups of relatives and friends in the community in which
they have always lived. They are forced to do so in many instances by lack of
adequate resources there. Consequently, adequate resources for the residents,
not only for the District of Columbia, but for all o'f the communities in the
United States, is an important part of the problem. If adequate resources for
residents were available, many people who now migrate from one place to another
would no longer do so. Failure and delay by many agencies all over the country
in acknowledging responsibility for their residents who are here in Washington
has created a serious problem. If these out-of-town agencies had sufficient funds
and adequate programs to meet the needs of their residents, that group of people
would not be a nonresident problem for the District of Columbia, and the same
situation is true in other parts of the country.
I would also like to suggest that more complete and accurate information
about employment opportunities of all sorts in every part of the country, and
a better method of exchanging this material be made available. Thus many of
the people who now feel forced to leave their home communities, to look hope-
fully yet aimlessly for employment elsewhere, would have some definite idea of
how this might be obtained and thus some adequate plan worked out before
they left home. I feel that in the District of Columbia the nonresident problem
is not such as to warrant "mass treatment" of the nature of a broad Federal
transient program. If more specific information were available to the workers
about the supply and demand for various types of labor all over the country,
and if adequate care could be made available for residents in all communities,
the transient problem here, with the exceptions of the single or unattached
men and those people with no legal residence anywhere, could be better handled
in my opinion by the individualized services of a private agency such as the
Travelers Aid Society which could be much more flexible than those of a
public agency program. While complete information on the extent of the
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3183
problem in the District of Columbia does not seem to be available, it is my
feeling that most of that "unknown area" is made up of unattached men, such
as those staying in the missions and various other shelters. As far as the
girls, women, boys 17 and under, couples and families are concerned, I think
the Travelers Aid Society has been fairly well able to meet that need. How-
ever, it does seem that a more adequate municipal lodging house for men,
especially one with some facilities for the care and segregation of boys would
be very helpful. It has always been the function of the Travelers Aid Society
to offer service and material assistance to this group of nonresidents and our
case workers have developed a unique skill for dealing with moving people.
The problems of migrant families are almost always emergencies and thus are
often more acute than those of resident families. Consequently, it seems almost
obvious that the "mass treatment" and necessary inflexibility of a public agency
program with legal restrictions is less adaptable and thus less well able to work
out individual satisfactory adjustments which would be permanent. Of course,
to ultimately decrease the transient problem rather than increase it, such stabi-
lization and permanent adjustments are essential. Nevertheless, there seems to
be a need for some type of program, probably with Federal aid, to assist all
of the homeless unattached men, those people with no legal residence anywhere,
and that group of habitual transients or "chronic wanderers." I believe it is
the responsibility of the public agency to provide for these groups, with the
other nonresidents being cared for by private case work agencies such as ours.
Note. — We regret that we failed to mention above the Inestimable value of the help
which we have always received from the railroads and other transportation companies.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. CHARLES H. DODD, DIVISIONAL COMMANDER,
THE SALVATION ARMY, NATIONAL CAPITAL DIVISION, WASHING-
TON, D. C.
ORIGIN OF THE SALVATION ARMY
The Salvation Army came into being in tbe year 1865 in London, England.
Its founder was William Booth.
It has grown in three-quarters of a century from a small mission in London's
East End into an international body of some 5,000,000 members operating in
97 countries and colonies.
PROGRAM
Of particular interest are those aspects that enlarged its purpose from the
original design of religious reclamation to a full and many faceted program
of social service.
The National Information Bureau of New York in a study entitled, "Social
Salvage," described the Salvation Army as a "religious body which has an
important social program, a program, however, which is fundamentally spiritual
in its aim."
Included in the varying phases of program are these: Spiritual, recreation,
and character building, family welfare service, fresh-air camps, homes and
hospitals (for unmarried mothers) working men's hotels, men's social service
centers (sheltered workshops) and care of transient (men and women).
FINANCES
The financial support for these activities is provided in various ways : Dues,
fees for service, donations, community chest and home service funds (campaigns
for budget needs) in the communities served by the organization.
LOCAL BRANCH
The Salvation Army has been in Washington approximately 55 years and
the local program includes the administrative center from which are operated
a family service bureau, women's and children's emergency home, and a fresh-
air camp.
3184 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
In addition to the above there are five corps or neighborhood centers from
which are carried on a religious, recreational, and character-building service,
also a low-priced hotel for colored working men and a men's social service center
(sheltered workshop).
DIVISION OF KESPONSIBILITY
In the city of Washington each of the agencies who are members of the com-
munity chest and the Council of Social Agencies accept responsibility for service
in their particular field.
In the field of the homeless, the Salvation Army has responsibility for care
of women and children and for homeless men (in sheltered work shop) up to
the capacities of the institutions serving these groups, 15 and 98, respectively.
The Traveler's Aid, the nonresident section, municipal lodging house (both
under Board of Public Welfare), the Central Union and Gospel Missions, and
the Volunteers of America also render service in this field.
Prior to the Federal Transient Service, 1933-35, the Salvation Army rendered
a large and effective service for transient men, financed by the community chest.
However, with the coming into existence of the Federal service, the Salvation
Army program was liquidated. Later the Government ceased operations in
this field.
Due to the fact that local needs were not being met adequately the commu-
nity chest decided that it could not provide funds for the Salvation Army to
carry on a transient service, as it had done prior to 19S3. Consequently since
1935 there has been very inadequate provision for care of migrants (men).
During the past winter despite the best efforts of the Salvation Army, non-
resident service, municipal lodging house, Central Union Mission, Gospel Mission,
and Volunteers of America there is reason to believe that large numbers of
homeless men were forced into police stations, floors of missions, hallways,
grates over furnace rooms of buildings (in the shadow of the Capitol) because
there was no adequate care facility in Washington.
CHARACTER OF MEN
Many of these men, from interview and check of record, are not bums and
tramps, not even hobos as we used to know them, but are "men on the move"
looking for employment, who, given the opportunity, would settle down and, it is
believed, make useful citizens.
In every community you will find them and as each community has within
its gates men of another community so is it the responsibility of* that com-
munity to care for them.
LOCAL PROCEDURE
If a man makes application to an agency in Washington, if it can be estab-
lished that he has legal residence in some city and he is willing to return to
that place, he is referred to the nonresident section of the Board of Public
Welfare; if, however, he has no legal residence or for some reason does not
desire to return to it, then he is not eligible for service in this division.
He may be referred to the Salvation Army social service center and if the
institution has an opening he can be placed otherwise he must go to the Volun-
teers of America or the missions and if, as on many occasions these agencies
are full, then such a person is faced with the necessity of sleeping out, pan-
handling the price of a bed or being picked up by the police as a vagrant.
Actually at night there is no place to which a man can be referred and one
know he will be cared for.
BECOMMENDATIONS
1. Because of the vicious practices in many jurisdictions, particularly as they
relate to settlement laws — it is hoped that this committee will use its influence
in promoting uniform settlement laws throughout the Nation.
2. Due to (a) the presence in every community of the citizens of some other
community for whom care must be provided (h) the fact that States are
unable to maintain adequate standards of relief (materially adding to transci-
ency) without the assistance of the Federal Government.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3185
That provision be made for a grant-in-aid program by tlie Federal Govern-
ment to States rather than the entire responsibility being shoulderetl by the
Federal Government.
3. That locally, because of inadequate provision which forces men to sleep
out, panhandle, etc., all dangerous and a menace to the community, a municipal
lodging house with case work and medical services included, sufficiently large
to meet the need, is recommended.
The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned until 10
o'clock Monday morning.
(Whereupon, the committee adjourned to meet on Monday, De-
cember 2, 1940, at 10 a. m.)
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
MONDAY, DECEMBEB 2, 1940
House of Representatives,
Select Committee to Investigate the
Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens,
Washington, D. G.
The committee met at 10 a. m. in the caucus room, House Office
Building, Washington, D. C, Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present : Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman) , John J. Spark-
man, Carl T. Curtis, and Frank C. Osmers, Jr.
Also present : Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator ; Henry H. Collins,
Jr., coordinator of hearings: Creekmore Fath and John W. Abbott,
field investigators; Ariel V. E. Dunn and Alice M. Tuohy, assistant
field investigators: Irene Hageman, hearings secretary; Richard S.
Blaisdell, editor; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor.
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
TESTIMONY OF EONNELL LYNCH, CHERITON, VA.
The Chairman. I do not suppose that you are accustomed to talking
in the loud speaker, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. Well, I am sure you will get along all right. Will
you give the reporter your full name and address?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Hurcles Ronnell Lynch.
The Chairman. Where do you live?
Mr. Lynch. Cheriton, Va.
The Chairman. And where were you born ?
Mr. Lynch. In Hickman County, Tenn., in 1913.
The Chairman. What did your father do?
Mr. Lynch. He was a farmer and worked in timber, both.
The Chairman. And did you farm with him ?
Mr. Lynch. No; I was not big enough then. He has been dead
quite a time.
The Chairman. How much schooling did you have?
Mr. Lynch. The eighth grade.
The Chairman. Are you married?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. How many children do you have?
Mr. Lynch. Four.
The Chairman. Four children. How old are they?
3187
3188 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Lynch. One is 8 years old now ; the next one is 5. One is 3 and
the other about 7 months old.
The Chairman. And where do you live now ?
Mr. Lynch. Cheriton, ya.
The Chairman. What is your occupation ; what do you do for a
living?
Mr. Lynch. Farm work.
Tlie Chairman. What kind of farm work?
Mr. Lynch. Raising vegetables.
The Chairman. What kind of vegetables?
Mr. Lynch. Well, broccoli, spinach, and lettuce.
The Chairman. Are you farming for yourself ?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. For whom are you working?
Mr. Lynch. G. L. Webster.
The Chairman. How much money do you make ?
Mr. Lynch. It is about $8 a week, I guess.
The Chairman. Did you ever pick any peanuts?
Mr. Lynch. In Tennessee I have ; yes.
The Chairman. Where in Tennessee?
Mr. Lynch. Hickman County.
The Chairman, Did you pick them by hand?
Mr. Lynch. No; they had threshers when I got big enough to work;
we threshed them.
The Chairman. How much did you earn a day?
Mr. Lynch. About a dollar a day.
The Chairman. And how long clid you work picking peanuts?
Mr. Lynch. Three or four years, I guess.
The Chairman. What did you do after you were grown up?
Mr. Lynch. I did a little bit of everything ; I cut logs ; some work
on the farm; most of the time worked on the farm. And I worked on
th& W. P. A. a little.
The Chairman. You were born in Virginia and went to Tennessee,
did you?
Mr. Lynch. No ; I was born in Tennessee.
The Chairman. You were born in Tennessee and went to Vir-
ginia?
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; and I have been there about a year.
The Chairman. Have you ever been in any other States besides
Virginia and Tennessee?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. How old were you at the time you were married?
Mr. Lynch. I was 18 in July.
The Chairman. How old was your wife?
Mr. Lynch. She was 16, 1 believe, in July.
The Chairman. Is your wife's father a farmer?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. He was a tenant farmer?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you ever pick any cotton ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3189
The Chairman. Where?
Mr. Lynch. Obion County, Tenn.
The Chairman. How much did you make a day?
Mr. Lynch. According to how much I picked.
The Chairman. Did your wife ever pick cotton with you ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman, What did the two of you average a day, you and
your wife?
Mr. Lynch. Well, in good cotton we could make a dollar and a
half a day, I guess.
The Chairman. Where were you living at that time?
Mr, Lynch. We were living on Beelfoot Lake, Obion County.
The Chairman. What kind of a house?
Mr. Lynch. Oh, just a medium house.
The Chairman. How many rooms?
Mr. Lynch. Two.
The Chairman. Any children at that time?
Mr. Lynch. When we picked cotton none of them stayed at the
house ; they would go into the field wdth us.
The Chairman. Where did you live after you were married, after
you finished the cotton-picking work; did you move to some other
place ?
Mr. Lynch. When my house burned down I did; I moved to
Obion; that was in the same county.
The Chairman. Did you own the house?
Mr. Lynch. No; it was rented.
The Chairman. How much rent did you pay?
Mr. Lynch. Four dollars.
The Chairman. Four dollars a month?
Mr. Lynch. Yes; one room.
The Chairman. One-room house?
Mr. Lynch, Yes,
The Chairman, Did it have any bath?
Mr, Lynch, No,
The Chairman. How many children did you have then?
Mr. Lynch. We had two. The others were born after I left Lake
County.
The Chairman. You lived in one room?
Mr, Lynch, Yes,
The Chairman. How many beds did you have?
Mr. Lynch. We had two.
The Chairman. Did you own your own furniture?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. What did it consist of ; what kind of furniture did
you have?
Mr. Lynch. We just had two beds, a stove, and a table and chairs.
The Chairman. Did you have a farm of your own in Tennessee?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. You never had a farm of your own ?
Mr, Lynch, No,
The Chaikman, Did you ever work as a sharecropper?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
3190 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The Chairman. Where?
Mr. Lynch. Obion County ; the same county.
The Chairman. How much did you make at that time?
Mr. Lynch. Oh, just a bare living, I guess.
The Chairman. When you moved from Tennessee to Virginia,
how did you go; did you have a truck or automobile?
Mr. Lynch. No ; I came by bus.
The Chairman. What did you pay for your transportation?
Mr. Lynch. About $11, 1 think.
The Chairman. Have you ever been on relief ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes; I was on about 2 months, I guess, or maybe a
little less.
The Chairman. Li what State?
Mr. Lynch. Tennessee.
The Chairman. How much did you receive ?
Mr. Lynch. I really couldn't say ; I have not kept account of it.
The Chairman. Do you rememtjer?
Mr. Lynch. No ; I don't remember.
The Chairman. Now as a sharecropper what did you earn; about
a dollar a day ?
Mr. Lynch. About a dollar a day, I guess.
The Chairman. Were you able to save anything on that?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. What did you do the rest of the time you were not
working as a sharecropper ?
Mr. Lynch. Not much of anything.
The Chairman. How did you live?
Mr. Lynch. Well, I cannot tell you; just managed, when I was
working, to prepare for when I was not working.
The Chairman. Well, take the last 5 years for example, how much
time did you have employment or work?
Mr. Lynch. I guess 3 months a year.
The Chairman. About a year?
Mr. Lynch. You mean altogether?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. A year and a half, I guess.
The Chairman. A year and a half, all told ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. How did you support yourself and your family
during the rest of the time ?
Mr. Lynch. I could not tell you; just managed during the time I
was working to put a little back, get a few groceries ahead; raised
some of it.
The Chairman. During all of that time when you were not em-
ployed were you looking for work ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes; if I could find anything, I wanted to work at it.
The Chairman. Did your relatives help you ?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. They were not supporting you?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. Much of the time you did not have work?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3191
The Chairman. That is what I would like to develop : How did
you live if you were not living with your relatives; how did
you support yourself, babies and wife?
Mr. Lynch. Well, when we were picking cotton, for instance, we
tried to lay back a little flour and lard and fuel, and stuff like
that, to live on in the winter until work picked up in the spring.
The Chairman. Since you were married how many times have
you moved?
Mr. Lynch. About four times.
The Chairman. AVhat are jou doing now?
Mr. Lynch. Working on a farm.
The Chairman. ^A^iere?
Mr. Lynch. Cheriton, Va,
The Chairman. How much are you earning there?
Mr. Lynch. Average about $8 a week.
The Chairman. How long have you been employed there at $8
a week?
Mr. Lynch. I have been there since last November, this November
a year ago.
The Chairman. "Wliere you live do you own the house? What
kind of a house?
Mr. Lynch. No; it is a pretty fair house; rented house.
The Chairman. Can you support yourself and wife and three
or four children on $8 a week?
Mr. Lynch. Well, we have been getting by with it.
The Chairman. You have just been getting by?
]\Ir. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you pay any rent?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. How much rent do you pay?
ISIr. Lynch. There is another man living with us; we pay $5
each ; there two of us living in the house.
The Chairman. Has he a family?
Mr. Lynch. He is related to my wife.
The Chairman. He pays $5 a month?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. And you pay $5 a month, making $10?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. That leaves you about $27; you say you make
$32 a month?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. After you pay the rent you have $27?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. With which to clothe you and wife and children
and feed them ; on $27 a month ; is that right ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. You live on Eastern Shore of Virginia ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; I live there now.
Tlie Chairman. \Aniat do you do there; what are you doing on
Eastern Shore of Virginia; what kind of work?
Mr. Lynch. I drive a truck.
260.370— 41— pt. 8 8
3192
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The Chairman. What?
Mr. Lynch. Drive a truck on the farm, a tractor.
The Chairman. Drive a tractor ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there many people there employed in the can-
neries ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes; right many.
The Chairman. Where do these people come from ?
Mr. Lynch. Different sections of the country, just like myself.
The Chairman. They were mostly neighbors of yourself ?
Mr. Lynch. Several of them were ; there were 12 or 15 families, I
guess.
Tlie Chairman. How much do they make in the canneries ?
Mr. Lynch. Oh, just about the same; all about the same.
The Chairman. How much ?
Mr. Lynch. It is about the same work as on the farm.
The Chairman. About how much would that be?
Mr. Lynch. Oh, about $8 a week, I guess.
The Chairman. Do many people come there to do that?
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; several people.
The Chairman. What kind of canneries are they ?
Mr. Lynch. They can broccoli, spinach, and peas.
The Chairman. JHo w long does that season last ?
Mr. Lynch. Well, it lasts about 2 or 3 or 4 w^eeks; perhaps 4 weeks.
The Chairman. And when the w^ork is finished there do those peo-
ple go elsewhere ?
Mr. Lynch. Some of them do; some of them just keep working on
the farm and others go elsewhere, but they can work there if they
want to.
The Chairman. Where do they live ; in houses ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. AVliere do they get the houses ?
Mr. Lynch. Some of them rent houses in Cheriton ; some of them
live on the land where the fellow who raises the crop, Mr. Webster,
lives.
The Chairmajs. What kind of houses are they?
Mr. Lstnch. Oh, just common tenant houses.
The CiiAiRDiAN. Just common tenant houses?
Mr. Lyn( h. Yes.
Tlie Chairman. One or two rooms, and so forth ?
Mr. Lynch. Some of them have four or five rooms, and even six
rooms.
The Chairman, Are your parents living?
Mr. Lynch. No.
Ihe Chairman. Are your wife's parents living?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. Where do they live ?
Mr. Lynch. They are living in Missouri now.
The Chairman. On a farm ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there a good many families in that section
from other places?
INTERSTATE. MIGRATION 3193
Mr. Lynch. You mean in Virginia ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Yes; there are about 12 or 15 families from Tennessee,
1 guess.
The Chairman. What did they use for transportation to get there
from Tennessee ?
Mr. Lynch. Well, some of them in cars, some of them by busses,
and some of them by train.
The Chairman. IDo most of these people have families?
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; most of them.
The Chairman. Large families ?
Mr. Lynch. About like my family.
The Chairman. Average about four children ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; about three or four children.
The Chairman. Do you feel that it was a good thing for you to
move from Tennessee to the Eastern Shore of Virginia?
Mr. Lynch. Well, I believe I bettered myself some.
The Chairman. Why did you move ?
Mr. Lynch. Well, I just felt like I could get a little more to do, a
little more work, and maybe average a little more in the year.
The Chairman. In other words, Mr. Lynch, you are just like thou-
sands of others ; there comes a time when they cannot make a go of it
Avhere they are living.
Mr. Lynch. It looks that way.
The Chairman. And rather than starve, you would move?
Mr. Lynch. Hunting for something to do; yes.
The Chairman. Would you rather have remained right where you
weieon the farm if you could make a go of it ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. In other words, you would rather not move, would
you?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Chairman. Some people seem to think that other people just
pick up and move because they like to do it.
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
The Chairman. But I have not found a man on the farm who
would not rather own his own farm, or remain on a farm if he could
make a living.
Mr. Lynch. I would rather be back there if I could make a go of it.
The Chairman. If you could make a living.
Mr. Lynch. Yes ; if I could make a go of it, I would rather be back
on the farm.
The Chairman. Well, what do you intend to do now; do you in-
tend to try to improve on that $8 a week ; do you intend to stay where
you are?
Mr. Lynch. I expect so this year.
The Chairman. I suppose it is your hope that you and your family
have a little farm of your own some day ?
Mr. Lynch. I hope so.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for coming here.
3194 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
TESTIMONY OF H. K. TOLLEY, CHIEF, BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON,
D. C.
Mr. OsMERS. Will you please state your name and official position
for the record ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Howard R. Tolley, Chief, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics.
The Chairman, I understand that you have prepared a statement
which I am going to ask, with the permission of the committee, to
be placed in the record and request you to give us a summary of it.
Mr. ToLLEY. I will be glad to do that.
STATEMENT BY H. R. TOLLEY, CHIEF, BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Potential Migration as a Problem of Ameeioan Agriculture
Wandering the highways of the Nation today are hundreds of thousands of
farm families, hornless migrants who are attempting to make their living as
seasonal laborers in agriculture. These are the Joad families, dramatized in
The Grapes of Wrath ; destitute farm people who in recent years have been up-
rooted from the land by droughts, depression, changing economic conditions,
and the rapid advances of agricultural mechanization and technology.
In a very real sense, these people are the economic and social casualties of
changes which have come to our whole society ; changes with which the individ-
ual acting alone is powerless to deal. Displaced in agriculture, and lacking both
the means and the opportunity of starting anew in different locations, the migrants
have found in late years that agriculture had no place of security for them. At
the same time, the depression had reduced the opportunities for employment in
the cities.
The great increase in the number of migratory agricultural workers within the
last decade or so is a reflection of the fact that opportunities in other lines of
activity seemed lacking. Today these people are wandering from one job to the
next, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles to get a few days' work. Their
wages are low. Employment is sporadic and uncertain. Deplorable conditions
of housing and sanitation are the usual characteristics of migrant life, and poor
health and poor educational advantages go hand in hand with it. Tliese condi-
tions are not alone the problems of the migratory workers themselves, but also
are of great concern to the local communities and States affected, as well as to
the Nation as a whole.
potential migr-\tion from rural areas
Your committee has already obtained much data on the conditions of these
migrants, and so it is my purpose to speak of another aspect of the problem —
that of potential migration in agriculture. The displacement of farm people in
agriculture and the lack of opportunities for them on farms and in cities are the
causes underlying the increase in the number of migratory agricultural workers
in the last decade. The same or similar conditions, as they occur in the future,
can reasonably be expected to produce additional migration, and thus contribute
to a continuation of the conditions being considered. For this reason, the
problem of potential migration is very properly a part of the problem of present
migration. Measures and policies designed to deal with the conditions of pres-
ent migration, therefore, should aim also at those of potential migration.
The importance of this consideration is demonstrated by the fact that the num-
bers of migratory workers in agriculture appear to be growing, rather than declin-
ing, and there are indications that there may be a continuous growth in the
number of persons seeking employment of this type because of the lack of alterna-
tives. This is simply saying, of course, that an adequate consideration of the
problem of agricultural migration must take into account the sources of migration
and its causes, and that steps toward dealing with the problem should attack
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3195
uot only the result, which are the conditions affecting present migratory workers,
but also must get at the causes of distress migration.
The population and income figures for farm families point to the seriousness
of the potential migration in agriculture, for it is by these that we can see most
clearly the extent of the lack of opportunities o-ft'ered for farmers of the future.
COMMERCIAL AGKICULTURB NOT PROVIDING FOB AXL FARMERS
At present, there are about 32,000,000 people living on American farms. Accord-
ing to a recent estimate, the farm land of America could meet the commercial
demands for all our food and fiber, both for domestic consumption and export,
with less than half the present farm population. As long ago as 1929, half the
farmers of the Nation produced 90 percent of all marketed crops, and today, with
the introduction of a few available technological improvements, half the farm
population could produce much more than the market now absorbs at prices the
farmers are willing to accept as reasonable. As the techniques of production
develop further, and as the market for our agricultural exports is more and more
restricted by the increasing international emphasis upon self-sufficient national-
ism the proportion of our present farm population required to produce for com-
mercial markets is likely to decrease rather than to increase. Under present con-
ditions, the so-called normal requirements in farm production, both for domestic
and foreign outlets, can be met with at least 1,600,000 fewer workers on farms
than we had in 1929. In speaking of normal requirements, we refer to the
amounts now being consumed, rather than the amounts which might be consumed.
Of course, we cannot afford to lose from the farms anything like half of the
people now located there, even if for no other reason than the absence of a
better place for them to go. Continuous migration from farms to the cities is
apparently an established characteristic of industrial-agricultural nations, but it
would be diflScult to set a figure at which this migration should be maintained,
especially in periods like the 1930's. The figures given do show, however, that
our present system of commercial agriculture cannot provide satisfactory incomes
and living conditions to a full half of our farm people. This immediately raises
a whole host of questions regarding the ultimate future of our agricultural
system. Those questions must go unanswered at this time.
The lower-income half of the Nation's farm population — more than 3,000,000
families — now have abnormally low incomes and levels of living. Many of
them are trying to eke out existences on gross cash incomes averaging $200 to
$300 per family annually, or less. More than a million of these families were
on relief in 1935. More than 1,500,000 men on farms were totally or partially
unemployed in thte fall of 1937. It is evident that the number of those in the
lower-income group is increasing, with each year many more men and boys
likely to be looking for opportunities on the land. Accruing to this group also
may be an additional 350,000 to 500,000 workers displaced during the next 10
years because of mechanization in agriculture.
NUMBERS OF WORKING AGE ON THE INCREASE
Moreover, there is a continual addition to the number of people of working
age on farms. If we consider only those youths between 15 and 25 years of
age, there are probably about 7,000,000 living on farms today. It is significant
that there are about 1,167,000 of them who would not be in the farm population
at all if industrial and commercial opportunities had been relatively as inviting
in the last decade as th'ey were in the twenties.
Two other important facts are : First, there are just about twice as many
youths in the farm population as are needed for replacement in agriculture ; and,
second, they are in greater surplus in areas of low agricultural opportunity
than they are in areas of relatively favorable agricultural opportunity. Even if
industrial employment should increase because of the defense program to the
extent that is now predicted, it cannot be assumed that our unemployment prob-
lem, either on the farms or in towns or cities, will be completely eliminated
within the immediate future.
If, in addition to the farm operators who will die in the next 20 years, every
farmer who reaches G5 years of age would retire, the farms they would \acate
would make room for about 2,700,000 beginning farmers. During the same 20
years, 6,000,000 boys now living on American farms will have reached 20 years
3196 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
of age. If they all try to enter farming, there will be 225 young men competing
for every 100 farms available. We, of course, know that not all of them will
want to or try to enter farming and that some persons now in agriculture will
leave for other occupations and professions. But we also know that all farmers
won't retire at the age of 65, and we know that there are persons leaving towns
and cities every year seeking to enter agriculture.
COMPETITION FOR PLACES ON THE LAND
In the areas of low economic opportunity the picture is still darker. If we
apply these same calculations to the Southern or Cotton Belt States, we will
see that there will be 300 applicants or competitors for every 100 farms. If
we apply them to the southern Appalachian Mountain area, there will be about
350 for every 100 farms. Even if we apply them to Iowa, we estimate there
will be 180 competitors for every 100 farms.
The regions with the greatest rate of natural increase in population include
the Appalachian highlands, large sections of the Cotton Belt, the Lake States'
cut-over areas, the Great Plains, and the Southwest. These are the poorest
agricultural areas of the Nation ; the areas of most limited land resources,
fewest opportunities for nonagricultural employment, and, except in the Ap-
palachians and the Great Lakes cut-over, the areas most severely affected by
the increase in mechanization, the loss of foreign markets, and the reduction of
manpower requirements on farms.
On account of their high birth rates and limited resources, in these regions
alternative opportunities must be found or a steady flow of population must be
kept moving from them if the overcrowding of the land is to be avoided. The
lack of employment opportunities in the cities in the last decade has served to
back up the population on the land in rural areas and has created what is now
a giant reservoir of potential migrants. Droughts, depression, mechanization,
and the other forces acting to displace farmers, have in reality forced a large
amount of distress migration from many parts of the country, although the
total migration from faiTns has been much less during the last decade than
was the case in the decades immediately preceding. It is from the areas with the
greatest rate of natural increase that most of the present migrants in agri-
culture and industry are coming. It is from these that the principal volume of
migration can be expected in the future.
MIGRATION ITSELF NOT AN EVIL
The problems being encountered by the migrant worker in agriculture, as well
as by rural people who leave the farms to seek employment in the cities, are
no evidence at all of any fundamental evil in migration itself. For rural areas
of dense population, limited resources, and high birth rates, outward migra-
tion is a positive and continuous necessity. It is not migration itself that is to
be deplored in connection with the present living conditions of migratory agri-
cultural workers, but the unguided, aimless type of migration that has oc-
curred.
Millions of farm people have found genuine opportunities for self-advance-
ment and for service to the Nation in their migrations from farms to cities
during the period when a growing industry required a large volume of addi-
tional labor. The shutting down of foreign immigration during the World
War meant that American industries had to draw people from the farms, and
especially from the South, where half of the farm population lives. The surge
of farm migration to the cities was repeated during the 1920's when legislation
shut o'ff the influx of foreign immigrants. During the 1920's something like
6,000,000 people were the net contribution of the farms to the cities. The ex-
perience of these migrants indicates, on the whole, that their migration was
highly desirable, both from the individual and the social view. The principal
difference between the migration of the 1920's and the migration of the people
who are now migratory agricultural workers seems to lie partly in the difference
between the opportunities available then and now and partly in a lack of a
fortunate choice as to occupation and location.
It is possible that those now in the ranks of migratory farm workers might
have found much better opportunities elsewhere, either in cities or in other
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3197
farming areas, if proper information and guidance as to opportunities had been
available to them. Even if we grant that a part of them could not make a
better choice of occupation and location, however, it is true that the present
aimless wandering of migrant farm workers could be reduced materially through
some system of providing them information and guidance as to the needs for
their services. As matters now stand, these workers are covering long dis-
tances in search of work, traveling mainly on the basis of rumor and hearsay,
and frequently finding that no work is available when their destinations are
reached. „ , . ^ i i
Unquestionably there is a need in agriculture for the services performed by
migrant farm workers, but it is probable that many of those workers would
not be needed to harvest the present crops if some plan were developed for
keeping the workers more closely in touch with the farm operators who need
their services. Such an information and guidance service for those workers
would unquestionably bring them greater net incomes and steadier employment.
CHANNET. FOB FREE FLOW OF MIGRATION SHOULD BE KEPT OPEN
It is an economic fact that goods in commerce usually congregate at the
points of greatest demand, but this applies less strongly to human beings, for
people sometimes do not respond fully to the law of supply and demand. This
is a problem partly caused by lack of information and guidance as to the loca-
tion of opportunities. Today more than ever before it is important that we
encourage the easy flow of our migrant population to the areas of better oppor-
tunities, whether in agriculture or in industry.
ADVANTAGES OF NONFARM EMPLOYMENT FOR MIGRANTS
For the migrant who lacks financial resources sufficient to enable a fresh
start on advantageous terms on a farm in an area new to him, the advantages
of nonfarm employment, if obtainable, are beyond question. This is particularly
true for the young people of rural areas who find it necessary to migrate.
Too often, under the conditions of uninformed and unguided migration in the
past, there appears to have been a tendency to choose occupations and loca-
tions upon a basis of inadequate or misleading information. For instance,
many young people have decided to become migrant farm workers in Cali-
fornia, rather than go to a nearby city in search of work, simply because they
had been told of friends, or the relatives of friends, who had been unable to
find work in the city. An adequate system of providing information on the
employment opportunities in various cities, especially if coupled with some
type of placement service, would be of great value in eliminating difficulties
of this kind.
The belief that full industrial employment would provide a major remedy for
the problems of excess population in agricultural areas has frequently been
expressed. I quote from the remarks of former Secretary of Agriculture Henry
A. Wallace before the Fifth National Conference of Labor Legislation in
1938:
"Restoration of full employment," he said, "would provide work and liveli-
hood for these farm sons and daughters as well as increased demands for
the food and clothing produced by their parents. Expansion of industrial
employment and absorption in industry is the only real and lasting solution
for the over-populated rural slums, for the tens of thousands of excess tran-
sient farm laborers of the Pacific coast, and for the thousands more of farm
hands and tenants being squeezed out monthly by the steady increase of
general-purpose tractors in the Midwest and Southwest. All our programs
of action should work toward the basic objective of full employment and of full-
balanced production, agricultural and industrial."
The increase in farm population underway during the past few years may
be checked, and there may be a slight decline in the next 2 years. Con-
scription will not make a very heavy draft upon the farm population, but
it will withdraw some labor and population from farms. Increased industrial
activity will stimulate the flow from the farm to the city. Tliis movement
may prove to be a little greater than the annual natural increase in farm
population.
^IQg INTERSTATE MIGRATION
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES TO DRAW WORKERS FROM FARMS
Conscription may possibly draw 150,000 persons from farms in 1941, and the
net migrations from farm to city may increase by as much as 350,000 between
3939 and 1942. If this were realized, the result probably would be a slight
decline in number of persons on farms.
This does not promise much improvement in living conditions on the farm.
It promises some increase in income, but also an increase in probable living
expenses. It promises the withdrawal of some surplus labor, and this will,
of course, tend to increase the income of farm families from sources other
than agriculture. Some net gain seems likely to be realized through this
channel. It should also be observed, of course, that there are likely to be
significant differences in different parts of the country. These conditions
promise great improvement in States or areas such as West Virginia, Penn-
sylvania, and New England, where a considerable part of the income to families
living on farms is derived from outside the farms. Farmers in livestock and
dairy-producing areas will also realize not only a considerable improvement
in income but also some improvement in purchasing power. The farm families
engaged primarily in producing cotton, tobacco, and a few other special prod-
ucts that must be exported may have their real incomes reduced. Living
conditions in these areas may be ameliorated to some extent by the drawing
off of surplus population and by the return of some income from the outside
to those remaining in the areas.
Basically, however, the defense crisis deepens our concern over the malad-
justment between population and opportunity in agriculture. Contrary to
some impressions, expressed and implied, the defense programs do not promise
to relieve all of the pressure upon opportunity in rural areas by drawing farm
people into nonagricultural pursuits.
There may be some employment for the rural unemployed. The defense
program is concerned with the vast reserves of manpower lying unused in
rural areas, and the location of certain defense industries may be determined
by the existence of these reserves. But it is expected that the defense program
may pass its peak of employment within a few years. Therefore, unless steps
are taken to encourage farm people who obtain defense employment to spend
some part of their defense earnings in farm improvements during their employ-
ment, the aftermath of the employment speed-up may be deepened distress for
all who have been unable to make a permanent transition to nonfarm status.
Looking beyond the defense crisis, there appears little likelihood that the
basic malad.iustment of population to land resources will be significantly altered
by the defense program. The same forces will be still at work, and the prob-
lems will require continuous adjustments of many kinds before we can work
out a settled and well-adjusted agricultural economy.
POSSIBILITIES OF SETTLING UNDEVELOPED LAND VIEWED
One of the most promising adjustments toward this end, it should be pointed
out, might be a public effort to guide and assist farm migrants in settling upon
potentially good, but undeveloped, farm land now available in certain areas such
as the Mississippi Delta and the Pacific Northwest. It is conservatively esti-
mated that the Mississippi Delta contains at least 5,000,000 acres of fertile, but
poorly drained, undeveloped cut-over land, which is potentially good land for
agricultural use and settlement. If properly developed, this land would provide
settlement opportunities for 62,500 families on 80-acre farms, or for 125,000
families on 40-acre farms. It is probable, in fact, that these opportunities in
the Delta are somewhat better than the above figures indicate.
In the Columbia River basin in the Northwest, it is estimated that the Grand
Coulee Reservoir will supply irrigation water sufiicient for 1,200,000 acres of
agricultural land. The Pacific Northwest Planning Commission estimates that,
in the four Pacific Northwest States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Mon-
tana, there may be opportunity for development of as many as 150,000 new
farms.
These and other areas of possible future agricultural development offer real
opportunities for easing the pressure of population upon the land in over-
crowded farming areas, and for taking care of future migrants. It should be
emphasized, however, that settlement of these lands must be made upon a
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3199
basis of family sized, owner-operated farms, if tlieir maximum benefits are to
be realized in terms of maximum population opportunities. It has been sug-
gested, in fact, that in order to realize the full opportunities, all future settle-
ment upon new-ground farms and reclamation project areas should be confined
to units of this type, and that provision should be made for perpetuating this
pattern of ownership and use.
NUMBER THAT CAN BE ABSORBED IN INDUSTRY DOUBTFUL
It is easy to say that industrial jobs are the answer as to how we can obtain
the adjustment of farm population to rural resources, but under present condi-
tions of education in rural areas,- there is a very practical doubt as to the
number of rural people that can be absorbed in modern industry. This is par-
ticularly true in many of the industries, where high degrees of skill and educa-
tion are necessary.
As a rule, the types of training available to students in rural schools do not
materially aid the student in fitting himself for industrial work, or even help
him in understanding the problems and conditions of urban industrial life.
Farm youth, therefore, enters the cities under a severe educational handicap.
Rural educational facilities in general are not on par with those provided in
the cities. It is doubtful if they can ever be, in fact, unless some way of equaliz-
ing the costs of education between urban and rural areas can be worked out.
The farm population, as a whole, although farm income is only 9 percent of the
national income, is expected under present conditions to rear and educate 31 per-
cent of the Nation's youth. The cost burden of education falls disproportionately
hard upon the shoulders of rural people and contributes substantially to the
existence of poor educational standards in agricultural areas. The greatest
numbers of children per adult population are in the States that have the lowest
tax base with which to support schools. The President's Advisory Committee on
Education has made it very clear that the lack of educational opportunity for
children in the poorer States is not due to an unwillingness on the part of the
citizens of these States to tax themselves for the support of schools. They showed
that there were 9 States which with "normal tax effort" would have had less
than $30 available per child, whereas with the same effort 4 other States would
have had $125 per child. Moreover. 22 States were already taxing themselves
more heavily than this "normal tax effort" but were nonetheless unable to provide
adequate schools.
A primary deficiency in present rural educational work is the lack of adequate
vocational training. Training of this type now being provided for rural youth is
virtually confined to the work of the National Youth Administration and the
cooperative Federal-State vocational work in the high schools. There is almost
a total absence of schools in rural areas designed to train rural youth for indus-
trial work in the cities. This presents a tremendously important problem not
only for the people in rural areas but for those in the cities as well, for the cities
are dependent upon rural areas for a substantial part of their future supply of
workers.
Despite the defense crisis and the defense employments, the necessity remains
for facing the basic maladjustment between opportunity and population in agri-
culture. The necessity remains for facing the fact that the farm population is at
least 100 percent in excess of that needed for commercial production, the fact that
more than half of our farm people live largely beyond the pale of the going
economy, the fact that ten or fifteen million farm people are living at levels
destructive to health and morale, and the fact that forces are at work tending to
accentuate and confirm a stratification of farm people into classes with a decreas-
ing chance to move from one class to another.
The necessity remains for eventually readjusting the relation between popula-
tion and opportunity in agriculture, either by increasing opportunity for farm
I)eople or by decreasing the number of ijeople seeking a living on the farm.
LACK OF TRAINING HINDEES FrX>W OF MIGRANTS TO CITIES
The lack of proper education and vocational training for industrial work and
urban living is a drawback to the easy flow of excess farm youth to the cities.
What can be done about it is open to conjecture at present. It is suflicient here
3200
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to point out that tlie present types of rural education frequently are not fitting
the surplus of rural youth to go to the cities and obtain useful and profitable
A inajor effort upon the problem of potential migration can be made to find
ways by which opportunity within agriculture could be improved. The farm-
ers' share in the national income could be increased. The marliets could be
extended The income from opportunities beyond the pale of commerce-
production for home use— could be very significantly increased. Supplemental
incomes from decentralized industry miglTt be obtained. Some of the processes
which were limiting opportunity and contributing to the basic maladjustment —
erosion, excessive credit costs, unsound tenure, tillage of submarginal land —
might be slowed or halted.
All of these things have been pushed. The Agricultural Adjustment Adminis-
tration has sought to safeguard the marketing of farm products so as to extend
as far as possible the commercial income of agriculture. The Agricultural
Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service,
have sought to stem erosion and the tillage of submarginal lands, the Surplus
Marketing Administration has sought to extend and protect the market for farm
products through its food stamp plan and commodity distributions. The Farm
Credit Administration and the Farm Security Administration have sought to
rationalize credit costs, the Farm Security Administration and the research and
extension agencies of the Department have helped farm people extend their
opportunities through increased production for home use.
A very significant and fruitful effort is that of improving production for home
consumption. Farming as a way of life and as a way of security is more nearly
possible on family-sized and family-owned farms than on farms with any other
arrangement or organization. So-called live-at-home or security farming is a sys-
tem of agriculture in which the farm family attempts to eliminate as many of the
uncertainties as is possible in its day-by-day and year-by-year operations. It does
this by producing the maximum amount of home-consumed products and service.
This does not mean that we should destine great segments of the farm population
to mere subsistence farming. It means that hundreds of thousands of farm fam-
ilies could raise their level of living by producing more of the products which they
need for consumption, that they would thereby be able to use their income from
commercial farming or nonfarm employment to purchase other elements in their
level of living, and that the market for farm products could be divided among a
greater number of farms. To the extent that such a development would work in
this direction, it would contribute to the raising of the farm family level of living
and at the same time create opportunities for a greater number of families on the
land.
Statements such as those just made should in no way be interpreted as advocat-
ing a back-to-the-land movement. If agriculture is to support the maximum
amount of farm population and at the same time be a successful economic enter-
prise, it must not be asked to absorb a great mass of people fleeing from discourag-
ing and distressing situations in the city. Under such circumstances iDeople
return to the land merely as an asylum from distress and not to farming as a way
of life.
Farming must be a way of life ; it should be a good way of life ; it must and can
be a relatively secure way of life. It will probably be the most secure and the
most zestful way of life only if those who practice it can take pride in ownership
as well as operation. Pride in ownership and the conservation and nurture of
natural resources are a part of the culture of agriculture every place in the world
where home-farm operatorship is in existence, even though it be the home-farm
operatorship of i)easant farming. Fanning is not an occupation or profession of
pride, prestige, or profit where the type of farm organization condemns large seg-
ments of those who till the soil to the status of the proletariat, or to mere hired
laborers or sharecroppers.
Such a broad approach is, of course, a reflection of the ultimate efficiency of the
democratic process. And this process the Department is currently trying to ex-
tend and implement, through setting up county land-use planning committees to
enlist the suggestions and help of the Nation's millions of farmers to help us in the
process of education, planning, and coordination which are the basis of democracy.
And we have not yet approached the limits of possibility in extending and pro-
tecting the opportunity within agriculture.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3201
FARM POLICY RKCOGNIZES LIMITS OF OPPORTUNITY
It is necessary, however, iu molding farm iwlicy for the future, to recognize that
such limits do exist, and to form some estimate of them. Some of these limits must
be set up and defined by the democratic process, the land-use planning committees,
the Congress, and the instruments for expression of public opinion. Some of the
limits are physical and may be determined by research and analysis.
There are certain limits, for instance, upon the income which may be pro-
duced from the land, either for market or for home consumption by economic
methods, which are determined by the supply of land available.
Of the noncommercial farmers, approximately 600,000 at present occupy land
not suited to cultivation. And a much larger number of noncommercial farmers
occupy farms too small to sustain an adequate standard of living. It has been
the observation of Farm Security Administration in making loans to low-income
farmers that most of them occupy farms too small to support a family. It has
proven necessary for Farm Security Administration to help its borrowers obtain
access to an additional average of 20 acres of land in order to set them up on an
economic basis — that is, a basis which, by offeiing them a chance to repay, makes
a loan feasible. The Farm Security Administration has been unable to assist all
of those capable and willing to operate farms, in fact, because of the difficulty in
finding suflicient suitable land. It is well known that refugee settlement during
the depression found little good lands to go to. Both refugee settlement and high
rates of natural increase in population are largely concentrated in areas where
land is either too poor to be fit for commercial farming or where the land is
already crowded.
In short, whether or not we have plenty of land as a theoretical proposition,
evidence at hand indicates that the lower half of the farm population iu any effort
to expand their production to an economic level, will encounter a serious shortage
of available land.
The number which it is possible to reestablish upon the land, can be determined
only after our democratic processes have defined for us, exactly what minimums
of income are acceptable for Americans in a permanent agriculture.
The nature of the problem is illustrated by some recent estimates by the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics. According to these estimates, the present
land base of the United States will support about 5,000,000 farms operating upon
the scale which prevails in the Corn Belt. AVe have at present 6,800,000 farms.
The average standard of living in the Corn Belt is slightly lower than the average
standard prevailing in the urban areas of the country. If, however, the scale of
operations and the standard of living prevailing iu the Cotton Belt is adequate,
the country's land base will support 9,600,000 farms, and more people than we
support at present.
And we must recognize that if this maximum is to be approached, there must
be a breaking up of many large farms using industrial labor and machinery in
order to reestablish farms designed for efficiency in supporting populations rather
than in producing crops. As to how far we will go along this line, again, our
democratic processes must determine.
Present agricultural policy does not seek to break up the normal course of
development of commercial farming.
At the same time we have sought to provide for the noncommercial segment
of the farm population upon the land by the devices for increasing opportunity
from within which I have mentioned. And this also has been done with a
studious effort to give as small a jar to the going economy as possible.
We have taken each group within the noncommercial half of the farm popirla-
tion where we found it, and attempted to improve its opportunities, but we have
not sought to reorganize the entire social environment of the lower half, either
separately from or in conjunction with the commercial farming segment of the
farm economy.
PRESENT POLICIES AIM AT CUSHIONING THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES
Our present policy has aimed roughly at cushioning the effects of the
major changes occurring in agriculture, rather than attempting to alter the
framework of agriculture as it is now operating. Our policies are aimed at
encouraging the adoption of family-size farms as a desirable norm for the bulk
3202 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
of the farm population who live midway between commercial concentration
and noncommercial or subsistence farming. Present policy recognizes the need
for promoting supplementary incomes from off-the-farm sources, including re-
lief payments for alleviation of distress among the extreme lower groups of
residents of submarginal land and in agricultural labor. We are trying to
preserve their value as employable citizens, easily within reach of any develop-
ing employment opportunities.
In this connection, there is a need for greater study of the decentraliza-
tion of industry which is now occurring, and as to the possibilities of locating
certain industries within or adjacent to the overcrowded farming regions. This
is especially important in view of the industrial expansion to be brought
about by the national defense program, and the possible need to locate many
of the new plants in areas of low industrial concentration, better protected
from attack.
The need of farm families for supplemental income in many areas is most
urgent. Also, there is a great need for expanded conservation measures on the
soil, water, and forest resources of the Nation.
It would be a real step toward conserving both human and natural re-
sources, if some program could be devised which would make iwssible the
utilization of the unoccupied time of rural people in dire economic circum-
stances in such a way as to contribute to their immediate income, and, at the
same time result in the conservation of the soil and other physical resources
upon which they must depend for a liveliehood in the future.
Probably the most practical way of meeting these two needs would be a rural
conservation works program which would provide for the employment of low-
income farm families in conserving natural resources and help to bring
these two needs together in the interest of the general welfare. Such a program
would result not only in the usual benefits to people to be derived from con-
servation efforts, but also in the additional benefit of immediate increases in
the incomes of needy farm families from the supplemental employment op-
portunities created. While either of these objectives alone, i. e., immediate
aid to. needy families and conservation of natural resources, might be ample
justification for expanded conservation elforts, it would seem that these pro-
grams are natural partners. Under certain conditions, such a program would
be to a considerable extent self-liquidating.
There were in 1937, according to the unemployment census, 1,547,000 males
living on farms who were either totally or partially unemployed or had only
emergency employment. Of this number 576,000 were partially unemployed and
266,000 were employed in emergency public work — Works Progress Adminis-
tion, Civilian Conservation Corps, National Youth Administration, etc. The
remaining 705,000 were totally unemployed. Of the aggregate of totally un-
employed and emergency workers living on farms, about 60 percent of the
national total were registered in the South (south of the Mason and Dixon
line and the Ohio River and including Texas and Oklahoma), about 32 percent
were in the North (Maine and New Jersey to Kansas and North Dakota)
and 8 percent were in the 11 far-western States. Of the partially unemployed,
about 60 percent of the national total were likewise registered in tlie South,
33 percent in the North, and 7 percent in the far WeSt.
FARM UNEMPLOYMENT IS PRODUCT OF OLD TRENDS
Unemployment on farms is not due entirely to the economic depression but
in part to a combination of long-time trends. The proportion of the total gain-
fully employed in the Nation who were employed in farming declined at an
almost constant rate from 1870 to 1930, but during this period the increase in
nonfarm employment created employment opportunities for those not needed in
agriculture. The result was a net migration from farms to cities which reached
a maximum of 500,000 to 1,100,000 each year from 1922 to 1926. After 1926 this
tide of net migration to the city declined annually and dropped precipitately
from 1930 to 1932. It has been continued at the rate of from 200.000 to 400,000
per year since that time.
This unemployment situation among farm families will not correct itself
through natural migration. Should the rate of net migration away from farms
during the next two decades be half as great as during the predepression decade
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3203
of the twenties, when the rate was unusually high — and half is considerably
above the rate during the decade of the thirties — the increase in farm popula-
tion of productive age would be 23 percent between 1940 and 1960. Since nearly
400,000 farm males are reaching maturity each year, and only about 110,000
farmers are dying each year, with possibly as many more retiring or leaving
for other occupations, it appears that unless there is a very unusual increase
in the rate of migration from farms there will be an increase of 200,000 males
of productive age (18 to 65 years) each year for a number of years, over and
above the present number on farms.
Present activities in the Department of Agriculture have not been of enough
assistance to the approximately one and one-half million farm people described
above. Agricultural Adjustment Administration payments have gone quite
generally to farmers in commercial farming areas in which relatively few of
these people are living. The Farm Security Administration has been able to
take care of only a small portion of these people through the rehabilitation
program, often because of inability to work out a balanced farm plan due to
limited soil resources.
It appears that if assistance is to be given to more of those needy farm
families, the possibilities in new approaches will have to be explored. An
extensive rural conservation works program, involving both public employment
and private employment supported by credit, could furnish additional oppor-
tunities to large numbers of farm families not now reached.
In concluding this statement, I would like to point out that migration is a
thoroughly normal and desirable feature of American life. It has always been
a part of the American way of doing things, and we continue to take for granted
that people will move, and where they wish, in search of better opportunities.
We would not stop migration even if we could; what could be accomplished,
however, is the elimination of some of the tragedies and waste involved in
certain aspects of present migration. The guidance and assistance which have
been suggested as a means of helping migrants to make wise choices of work
and locations would be a step toward this goal. Any program guiding and
assisting migration, however, should be accompanied by efforts aimed at pro-
moting the security of the people who remain on farms", so that the volume of
distress migration will be cut to a minimum.
Current recommendations, which you have heard and will Jiear from the
Department, also look (1) toward extension of efforts along democratic lines to
increase opportunity within agriculture, (2) toward establishing on the land the
maximum population which the land will support at decent standards, and (3)
toward maintaining the vigor and skill of groups for whom opportunity in non-
agricultural pursuits must be the eventual solution.
Toward that first objective, iwssibly the most fruitful line of action would
be through extension of the type of loans and education developed in the Farm
Security Administration rehabilitation program. Toward the second, a very
major increase in the Bankhead- Jones tenant purchase activity, and perhaps a
modification of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration payment basis to
encourage the family size farm might be the most fruitful measures. Toward
the third, an extension of the Farm Security Administration noncommercml
farming program, its migrant camp program, a general extension of educational
and health programs to increase the readiness of rural populations to accept
nonagricultural employments, and a rural works program to devote surplus
farm manpower to useful public works and provide supplemental incomes to the
rural unemployed and underemployed during the vears intervening between
now and the appearance of nonagricultural opportunity, might be the best course.
TESTIMONY OF H. R. TOLLEY— Resumed
Mr. ToLLEY. I try to point out in that statement tliat there has
always been quite a lot of migration from the farms of the country
to other farms and to the cities of the country ; that in recent years
there has been a piling up of population on the farms on account of
the lack of opportunities elsewhere. Many people who are now on
farms of the country, if opportunities had been available, would have
3204 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
migrated to cities and to jobs in industry, or would have migrated
to other parts of the country and stayed on farms if land had been
available.
I have in the statement here some figures, which I will not try to
give now, showing that the number of people working on farms in
recent years has been running ahead in the past decade; in other
words, there has been a real backing up of both men and women of
working age on the farms largely because they have no place to go.
Commercial agriculture, as you know, for the past several years,
since the end of World War No. 1, has not offered opportunities for
additional production, and hence no opportunites for many additional
farmers.
Then, I say that migration in itself is not an evil ; it is a situation
that we have always had in this country ; but what seems to be needed
is some way for the channels of migration to be kept open — some way
needed to be developed whereby the people who are not able to support
themselves temporarily where they now are may find jobs in industry,
or, if possible, find other land in the country that is not yet developed
where they may settle.
The present defense program offers some opportunities for poten-
tial migrants in the short run at least. There are two problems here :
One is that the rural people are to a greater extent, I think, than the
city people, without the skill that is needed in defense industry. The
other point is that the defense work, insofar as new defense industries
are concerned, is located in industrial centers and the workers who are
already there will probably have the first choice of the jobs.
And, finally, presumably, at least, our defense effort is only a
temporary thing and one of these days — we do not know when — it
will be over and these people will have to find employment. In
other words, defense does not offer a permanent solution to the
problem.
POSSIBILITIES FOR RESETTLEMENT
There are some places in the United States where there is good
undeveloped land that offers an op])ortunity for the right kind of farm-
ing, and for people like the previous witness here, whom we heard
say he would like to have a place of his own where he could settle and
stay.
I think two of the most promising places in the country are in the
Pacific NorthAvest and in the Mississippi Kiver Delta area. In the
Pacific Northwest one place especially, in the Columbia River Basin,
around Grand Coulee Dam, is now being developed which will offer
opportunity for many thousands of new farms.
_ Also, in the cut-over area of the farther West there are opportuni-
ties if the land can be cleared and if the people who want to settle
and come in there from other places can get enough resources in
order to get a stake in the land.
A portion of the Mississippi River Delta area offers just as great,
or maybe a greater, opportunity for further development and for
further settlement than the Pacific Northwest. A part of it can
be developed at low cost for clearing and drainage and it is in that area,
I think, that the biggest potential migration exists in the country at the
present time.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3205
Mr. OsMERS, Just to clear that point up a little further, Mr. Tolley,
about the Mississippi Delta you say it is in the area of greatest
potential migration ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes ; possibly I should say the area where the move-
ment, or the number of people — rural people — in relation to the land
resources is the gi^eatest. That is really that point I had in mind.
Mr. OsMERS. Yes.
Mr. ToLLEY. In other words, the rural population throughout the
South is greater than at these other places. That is just another way
of saying that the opportunity is really less than in other parts in
proportion to the land resources.
Mr. OsMERS. But you think the Mississippi Delta offers opportuni-
ties for further development on agricultural land ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I am quite sure of it. There is a lot of good land down
there that has never been cleared and developed.
The flood-control and drainage operations of the United States
Government up and down the Mississippi River have reduced the
flood hazards and made a lot of land available that at one time was not
useful and could not be made available for farming. Development
costs would possibly be less than developing the irrigated lands of
the West.
I might sum all of this up by saying that, so far as the Department
of Agriculture is concerned, or as far as the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics is concerned, I should say, any slowing down of the
migration of farm people which has always existed in this country
causes a backing up of the farm population on the land.
The defense program gives promise temporarily of relieving the
situation to some extent, and our thought is that effort should be
continued to increase opportunities within agriculture itself for these
people, to do what can be done to establish the maximum number of
people in security on the land, and to make it possible for these rural
people to obtain training and skill that will enable them to get jobs in
industry, which they do not have now.
All of the efforts of the Department in the past several years has
been directed somewhat along these lines, but, as you know, the
problem is not yet solved.
Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Tolley, your branch of the Department of Agri-
culture is the one that primarily interested in planning; is that correct?
]Mr. ToLLEY. That is right ; yes.
FUTURE TREND OF AGRICULTURAL POPULATION
Mr. OsMERS. And would you say that, as a long-range proposition,
the farming population in this country is going to increase in relation
to the general population or decrease?
Mr. ToLLEY. In the past the trend has been for the industrial popu-
lation to increase more rapidly than the agricultural population, but
the situation now is, unless opportunity for moving from farms to
cities can be opened up in a way that has not been true in the past
decade, our farm population is going to increase more rapidly than the
industrial population. The birth rate on the farm is higher— much
higher on the farms of the Nation than in the cities— and with the
opportunities for employment cut off in the cities the migration from
3206 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
the farm to the city will be reduced and the farming population is
going to increase.
Mr. OsMEKS. You mentioned before, without giving any explanation
particularly, because you were summarizing briefly, the fact that people
have gone back to the land, so to speak, during the depression. It has
been my impression that the low cost of living in rural areas has been
a great factor in connection with that movement. Is that your
opinion ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Well, I put it a little bit diiferently. I think it adds
up to the same thing. But when a man, or a family, is out of a job, he
finds, if he has lived in the country before, if he knows how to take
care of himself in the country, he will go back to the country as a haven
and a refuge during the period when he has no source of cash income.
I suppose, perhaps, that is another way of saying that the cost of living
is lower in the country than elsewhere.
Mr. OsMERs. Would you say that, again looking to the future, some
day the world may be presumed to return to peace
Mr. ToLLEY. We hope so.
Mr. OsMERS. It may be 1, 2, 5 years from now. Of course, some day
our defense preparations will be largely completed, whether peace
returns or not. The high industrial phase of the defense program
that we are going through now will disappear. Now, in your opinion,
as a result of what studies you have made, when that terrific industrial
depression comes that is going to come at the completion of the defense
program, or with the arrival of peace, do you anticipate that there will
be a great rush back to the land again ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I anticipate the same thing will happen then that hap-
pened in the 1920"s and the 1930's, that there will be a lot of people who
will be out of employment in defense industries, and so forth, who
will be trying to find a place out in the country where they can live and
subsist.
FARM REHABILITATION
Mr. OsMERS. Would your Department care to give any opinion as to
whether the Federal Government, as such, should anticipate that
return ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Oh, I think most certainly it is part of the duty of all
branches of the Federal Government.
Mr. OsMERs. Do you think that if the Congress should make some
more f mids available to the Farm Security Administration, there would
be provision for a lot of farmers that have no farms at present ?
Mr. ToLLEY, I think the Farm Security Administration is finding
that there is a very considerable number of people who are worthy of
rehabilitation of their homes, or worthy of help in the tenant-purchase
program, in the acquisition of farms, who cannot find farms either to
rent or to buy under present conditions.
The demaiid for farms is now greater than the supply of farms.
If the Farm Security Administration had more farms for rehabili-
tation loans, they could reach some people who now have a foothold
on the land that they are not able to reach now. They could enable
more deserving tenants who have a foothold to acquire ownership of
their farms. But under present conditions, there would still be a con-
INTERSTATE MIGUATIOX 3207
siderable number of deserving farm people who would not be able to
find farms either to rent or to buy. And it is that that leads us to
the conclusion, you see, that further development of agricultural land
in the country, in the places such as I have mentioned, would be a
desirable thing. If the Farm Security Administration or some other
agencies of the Government could do more along that line than is
now being done, it would certainly help.
Mr. OsMERS. You mentioned in your statement that two areas
occurred to you, without giving us a detailed study,' as having
possibilities for profitable farming. They were the Pacific Northwest
and the Mississippi Delta. Just taking those two sections, if they
have such possibilities, why is it that there is not a flow of private
capital toward those areas for the purpose of establishing farms?
Mr. ToixEY. The Pacific Northwest — the Grand Coulee Dam is
there, and the operations of the Reclamation Service under the dam
are both very costly operations. It will be a long time before the
whole thing is repaid.
There is a considerable amount of private development in the
Mississippi River Delta and in the cut-over areas of the Pacific North-
west, where costs are not so high, but it is a very helter-skelter devel-
opment
Mr. OsMERs. More on the idea of a real-estate subdivision?
Mr. ToLLEY. Exactly, and with all of the things that go with that.
I did not want to use that term.
Mr. OsMERS. I think, when we were out on the Pacific coast, we
found evidences of — shall we say the poorer side of private real-estate
development. Of course, we found some that were not that kind.
But I realize that the farm mortgage at the moment is somewhat in
bad odor in the United States, but it ^ised to be and probably will
again be one of the best forms of investment for private capital in
the country.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right. Of course, there is another point;
that a great many of the people that I called potential migrants a
while ago, who would like to get a foothold on the land are practi-
cally without capital, and private enterprise has not up to the present
time done very much about staking a man 100 percent with what he
needs. Where that has been done, or what has been done — it has been
done nominally, I will say — has not been an honest-to-God effort,
and the tenant or potential purchaser who has been trying to get a
foothold there has put in a lot of sweat in developing a farm and
putting some buildings on it and getting it under cultivation, and
then lost it because he has not been able to make the pajanents that
are set up for him by these real-estate agencies.
Mr. OsMERS. Do you think it is possible that private capital has
failed to make the financial terms realistic enough to cover the situa-
tion; that is, they have tried to make the terms too short and the
payments too heavy?
Mr. ToLLEY. The payments too high; yes. You see, developing a
farm out of the woods or out of the sagebrush is a long-time
proposition.
The detiiiled study was submitted later and appears on p. 3211.
3208
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. OsMERS. Definitely.
Mr. ToLLEY. And it is just too much to expect that even the best
man in the world can go into a place like that and with his own sweat
and his own ax develop a farm and pay for it in 10 years. It just
cannot be done.
INCLUDE FARM LABOR IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Mr. OsMERS. Would the application of the Social Security Act,
the wages-and-hours law, and the National Labor Eelations Act im-
prove the welfare of farm laborers in your opinion ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I think it would, if they could be adapted to agri-
cultural conditions. I am not in a position to go into a long dis-
course on that, but conditions of employment on farms are so different
from conditions of employment in industries that I have an idea that
the law would have to be somewhat different to make it apply to
agriculture, and that the administration of it would have to be some-
what different. But I think all of those things might well be worked
out for agricultural labor.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you care, Mr. Tolley, to make a distinction
between the application of any of the three that I have mentioned?
That is, would you care to say that the application of the social
security law would be more practical than the application of the wages-
and-hours law?
Mr. ToLLEY. Well, so far as old-age assistance in social security is
concerned, I do not see any marked difference between the two. As
far as employment insurance is concerned, the migratory agricultural
worker is in a situation entirely different from that of the laborer
who works in a factory. Then you take the part-time laborer, the
man who lives on a little place and works off the farm for part of
his cash ; he is in an entirely different situation. So much for that.
As to wages and hours, of course, we know that the wages of the
agricultural laborer are distressingly low in this country. It is one of
the characteristics of agriculture. I am not sure that agriculture
could stand, under present conditions, wages as high as industry could
stand. Somewhat the same thing can be said about hours. When it
is time to pick peaches they have to be picked. When it is time to
pick cotton, it has to be picked. It cannot be spread over the season,
like automobiles.
Mr. OsMERS. That brings up some other questions here, to my mind
at least. The application of these rigid forms, shall we say, of em-
ployment and pay and operations, such as would be demanded by the
wages-and-hours law and the National Labor Relations Act, even if
they were in different form of agriculture, would have, at least it
would seem to me, the effect of increasing the cost of production of
agricultural products. And if they increase the cost of the products,
industrial experience seems to indicate that it would cause an in-
creased mechanization of farm work throughout the United States
and it would lead to the large industrial farm; because the small
farmer that employed, we will say, just a few laborers here and there
throughout the year would not be able to operate.
Mr. ToLLEY. I do not believe that that would accentuate the trend
toward larger capitalistic farms in the country very much.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3209
Take cotton; we know that there has been, and there is now, a
trend toward mechanization and away from owner-operated and
tenant-operated cotton farms, to cotton farms operated largely by
wage hands. I do not believe that the application of the Wages and
Hours or the Wagner Act, always modified to fit, would accentuate
that trend very much, if at all.
Mr. OsMERs. The experience of industry seems to be that whenever
Government or some other agency, or some other cause, increases the
cost of production, there is a competition pressure developed, which
brings about the development of new machinery ; the development of
new methods of production and new efforts to cut the cost of
production.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
Mr. OsMERS. I would say — perhaps I am wrong — ^but I would just
guess that that same pressure would develop in agriculture, I am not
here expressing an opinion that it would be a good thing or a bad
thing.
Mr. ToixEY. You are right. That pressure is there in agriculture,
and it has been there. Technological improvements in agriculture in
the past 25 years have been just about as great as technological im-
provements in industry. And it is that, more than anything else,
that leads me to say that some help to farm laborers along these lines
would not speed up that development very much. It has taken place.
The pressure is there.
Prices of farm commodities, so many of them, have been so low
anyway that managers and owners have been making real efforts
to reduce their costs and increase their incomes.
Mr. OsMERS. I know there has been a certain amount of pressure
and we have seen the evidence of it in our tours through the country.
We have since the evidence of that same effort that we have in indus-
try, of hammering down the cost of production. I do not mean neces-
sarily hammering down labor, but just hitting everybody along the
line; we will say, taking a fence out so you can run a tractor a little
further, and so forth. I was wondering whether the application of
these rigid forms would increase that. I can see immense admin-
istrative difficulties, and so can you
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes.
Mr. OsMERs, In applying them. But I just wondered if it would
have the effect of changing agriculture. I have noticed in industry —
I do not have any figures in mind, but it seems to me that small indus-
try is not on the increase in the United States, that the larger units
seem to be getting a little bit larger, as we go along. And I do not
think the defense progi^am has changed that trend at all. I think it
has just accelerated it.
Mr. ToLMY. That is right.
Mr. OsMEKs. They are just getting larger and larger.
Mr. ToLUEY. Let me make one statement there before we leave this.
There is a tendency for family sized farms to become larger. It is
the same as the corporation farm. There is a tendency for that to
become larger, and that tendency has been here for a long, long time.
It is continuing, and technology is one of the things that is bringing
3210 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
it about. And that is another one of the things that has brought about
the situation where there are not enough farms to go around for all
these farm people.
Mr. OsMERS. In the Great Plains area, there is quite a little of that
going on, where the number of farmers is not increasing; in fact, it is
decreasing, but the farms are getting larger and larger.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
Mr. OsMERS. The farm production has been carried on with
improved mechanization, mechanical methods have improved, and so
the farms are getting larger and larger. They are not making any
more money, particularly, but using a little bit more land to get the
annual income; is that correct?
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you say that that is a desirable situation, tak-
ing the Great Plains area?
Mr. ToLLEY. If all of the people who are trying to find places to
farm can find them somewhere else — part of the Great Plains area
was settled by my ancestors who came from farther east and carried
with them the eastern method of farming on farms laid out, in gen;
eral, too small for that semiarid western country. In recent years
the weather has been such that yields have been very low, and it is
a hazardous region anyway. Therefore, as far as concerns the peo-
ple who are to continue to live in the Great Plains, it would be better
if in general the farms could be larger, if they could depend more on
livestock production, production from the native grasses out there
that are not so subject to hazards of the weather, than the productioji
of wheat, which they all turned to immediately when they went out
there. And that goes pretty much for the Great Plains all the way
from the South to the North, I think.
I think there has been more migration of farm people, relatively,
out of the Great Plains than out of any other region in the country in
the past several years.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you favor Government aid in the establishment
of cooperative farms?
Mr. ToLLEY. Very much. You see, we were talking about technology
and about these little farms and making use of that small piece of land.
A man who has 10 acres, or 20 acres, or 30 acres is not in a position to
take advantage of all the technological improvements that come along.
He cannot own a tractor. It costs too much. He cannot have electric
lights in his house. They cost too much. He cannot buy certain types
of seeds because they cost too much. He cannot have pure-bred cows or
pure-bred hogs. He cannot take advantage of all of the learning and
knowledge that is his for the asking from the colleges of agriculture or
the Department of Agriculture here.
But if a number of them, if a goodly number of these people could
get together, they could have a large enough tract to enable them to
afford all of these things and to enable them to have access to all of the
knowledge and information that is theirs for the asking.
Mr. OsMFj?s. Again, it would lower the cost of production.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right ; and it would enable those people to live
cooperatively much better than they can live piecemeal on small places.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3211
Mr. OsMERS. You mentioned before these two areas, one in the
Pacific Northwest and one in the Mississippi Deha. Could you tell the
committee about what it would cost to set a farmer up on, say, an 80-
acre tract in the Pacific Northwest— the Columbia Basin area ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I am sorry that I am unable to give those figures at
present.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you have any figures in mind on the Mississippi
Delta proposition ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Of course, the land itself — and these costs do not all
come to cash costs — ^the land itself in the Mississippi River Delta — that
is, cut-over land, we will say— would cost perhaps $2.50 to $10 an acre.
That would get the land itself. Now, there have to be flood-control
Avorks and drainage works. The flood control is practically entirely
cared for by the Federal Government. Drainage would be cared for
by drainage districts. I do not have in mind what tlie cost per acre per
farm there would be.
Mr. OsMERS. That is probably an unfair question to ask you. I
wonder if you would mind preparing some figures along those lines
for us.
Mr. ToLLEY. I shall be glad to.
Mr. OsMERS If they are not already prepared.
(The folloAAing statement was submitted later at the request of the
chairman and is printed here to complete the testimony:)
Costs of Dejveloping New Agricxiltxtral Lands in the Mississippi Dexta and
Pacific Northwest
The portions of the Mississippi Delta offeiiug the best opportunities for addi-
tional settlement on new farms lie mainly in the cutover areas of the lower Mis-
sissippi "Valley. The land is now covered with stumps and second growth tim-
ber, and drainage is a principal problem in its development. This land formerly
was subject to severe flooding, but the better parts of it are now protected from
floods, this protection having been provided by the new dams and other flood
control works erected by the Federal Government in the last few years.
Much of the Delta cutover land is owned in large tracts by lumber companies
and others, who are endeavoring to dispose of it, now that the timber is gone.
New settlement is already under way in these areas, for about 20,(K)0 families
have moved in to begin new ground farming within the last several years. Pres-
ent settlers, however, are encountering difiiculties so serious that it is doubtful
if most of them will be able to pay for their farms. These difiiculties include high
purchase prices in relation to the economic value of the land, short periods for
payment of purchase indebtedness, lack of adequate credit facilities, lack of pre-
liminary information and guidance in the selection of land, and lack of super-
visory guidance and assistance in the initial years of operation.
Almost all of the present settlers are farmers from small worn-out hill plots
adjoining the Delta, or are sharecroppers and tenants who have been displaced
on the Delta plantations by mechanization or other forces. As a rule, recent set-
tlers are farmers without adequate financial resources, workstock, or tools, and
frequently have been unfamiliar with the conditions of lowland agriculture.
Most of them have settled upon tracts of about 40 acres each, and are attempting
to pay for their land from the produce of the farms. Under present conditions,
the great majority of these attempts are facing almost certain failure. Unless
adequate assistance can be given to the settlers, therefore, it seems certain that
this land, when sufl^ciently developed by the settlers, will inevitably be absorbed
Into the established plantations of the region.
Undeveloped land in the Delta is being sold at prices ranging from $10 to $75
per acre, although the majority being turned over to the present settlers is going
at prices of from .$2.'i to .$40 per acre. It is common practice for the settler to
3212 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
sign a lease-purchase contract, which allows him 2 years of occupancy on the land
before purchase payments begin, and then a 10-year period in which to pay off
the full purchase price. In practice, this means that settlers frequently devote
time, labor, and money to clearing the land and erecting buildings, only to lose
everything when their purchase payments become delinquent.
The real value of a sample area of the cutover woodland in northeastern Louisi-
ana, determined on the basis of actual appraisals of about 600 tracts of land, has
been estimated at less than $8 per acre. Thousands of acres were evaluated at $4
per acre. From information available about this sample tract, it appears that
large acreages, if purchased in blocks for cash, could be obtained at prices ranging
from $4 to $10 per acre. The advantages of block purchase and cash payment
are not available to present settlers, of course, nor will they be available to future
settlers under a continuation of present public and private policies in the region.
Present settlers estimate that $17 is the average total cost per acre for clearing
this land. Of this amount, tliere is a $1 per acre cost for tree poison, $2 in other
cash costs, the remaining $14 being the estimated labor cost. The labor cost is not
a cash outlay, however.
On much of this land the provision of adequate drainage is a prerequisite to
successful farming. The probable costs of drainage vary widely, of course, de-
pending upon the availability of drainage outlets, and other factors. The possi-
bilities of economical drainage are a principal factor determining the suitability
of such land for agricultural development.
A recent drainage survey in three parishes of northeastern Louisiana gives
some indication, however, of the drainage costs to be encountered in developing
some of the better land. The drainage report shows that the total cost of con-
structing, administering, and financing of primary and secondary drainage, ex-
clusive of farm drainage, would amount to $6.95 per acre in East Carroll Parish,
$6.78 in Madison Parish, and $7.69 in Tensas Parish. The estimated costs of farm
drainage would represent an additional $1 or $2 per acre. The cost data given
here were calculated on the assumption that drainage enterprises would be or-
ganized for entire areas, rather than for parts of areas.
The costs of housing, farm buildings, fences, and other construction work in-
volved in developing the Delta cut-over land for agricultural settlement would
vary according to the size and type of farm, and to the standards set for housing.
Interviews with 100 recent settlers in northeast Louisiana show that 83 of them
built dwellings at an average cash cost of $138 per house ; that 69 constructed
barns costing $21 each, and wells costing $18 each. These figures do not represent
the costs of providing the proper types of dwellings and other buildings, however,
for most of the recent settlers in the Delta lack anything approaching adequate
housing and buildings.
COLTTMBIA KIVER BASIN
New agricultural settlement in the Columbia River Basin will not be a large
scale actuality for several years, until water is made available for irrigating the
land. The cost of developing new farms in this area will be in the neighborhood
of $100 to $150 per acre, exclusive of the labor performed by the settlers. Costs
will vary from tract to tract, however, depending upon topography and other con-
ditions. A share of the $800,000,000 cost of building the Grand Coulee Dam is also
to be assessed to this land, and the size of the assessment will have great influence
upon land costs.
CUT-OVEE AREAS OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Many refugees from the drought areas have gone into the Pacific Northwest
in the last 10 years, settling upon small tracts of cut-over timberland. Studies
made by the Department of Agriculture show that the original cost of land
of this "type may range from $1 to $15 per acre, depending upon its suitability
for agricultural development. The land most suitable to development for
cultivation, however, is often covered with stumps, some of them 8 or 10 feet
in diameter.
It is estimated that the settlers, without using machinery to help them, can
clear only 1 or IVj acres per year. Two-thirds of the land suitable for agricul-
tural development probably can be developed at costs of from $30 to $75 per acre,
exclusive of the cost of the farmers' labor. The expense of developing the remain-
ing one-third would be higher. The cost in clearing the land for use as pasture is
from about 50 cents to $12 per acre. On the better land, which is potentially suit-
able for cultivation, the total cost of development for agriculture generally is
about $100 per acre, not including the cost of the labor of the farmer.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3213
TESTIMONY OP H. R. TOLLEY— Resumed
Mr. ToLLET. I think I can give you something for, let us say, the
area below the Grand Coulee Dam and for some selected areas in the
Mississippi Kiver Delta.
Mr. OsMERS. You mentioned about 1,000,000 acres in the Mississippi
Delta.
Mr. ToLLEY. There are at least 1,000,000 acres available in the Mis-
sissippi Delta.
Mr. OsMERS. Using 1,000,000 acres as a figure, if that land were put
into cotton production, what effect would that have on the cotton
market?
Mr. ToLLEY. That is a very good question and brings out a point that
I did not make, that in these new areas of production what we need is
a different kind of farming from the traditional type of farming, both
there and in the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. OsMERS. In other words, you would not say that they just ought
to open up a million acres and plant a million acres of cotton.
Mr. ToLLEY. Most assuredly not. Diversified, living-at-home farm-
ing ; livestock ; good food for the family, all of those things come first.
And then some cotton to get some cash, because farmers, just as the rest
of us, do need some cash. Of course, there is this, too, in the Missis-
sippi River Delta : Looking far ahead, if something could be done to
enable potential migrants who live up on poor hillsides in much of the
South, to get themselves established in the good land of the Delta, those
poor hillsides could be retired to something other than farming, and
we would have a much better situation.
Mr. OsMERs. Do 3^ou feel that reclamation and irrigation projects
in general provide worth-while, new opportimities?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes. I talked a lot about the Columbia Basin. But
there are a lot of places not of the size of the Columbia Basin, through-
out the western part of the Great Plains, throughout the intermountain
region, where there is some unappropriated water that can be brought
to good land, and anything that can be done there would be that much
help.
NEED OF INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION IN RURAL AREAS
Mr. OsMERS. Would you care to express an opinion on the apparent
desire to spread industry, particularly new inclustries, that are being
established as a result of the defense program? Do you consider that
a proper move ?
Mr. ToLLEY. A very worth-while move. My theory is that not
enough of it will be done because, just as you said a minute ago, there
is a tendency to have big plants concentrated where plants already
exist. I know that the Agi'iculture Division especially of the Defense
Commission is giving a great deal of attention to this very point of
getting new defense plants established in rural areas. They want to
do everything they can to help the rural people get jobs in these plants,
realizing, of course, that they are only temporary, and one of these
days they will be over. But if the people could continue to live back
home on their little farms, and use such money as they can get out of
the plant to fix up their farms, fertilize them, and build fences and
3214 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
improve houses, that they will have just that much better base under
them to continue after the defense program is over.
Mr. OsMERS. It seemed to me — I have not analyzed it very care-
fully— ^but it seemed to me that this desire to spread industry through-
out the country has not been very successful. Most of the plants that
have been located in rural areas have been located there because of
strategic considerations rather than being deliberately placed in that
])articular area because that industrial pay roll would be extremely
helpful.
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes. Of course, there are many things that enter into
the location of any industrial plant. That is especially true with re-
spect to powder plants, airplane plants, and so on ; but it seems there
is a region here — oh, sort of a half moon — starting in the southern
Appalachians and going down into Tennessee and across the Missis-
sippi River — of course, I cannot speak for the Army on this, but it
seems to satisfy the needs of the industrial location of defense plants,
and at the same time in that area there is a large agricultural popula-
tion, where the agricultural resources are limited and the agricultural
income is low. And there are, I know, several plants of pretty good
size that have already been located in that general region.
RURAL EDUCATION
Mr. OsaiERS. Yes; I have noticed that some of them are going down
there. Would you care to express any opinion on the education of our
rural populations ?
Mr. ToiXEY. Well, in general, the educational facilities of rural
people are lower than the educational facilities of urban people. That
is true, on the average, throughout the country. And when we get to
the areas of heavy population, high birth rates, low income, wdiich are
the areas of potential migration of the future, we are likely to find
that the educational facilities are quite low as compared with the
average of the country, or compared with what any of us would say
they ought to be.
This is due primarily to the fact that the people cannot afford
schools of the kind that city people afford, and some of the States,
even where they have State aids — take a State like Mississippi, which
is primarily a rural State — the State has not been able to afford to
raise taxes enough to give them what we call standard school facilities.
There is another point there. When we think about what these
young people on farms in those areas are going to do when they grow
up, I think a lot of them
Mr. OsMERS. That is the point I want you to discuss.
Mr. ToLLEY. I think a lot of them want to go to town and get urban
employment and thus we are finding farm ])eople in the defense in-
dustry. They can get only jobs as unskilled labor. Well, if our coun-
try schools could have vocational education for industrial employment
in them, as well as vocational education for future farming in them,
I think it would be a very fine thing.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you say there should be some agricultural
education before a student reaches college — some instruction in the
general practice of agriculture for those children that are not going
to college when they finish with high school ? I am presuming in
their high-school curricula tliey will find no agricultural subjects.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3215
Mr, ToiXEY. It is true that only a small portion of the farm boys
and girls who grow up on the farm and become farmers or farmers'
wives later in life go to college. Most certainly I think there should be
vocational education in agriculture and agricultural homemaking,
both, in the high schools. By the same token, for those who are not
going to be able to find places on the farm and will have places in in-
dustry, there should be vocational education in industry for them,
in the high schools and rural schools, as well as vocational agricul-
ture for those who are going to stay.
Mr. Curtis. In connection with this educational feature of agri-
cultural people, the 4-H Clubs, the Future Farmers of America, and
all those things, are definitely stabilizing rural population, are they
not?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes ; I should say so.
Mr. Curtis. You spoke of your ancestors coming to the Great Plains.
I might say that in the Great Plains the drought has been so persistent
we have had seven crop failures. In many of the counties the only
nucleus of fine livestock left is that of the 4-H Club boys and girls.
They are keeping something there that, when a better day arrives and
Nature treats us a little more generously, they will have something
to start on. And it seems to me that secondary education in voca-
tional agriculture is making a tremendous contribution to this
problem.
Mr. ToLLEY. Oh, I agree with you, and I hope you did not under-
stand me to say anything derogatory to that. What I am trying to
say is that that, in itself, is not enough. You need, to go along with
that, vocational training in industry of those boys and girls who are
not going to be able to find places on the farm when they grow up.
I did not intend to say anything against vocational education in agri-
culture in the high schools and rural schools.
Mr. Curtis. I discussed with the instructor in agriculture in one
of my largest towns where agriculture is the basic industry, the ques-
tion as to why they have such a large enrollment in the high school
and such a comparatively few boys taking agriculture. His view was
that the mothers were opposing it; that the mothers of farm boys
were discouraging them taking training in agriculture.
Mr. ToLLEY. The mothers are hoping they will go some place else ?
Mr. Curtis. Yes. He said that they were urging them to take a
commercial course to compete, as stenographers, with all of the girls
of the country. I did not say that ; this instructor said it. Would you
have anything to venture on that proposition? Is there a tendency
in agricultural education definitely to move in the wrong direction by
misguidance at home?
Mr. ToLLEY. By "move in the wrong direction," you mean to direct
boys and girls away from the farm ?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. ToLLEY. Of course, I do not know that that would be in the
wrong direction, in the first place. There are many more children
and young people on the farms of the country today than I think are
going to be able to live by fanning, and to live well by farming, when
they grow up. So why should not our educational svstem be geared
3216 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to fit part of the boys and girls for opportunities of employment else-
where?
I was especially interested in your remark about these boys' mothers.
After all, I think it is the farm women of the country who have been
hit and hurt, the hardest by hard times, by the droughts on the plains,
and so on. They are not able to have the things for themselves, they
are not able to have the things for the children that they want their
children to have, and the farm women of the country will, I think,
mull the question over and say, "Why don't you find something else
to do, rather than farming, before you grow up?"
Mr. Curtis. Then, in that connection, I noticed what you had to
say about wages and hours of farm labor. Would you favor a floor
under wages and a ceiling over hours for the farmers themselves?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes. I have been doing all I could, in the Department
of Agriculture, for several years to get that.
Mr. Curtis. Briefly, will you tell this committee how that could be
done ?
Mr. ToLLEY. That is too much of a question for me, Mr. Congress-
man, to tell it briefly, or even to tell it at all.
Mr. Curtis. Could you, if we arranged for ample time?
Mr. ToLLEY. Of course the programs of the Department of Agri-
culture over the past 7 or 8 years have been an effort to do that very
thing. You know as well as I how successful they have been and how
nearly the goals set up in the various legislative acts have been reached.
Mr. Curtis. Coming back to the Great Plains situation ; the price
of eggs to the farmer has been as low as 5 cents per dozen within the
last 2 years. Of course, that is just one product. With the present
basis of rating the price for farm products, the farmers could not
support these various labor benefits which you believe in, and which
we would like them to have, could they ?
Mr. ToiiLEY. Not with the present level of farm income and farm
prices, and the legislative level of wages and hours for industry. I
tried to make that point earlier. But I say that that does not mean
that there should not be something adopted for agriculture in the Wiiy
of wages and hours, social security, and so forth.
PRESENT FARM POLICY
Mr. Curtis. Now, as Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
do you feel that our farm policy in this country should follow the plan
of determining the number of people that should farm, or that it
should be based on the theory that farms are homes, or should it be
based upon the definite commercial needs of so many bushels or so
many pounds of beef, and so on ?
Mr, ToLLEY. I do not know whether I can be brief on that question.
Mr. Curtis. You do not have to be.
Mr. ToLLEY. You see, I think that is all going to work itself out in
this country through what I call the democratic process, rather than
by legislation of Congress or administrative acts of the executive
branch of the Government. I think this large number of people we
have been talking about here today and that your committee is in-
terested in, who are trying to find places for themselves on farms in
the country, are going to continue to try to find places for themselves,
and many of them are going to succeed. And I think it is the duty
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3217
of the Federal Government to help them in every way it can wlien they
do find places for themselves. I think many of them are going to be
good subsistence and part-time farmers, livmg on a little piece of lantl,
and o-etting their cash from something outside of agriculture, rather
than^doing commercial farming as we think of it m the Great l^lams
and Corn Belt. We can do some figuring, yon know. You can add
up and subtract figures, and so on, and arrive at the conclusion that it
all of the farms of the country were of the same relative size as those
of the Cotton Belt, the country could support 25 percent more farmers.
You can turn that around and arrive at the conclusion that if all of the
farms were of the relative size of the Great Plains and Com Belt farms,
we would require 25 percent feAver farmers. But those are just figures,
vou see ; I do not think it is going to be that way. , , , . i
' Mr. Curtis. But, generally speaking, we cannot and should not lose
sight of the fact that, even though the farmer has no other supple-
mental income, farming is still homemaking; is that right?
Mr. ToLLEY. Homemaking is the way of life ; yes.
Mr. CuETis. Yes; and we should adhere to that, rather than con-
sciously, at least, to move away from it?
Mr. ToLLEY. Absolutely. And I think in our Government program
we should be thinking about the people and the income of the people
who are trying to get a living from agriculture, rather than comforting
ourselves by saying, "Well, there are a lot more people in agricuhure
than ought to be there, and, if they could just get away some place,
agriculture would be all right."
Mr. Curtis. Do you see any apparent conflict between the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Administration in restricting production and pos-
sibly restricting producers, and the Farm Security Administration that
moves forward on the theory of making homes, but which does enlarge
the output of crops?
Mr. ToLLEY. You said the "Agricultural Adjustment Administra-
tion in restricting production."
Mr. Curtis. I should have said the agricultural program.
Mr. ToLLEY. You see, I should modify that by saying the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Administration program is one of shifting land from
intensive use to more extensive use and building up agricultural con-
servation, rather than restricting production. Basically, there is no
conflict between the two at all, but we have to be careful lest conflicts
in administrative procedure appear to arise. But the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration — well, the small-farm subsistence farmer
has an opportunity to benefit by the program of the Agricultural Ad-
justment Administration. Now, we wish, and I personally may say
I wish, there was more opportunity for the small farmer to benefit
from the program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration
than there seems to be at the present time.
CORPORATE FARMING
Mr. Curtis. Do you think corporate farming is a wholesome thing?
Mr. ToLLEY. If I had to answer that in one word, I would say "No" ;
but I would like to make a little speech on it, if I might. One of the
big elements, as I see it, is that the agricultural policy of this Nation,
since its beginning, has been to help and foster the family home on
3218 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
operating farms, and I think, from the standpoint of welfare and the
development of the Nation, that is one of the very fine things about
the United States of America, and I hope farming in this country
will continue, primarily, on that kind of basis.
Now we have, on the upper end, corporation farming ; on the lower
end, we have an increasing trend toward tenant farming. And there
is much more of a tendency, I think, toward an increase in tenant
farming than there is an increase toward corporation farming.
Mr. Curtis. Well, do you think corporation farming, if left alone,
is going to increase or decrease ?
Mr. ToLLET. I do not think it is going to change much one way or
the other. Of course, my own thought is that this cooperative kind
of farming we were thinking about awhile ago is the best direction in
which to go where really large-scale operations are called for.
Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Curtis, if I might interrupt, could you define
"corporate farming"? Do you mean, for instance, a corporate-owned
farm, or a farm operated by stockholders, or what?
Mr. Curtis. I realize the term is general and rather loose, but I mean
by corporate farm a farm much larger than the family-size farm, and
which is owned by a corporation rather than by one person, or perhaps
a few persons.
Well, as a consequence, do you approve any legislative curbs upon
corporation farming; if so, who should place those curbs — the Federal
Government, or the States?
Mr. ToLLEY. In general, I would say, in that respect, corporation
farming is comparable to corporation manufacturing of industrial
corporations, and the same sort of thing is needed for farm corpora-
tions as is needed for industrial corporations.
Mr. Curtis. You w^ould favor some curb, perhaps?
Mr. ToLLEY. Regulation.
Mr. Curtis. You would not feel it would be sound economy to enact
legislation that would eliminate corporation farming ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I do not think it would. I cannot see any particular
good that would do, and I cannot see that corporation farming is- on
the increase to such an extent that anything like that is needed.
Mr. Curtis. Well now, in reference "to clearing land and flood control
in some of the regions such as the Mississippi Delta, and in reference
to the program of irrigation in the West, it is generally true, is it not,
that anything that increases the long-time productivity of land stabi-
lizes the population on that land ?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes, in general. Of course, there is always the question
of price and income to be considered.
Mr. Curtis. We had an illustration brought to us by Commissioner
John Page of the Bureau of Reclamation, in our Nebraska hearings,
where he pointed out that, in the general trend of population, in
Nebraska they had lost 5 percent in the last 10 years.
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. But that one of their counties that was a pioneer in
irrigation, going back, I believe, to 1906, during that same period
had gained 13 percent in population and they were taking care of the
people; they were buying more automobiles, typewriters, rugs, and
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3219
furniture and all those things that the rest of the world has to sell
to the farmer.
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. In reference to the defense industries being of some
assistance to the rural areas, do you know whether it is true, or not,
that these defense industries are located on the seaboard for the
reason that their products are for export?
Mr. ToLLEY. I have not heard that.
Mr. Curtis. Do you know of any new industries being established
away from the seaboard, in what might be termed as the geographical
heart of the United States?
Mr. ToLLEY. Well, I know and there has come to my attention, for
instance, a big powder plant at Radford, Virginia, which is a con-
siderable distance from the seaboard, and another one
Mr. Curtis. Well, I would not say immediately along the seaboard ;
but, for instance, in the upper Mississippi Valley — they are not being
placed up there, are they ?
Mr. ToLi^Y. Yes. l' know of one that is being established at
Charleston, Ind., which is just across the river from Louisville; an-
other one that is being established at Burlington, Iowa. And I
believe there is an announcement of a nitrate plant in western Ten-
nessee. I know they are being established out there. That is a mat-
ter of record from the Defense Commission — those that have been
announced so far^ — and I would be glad to furnish that to you, if you
care for it.
The Chairman. The thought occurred to me that this problem of
migration of destitute citizens is so big, as it unfolds, that to me it
looks like a forest and, as we start to look at the trees, we are liable
to forget the forest.
Now, this migration we are talking about has many causes. There
will be no single solution.
Mr. ToLLEY. No.
The Chairman. Some of the causes being worn-out soil, mechaniza-
tion, unemployment, and different things. But what I want to get
from you, if I can, is this: We started out in New York and we
showed it w^as not a California, problem alone. The record, as dis-
closed by Mayor LaGuardia, shows that they spent $3,000,000 last year
on nonsettlect persons in that one State, and they had 5,000 that were
deported from New York, who went into other States. Now, Mayor
LaGuardia thought it was a national problem, and nearly every other
witness has agi^eed. Do you think it is, too?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes.
The Chairman. In other words, Mr. Tolley, it has got so big — and
it probably will grow — that no individual State can take care of it.
That is right, is it not ?
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
The Chairman. Now. we found there are about 4,000.000 people
going from State to State. Speaking for myself, I am not a bit con-
cerned with the perennial hopeful, or with people who have a little
money and go for their health; but we are deeply concerned with
American citizens who have to leave their homes on account of circum-
3220 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
stances over which they had no controL We are interested in them,
are we not?
Mr. ToLLEY. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Now yon have lost a million people from
the Great Plains States in the last 10 years. They did not want to
leave their homes, did they ?
Mr. ToLLEY. No.
The Chairman. You have in the Great Plains States 5,000,000 acres
of formerlj^ productive soil, but 25 percent of the top soil is gone now.
What bothers me is simply this : When they start to move they are not
only citizens of their own States but, under the Constitution of the
United States, they are citizens of the other 47 States. That is true,
is it not ?
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
The Chairman. All right; what do they run into? When they
cross State borders they run into private employment agencies, who
give them misinformation and take their last dollar. They do not
know where to go. It is all more or less misinformation, and something
should be done about that ; is not that true ?
Mr. ToLLEY. I agree with you fully.
The Chairman. What else do they run into ? They run into settle-
ment laws of from 6 months up to 5 years. They lose their residence
in the States of their origin and are homeless as to any State, and the
census returns are being held up now because you have hundreds of
thousands of American citizens that they do not know how to allocate.
Now, there must be, of course, Mr. Tolley, a short-term approach to
it. The short-term approach will be to determine what we are going
to do with them when they start out. Are we just going to treat them
as nobodies, or are we going to treat them as people, and cannot we
give them information at the border, cannot we have uniform settle-
ment laws ?
Now, some of the witnesses before us have brought out reasons
why they could not stay home on the farms and also as to what the
Farm Security Administration had done. Dr. Alexander told me
the Farm Security Administration had taken care of 500,000 families
in the way of loans for seed, horses, mule or cow, and that 85 per-
cent of the money is being paid back, but a million or more are
yet uncared for.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is right.
The Chairman. You are in favor of the extension of more appro-
priations for farm security?
Mr. ToLLEY. Most certainly ; provided we do not assume that would
take care of the problem.
The Chairman. Do you not see, Mr. Tolley, that millions of Ameri-
can people are kicked around the country? That does not help the
morale of this country, and what does not help the morale of this
country does not help the defense of this country.
Mr. ToLLEY. That is true. A great many of them feel that they have
no stake whatever in our democracy.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr.
Tolley.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3221
TESTIMONY OF MRS. ROY LAPP, RHODESDALE, MD.
Mr. Spakkman. This is Mrs. Roy Lapp, of Rlioclesdale, Md. ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Is this your daughter with you ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What is her name ?
Mrs. Lapp. June.
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Lapp was to have come with you?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; but he could not be here today.
Mr. Sparkman. What happened to him?
Mrs. Lapp. He went to look for a job, and found a job, and he
started to work.
Mr. Sparkman. This morning?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; last Wednesday morning.
Mr. Sparkman. That is fine. Wliere were you born ^
Mrs. Lapp. At St. Michaels, Md.
Mr. Sparkman. How many children do you have?
Mrs. Lapp. Seven.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is the oldest?
Mrs. Lapp. Sixteen years old, and w^ill be 17 soon.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is the youngest child?
Mrs. Lapp. Seven years old last October.
Mr. Sparkman. Are the children of school age in school ?
Mrs. Lapp. All but one. The biggest boy is at work.
Mr. Sparkman. The 17-year-old?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Wliat is he doing?
Mrs. Lapp. He helps in loading slabs down at the mill.
Mr. Sparkman. At Rhodesdale?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir; he has to go 14 miles.
Mr. Sparkman. How far in school did the 17-year-old boy go ?
Mrs. Lapp. To the fifth grade.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you grow up in Maryland?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir; I was about 5 years old when we moved up in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sparkman. You grew up in Pennsylvania?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How much schooling did you have?
Mrs. Lapp. I came up to the eigjith grade.
Mr. Sparkman. What did you do as a girl ?
Mrs. Lapp. I worked on the farm.
Mr. Sparkman. On your father's farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did your husband grow up as a farm boy ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; but he learned the trade of electrician.
Mr. Sparkman. Did he learn that trade after he grew up, or in
school, or did he learn it as he was working on his father's farm?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir; he was working on his mother's farm, and
learned the trade that way.
Mr. Sparkman. He picked it up?
Q222 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; he worked for an electrical contractor.
Mr. Sparkman. Where were you married ?
Mrs. Lapp. At Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1923.
Mr. Sparkman. I believe you said your husband was a native
of Pennsylvania?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Wliat has your husband done since you were mar-
ried to him ?
Mrs. Lapp. We were farming and he was workmg.
Mr. Sparkman. Did he own a farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. Not in Pennsylvania. He only had half of the farm.
Mr. Sparkman. A half interest in the farm?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir. After the mother died, the two boys farmed,
and after the youngest one was 21 years old, the place was to be
Mr. Sparkman. Did he run the farm after his mother died ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir. My husband stayed on the farm. We were
married when he was on the farm, and when the youngest boy was
21 years old, the farm was sold.
Mr. Sparkman. And then where did you go ?
Mrs. Lapp. The young man bought the farm, and stayed on the
farm. He bought our share. Then we bought a farm down here.
Mr. Sparkman. How big a farm was it?
Mrs. Lapp. Three hundred and sixty-five acres of land, wood-
lands and all.
Mr. Sparkman. AVere you able to pay for it?
Mrs. Lapp. Half of it.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you still own it?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What did you do with it?
Mrs. Lapp. Every time a rain came along, it swamped the crops.
Mr. Sparkman. What kind of crops did you raise?
Mrs. Lapp. Tomatoes, cabbages, butter beans, corn, and things like
that.
Mr. Sparkman. You raised vegetables ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. For canning?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you operate your own cannery?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. You just raised the vegetables?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you have several successive failures?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir; all the time.
Mr. Sparkman. Because of excessive rains ?
Mrs. Lapp. Whenever the rains came, the fields Avere swamped —
that is all.
Mr. Sparkman. The fields were low ground ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; they were lowlands.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you have any stock on the ground ?
Mr. Lapp. Yes, sir : we brought 14 truckloads from Pennsylvania.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3223
Mr. Sparkman. That is, when you moved down here?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr Sparkman. You moved 14 truckloads of j-our personal belong-
ings down here with you ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What livestock did you have?
Mrs. Lapp. We had cows up there. We had eight cows, and they
were sold in Pennsylvania. Then we bought eight cows down here
in Maryland.
Mr. Sparkman. And you brought your horses along?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How many?
Mrs. Lapp. Two horses.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you still have livestock?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir, hogs, chickens, and so forth.
Mr. Sparkman. You lost the farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Due to crop failures over which you had no con-
trol?
Mrs. Lapp. That is true.
Mr. Sparkman. Due to excessive rains ?
Mrs. Lapp. Rains^ insects, and things like that.
Mr. Sparkman. Wet seasons?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What have you been doing since them ?
Mrs. Lapp. After we went off the big farm, we went on a small
farm, and that was ''no-good" land.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you buy it?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you rent it?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How long were you there?
Mrs. Lapp. Two years.
Mr. Sparkman. What did you do, or what is your work?
Mrs. Lapp. We still have some farm implements. We did general
farming on some small bits of ground, trying to make a living by
getting work.
Mr. Sparkman. You took that farm and tried to make a living?
Mrs. Lapp. We would work at anything we could find.
Mr. Sparkman. By the day ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How long did you do that ?
Mrs. Lapp. Over 2 years.
Mr. Sparkman. You are still doing that ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman, That is the place where j'ou are living now?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. What kind of work do you do ?
Mrs. Lapp. Husking corn, picking tomatoes, and so forth.
Mr. Sparkman. Do the children work?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir; all the children work.
260370— 41 — pt. S 10
3224
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Sparkman. What do you get for this work?
Mrs. Lapp. We get 2 cents a basket for picking tomatoes. It depends
on how many we can pick.
Mr. Spaekman. You are not doing that work now?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir; we are husking corn now, or were until last
week. The man we were husking for has finished.
Mr. Sparkman. What do you make from husking corn ?
Mrs. Lapp. I, the girl, and the other boy have been huskmg, and
we made about $1.65 or $1.66 per day.
Mr. Sparkman. That was what was earned by all three ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How long does it take to earn it?
Mrs. Lapp. We started around 8 o'clock in the morning and we were
husking until 4 : 30 or 5 o'clock.
Mr. Sparkman. What were your children domg; were they going
to school while you were doing this work?
Mrs. Lapp. They were in school. The others went to school. There
were two helping me.
Mr. Sparkman. You held two of them out?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir. We started with four of them, and two of
them were held out.
Mr. Sparkman. Wliat do you get for husking corn ?
Mrs. Lapp. We get 32 cents a barrel. Of course, if one pile does not
husk out a barrel, we may have to husk one or two more piles.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you go to lunch?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; we take our lunch along.
Mr. Sparkman. How long do you take for lunch ?
Mrs. Lapp. Sometimes not quite an hour— three-quarters of an
hour, or half an hour, depending on how hot or how cool it is.
Mr. Sparkman. What kind of work is your husband doing?
Mrs. Lapp. He was on the farm doing farm work and some electrical
work.
Mr. Sparkman. What kind of job did he get ?
Mrs. Lapp. He is with an electricians' gang.
Mr. Sparkman. Some kind of construction Avork ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. How old is your husband ?
Mrs. Lapp. Forty-two years old.
Mr. Sparkman. Is he a World War veteran ?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir. He was in a class away down. He was drafted,
but was in a class away down because he was working his mother's
farm at the time he was drawn.
Mr. Sparkman. You say he is an electrician by trade ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Has he made any effort to get a job in connection
with the defense program?
Mrs. Lapp. He tried at several places, but could not get any work.
Mr. Sparkman. I wonder if he has made any effort to qualify under
the civil service for one of the skilled jobs.
Mrs. Lapp. He put in an application with the Unemployment Serv-
ice at Cambridge.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3225
Mr. Sparkman. Wliat size house are you livin^? in ?
Mrs. Lapp. In a six-room house.
Mr. Spakkman. Is that inside of a city or on the farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. It is on a small farm.
Mr. Sparkman. You have runnin<r water ?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; we have to pump all our water.
Mr. Sparkman. Is your work pretty steady, or are you able to get
different jobs along pretty well?
Mrs. Lapp. I do not think it is just now, because everything is
about up now. The work is about up for winter, except for little jobs
here or there.
Mr. Sparkman. There is a let-up now ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. When will you be able to start in again ?
Mrs. Lapp. As soon as spring comes.
Mr. Sparkman. What will you do then ?
Mrs. Lapp. We will set out tomato plants and things like that.
Mr. Sparkman. That comes about April?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; April and May.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you have any idea what your income for the
year is, or the income for the family ?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; I have not.
Mr. Sparkman. Does the son who is working live with you ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. He is still a member of the family ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; he is there when he is not working.
Mr. Sparkman. Did your husband work on the farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. He could not work at all last summer.
Mr. Sparkman. He was out of work during the summer ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; he could not do a thing.
Mr. Sparkman. Did you do the work during the summer ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir ; I managed to keep everything going.
Mr. Sparkman. You were doing the farm work ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Did your husband make any effort to do some kind
of work ?
Mrs. Lapp, No, sir; he was in the hospital, and would not dare to
work.
Mr. Sparkman. He was sick at the time ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes ; he had an operation.
Mr. Sparkman. I asked you a moment ago if you had any idea
what the total income of your family is by the year.
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; I have not.
Mr. Sparkman. Neither you nor your husband have applied for
relief?
Mrs. Lapp. We did get relief when the smallest baby died.
Mr. Sparkman. When was that?
Mrs. Lapp. Last winter, a year ago.
Mr. Sparkman. How old was the baby ?
Mrs. Lapp. Seven months.
Mr. Sparkman. What was the matter with the baby ?
3226 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mrs. Lapp. Pneumonia.
Mr. Sparkman. You did receive some relief at that time, but that was
the only time ?
Mrs. Lapp. Yes, sir; they gave some relief at the hospital. They
gave same relief when we sent the children to school.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you been able to provide yourself and the
members of your family with the necessities, or with clothing and
food?
Mrs. Lapp, We get by if we have it, and if we do not have it, of
course, we have to do without it.
ISlr. Sparkman. Do you look forward to the time when you may
again be able to own your own farm ?
Mrs. Lapp. I do not know — not just now, anyhow.
The Chairman. You have no idea wdiat your family income is, or
how much you take in per month?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir; because we have to pay rent, and when we buy
groceries, it is all gone.
The Chairman. You are never able to save up anything ?
Mrs. Lapp. No, sir ; we cannot.
Mr. Sparkman. What does your husband make when he is on a job?
Mrs. Lapp, I cannot say. I do not know, because he told me he
did not know what he would get per hour.
Mr. Sparkman. Does he stay at home and do his work or go out?
Mrs, Lapp. He went to Bethlehem, Pa.
Mr, Curtis. Where were you doing the corn husking?
Mrs. Lapp. Down at Rhodesdale, when w^e were living on the farm.
Mr. Curtis. What did you get for a bushel ?
Mrs, Lapp. It is 10 baskets to the barrel, at 32 cents per barrel.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement,
TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. EDGAR AND ELMER WATSON
SALISBURY, MD.
Mr. OsMERS. Where were you born ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We were born in Accomac County, Va.
Mr. OsMEES. How old are you ?
Mr, Edgar Watson. Thirty -one.
Mr. OsMERS. And how old is Elmer ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Thirty-five.
Mr. Osmers. Were you born at the same place?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir,
Mr. Osmers. What did you and your father do for a living ?
Mr. ' ■ ' - - -
farming.
Mr. Osmers. What kind of farming did he do ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Growing potatoes, onions, cabbages, and that
kind of thing.
]Mr. Osmers. Garden truck ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. How many are in the family?
Mr. Elmer Watson. There are six in all.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3227
Mr. OsMERS. How many were there at the time when your father
died?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Father is not dead. Mother is dead. Our
father is living now.
Mr. OsMERS. I mean at the time your mother died : How many were
living at home then ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. There were three at the time.
Mr. OsMERS. You two brothers and your father?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. Has your father married again?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. How long did you continue on the farm in Virginia ?
Ml*. Elmer Watson. Six years after our mother died.
Mr. OsMERs. How long had you been on the farm ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. All my life.
Mr. OsMERS. Did the farm pay well?
Mr. Elmer Watson. No, sir; that is why we had to break up.
Mr. OsMERS. What do you think was the difficulty on that farm ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We put in so many hours for what we were
getting. We started in the morning around 6 o'clock and worked
until 8 o'clock at night.
Mr. OsiMERS. A^^iat were you raising on that farm ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We were working by the day at that time.
We went to work for Mr. West and were paid $1 per day.
Mr. Osmers. When did you move from there, anct were did you
move ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. To Parksley, Va. We went to Locustville from
there.
Mr. Osmers. What did you do there?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We went to farming for a man. He was
to keep us suj)iDlied until the crop vins in, but everything went down
to nothing, and he told us to get out.
Mr. Osmers. Did you get any relief in Virginia ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Os:mers. You did get relief in Virginia?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir; father did.
Mr. Osmers. In what form was that relief? Was it W. P. A.
work ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. When did you come to Maryland?
Mr. Elmer Watson. A year ago this March.
Mr. Osmers. Wliat brought you there?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We thought we could better ourselves. We
heard Mr. Townsend was working men and paying them 15 cents.
Mr. Osmers. How much an hour?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Fifteen cents per hour for farm work.
Mr. Osmers. Then you came to Maryland?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. Wliat were you promised when you came there?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We were promised year-around work.
Mr. Osmers. And how much pay?
3228 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Elmer Watson. Fifteen cents per hour.
Mr. OsMERS. Anything else with it?
Mr. Elmer Watson, No, sir,
]Mr. OsMERS. How does that compare with what you could make
in Virginia?
Mr. Elmer Watson. It was a little better.
Mr. OsMERS. Wliat were ,you making in Virginia?
Mr. Elmer Watson, We worked for 8 cents per hour,
Mr. Osmers. Did the Townsend Co. send for you ?
Mr. Elmer Watson, Yes, sir,
Mr, Osmers. How old is your father?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Seventy years old,
Mr, Osmers. Who else made the trip from Virginia to Maryland?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Seven of us.
Mr. Osmers. Did they provide you with the work that they said they
would ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. No, sir ; they did not give us any work. The
winter cut us off.
Mr. Osmers. Did you get any relief ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir,
Mr. Osmers. How much relief did you get?
Mr. Elmer Watson. We received $12.05, or $24.05 every 2 weeks.
Mr. Osmers. Then you received $48 per month ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. How long did the W, P, A, work last ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Four months.
Mr, Osmers. Then you went back to work on the farm ?
Mr. Elmer Watson, Yes, sir,
Mr. Osmers. Have you been employed since then ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir; since March.
Mr, Osmers, Are you still working ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir,
Mr. Osmers. Are you glad you moved from Virginia to Maryland ?
Mr. Elmer Watson. I do not see that we damaged ourselves by it.
Mr. Osmers. How about your school facilities?
Mr. Elmer Watson. The third grade was as far as I got.
Mr. Osmers. I was thinking of the facilities in Maryland as com-
pared with those in Virginia for children,
Mr, Elivier Watson. I believe they are better in Maryland.
Mr. Osmers. Did both of you go to the third grade?
Mr. Edgar Watson. No, sir; when I got big enough to go to school,
I had to go to work.
Mr. Osmers. Have either of you worked in any other business except
farming?
Mr. Elmer Watson. Yes, sir ; most every kind of work.
Mr. Edgar Watson, I have done pipe-fitting work.
Mr, Osmers. Did you try to get a job in any of the defense industries ?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Yes, sir ; I have been to Philadelphia, Chester,
Marcus Hook, and Wilmington, looking for work.
Mr, Osmers. Did you get any work?
Mr, Edgar Watson. No, sir.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3229
Mr. OsMERS. Why not?
Mr. Edgar Watson. I do not knoAv. They would not hire anybody
unless he was a first-class mechanic or electric welder.
Mr. OsMERS. They had to be skilled workers?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMER. Did you try at the shipyards ?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Yes, sir; at Salisbury. They said that they
would open up in a few days, and would take on some people.
Mr. OsMERS. You have an application in ?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. You boys are of draft age, are you not ?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. How do you feel about it?
Mr. Edgar Watson. Very nice.
Mr. Osmers. Did you draw lucky numbers?
Mr. Elmer Watson. No, sir ; I got one of the low ones.
Mr. Edgar Watson. I think it is a good thing.
Mr. Osmers. Have you given any consideration to enlisting in the
Army at all?
Mr. Edgar Watson. I have had it in mind.
Mr. Elmer Watson. One thing bothers me, and that is my father is
70 years old, and we have to take care of the family.
Mr. Osmers. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We thank you very much for your statements.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 p. m.)
afternoon session
The Chairman. The committee will please come to order.
Mr. Evans, we will hear you as the first witness this afternoon.
TESTIMONY OP RUDOLPH M. EVANS, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICUL-
TURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sparkman. Will you please state your name, your official posi-
tion, and address for the benefit of the record ?
Mr. Evans. My name is Rudolph M. Evans, Administrator, Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Sparkman. You have furnished us with copies of your pre-
pared statement, and that will be made a part of the record in its
entirety. However, I wonder if you might not summarize your state-
ment at this time for the benefit of the committee.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir ; I will be glad to do that.
STATEMENT OF R. M. EVANS, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
In my remarks this afternoon I am going to confine myself largely to a discus-
sion of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration farm program in relation
to the subject being studied by this committee. First of all, I am going to outline
3230
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
briefly what the Agricultural Adjustment Administration is doing to help remedy
those great economic maladjustments that are at the root of the problem of
migrancy, as well as the more general problems of unemployment and poverty.
There is no question but that the main single cause of migrancy is lack of
income. If a farmer is making enough money, he will not lose his farm and go
down the ladder to tenancy and sharecropping and migrancy. If a farm laborer
is making enough wages, he will not be forced on the road in search of stray jobs.
It is self-evident that the one thing people need, whether they live on the farm
or in the city, is enough income for security and a decent standard of living.
INCREASE IN FARM IXCOME
The triple A program during the last 8 years has made great strides in strength-
ening income and purchasing power on farms. Parity payments and conserva-
tion payments have put more cash in the farmer's pocket. Commodity loans have
bolstered farm prices and increased the farmer's return from his marketings. The
ever-normal granary has assured the farmer a steadier and more secure income
through fat and lean years. Acreage adjustments and marketing quotas, by
checking the tendency toward unmanageable surpluses, have brought farm prices
up from the ruinous levels of 1932.
Under the farm program, fai-m cash income has nearly doubled in the last S
vears. In 1932 it was $4,682,000,000. In 19?.9 it was $8,540,000,000. Indications
are that farm income will be close to .$!),(!( in,(i< KM lOO this year. Measured in terms
of buying power— that is, taking into consideration prices paid by farmers as well
as farm income— the farmer was able to buy in 1939 as much of the things he
needed as in the so-called boom year of 1929. Last year he was able to buy 72
percent more than he was in 1932. The farmer's position, in relation to the
national economy, has been improved tremendously. Farm income has been
raised from about one-third of parity up to more than three-fourths of parity with
nonfarm income.
Let me emphasize that the triple A is not relaxing its efforts to improve the
income and buying power of farmers as long as agriculture is still at a disadvan-
tage in comparison with the rest of the population. The more help the farmer
gets through the Agricultural Adjustment Administration the less likelihood is
there that the farmer will be driveu into the numbers of those families who are
on the road in search of lost opportunities. Increasing income for all of agricul-
ture, from top to bottom, has kept a great many farmers from going down the
ladder from independent ownership to tenancy or sharecropping and finally to
migrancy.
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
One of the great causes of low income on farms, and consequently one of the
major causes of farm migrancy, is the exhaustion of the soil in America. In the
cause of time 100,000,000 acres of precious topsoil have been ruined or nearly
ruined for cultivation. Another 100,000,000 acres have been seriously damaged.
And on another 100,000,000 acres erosion has already begun in a noticeable degree.
The most dramatic evidence of the exhaustion of land is found in the floods and
droughts and dust storms that we have had in recent years. Studies have shown
that a large proportion of migrants come from these devastated areas.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration is doing its part to check these
ravages of nature. About 6,000,000 of the Nation's 7,000,000 farmers are cooperat-
ing with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to carry out the agricultural
conservation program on more than four-fifths of the Nation's cropland. We
have made great headway by taking acreage out of soil-depleting crops and plant-
ing it to soil-building and soil-conserving crops. We are giving more and more
help to farmers in carrying out conservation practices that build up the fertility
of the soil. This effort is a long, uphill task that is far from finished. In fact,
indications are that even now soil fertility is being depleted faster than we are
able to restore it. If we are going to keep farmers on the land, and if we are
going to put the land into proper condition so that farmers can make a living on
it, the agricultural conservation program will have to go forward at an increased
pace.
Perhaps the best guaranty against agricultural migrancy is the encouragement
of family-sized farms with good soil and sufficient income. The Agricultural
Adjustment Administration is taking four important steps to encourage the
maintenance of such family sized farms :
1. A proportionately larger amount of Agricultural Adjustment Administration
payments goes to small and middle-sized farmers. In 1938, the last year for which
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3231
a complete bieak-dowu is available, nearly four-fifths of the agricultural conserva-
tion payments were $100 or less, and almost nine-tenths of them were $150 or less.
'> Certain conservation practices are especially designed to help farm families
<upplv a larger portion of food from their own farms. The planting of orchard
trees enables more farmers to raise their own fruit. Pasture and grazing practices
encourage farmers to produce enough dairy products to fill out deficiencies in their
diets In areas where garden plots need to be encouraged, a .special Agricultural
Adjustment Administration payment has been made available for the cultivation
of garden plots so that farmers can raise more vegetables on their own land.
3 Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 a schedule was set up to in-
crease Agricultural Adjustment Administration payments of less than $200.
This schedule is as follows :
Payment earned : Amouiit of increase
^ .$20 or less 40 percent.
.$21 to $40 $8 plus 20 percent of amount over $2U.
$41 to $60 — - $12 plus 10 percent of amount over $40.
.$61 to $185 $14. ^ ^^^^
$186 to $200 Enough to increase payment to $200.
4 Under the agricultural conservation program any farmer is able to earn at
least $20 by complying with special acreage allotments and by carrying out certain
soil-building practices. If a farmer would ordinarily earn less than $20 by plant-
ing within his allotments, he has been enabled to carry out soil-building practices
so that he can earn a total payment of at least $20.
In telling you what the Agricultural Adjustment Administration is doing to help
the small and the family sized farm, I am not saying that we have been able to do
everything that needs to be done along this line. If Congress provides suflicient
funds and gives us the necessary authorization, we are more than willing to go a
great deal farther in this direction. » ^ , • ,
I want to call to you attention some special provisions in the Sugar Act which
tend to prevent farm migrancy. In order to be eligible for sugar payments, each
farmer is required to pay fair minimum wages to the workers he employs. More-
over, the use of child labor is prohibited. Through these standards of eligibility
for sugar payments, there has been an improvement in some of the conditions that
have in the past forced farm labor on to the road.
So far I have been telling you some of the things the triple A has done and is
doing to strike at the root of farm migrancy. Now, I want to consider for a moment
some of the main criticisms that have been levelled against the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration in connection with the migrancy problem.
Some of this criticism has been sincere, and, to the extent that the triple A
has been imperfect, we are ready to take steps to make any improvements that
may seem necessary. However, certain criticisms of the triple A seem to be a
deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real economic causes of migrancy.
There are critics— too many of them— who are attempting to use triple A as a
scapegoat so that folks will not think so much about the underlying causes of
migrancy and the type of measures that may be necessary to combat those causes.
That kiiid of criticism is not only insincere ; it is dangerous for the welfare of the
Nation itself, particularly in a time of international crisis such as today. Wo
cannot afford to blind ourselves to deep-seated economic maladjustments that
must be straightened out before the Nation is strong enough to defend itself against
all comers.
Bv and large, migrancy, unemployment, poverty, and inadequate income arise
f rorn the economic circumstances that have characterized this century, particularly
since the end of the first World War. In our lifetime, we have seen the closing
of the western frontier which formerly created unlimited opportunity for millions
of Americans. We have seen the exhaustion of our topsoil, which at one time pro-
duced riches for nearly everybody who lived on the land. We have witnessed the
loss of a great share of our foreign trade because of nationalism, world-trade
barriers, and, finally, war in Europe and Asia. We have discovered that business
and industry and agriculture have lost customers at home because immigration
has almost ceased and because our iwpulation has slowed down in its rate of
growth. All these economic trends spell out the characteristic feature of our age,
an age in which economic expansion simply will not take place automatically as
it did in years gone by. We have been forced to make adjastments to a new age,
an age in which people, through their government, have had to rely on deliberate
3232
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
and positive planning to open up opportunities in America for the unemployed, for
young folks just starting out in the world, and for millions of families whose income
has been too small for an adequate standard of living. k , c-^r.w
We will not get anvwhere if we dismiss the problem of migrancy by simply
saving that it comes from mechanization of agriculture and industry, or from
seasonal employment in agriculture and industry, or from similar causes that we
could not stop if we wanted to. We have a bigger task on hand than merely trac-
ing out the immediate causes of such great problems as migrancy. Our task is
to work out practical measures that will help the Nation make a transition from
an era of external expansion to an era of internal growth. We can no longer
get rich by moving westward, by capturing world markets, or by exploiting the
resources of our own land in this coimtry.
The greatest fields for pioneering today are in taking care of the aged, m giving
youth a start in life, in finding productive work for the unemployed, in taking
care of our land, in strengthening the buying power of low-income families, and
in raising the standard of living of people generally. .
When we come to the point of suggesting remedies for the evils of migrancy,
we will have to propose measures big enough to wipe out unemployment and
poverty, big enough to create a secure and abundant life for all American citizens
living on farms or in towns and cities. Later on I am going to make a few recom-
mendations about the role of triple A in raising living standards on the farm.
AAA PAYMENTS TO FAKMEKS
For the moment I want to discuss a line of argument that has been made in
the hearings before this committee and elsewhere. It has been said that Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration payments have made big landlords so pros-
perous that they buy up more acreage and more tractors, thus driving owners,
tenants, and workers off the farm.
It should hardly be necessary to point out that the trend toward mechanized,
large-scale farming, especially in certain areas and for certain crops where
it has proved more eflBcient, has been going on for a long time — long before
triple A. If the farm program were to be eliminated, this trend would
undoubtedly continue just the same. Nothing is to be gained by complaining
about machines or attempting to stop their use. Our assignment is rather
to use machines for the creation of more income and more wealth for all
of the people. Similarly, the trend toward large-scale farming operations
would unquestionably continue if we had no farm program. The main dif-
ference would be that big landowners would acquire more farms by fore-
closure and bankruptcy rather than by purchase. If the farm program were
to be abandoned or weakened we could expect a tremendous increase in absentee
ownership by corporations, because more and more small-farm owners would
go broke. Banks, insurance companies ,and other big landowners would take
over their farms by the process of'mortgage foreclosure.
The fact is that most farmers lose their farms because they are loaded
with the burden of debt which they cannot pay off because their income is
too small. During the last 8 years the farm program has gone a long way
toward reducing the farm-debt burden and increasing the farmer's income.
The result has been less farm debt, lower interest rates, and fewer farm
foreclosures. Since 1932 farm mortgage debt has been reduced by about
two and one-fourth billion dollars. In the year ending March 15, 1933, there
were more than 51 foreclosures and other forced sales of farms for every
1,000 farms in the country. In 1939 less than 17 out of every 1,000 farmers
lost their farms by these causes. I do not maintain that the farm program
can claim all of the credit for this reduction in farm debt and for the decline
of almost 70 percent in foreclosures and other forced sales, but I am sure that
the doubling of farm income in the past 8 years has prevented hundreds of
thousands of farm families from being driven off their farms.
It has been said that triple A payments are not divided up properly between
big and little farmers— that large operators get too much and that small
farmers get too little. I have already pointed out that nine-tenths of the
payments are in small denominations. I have mentioned that the rates of
payment have been revised so that small payments are increased. In addition,
there is a maximum limitation of $10,000 on the conservation payment that
can be made to any one farmer. I might point out also that all payments
are made uniformly according to formulas specified by Congress. Parity
payments, for instance, depend mainly on the average price of the basic
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3233
commodity in relation to its parity price. Conservation payments are based
upon a set of rates established for specified practices. In other words, the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration has no authority to make an arbitrary
decision to decrease the payment for one farmer and increase the payment for
another.
It would be possible, of course, to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act
so as to place a further limitation on large payments and also to step up
the rates of increase for small payments. If Congress contemplates such
amendments, it would be necessary to consider the effect of these changes
upon compliance with the program. This year about 82 percent of the Nation's
crop land was included in the agricultural conservation program. A high degree
of participation is essential if the Nation is to benefit from acreage adjust-
ment and conservation efforts on a large scale. We would be defeating our
own purposes if we changed the basis of Agricultural Adjustment Adminis-
tration payments so drastically that there would no longer be sufficient induce-
ment for large operators to cooperate in the program. If agriculture is to
achieve the goals of its acreage-adjustment and conservation efforts, we must
be sure that we have the greatest part of the Nation's crop land covered by
the program.
CROP CONTROL
One of the most frequent criticisms of the triple A is that acreage adjust-
ment has deprived people of a chance to earn a living on the farm. When people
voice their objections to crop control, presumably they are advocating un-
limited production on unlimited acreage. I have often wondered if such people
are really willing to face the consequences of that kind of policy. I can tell
you from experience just about what would happen if every farmer produced
the maximum amount of crops from all the acreage he could cultivate. First
of all, it would mean reckless devastation of the soil followed by flood and
drought and dust storms and, incidentally, by an increase in migrancy from
the farm. It would mean farm prices at least a low as those we had in
1932 — and perhaps lower because of the loss of our foreign markets for farm
products in recent years. It would mean that our basic crops would be so
cheap that it wouldn't pay the farmer to raise them. In short, it would
bankrupt all agriculture.
The experience of other countries that produce agricultural surpluses shows
what can happen when there is no acreage adjustment program. The Argentine
Minister of Agriculture, for example, has authorized the use of corn as fuel
for railroads and other utilities. Surpluses have driven the price of corn
down so low that it is cheaper to burn than coal, wood, or other fuels. In Can-
ada, the wheat supply this year was twice as great as available storage facilities,
and at harvest time nothing could be done with millions of bushels of excess
wheat except to pile it up on the ground. On penalty of fine and imprison-
ment, Canadian farmers are not allowed to market more than a quota of
8 to 15 bushels of wheat per acre. It is no wonder that Canadian officials are
turning their attention to our wheat program. If we had been without triple A
in this period of crippled foreign markets, our export crops would be in about
the same circumstances today as Argentine corn and Canadian wheat.
Perhaps the most thought-provoking criticism of the triple-A program in
connection with migrancy is the statement that landlords sometimes attempt
to increase the size of their payments- by getting rid of some of their tenants
or sharecroppers. Fi-ankly, I do not maintain that this has never happened in
any case, but I want to call your attention to the fact that the triple A has
a very specific provision against this sort of practice. The Agricultural Adjust-
ment Act provides that no landlord shall increase his payment by cutting down
the number of tenants or by discriminating against them. The landlord is not
allowed to reduce the number of tenants below the average of the preceding
3 years, and he is not allowed to make any change in his relationship with
tenants or sharecroppers in such a way that his payments would be increased
thereby. The only way in which the landlord is able to make any such
changes is by obtaining the approval of the local triple A committee, and the
committee will not approve any such change unless it has determined, after an
investigation, that the step is both necessary and justifiable. Early this year
Congress enacted an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act which
places the burden of proof in such cases squarely upon the landlord himself.
As I have said, I do not guarantee that this preventive measure has been
3234 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
100-percent successful in each and every case, but I am emphasizing tliat tlie
determination of any case is in the hands of the local committee which is
elected by the farmers of the community each year. Every farmer who partic-
ipates in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program has the right
to vote for the committeemen who operate the farm program in his locality
If the farmers are not satisfied with their committeemen, they are free to elect
new ones. If the farmers are not satisfied with either Agricultural Adjustment
Administration legislation or Agricultural Adjustment Administration admin-
istration, it is their responsibility to see that appropriate changes are made.
All in all, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration farm program has done
a great deal to prevent migrancy by aiding agriculture in many ways. It
has almost doubled farm income. It has helped to reduce farm debt and
farm foreclosures. It has stored up fertility in the soil so that farmers are
better able to make a living on their land. (Because the triple A has been
built up and operated along strictly democratic lines, it has proved flexible
enough to make any changes that conditions demanded. The farm program
has improved steadily during the past 8 years and it is in process of improve-
ment today. In particular, we are now extending our efforts to bring more help
to the family-size farm and the low-income farm family.
RKCOM M EXDATIO XS
So far as the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program is concerned,
I have two major recommendations to make that I believe will help stem the
tide of migrancy from the farm.
1. The first is obviously to strengthen and extend existing triple A meas-
ures all along the line. We need to go forward toward our goals — fair prices,
adequate income, stable production, and supplies, improved soil, and higher
living standards on the farm.
2. In addition, we must bring more and more farmers within reach of these
triple A goals by raising participation closer to the 100 percent level.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration will do everything it possibly
can, directly and indirectly, to remedy the conditions that lead to migrancy.
Triple A conservation and acreage adjustment will continue to build up the
resources of the land, reduce the farmer's costs, and increase the efficiency
of production. All phases of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration pro-
gram will continue to strengthen farm prices and give the farmer a larger
income. The function of triple A is to improve the Nation's agriculture gen-
erally, so that more and more farmers can make a better and better living on the
land.
Wo have no illusions, however, that all of the problems of agriculture have
been solved or that they can be completely solved under present conditions.
There are several million farm families who simply find it impossible to make
a decent living by tilling the soil. Many of them do not have enough acreage.
Many of them are located on poor soil and are in debt up to their ears. Too
many of them have become poverty-stricken tenants or sharecroppers or mi-
grants in search of employment that isn't there. The Farm Security Adminis-
tration has put hundreds of thousands of these low-income families back on
their feet, and the triple A has improved their circumstances by putting agri-
culture on a better paying basis. However, even if farm income and prices
were raised all the way up to parity, even if all of our cropland were put in
the best possible condition, there would still be several million of these rural
families who could not liope to make a living by farming operations alone.
More employment is needed — more jobs for rural as well as urban people.
Plans for the defense program call for the location of plants in rural areas.
It is my hope that employment in these decentralized industries will alleviate
some of the problems of agricultural unemployment. It is also my hope that
more public works projects will be carried on in rural areas to provide jobs
for those who cannot make a living on the farm.
I am thinking of a family of five— and there are so many of them — living
on a small farm which never produced enough to cover operating expenses, food
and clothing, home and buildings, medical care, education for the children, and
everything else that is involved in an American standard of living. Suppose
one of the farmer's boys got a job in a nearby factory which had just begun
to produce defense materials. Or suppose the boy began work on a public con-
servation project, for example. The extra income which that boy could bring
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3235
iuto the family might be just about the difference between getting along and
not getting along satisfactorily.
There are several million farm families like that. The only real hope they have
for living a full life is outside of agriculture. In behalf of such stranded rural
families — barely living on half rations extracted from a small parcel of poor
land — I hope the committee will recommend broad measures for econo^nic re-
habilitation that measure up to the size of the problem.
TESTIMONY OF RUDOLPH M. EVANS— Resumed
Mr. Evans. First, I ^Yant to say that we feel gratified at having
an opportunity to appear before yoitr committee and testify upon
this rather important subject, because very frequently the triple A
has been brought into the testimony before your committee, and
many times I think some of the criticism that has been leveled at the
act has been because of lack of full and complete information as to
just what the act is.
We realize quite fully that one of the main causes of migrancy, of
course, is the low income ; another one is the depletion of the soil.
One of the main objectives of the Agricultural Adjustment Act is
to conserve the soil by planting greater acreage with soil-conserving
crops, and less acreage with soil-depleting crops, thereby making
for better efficiency, with a greater opportunity for the farmer to
succeed.
The other part of the triple A is to increase prices of agricultural
commodities, which has been done to a remarkable degree, consider-
ing the handicaps under which they have had to operate. The agri-
cultural income in 1940 will be close to twice what that income was
in 1933, when this act came into being. And, insofar as the increase
of income is concerned, that has been a help to the people who are
having difficulty in staying on the farms.
Increasing the fertility of the soil is going on everywhere through-
out the United States. Koughly speaking, our program now covers
about 82 percent of the cropland of the United States and is partici-
pated in bj over 6,000,000 farmers. So our progress along that line
has been very good and very gratifying.
DIVISION AND AMOUNT OF AAA PAYMENTS
Some questions liave been raised about the division of payments,
and we had that checked up before I came up here. We find that in
1938, the last year for which a complete break-down is available,
nearly four-fifths of the agricultural conservation payments amounted
to $100 or less, and almost nine-tenths of them amounted to $150 or
less.
When Congress passed the new act in 1938 they had made a spe-
cial provision for small farmers by increasing their payments, accord-
ing to the act, with which you are all familiar.
I think we should recognize the fact that we cannot continue to
produce all of some of these major basic crops we have been produc-
ing in the past, because our program has curtailed the production of
some of these crops. But, with the assistance of the loan program
they have been able to get prices more nearly up to what they should
have, although they are not yet at parity, which is the goal of the
act. But we are trying to get there as fast as we can, and are mak-
ing real progress.
3236
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
I have just come back from a trip to Canada, where I was mvited
to talk to the Canadian wheat farmers, who do not have a program
comparable to ours. Their situation is almost pathetic. They have
produced so much wheat that they do not have storage space for it,
and the Government has enacted a law to the effect that a farmer can
only market from 8 to 15 bushels per acre, regardless of what he may
have produced, and he cannot sell the rest, even if he may have found
a buyer. In that way they are trying to hold the farmers down and
to build up their program for the future. They feel that our pro-
gram has done a great deal, and they are giving a great deal of atten-
tion to it.
In the Argentine, where they likewise do not have a program cover-
ing their major crop, corn, the Government has finally decreed that
the corn could be used for fuel, in substitution for coal or wood, as
we were using corn in the Corn Belt in 1932.
Those two illustrations, I think, relatively close at hand, indicate
M^hat is happening in major agricultural areas when they do not have
a good farm program.
We would like to make a couple of major recommendations for the
consideration of the committee.
The first is obviously to strengthen and extend existing triple-A
measures all along the line. We need to go forward toward our
goals, fair prices, adequate income, stable production and supplies,
improved soil, and higher living standards upon the farm.
I am sure the committee will be interested to know that the more
farmers operate under this program the more they believe we can
have tighter control of production than even under the present pro-
gram. In other words, as long as they have their own committees to
administer the program they are not afraid of tighter controls than
they have been having in the past.
In addition, we must bring more and more farmers within reach
of these triple-A goals by raising participation closer to the 100-
percent level.
I said 82 percent now participate in the program, and we would
like to include a much greater percentage than that.
* * * * * * * 1
I should have said something earlier in my statement that I forgot
to say, and that is that the triple-A program has nothing to do with
the increased mechanization of agriculture.
I think, as the committee has traveled over the United States, they
have observed the increased use of Diesel-powered tractors in the
Wheat Belt. I think probably without the triple A, with a lower
farm income and more foreclosures, with the land going into the
hands of larger operators, that you increase that much more rapidly
for some of them, and those farmers probably can get along pretty
well.
Mr. Sparkman. I was impressed with one statement in your treat-
ment of this subject, in which you said, "We will not get anywhere
if we dismiss the problem of migrancy by simply saying that it comes
1 Testimony here was identical with latter part of prepared statement, pp. 3229-3235.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3237
from mechanization of agriculture and industry, or from seasonal
employment in agriculture and industry, or from similar causes that
we could not stop if we wanted to. We have a bigger task on hand
than merely tracing out the immediate causes of such great problems
as migrancy. Our task is to work out practical measures that will
help the Nation make a transition from an era of external expansion
to an era of internal growth." I rather think that you have touched
on something there that probably some of the other witnesses have
overlooked. As I understand your A. A. A. program, that is the very
thing you are trying to do.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Not to cite the changes you recognize as more or
less natural.
Mr. Evans. That is right.
Hr. Sparkman. But simply to help make the adjustments neces-
sary.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. I noted also your treatment of the criticism that a
great part of the payments go to large landowners. I believe you said
that four-fifths of the payments are $100 or less?
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. And that nine-tenths of the payments are under
$150?
Mr. Evans. Those are the conservation payments out of the $500,-
000,000 appropriation. That does not hold true of the parity appro-
priation.
Mr. Sparkman. That does not hold true in the case of parity ?
Mr. Evans. That is correct.
Mr. Sparkman. There is a limitation on parity payments, is there
not?
Mr. Evans. I do not think so.
Mr. SpARiiMAN. No limitation of the amounts? At any rate, the
formula under which you work is laid down by Congress, and you do
make payments in accordance with that formula?
Mr. Evans. Absolutely. In triple A there is nothing we can do
about it. That is set out very clearly in tlie legislation.
Mr. Sparkman. Is there any possibility that the commodity-loan
program may gain greater emphasis next year in the way of increasing
the farmer's income?
Mr. Evans. I think some farm leaders I have talked with have that
in mind as one of the tools of the act which can be used to get increased
income. Tliere is less disposition on the part of farmers to worry
about the so-called regimentation of agriculture, so long as they elect
members on their various committees, which I think is a very wise
provision. They have such control that it does not bother them. We
liear very little of it any more. We used to hear a great deal of it 4
or 5 years ago, but we do not hear it now.
FARM INCOME
Mr. Sparkman. You made reference to farm income in 1940, and
said, as I recall, that it is about twice as much as in 1932. What are
the figures?
OOQg INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr Evans. I got it for 1932 and 1939 and 1940, and I think that
must be the case, because the figures showed over $9,000,000,000, which
would be about twice as much as in 1932.
Mr. Sparkman. In round numbers it would be $9,000,000,000?
Mr. Evans. That is right ; close to twice what it was in 1932.
TENANCY
Mr. Sparkman. We have heard some criticism of the A. A. A.
program and its effect upon this problem, running tenants off of farms,
and encouraging, in some instances, commercial farms and indus-
trialized farms. Do you have any statistics showing what effect it
has had upon the tenancy problem, or upon the number of individual
farms operated ? In other words, how many people have you run off
of farms ?
Mr. Evans. We made a study of that at one time in regard to
cotton farmers. The act is very specific and withdra^ys the benefits
from anyone who attempts to improve his own position by taking
something away from tenants; through overcropping, especially where
they have sharecroppers. We find that we are making about as many
checks for people in those areas today as we were under the old
Bankhead Act. Of course, a man could stay out of the program for
3 years, and he could reduce his tenancy, and that would give him
the number of tenants that would be satisfactory in the future for
compliance with the act.
But I want to say for the people who are in the program in the
cotton areas that I think they have been very conscientious, on the
whole, although I think, without doubt, there are some cases where
people are not cooperating. But by and large, the great majority
of the people have lived up to the letter and spirit of that part of the
act, and I think they are entitled to a lot of credit, because sometimes
it has been a little bit hard.
Mr. Sparkman. Do you know what the census has shown as to the
number of farms?
Mr. Evans. No ; I have not seen those figures. The definition of a
farm is something that you have to keep clearly in mind in judging
the census figures. I do not know about this census, how it is made
up, but some of the older censuses took in people in the small towns
who were not farmers, according to any definition in regard to the
triple A.
Mr. Sparkman. I know that is true, but in counties that are pri-
marily agricultural, I should think whether there would be increases
or decreases would be a very fair indication. Of course, I realize that
is not true in all cases. I remember, for instance, that so far as the
District of Columbia is concerned, I found out that there were a
great many farms in the District of Columbia.
Mr, Evans. We have this further practice, that if anybody sends
us a letter and says that a man that has cut off one tenant or several
tenants, we have a man in that locality investigate that case, and
we may hold up that man's payments.
Mr. Sparkman, As a matter of fact, your program really rests
upon the committeemen in each locality.
Mr. Evans. Very much so, and Congress very wisely dealt with
this matter, with very wide administrative powers for these com-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3239
mittees, and I think they have dealt with this matter in a very fine
way, as to whether the farmer has unjustly treated some of his ten-
ants. I think they are really a pretty high type of people.
Mr. Sparkman. Those committeemen are elected, are they not?
Mr. Evans. Yes, by the farmers in the county who are participat-
ing in the program.
Mr. Sparkman. You have committeemen in each locality, and then
you have county-wide committeemen.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. Who are in turn elected by the local committees?
Mr. Evans. That is right, one member of the local committee in
the township or parish, and those people get together and elect county
committeemen.
Mr. Sparkman. Then, in turn, there is a State committee elected.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. So practically the whole control is vested in the
people who have put themselves in this program.
Mr. Evans. The State committee is appointed by the Secretary, but
to get the State committee you pick out the outstanding members of
the county committees.
Mr. Sparkman. I think you said about 82 percent of the cropland
is now covered ?
Mr. Evans. Yes ; more than that.
Mr. Sparkman. I wonder what perce^itage of farms is included.
Mr. Evans. I think that in that connection one's definition of a farm
must come into the picture. I think the 82 percent is cropland. There
are something around 7,000,000 farms, as I understand it, but the
cropland is the land that is farmed.
Mr. Sparkman. I think we hear more criticism about the big farm-
ers getting an unjust share of the money than any other one thing. As
a matter, do you not go in primarily to encourage the small farmer,
to encourage every farmer to comply with the program ?
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir ; if you do not get the participation of the farm-
ers, you do not keep production in line with the demand, and you
would thus keep prices low.
In line with several suggestions by congressional connnittees, we
have advised a minimum payment of $20, which any farmer can earn.
We have felt that was a material help to some people who farm an
unusually small acreage.
I know that in Texas they have made quite an effort to get home
gardens, and we make small payments in those cases, and the women
there have found that an advantage, and have come into the program,
and they have had a large number of home-farm gardens established.
Probably that can be carried out further. But if you are going to
increase prices, you have to get control.
Mr. Sparkman. You keep in mind all the time in your program two
objectives, to build up the soil and increase the income of the farmer?
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. I have been very much interested in the program
you have announced in my State, called the Alabama plan. I wonder
if you can tell us something about that.
260370— 41— pt. 8-
3240 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
ALABAMA PLAN
Mr. Evans. The Alabama plan, while still experimental, seems to
me a very constructive forward step. We were engaged in such a
program in the triple A when we had the old commodity programs,
which were put out by a Supreme Court decision. We just got started
on the other one in 1939, and it looks to be a continuing program. Some
of the people in Alabama have thought it would be a fine idea to go
out to a farm and lay that farm out the way it ought to be farmed to
get the best returns out of the soil, and still follow good, sound farming
practice. Enough is known about the use of land now so that they can
pretty well do that.
Well, it may require some shifts and changes in farming operations,
changing this field here, and putting it on a more level place here, and
so forth, and they set that up on the basis of a 5-year plan. They
make it a condition of the triple A payment that the farmer make
about a fifth of that progress each year, and they have a score sheet
worked out by which they check to see whether he has made that
amount of progress.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, if he has followed the program on
the 5-year plan, he inust have completed the whole thing?
Mr. Evans. He will; and as far as the technicians can say today,
he will then be farming his farm the way he ought to farm it in order
to get the most conservation into his farming operations. And he
will retire lands which are, for example, on too great a slope for
cotton and wheat, and put them into timber, and so forth.
One of the big things that seem to me contribute to the hardships of
some farm families is that they do not have enough acreage of good
land to make a living unless some means is worked out to give them
supplemental employment in factories during their off season. I mean
that is something that we might just as well face, because if you
attempted to give each one the number of acres he ought to have, you
would have to remove some of those people from the land, because
there is not enough good farming land.
Mr. Sparkman. We have heard some complaint from witnesses who
have testified before us about the failure of landlords to divide up the>
benefit payments with the tenants as required under the program. Do
many of those complaints come to you ?
Mr. Evans. We get a number of complaints of that kind, and we
always make it a policy to investigate each and every one of them.
If there is any truth in the statements, we hold up the payments to the
landlord until it is satisfactorily adjusted. I mean that is our obliga-
tion, and we meet it the best we can. I will say that, while I do not
have any figure in mind, the total number of cases of that kind, from
a percentage standpoint, is hardly anything at all.
Mr. Sparkman. I believe you said a while ago that as a whole you
had found them sincerely trying to carry out the spirit of the program.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. The act provides that the payments shall be
divided in accordance with the way the major crops are divided. It
is a matter of record, and it is a custom in the communities, that the
members of the local committee are local farmers, and tliey pretty
well know, and I think they discharge their responsibility very well,
indeed.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3241
Mr Sparkman. Has there been any tendency toward changing the
method of contracting between the hmdlord and the tenant because
of these payments ? • -4;
Mr Evans. Sometimes I think there has been ; but, once agam it
they have changed the lease or the arrangement in such a way that
they would benefit, we will hold up their payments. But, of course,
the men can stay outside the program and we would not have any
control over them. , 1 . 1 1 • ^ •
Mr Sparkman. As I understand, the only thing you look into is
whether or not the contract made is a fair contract. If it appeared to
you to be unconscionable, then you could hold up the payments?
Mr. Evans. Oh, we would hold them up.
Mr. Sparkman. And, as a matter of fact, again, the local committee
is the one to pass upon that ? ^ . a
Mr. Evans. The local committee is the one to pass upon tliat, and
1 thiiik rightly so, because they are familiar with the affairs in that
community. . ,
Mr. Sparkman. They usually control themselves m accordance witli
local customs ?
Mr. Evans, Oh, yes.
Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Evans, I happen to be a farmer myself down m
Alabama on one of those little poor farms that you describe, and I
want to say that your program is doing a great deal of good, and I
do not know where we would have been without it.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS
Mr. OsMERS. This subject has been touched on, Mr. Evans, but I
would like now to get a little more information, if I can, about what
seems to be the abnormal proportion of your money going into the
hands of a very few people. I believe that in the State of California
2 percent of tlie farmers get 60 percent of the dollars.
Mr. Evans. Are you taking into account the sugar payments there ?
You must be.
Mr. OsMERS. Well, I presume they are taken into account.
Mr. Evans. The sugar payments are not subject to the same regula-
tions with regard to the small farmers as the triple-A payments are.
Mr. OsMERs. Well, that would not, to my mind, alter the general
relationship.
Mr. Evans. It would alter' the figures, because the sugar payments in
California would be very, very large, and they might go to a relatively
small number of farmers.
Mr. OsMERS. But does not that same ratio hold true in other sec-
tions of the country, even though it might not be 60 percent? I mean,
for instance, in the cotton South about a third of the money goes to
about 5 percent of the recipients, does it not ?
Mr. Evans. I would not want to answer that question directly, be-
cause I do not have the figures with me, but I think your figures are
high. I can look it up and furnish it for the record, if you want me to.
Mr. OsMERS. I was looking into your statement here
Mr. Evans (interposing). Nine-tenths of the payments, I believe I
stated in my statement here, are $150 or less.
3242
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. OsMERS. On page 3 of your statement you mention that nearly
four-fifths of the payments were $100 or less, and that almost nine-
tenths of them were $150 or less.
Mr. Evans. That is correct.
Mr. OsMERS. Now, that, of course, makes a very impressive figure;
but when you compare that with the number of dollars, merely the
number of payments w^ould not necessarily have any bearing.
Mr. Evans. That is true. Of course, the payments are limited to
$10,000 for any one individual.
Mr. OsMERS. Yes ; I know they are, and that is a pretty substantial
payment. I just wondered whether, in your opinion. Congress should,
in writing the next agricultural bill, do something about changing that
situation ; maybe reducing it from $10,000 to $5,000, or even less than
that. It has been stated here that we are trying to encourage the farm
family, the family unit.
Mr. Evans. That is right.
Mr. OsMERS. Now, it has been suggested that there might be some
kind of limitation as to farm ownership ; that we might exclude certain
types of farm operations entirely fi'om the benefit payments of the
triple A.
Mr. Evans. Well, the thing that you would have to keep clearly in
mind in considering a proposal of that nature would be this : That if
you do not get participation in your program high enough to control
production effectively, you will have a lower price for all the com-
modities that are raised. In other w^ords, if the program is to be
fully effective, you must have a high percentage of the land in the
program, so that you do get control of the production. Without the
control of the production in this country, in my judgment — and I
only base it upon what we see in Canada, the Argentine, and
Brazil
Mr. OsMERS (interposing). I can see the validity of that point.
Mr. Evans. You would get right down to 25-cent corn, 50-cent
wheat, and 5-cent cotton. I am sure of that. Now, we must have
that participation, and you must keep that clearly in mind in weigh-
ing a proposal of that kind.
Mr. OsMERS. Then would it come down to this : That there are some
farmers in this country that will stay in the program for $10,000 but
not at $5,000?
Mr. Evans. I think that is true; I mean, we might as well face that
fact, under a voluntary program.
Mr. OsMERS. It might not be worth while for them to come in at
less than that, because with a limited production they might be
better?
Mr. Evans. We have illustrations of that kind right today. I
mean that the program has raised prices up where some fellows can
stay outside the program and put in an increased acreage, and because
of the volume they do better, but they only do better because this
great bulk is protected. And we do not want to squeeze that down.
As I say, in Canada the Government says, "You are just in, and that
is all there is to it."
Mr. OsMERS. I think that is all.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Evans, you referred to a study having been made
in the Department of Agriculture on the question of the farm pro-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3243
gram displacing farm tenants and sliarecroppeis. When was that
study made?
Mr. Evans. It was made several years ago, and it was just a check
on the basis of the number of checks that were issued to farmers.
That is about the best way we could make a check of that kind. I
mean, if you got more or less farmers, you would have more or less
checks. And on the whole we did not find, in the cotton country,
where this complaint was made, that the statement was quite true.
And always, in considering that, I think you want to keep also in
mind that we have control only over those farmers who participate
in the program.
Mr. CuETis. My question was: When was this study made?
Mr. Evans. I think about 2 or 3 years ago.
Mr. Curtis. You do not recall which year it was ?
Mr. Evans. No; I do not.
Mr. Curtis. Was there not a study made by the Department of
Agriculture other than just the tabulation of the number of checks
made ?
Mr. Evans. There may have been. I do not recall it. I was just
thinking of the one that we made.
Mr. Curtis. Now, as to the number of checks issued, don't they
issue a check on different fann units, even though they go to the same
person ?
Mr. Evans. No ; everybody gets his check, if he participates in the
program.
Mr. Curtis. Yes, I understand. But if one man has owned several
farm units, he does not get his payment in one check, does he ?
Mr. Evans. He may be a landlord. He may own four or five farms
and have different tenants, and he gets a check on each farm, I think ;
unless he has put it into one farm unit, and then he would get one
check; but it would be considered one farm in that case.
Mr. Curtis. When did you become Administrator?
Mr. Evans. In October of 1938, I guess it was; about 2 years ago.
:Mr. Curtis. I think this study that I was referring to was made
some time before that.
Mr. Evans. I see.
Mr. Curtis. Do you know anything about that report?
Mr. Evans. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. Curtis. I think that is all.
Mr. OsMERS. I do not have any further questions to ask, Mr.
Evans, but I wonder if it would be possible for you to submit to
the committee a table that would show us what proportion of the
triple A payments goes to the largest 5 percent of the recipients?
Mr. Evans. Certainly ; I will give it to you.
Mr. OsMERS. When t say the largest 5 percent, I mean the largest
recipients.
Mr. Evans. I know what you mean. You mean in money.
Mr. OsMERS. In dollar value; yes.
Mr. Evans. I will be glad to give it to you, or anything else that
you wish.
The Chairman. Regarding that, you can send it here at any time,
and we can have it inserted in the record.
3244
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Adjustment Administration,
Washington, D. C, January 29, JOJfl.
Hon. Richard S. Blaisdell,
Editor, Special Committee on Interstate Migration,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Blaisdeli- : On December 20 there were submitted to Mr. Tolau three
tables relating to the distribution of payments by size-of -payment groups under
the 1938 conservation programs. These tables were submitted in accordance with
Mr. Tolan's letter of December 3.
Since it appears from your letter of January 21 that you merely desire in-
formation as to the proportion of payments going to payees receiving the largest
payments, there is enclosed herewith a table relating to the 1939 program from
which such information may be derived. For example, 5 percent of the payees
receiving the largest payments received about 32 percent of the total payments.
You will note that this group begins in the $200 to $300 size group.
The distribution of payments under the 1939 program is somewhat different
from that under the 1938 program, especially in the higher payment group be-
cause of the fact that the provision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938,
as amended, which limits the payments to $10,000 was effective for the first time
under the 1939 program.
Very truly yours,
H. B. Boyd, Acting Administrator.
Enclosure.
Estimated percentage distribution of number of payees and amount of net
payments 6y size-of -payment groups, 1939 conservation programs
Size of payment
Number of
payees as
percent of
total
Amount of
net pay-
ment as
percent of
total
$0to$20 .
Percent
24.77
22.20
14.72
16.01
9.02
5.36
4.03
1.69
.82
1.04
.25
.05
.02
.01
.01
Percent
2.94
$20.01 to $40
7.92
$40.01 to$60 -
8.75
$60. 01 to $100
15.23
$100. 01 to $150
13.40
$150.01 to $200 - -
11.14
$200.01 to $300
11.97
$300. 01 to $400 . .
7.03
$400.01 to $500
4.40
$500.01 to $1,000
9.28
$1,000.01 to $2,000
4.40
$2,000.01 to $3,000
1.41
$3,000.01 to $4,000
.73
$4,000.01 to $5,000 . .. .
.45
$5,000.01 to $10,000
.95
Total
100.00
100. 00
Source: Office of the Administrator, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Jan. 28, 1941.
Mr. OsMEES. Mr. Evans, you made the statement that the Secre-
tary of Agriculture selected the State committees?
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir; all except the Extension Director, who ac-
cording to the act is a member of the committee.
Mr. OsMERS. Is that by regulation set-up. or does the act pro-
vide it?
Mr. Evans. The act provides for the establishment, for the size of
the committee, and the method of selection. We have made a prac-
tice of selecting members of the Stater committee from county com-
mitteemen who have done an unually good job, and we try to get a
geographical selection. But they are farmers who live on farms
and who have operated the program successfully in their own
localities.
Mr. OsMERs. I think that is all.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3245
Tlie Chaikmax. Thank you. Mr. Evans, for your very valuable
statement.
Mr. EvAxs. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Dr. Taylor.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL S. TAYLOR, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS^
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, CALIF.
The Chairman. Doctor, will you please oive your full name and
address and your present position ?
Dr. Taylor. Paul S. Taylor, professor of economics^ University
of California, Berkeley, Calif.
The Chairman. Now, Doctor, before you get into the analysis of
your very well-prepared, valuable and intelligent statement, and
without going deeply into the problem whatever from a personal
standpoint, I would like to have you relate to the committee what
attracted you personally to this problem, because I look upon you
really as the creator of the resolution under which this committee
was appointed. You first convinced my son and secretary, and then
he convinced me. So, as we go throughout various parts of the
country, people ask us who first started this, and I think you were
the one who first started it ; and I wish you would be kind enough to
tell us what attracted you to this problem, and what you saw.
Dr. Taylor. Yes, Congressman. I will put it in very personal
terms.
I was asked in early 1935 by the Division of Rural Rehabilitation
of the California Emergency Relief Administration to take a look
at the rural relief problem in our State, to see what its component
elements were, and what might be done about it. So I got in a car
and started down the highway. I went to the pea harvest, where the
migrants were at work in the fields.
I drove from the San Louis Obispo country down to Pomona and
the pea fields at Calipatrio and the Imperial Valley, and I had not
gone far before I realized that something fundamental was happen-
ing in our rural sections. I had seen, years before, a great number
of Mexican agricultural laborers. I was astounded to find that
within the course of 4 or 5 years the complexion of the labor supply
was enormously changed. Here I saw pea pickers from Vermont,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas, and on the cars gathered around
the fields licenses from other States.
The Mexicans were still there, but proportionately fewer than I had
been accustomed to a very short time before. As I went down the
highways, I saw more and more dilapidated cars, obviously filled
with families with all their household possessions. They had trail-
ers, bedding, stoves, and so forth; and where they were pulled up
by the roadside to fix a tire, or tinker with the engine, or to get gas
and oil, I stopped my car, too. I talked with them; asked where they
came from; asked why they came. The first answers were: "Blowed
out," "burned out," "dried out" ; and it was not, as a matter of fact,
for about a year and a half or 2 years that I found out that other
forces also were expelling them from other States and sending them
to our own. The way I found out what was at work in other States
besides the forces of nature was by following back the trail of the
people who came to our State. I went to the State border at Fort
3246 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Yuma; I stood at the inspection station of the State Department of
Agriculture; watched these cars go through, and asked by which
routes they had come, from what counties of what States, and then
I worked eastward, always with the flow coming west as I drove east.
One afternoon in Texas, in the Panhandle, driving along in the
latter part of the day, I noticed as I approached a small village a
large number of houses with the windows boarded up, apparently
unoccupied. There were small business buildings, a blacksmith shop,
and one or two buildings of that sort, evidently no longer in opera-
tion. It struck me at once to wonder why this village was no longer
occupied ? , So I drew up at the gasoline station, had five gallons
put in the tank, and while I was being served, asked the attendant
how it happened that his village seemed to be depopulated; and the
answer came immediately : "Wliy, it is the tractors."
In the course of a short time, the next morning, the service-station
attendant, who is also the Federal postmaster, driving about the
countryside in our car, pointed out house after house where exactly
the same situation prevailed as in the village — the fields cultivated
right up to the house, the windows boarded, all occupants gone; and
when I asked where, it was either to the East, to the sandhill coun-
try, and poorer farms, west into Arizona, or into one of the neigh-
boring towns for relief.
So, in brief, the way I found out about the problem was by follow-
ing the trail of the migrants themselves, and they successively told
me what it was about.
The Chairman. And you came to the conclusion that it was really
a national problem, did you?
Dr. Taylor. I came to that conclusion from the evidence which
they presented themselves.
The Chairman. For what period of time did these personal in-
vestigations of these complaints continue ?
Dr. Taylor. These investigations which I have made have con-
tinued ever since 1935. I have not been continuously in the field, but
every year, at some time, I have been in the field.
The Chairman. When you made these trips. Doctor, were you
alone ?
Dr. Taylor. My wife, Dorothea Lange, and I have done a good deal
of the field work together, and I think the evidence of her photographs
is familiar to this committee.
The Chairman. Yes. Doctor, that is very interesting. Now, I
am going to direct your attention to your statement which, as I
say, is very valuable.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL S. TAYLOR
FoECEs That Jeopardize the Secxirity of Farm People
In American agricnlture today are forces which jeopardize the security of
a substantial proportion of our people who make their living from the land.
These forces — notably in the Cotton and Wheat Belts — already contribute to
the streams of destitute people who cross State lines, and who constitute the
subject of your inquiry. Many persons have assumed, however, that the
stability of our Corn Belt was so assured that nothing could seriously threaten
the structure of farming and the position of farmers in the great granary of
the upper Mississippi Valley. Perhaps for this reason the chief investigator
of your committee has requested me to present to you the results of some
observations which I made recently in the Corn Belt.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3247
The processes of mechanization, which for some years have been moving
rapidly in wheat and cotton, now show clear signs of acceleration in the Corn
Belt. A complex of forces, among which machinery is outstanding, already
is beginning to produce profound social changes. The wide adoption of corn
pickers, tractors, pick-up hay balers, and the spread of good roads and rubber
tires are eliminating farm families or reducing them in status and making of
farming more and more a commercialized enterprise. This is on land where
once the Homestead Act was the ideal, and where its pattern of independent,
working farmers was roughly achieved in fact.
Machinery is advertised to save labor, and purchased because it does. A
well-known mechanical corn picker is sold with the following appeal:
"Little or no outside help is required when you use a * * * picker to
harvest your crop. It takes only one man to operate both tractor and a picker.
Thus the problem of finding and boarding a large crew of outside help at
corn-picking time is eliminated and the women folks, too, are relieved of
worry and extra kitchen work."
To be sure machines lighten the burden of toil, save labor of the family, and
reduce the farmer's dependence on outside help. But they also deprive wage
earners of the farm employment upon which they are dependent. Only last
August Professors Case and Wilcox of the University of Illinois called sharp
attention to this fact:
"One of the unfortunate aspects of all these changes— more mechanization
and less labor entering into crop production — has been that the farm affords
less opportunity for employment. On the cash-grain farms in the study, the
number of laborers hired declined almost in proportion to the reduced labor
requirements for crop production."
Reports of the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission as early as 1938 show
how quickly the public welfare agencies must begin to share the cost of this
lowered demand for farm labor.
A second effect of mechanization is the displacement of farm operators,
especially tenant farmers. Basically, the impulse to displace farmers rests
on this simple economic fact : A most effective way to reduce per acre and per
bushel costs of power is by increasing the size of farm in order to lengthen
the hours which power machinery works. Professors Case and Wilcox in their
bulletin, Organizing the Corn Belt farm for profitable production, state plainly
this principle of the economy of using farm power to its capacity:
"The cost of power is one of the largest items of expense in operating farms,
frequently amounting to 25 percent of all operating costs. * * * Interest on
the money invested in a tractor and depreciation — two items which remain
the same regardless of the number of hours a tractor is used — make up the
biggest part of the cost of operation. The hour cost is therefore markedly
influenced by the number of hours the tractor is used."
Studies of actual farm records by the Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station
and the college of agriculture of the University of Wisconsin show conclusively
that per acre investment costs of power and machinery are materially lower on
larger farms than on smaller. A Purdue bulletin entitled "The Cost of Using
Farm Machinery in Indiana" sums it up in the statement that "Noticeable econ-
omy is effected in per acre cost, investment, and repair cost of machinery as size
of farm increases." Professor Case points the clear application :
"The introduction of mechanical power and larger-sized equipment makes it
possible for the same number of farm workers to operate a larger acreage. Fur-
thermore, the desire to have a full line of mechanized equipment means a heavy
overhead expense unless the area operated is somewhat larger than it is on many
farms. The advantage is obvious, more economical production can be secured if
operators do a good grade of farming."
As one travels through the Corn Belt it is plain to be seen that enterprising
operators are recognizing this fact and are enlarging their farms to take advan-
tage of it. Authorities within the Corn Belt already are noting this with some
regret. As recently as last August the two Illinois agricultural economists quoted
earlier wrote in their bulletin Twenty-five years of Illinois crop costs :
"Many other farmers, in order to reduce the overhead cost of operation and to
make use of labor released by mechanical power and large-sized equipment, have
taken on additional land, either by rental or by purchase, and have thus increased
the size of the farming unit. * * * The results of this tendency have not
been entirely satisfactory, because, for one reason, the increasing of the size of
farming units has resulted in fewer farms and consequently in forcing some
tenants off farms at a time when other employment has been difficult to obtain"
(Wilcox and Case, bulletin 467, p. 403).
3248 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
To be sure, farms have beeu slowly enlarging since original settlement of the
Corn Belt, but now they are enlarging much more rapidly and becoming more
commercialized, and there is neither a new West as there was 50 years ago, nor an
expanding industry to offer haven to the displaced. As Prof. H. C. M. Case stated
in September:
"The settling of new areas, especially in the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Canada,
made it possible for many tenants with small savings to become farm owners
through the purchase of low-priced land or the homesteading of new land. Farm-
ers leaving the old established farm areas like the Corn Belt gave many young
men in these areas an opportunity to become farm tenants and to take over farms
which were vacated by tenants moving into new areas. At the present time,
however, the agricultural area of the United States has ceased to expand. Now
the competition is for farms which are already established."
The keenness of this competition is reflected in the impressive statistics which
earlier witnesses presented to your committee of 25,000 farmers unable to find
farms to rent in the Corn Belt. The distress of those farmers already dislodged
and the deep-seated fears of more thousands of tenant farmers fetill on the land
but insecure, are registered in the editorial, special feature, and farmers' corre-
spondence columns of Wallace's Farmer and Iowa Homestead, the Des Moines
Register, the Bloomington Pantagraph, and other papers of the Middle West, and
in the sober looks and speech of farmers when the subject is raised.
Mechanization moves progressively into every phase of farm production. Rub-
ber tires on tractors are followed by rubber tires on combines, plows, and other
machinery. The increased mobility which this provides makes it possible to en-
large farms by renting fields 1, 2, 5, and even more miles distant. Headlights make
possible night work by shifts. Pick-up hay balers, mechanical feed hoists, and
assembly-line lay-outs bring industrial methods to the handling of forage crops
and the feeding of livestock. Mobility of labor and machinery mtikes it possible
with but little manpower to deliver great work power within a very few days and
over a wide radius. Farms grow in size more easily since fields no longer need be
contiguous. At point after point the bottlenecks which have held Corn Belt farm-
ing to a moderately small family operation are being broken.
A striking example of the possibilities of farm consolidation on good land
was described to me by an enterprising operator in Iowa who is enlarging his
farm. About 3 years ago he began to add to his home farm of 200 acres by
leasing successively 40 acres 3 miles away, 440 acres 6 miles away, and
320 acres 75 miles away. He oiierates the entire 1,000 acres of the best
cash-grain lands of Iowa with two laborers hired by the month, and a little
help in summer from his young boys, and he now runs a large business in
town besides. Sensitive to public opinion he says: "Every farmer in the State
who is not secure in his ownership is scared that he may lose his land by
consolidation. The tenant who loses his place has no chance, absolutely no
chance, to find a farm here in the good land."
The effects of farm consolidation often are seen in a chain of successive
displacements, reports this operator. A western Iowa tenant moved off the
best land by consolidation moves with his equipment into southern Iowa
where land is poorer, and where he can outbid tenants already there because
of his superior equipment and ability. The tenant so displaced then moves
to the poorer lands of the Ozarks in Missouri, or Arkansas, displacing a family
there, either by leasing or purchasing their land. These are areas, as your
committee already has been told, from which streams of families migrate
to the far West. Thus consolidation of farms in the Corn Belt transmits a
series of shocks, the last of which may be visible as the flight of an Arkansas
or Missouri family across the country to Arizona or California. Or. as a
middle western farmer put it, "They go over like a row of dominoes."
A third effect of mechanization is to reduce farm laborers from their tra-
ditional status as "hired men," living in something like social equality with
their employer and with opportunity ahead, to a status approximating that
of the lower grades of industrial workers. For those who are unable to
remain on the farms as operators of machines, or to find a place in industry
for which they are not trained, this is the prospect. It is described by a
report from the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission in 1938 :
"* * * farm operators have in large measure discontinued giving food-
stuffs and shelter in addition to wages, regarding their workers more as
employees in other industries. This circumstance may contribute to another
phase of the problem since it tends to result in the use of casual and transient
labor, especially in seasons of greatest need. This results, as pointed out by
the representatives of the Farm Bureau, in absence of needed skills. The
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3249
Harm Bureau particularly emphasizetl the fact that a man doing only occa-
sional farm labor, even if this has been his principal occupation, may now be
helpless under present day fann mechanization."
Sons of farmers are among the victims of mechanization and consolidation
along with other laborers. A recent bulletin by Case and Wilcox of the Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station states:
"The sons of farmers are finding, as they approach maturity, less oppor-
tunity of becoming established as farmers themselves. There are not so many
farms for rent; and the opportunity to get a start by working as a hired
laborer has been reduced."
A fourth effect, attributable in part to mechanization, is the decline m
status of tenants. Not only are many individual tenants themselves reduced
to labor status, but those who remain tenants find themselves in a position
in which, as one put it, "The landlord has the whip hand." The Bureau of
Agricultural Economics has described this lowering of tenant status in its
August 1940 report on "Technology on the Faim" :
"The result (of mechanization in the Corn Belt) is greater competition for
land and a consequent increase in the rents. The common practice of charging
cash rent for use of buildings, pasture, and land not in cash crops on share-
rented farms permits an increased rent for the farm without changing the
sharing of cash crops. When adjustments in rent of this type are made,^ the
benefits of new developments are shifted from the tenant to the landlord."
During my researches last summer in the Corn Belt I noted four current
phases in the reorganization of agricultural work that seemed particularly
significant :
1 Enlargement of farms under a single operator.
2. Growth of professional farm management services for absentee owners.
3. Custom work as potential displacer of farm operators.
4. Cooperative ownership of mechanical equipment.
1. Enlargement of farms under a single operator- This process, as I have
described it, may represent either expansion of the lands operated by a working
farmer or a working farmer and his sons to, say, 400, 500, or 800 acres, or it
may represent large farms operated by a manager using hired laborers. Of
the latter type, by all odds the largest wage-labor operation which I saw was a
9,000-acre corporate grain and livestock farm in Ohio.
2. Growth of professional farm management services for absentee owners.
One of these services, in a pamphlet entitled "Agricultural service for absentee
owners," states that it "was organized and is conducted by master farmers
to give the nonresident landowner competent and permanent management of
his farm lands, such as he would provide himself, were he living near the farm
and qualified to do so." Services of this type are numerous enough in the
Corn Belt to have formed a professional society. The economic basis of
managerial service is superior skill of professional managers over other farm
operators, and the possibilities of collective buying and marketing, and of
unified operations. These services offer genuine benefits to the landlord and
to the land itself, and doubtless to some tenants. But it is equally plain that
they promote (1) absenteeism, by making it profitable; (2) united control of
large acreages; (3) large-scale operations, by developing and utilizing its
economics. These results, of course, are no part of the pattern contemplated
by the Homestead Act.
How far absenteeism, represented by- ownership of farms by city and town
businessmen and by industrial cooperation, has advanced in the Corn Belt is
not clear. There are indications that its growth is significant. One of the
management services referred to earlier has among the 190 properties which it
operates for "the nonfarming farm-owner" a 2,000-acre farm owned by a rail-
road. On my train enroute to Washington the sales manager of a nationa.'
manufacturing corporation with Ohio headquarters told me that among bus!
nessmen in his part of the country "it's now the rage" to buy farms, partly
for diversion instead of golf, partly as a safe place to put funds; indeed in
some cities these businessmen have formed "farmers' luncheon clubs." The
extent to which industrial corporations are using their position to buy ma-
chinery for their farms at cost from the manufacturer instead of through
retail dealers evidently is becoming of concern to some dealers. In last month's
issue of Farm Implement News the secretary of the Michigan and Ohio Farm
Equipment Association wrote :
"A dealer reported to me that a farm located next to his had been pur-
chased by a large soap company some months ago and that he had been sup-
plying most of the equipment for that farm in recent years. The soap com-
3250
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
pany had a contract and is located 50 miles away. They sent two tractors
with cultivators and other tools to this farm and it so happens the dealer
sells the same make of machinery and is a very good, substantial dealer. The
only business this or any other dealer in this commimity will get from that
farm is an occasional sale of an emergency part.
"This thing is growing so rapidly that many good dealers in that section
are beginning to wonder how much longer they will be able to last. Their
attitude is this: 'Why should large companies buy this land to avoid income
taxes and then be able to buy their equipment at cost while the farmer next
door, bending every effort to get along, must pay the long price. It just doesn t
Several lines of further investigation touching the stability of our farm
population, including taxation and the role of industrial corporations on the
land, seem to be suggested by this quotation. If the entry of manufacturing
corporations into farming is becoming so important as to cause concern to
farm implement dealers, certainly it is important enough to farmers to receive
the closest public scrutiny.
3 Custom work as potential displacer of farm operators. Custom work
means performance of a particular farm operation, such as plowing or thresh-
ing by a contractor. It is an old practice in American agriculture, and in
1925 at perhaps its zenith, it is estimated that there were about 140,000 custom
threshing outfits in the United States. In earlier times, when the single,
extreme peak power requirement on the farm could be met only by expensive
steam engines and threshers, custom work was a boon to the small farmer.
He was obliged to thresh either on contract, or as member of a cooperative
threshing ring, since he could not afford heavy investment in a great power
plant to be used only a few days.
Custom work can be either a boon to working small farmers or, depending
upon circumstances, a detriment to them, even to the extent of jeopardizing
their economic existence. It is like the two-edged sword which can cut both
ways. To understand this it is necessary to remember that a large proportion
of "income to the working small farmer is really a wage for his labor. There-
fore, when custom work represents, as it sometimes does today, the service of
man and machine without opportunity for such auxiliary employment of the
farmer as was customary around the old-time threshing rig, the farmer is
losing opportunity for his own employment. It is true that successful custom
operators can often afford to offer very attractive prices when they use their
machines to capacity, but working small farmers who become fully dependent
on custom work have thereby lost their own wages, and are at the mercy year
after year of a differential between prices and contract costs sufiicient to
enable them to survive. The indefinite continuance of such a favorable differ-
ential, of course, is highly problematical.
In the Corn Belt last summer I encountered personally only two instances
of farms virtually without farmers because every one of its operations were
I)erformed on contract. But the potentialities for displacement of farmers
in this manner were plain to be seen. In Ohio I met a very successful custom
operator who has a small fleet of tractors, tillage machines, combines, etc.,
and a force of from 8 to perhaps 15 or 18 wage workers. He operates a large
farm of his own and keeps his machines working to capacity by performing
custom work within a radius of about 15 miles. He was fully conscious of
this threat to the working small farmer which is latent in this method of
oi>eration. In the February 1939 number of Agricultural Engineering he wrote :
"We are prepared to undertake almost any farming operations that we may
be called on to do, except two, corn planting and corn cultivating. As you can
see, the presence of a large amount of machinery doing custom work in a
community which is 55 percent tenant farmed might give some people the
impression that we are out to take over the whole neighborhood. This is not
true, as we consider our services as purely auxiliary for those farms w'here
the machinery investment for one reason or another is being kept low. By
leaving corn "planting and cultivating tools out of our custom equipment, we
are able to sidestep requests to take over a complete operation, and can pursue
a policy of not working on land that does not have an owner or a tenant
living on it."
In conversation he stated even more strongly that his reasons for self-
restraint in declining to plant and cultivate corn were twofold. He said, in
substance :
"I won't plant and cultivate corn because I want them to use their team
and their own labor. If I did, feeling in the community would be so strong
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3251
against me because of the displaced farmers that I couldn't get contracts for
custom work any more. Besides, sociology is against it; I don't believe in
displacing farmers."
May I say at this point that my analysis is in no sense an attack on ma-
chinery, machine manufacturers, or machine users? I urge that we do not
allow ourselves to be diverted, as frequently happens, by the spurious issue
whether machinery per se is, or is not, beneficial, away from the true issue,
How can we distribute the benefits of machinery and keep them from promot-
ing Insecurity?
4. Cooperative ownership of mechanical equipment. The practice of coop-
erative ownership of machinery probably is as old among American farmers
as the practice of custom threshing. Indeed, the cooperative threshing ring
was the small farmers' alternative to custom work. It was another way of
keeping their overhead costs low. To an extent, cooperation is practiced in
the Corn Belt today. Professor Case states :
"Many tenants are successfully cooperating with other tenants by owning
some of the more expensive pieces of equipment in common, or by exchanging
labor with some of their neighbors and thus avoiding a large outlay of money
for the purchase of every piece of equipment used on the farm ; * * * farm-
ers can afford to own jointly or exchange the use of many of the more ex-
pensive pieces of equipment."
Last August a breeder of hybrid corn described to me experiments on his
Illinois farm which give promise at an early date of eliminating the necessity
of row-cultivation of corn, and of making possible the harvest of corn by com-
bined threshers which deliver the kernels in sacks in the field. He stated :
"This, together with combines for soybeans and grain, will make it impos-
sible for the small 80- to 160-acre farmer to compete. When these develop-
ments take place 640 acres will be the minimum-size farm that can operate
economically in the Corn Belt. It will require not over 2 men to operate. The
only possibilities are (1) custom work; (2) large units; (3) cooperative own-
ership of machinery in groups of 10 to 12 farms."
The practice of economic cooperation, however, has not yet attained an ex-
tent where it is adequate to resist the threatened wholesale displacement of
farmers in the Corn Belt. It should be stimulated to the point where it will be.
What the spread of a pattern of industrialized agriculture can mean is
easily seen in some of our newer cotton areas. Last month in Arizona I visited
a large cotton development where economic forces have had full play. In the
vicinity of Eloy are about 35,000 acres of cotton, largely on public land brought
under irrigation since about 1934. Only the pumps,. gins, and some of the farm
machinery are subject to county taxation, although the county has been pre-
sented with new emergency burdens by the development. Farms of several
sections in size are common. The operators are virtually all absentees, fre-
quently residents of another State. I did not personally see a first-rate rural
home in the area, but only an occasional cheap house for an Irrigator or fore-
man. Hundreds of tents and shacks dot the area for the thousands of tran-
sient cotton pickers who also originated largely in other States, and who carry
smallpox and typhoid with them into other States when they leave. Thus the
operators, the capital, the laborers, the problems of health and of relief— all
are largely Interstate.
On Saturday during the harvest the town of Eloy is crowded with thousands
of pickers who throng the food stores, and patronize rummage sales on the
streets. But the fact that there are only perhaps 350 people in the entire area
stable enough to register to vote reveals the role of these 35,000' acres as nour-
ishment for an American farm population.
Industrialization of corn and cotton is producing a serious maladjustment
between land resources and population. Prof. Charles L. Stewart, of the Uni-
versity of Illinois, has recently described this growing unbalance in statistical
language :
"The thinning-out effects of modernized operations on land of suitable topog-
raphy throws the ratio of plowland acres per fann occupied into high figures,
while in other areas, not so settled, population is piling up while the proportion
of acres suited to plowland use declines."
In July of this year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics summed it up in
terms of ill-guided human migration :
"In general, it may be said that in the areas best adapted to commercial
farming there was enough migration away from farms to bring about a reduc-
tion in farm population, but in the areas less well-adapted to commercial farm-
ing there were increases."
3252 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
This way of using our land, which in varied forms and in differing degrees
is spreading in our best agricultural regions, is our new farm problem.
In the decades before the War between the States men were deeply concerned
with how our land should be used. Our great agricultural problem then was,
how shall the public lands be settled? Speaking in 1862, Congressman Holman,
of Indiana, answered :
"Instead of baronial possessions, let us facilitate the increase of independent
homesteads. Let us keep the plow in the hands of the owner. Every new
home that is established, the independent possessor of which cultivates his own
freehold, is establishing a new republic within the old. and adding a new and
a strong pillar to the edifice of the State."
A decade earlier Representative Julian of the same State was laying a basis
in Congress for the reform which culminated in the Homestead Act :
"The friends of land reform claim no right to interfere with the laws of prop-
erty of the several States, or the vested rights of their citizens. They advocate
no leveling policy, designed to strip the rich of their possessions by any sudden
act of legislation. They simply demand that in laying the foundations of
empire in the yet unpeopled regions of the great West, Congress shall give its
sanction to the natural right of the landless citizen of the counti-y to a home
upon its soil. The earth was designed by its maker for the noui'ishment and
support of man."
Congressman Julian was chairman of the Committee on Public Lands when
the homestead bill became law in 1862.
Our ancestors of three generations ago found the solution for their goal of
independent working farmers, secure on the land, in the land reform clauses of
the Homestead Act, which gave away land in quarter .sections, in fee simple,
for $1.25 an acre. Today the march of mechanization and other economic
forces have produced dependence and insecurity on the land for our generation.
Stern necessity compels us to find our way to maintain independence and
(security among those who work the soil.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL S. TAYLOR— Resumed
The Chairman. Would you care to higlili|rlit for us your observa-
tions on your recent trip through the Corn Belt?
Dr. Taylor. I will be very glad to state briefly the observations
which seem of a particular significance to the problem with which
3^our committee is concerned.
EFFECTS OF MECHANIZATION
Insecurity in agriculture is a cause of migration. It is an im-
portant cause. Consequently I devoted a good deal of my attention
last summer to growing mechanization in the Corn Belt, which
stretches west from central Ohio into Nebraska. The effects whicli
seemed to me worthy of particular note I can sum up in four points.
The first is a displacement of farm laborers, some of whom find
outlet in odd jobs, or occasionally in industry, but many of whom find
only relief to cushion the shock of displacement.
A second fonn of displacement affects the farm operator himself.
This occurs because farm operators in the Corn Belt are increasingly
enlarging the size of their farm operations, and since the land of the
Corn Belt is no longer subject to material extension, the enlargement
of one farm necessarily is at the expense of some other farm. Of
course it is true, as has been pointed out to your committee, that en-
largement of the fann is part of a historical process that has been
going on ever since the Corn Belt was settled, but there are some
important differences whicli make its effects much more serious at
the present time than they have been, we will say. since the year 1900.
In the first place, in the last very few years the enlargement of
iarms has been progressing much more rapidly than in previous
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3253
periods. The character of agriculture has been increasingly commer-
cialized as the expansion has been going on in the past few years.
Besides, except for our recent defense activities, there has been no
expanding industry to absorb the people formerly on the land, as was
true in the past ; and finally, there is no "New West" as there was 40
or 50 years ago, when the Corn Belt farmers found an outlet in the
Dakotas and Nebraska. So, more and more one finds the cry in the
Corn Belt, "Tenants can't get a farm."
A third point which I observe is that many farm laborers who
remain on the Corn Belt farms are suffering a reduction in status.
May I explain that briefly? Some who remain, particularly those
wdio remain as machine operators, improve their positions; some of
them have steadier emi)loyment at better wages than before ; but for
many, mechanization represents a fall in status, a decline to the posi-
tion of seasonal workers, and with an increasingly commercialized
'relation to their employer, so that the old status of something like
social equality with the employer — a certain beneficent paternalism
which prevaifed in the days of the "hired man" — is becoming of dimin-
ishing im]Jortance in the Middle West.
It is important to note, I think, that not only are the laborers feel-
ing this decline in status, but the sons of farmers also feel it. Tra-
ditionally, sons of farmers have had a way to ow^nership through the
labor process. Today they find not only a growing competition for
farms, but they find the same competitive difficulties as they seek
employment ashired workers in order to buy equipment and proceed
to tenancy and ownership.
A fourth point is that, because of the shortage of farms and grow-
ing competition under the enlargement of farms, the tenants increas-
ingl.y are in competition with each other, which means a bidding up
of the rent, and while the shares remain the same, there are now
required cash bonuses for pasture, or for crops, or some other pretext,
which may seem reasonable enough in the premises, but which in
reality represents a decline in the standard of living of the tenant
on the Corn Belt farm.
These four, then, are the main effects which I observed.
iSIay I suggest, in closing my comments on what I observed in the
Corn Belt, certain significant "phases of the reorganization of agri-
cultural work in that area, w^hich are significant now, or which I
think you will find of growing significance in the years which lie
immediately ahead.
The first is the enlargement oi farms under a single operator.
That has been repeatedly brought to your attention. That is a factor
in the present great insecurity. The expansion takes place in various
forms; sometimes without hired labor, simply with the family labor
of the farm operator's son as well as his own. Sometimes it takes
place with hired labor. A man hires one or two or three, or even
more laborers, and enlarges the scope of his operations. Sometimes
it takes place on a pure manager-labor basis, in which the industrial-
ized form is fully achieved.
That, as I say, is the greatest present form of insecurity which is
developing, and the most significant form of reorganization today.
3254 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
There are two factors of potential insecurity which I think we
should not overlook, for they are likely, under favoring conditions,
to become rapidly of very great significance with reference to dis-
placement and potential migration, which concerns your committee.
The first is the growth of professional farm-management services.
Farm-management services are designed to operate farms in the Com
Belt for absentee owners. They advertise that that is what they are
equipped to do. It simply means that more competent managerial
service is now available than ever before, so that city folk, busniess-
men, industrial corporations, now have available a more efficient man-
agement service for farms, if they see fit to invest their money in the
land, than they ever had before. So potentially, if this develops and
certain other favoring conditions should evolve, we might see a greatly
facilitated movement of urban capital onto the land, in wliich farms
of absentee operation, with manager and hired labor, might spread
very rapidly.
(The following letter and clipping were received later by the com-
mittee and were accepted for the record :)
Farm Management, Ino.,
Irwin, Ohio, December Ui, 1940.
To the chairman and, memhers of the House Committee
Investigating Interstate Migration:
I have had the privilege of reading some of the testimony presented to your
committee by Dr. Paul Taylor of California. Dr. Taylor spent some time in
this section and with our farm-management organization last summer. We
are the organization to which he refers definitely in his testimony.
While Dr. Taylor states we are doing a good work, we are definitely of the
opinion that he has failed to grasp the correct idea relative to the economic
effects of such a service and we regret very much that his testimony is to
become a matter of record in the report of your committee without a proper
refutation.
We can state to you that on the 200 farms operated by our company for
absentee owners, there are more resident employees than before we assumed
management. Also, that these families are getting more income, and feel more
secure than previously. We have in no case increased absentee ownership nor
do we expect the future to bring such a result. New ownership and management
has been set up on properties already owned by nonresident landlords, and prop-
erties which were run down and liabilities in every way are now developed, or
being developed into well equipped, well cared-for farm properties which add
in every way to the economic improvement of the rural community.
It is unfortunate that you have not called before your committee such men
as : Dr. Howard Doane of the Doane Agricultural Service, St. Louis, Mo., and
C. J. Claassen, president of the Farmers National Co., Omaha, Nebr. These men
have spent many years in farm-management work, and are in a position to
give you valuable information based on realities and experience.
It is high time that some practical people with a lifetime of experience in
the observation of agricultural trends, get up on their feet and give our agri-
cultural authorities the benefit of their observations and conclusions.
Very truly yours,
G. G. McIlroy, President, Farm Management, Inc.; Master Farmer;
Memier, Committee to Select Master Farmers in Ohio, 1939 and 19JfO;
President, American Soybean Association, 1938-39 and 1940; Chair-
m,an. Soybean Section, National Farm Chcmurgic Council; Member,
Ohio Chcmurgic Commission.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3255
[The Ohio State Journal, Columbus, Friday, December 13, 1940]
Population Trends
Obviously due to the depression, affecting industrial centers more than rural
communities, the trend of population in the past 10 years has been away from the
cities and back to the country the first time in 100 years.
"The trend long established in the United States of migration from rural to
urban areas has been slackened," says W. L. Austin head of the Census Bureau.
"For the first decade since 1830 the proportion of the population residing in urban
areas has failed to increase markedly."
The changes are a matter of proportion and percentage, not of actual numbers.
All the large cities and all the States, except the Dust Bowl States, showed net
population increases. The westward movement has continued in a general way,
though the gains were in the far West, at the expense of the Middle West.
Ten States are to lose a Congressman, each as a result of the population fluctu-
ations, namely, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Ne-
braska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.
It is interesting to note the gainers. Most notable is California whose tourist
advertising, costing tens of millions annually, also attracted the bulk of the
migrating "Okies" and "Arkies." No doubt the "ham and egg" publicity had
something to do with it also. California is to gain 3 new Congressmen, making a
total of 23, putting her at a parity with Ohio in this respect.
It might be noted that California came within 225 residents of pushing Ohio out
of fourth place in the population table.
Seven States will gain one Congressman each, namely, the tourist-advertising
States of Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and Oregon ; the industrially developing
States of North Carolina and Tennessee ; and, finally, Michigan, which is both a
tourist-advertising and industrially developing State. Some of the tourists must
be of the kind that stays permanently.
Except for the exceptional California gain, a condition which obviously has its
limitations, none of the changes noted are highly significant. The United States
may be said to have attained a fairly stable population, and all sections from
now on will have steady growths of their own native or resident populations.
The exoduses and influxes, from one State to another, will not again take
place on the scale known in former years.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL S. TAYLOR— Resumed
Mr. Taylor. Another phase of reorganization is custom work. By
custom work I mean the performance of a particular farm-labor op-
eration on contract. Now, custom work is a very old form of opera-
tion on farms. The best known form is the old steam threshing rig
of decades ago. Farm custom operation actually protected the small
working farmer, and had it not been available, the tendency would
have been for farms to expand to a size which could support the
high overhead cost of a threshing rig. However, it is entirely pos-
sible, again under favoring conditions, that custom work might have
an exactly opposite effect. In other words, it might operate directly
to displace tenants. The reason that it might so operate is that the
working farmer, the kind of man on the land that we say w^e want to
keep there, derives his income not so much as a businessman operating
his properties as he does through the labor return which he receives
for his own work.
Custom work is more and more the supplying of man and machinery,
which means that the farm operator loses the opportunity to employ
himself at the same time. So the smaller the operator, the more de-
pendent he is upon employment on his own place for his income, the
more likely custom work is to result in his eventual displacement. He
260370— 41— pt. S 12
3256 iNTEUSTATE MIGRATION
may make a very favorable contract for planting, cultivating, ploying,
and all other operations, but he very quickly comes to depend upon the
favorable contract lie can make with the operator, and unless he can
continue making a living on a small farm as a business manager, man-
aging the contracts successfully — the chances are against it over a
series of years — he is likely to find himself very quickly off his farm.
In fact, I saw a couple of cases where that had occurred, and talked
to a very successful custom operator who was so fearful himself of the
displacing effects of his work that he refused, upon request, to perform
certain operations. He insisted that the man remain on his farm and
use his own labor.
These last two factors, then — the growtli of potential farm-manage-
ment service and custom work — are to be regarded as important poten-
tial sources of insecurity rather than actual sources operating at the
present moment.
The fourth phase of farm reorganization which I observed operates
in the opposite direction. It is the cooperative ownership of mechanical
equipment.
Cooperative ownership of mechanical equipment is as old a practice
as custom threshing in the Corn Belt, but it is a force against displace-
ment of farm families instead of a force which works for their dis-
placement. It seeks to use the very princii:)le which induces private
operators to expand in favor of operators who by cooperation can cut
their overhead in the same manner as the private enterpriser.
This last phase of farm reorganization is not effective to anything like
the degree that I think it should be in protecting Corn Belt farmers
against displacement, and I think that one of the most important
things that could be carried out in our agricultural program would be
a stimulation of c()<)i)erative endeavor among Corn Belt farmers with
tlie i)urpose of diminishing the hazard of displacement of more and
more farm families.
The Chairman. Of course, Doctor, I think it follows as a natural
conclusion that this displacement of the farmers that you indicate
increases this migration that we are concerned with.
Dr. Taylor. Perhaps I could illustrate that. In western Iowa I
talked with a farm operator who has within the past 3 years or so ex-
panded his operations from the home farm of about 200 acres to 1,000
acres, ])art of it lying as far as 75 miles distant from the hiome farm.
When I asked him what happened to the farm operators of the land
which he was absorbing, he said :
When they leave the s'ood hiiid where I am expanding, and others like me, they
go south in our State, to the poorer land. There, with their superior equipment
and their superior farm experience, they are in a position to displace other tenants
on that poorer land. These tenants, in turn, move into the Ozarks of Missouri or
Arkansas.
Those areas in the Ozarks of Missouri and Arkansas, Mr. Chairman,
are areas which our spot maps show contribute heavily to the migration
to Arizona and California. As one mnn in the Corn Belt put it, "they
go over like a row of dominoes." So the shock which appears on the
good land of Iowa may liaA'e its last visible effect in the appearance of
an Arkansas family in the cotton fields of Arizona or California.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3257
EXTENSION or SOCIAL LEGISLATION
The Chairman. Doctor, would the extension of social security, wage-
hour, and labor-relations legislation to farm laborers have any effect
on the displacement of farmers?
Dr. Taylor. I think. Congressman, that it would have a beneficial
effect, certainly for the present. In earlier questioning one of the
members of your committee called attention to the fact that the natural
effect of certain social legislation in manufacturing industry was
greater efficiency and greater displacement.
In some farm operations it might operate in the same manner. How-
ever, I would point out this rather significant difference: That farm
operations resist change to a much larger extent, I believe, than manu-
facturing or industrial enterprises, that is, the farm operator remains
as an enterprise engaged in by one man who himself works and em-
l^loys possibly additional family labor for which he pays only in board
and room.
Consec|uently, I think it is plain that the exemptions to agriculture
which we have granted on the theory that we are benefiting the w^orking
farmers are actually a])plicable largely to the hired men of a larger
farm operation who are in competition with small work operators, and
many whom we wanted to help, are not receiving the benefits, and
other operators are placed in position to replace labor. Consequently,
I think the answer is, to me at least, that there would be a certain re-
tardation or displacement by what in effect seems like to be a subsidy
to the operator of farms with large pay rolls.
LONG-RANGE SOLUTION
The Chairman. Dr. Taylor, I think you have outlined very intelli-
gently the problem in the Corn Belt, the displacement of farmers.
What this committee is extremely interested in is having any recom-
mendations which you care to submit to us.
Dr. Taylor. I should like to make some observations with respect to
the long-range solution for agriculture if that is pertinent to your in-
quiry. And. in that respect I think I can be more helpful than perhaps
I can in seeking to make detailed recommendations with respect to a
particular phase.
I think we must distinguish between emergency, or short-run con-
siderations, which must be met, and long-run objectives, and methods
to attain them.
The measures necessary and justifiable in short run may not be in
long run and should not be expected to do what they cannot do. With
these differences in mind, let us examine the present situation of our
agricultural population.
First, we have an accumulation of ineffectively employed people in
agriculture.
Under stress of defense, we recognize this immediately.
In a recent statement Chester Davis, of the National Defense Advis-
ory Commission, had this to say :
There are i>erhaps 5,000,000 people now living on farms or in small towns whose
labor is ineffectively employed — men not novs^ listed as unemployed who could be
released from the production of cotton, tobacco, and wheat, or from sheer sub-
sistence farming, without any loss whatsoever so far as the agricultural industry
is concerned.
3258
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
If we recognize this ineffective employment of our people in time of
defense, we cannot close our eyes to its existence in normal times. Nor
can we justify its continuance simply as a reserve available for periodic
defense efforts. Its use as such a reserve would be far better served,
if kept in tone by continuous effective activity, than when allowed to
sink to subsistence levels awaiting call. Ineffectively employed, it fails
to raise its own standard of living, or any other.
Second, we must face the fact that present trends, if allowed to pro-
ceed unchecked, threaten to aggravate the condition just described.
On the other hand we have this situation : On the better farm lands,
agriculture is being organized increasingly on a commercial basis, by
fewer operators, in forms efficient for themselves, and with many
laborers who are now denied both the legal protection for the self-help
which comes through organization and protection by Government
through wages and hours and other social legislation.
On the other hand, on the poorer lands, more fanners are being
crowded into noncommercial, or semisubsistence farming, on lands of
declining productivity.
Last July the Bureau of Agricultural Economics issued a statement
in which they put this very distinctly :
In general, it may be said that in the areas best adapted to commercial farming
there was enough migration away from farms to bring about a reduction in farm
population, but in the areas less well-adapted to commercial farming there were
increases.
Plainly this trend represents a growing unbalance between people
and land resources. It means working ineffectively with poorer re-
sources, in a combination of long hours and underemployment, with
low returns and with low-community advantages, for more and more
people. It means a steady diminution on the better lands of the sturdy
yeoman-farmer class that forms one of the main supports of our
democracy, and it carries class lines and class problems onto these
lands.
Perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of that, certamly one ot the
plainest that I have seen, is in an area of cotton production of about
35,000 acres at Eloy, Ariz., which I visited about 2 weeks ago. In
that area, which has developed almost entirely since 1934, the cotton
development is perfomied by operators from other States. The
pickers come only seasonally, " and mainly from other States. They
carry their diseases, smallpox and typhoid, to the other States. Two
or three years ago they brought a large-sized epidemic to the State of
California after contracting the disease near Eloy. So, many of the
phases of this area are producing an economic problem interstate in
On these 35,000 acres, or as much of it as I was able to see in the
number of days I was there, there were not, to my personal knowledge,
a first-rate house. There were occasional shacks, the usual huts for
the irrigators, and possibly for the foreman who remained on the
place the better part of the year, or the year round.
Many of the operations were several sections in size. The relation
of that 35,000 acres in cultivation to the American farm population,
is best summarized in the figures showing voter registrants. In the
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3259
35,000 acres there are something like 350 people stable enough to be
able to register to vote.
The Chairman. What is the approximate population?
Dr. Taylor. What population?
The Chairman. On the 35,000 acres?
Dr. Taylor. It all depends. Congressman Tolan, on whether you
take the census during cotton-picking time when the population
would be many thousands, or whether you take it after the cotton is
picked, when it would drop, possibly, to hundreds.
It illustrates the extreme to which industrial agriculture can go
in successful commercial operation in the production of cotton — the
extreme or failure, it seems to me, from every social point of view.
I should like to stress my belief that we must face the fact that a policy
of price support for agricultural products is not a tool for the recon-
stitution of a sound agriculture. It has rendered important service
to farmers, and has been a factor in nearly doubling farm income in
8 years. The methods by which price has been supported, in my
opinion, unquestionably have helped to displace farmers, as your
committee has been told repeatedly. At the same time, it must be
recognized that in some important areas the displacement probably
would have come even faster had there been no price support. But
the important point to remember with respect to long-run objectives
is that price support is primarily a distress measure designed to pre-
vent a worse situation, rather tlian a tool to make the agricultural
structure better.
The fourth point which I should like to make is that we should
recognize that for the long run, agriculture is not a proper refuge at
subsistence levels, for those who do not find place elsewhere. It is
overcrowded now. About 22 percent of our gainfully employed
population, which is in agriculture, receives only about 9 percent of
our national income. A substantial proportion of those now in agri-
culture are not needed for production of food and fiber. Oris V.
Wells, of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, estimates in the Sep-
tember 1940 Land Policy Eeview that :
* * * even with our present technical equipment we could easily maintain
agricultural output at what seems to be a reasonably desirable level by giving
full employment to 80 percent of the farm people now on the land.
Historically, our surplus agricultural population has been drawn
into industry, with clear economic advantage to the Nation. There is
opportunity for more productive employment on the land, as the For-
est Service has shown. But it is in the direction of opening up produc-
tive industrial employment by public and private measure that we can
tap the greatest absorptive capacity. To this end we should direct
our best thought and energies.
Fifth. "Farm security" is a very old American concept. It was an
objective of the Homestead Act. It remains vital today. There is dan-
ger, however, that under the pressure of distress it may come to mean a
rural refuge at subsistence levels, under uneconomic conditions. This
danger may be illustrated specifically.
3260 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Two county agricultural agents in Wisconsin reported as follows :
M county has a large number of small farms — some 40 acres, some 20, and
some 30. Originally the operator on these farms held another job. Maybe he did
a little carpenter work, or worked on the roads or in a sawmill. Since this is no
longer possible, it became necessary for these farming units to become self-sustain-
ing, making many of them unprofitable. Just as soon as the buildings need re-
placement, these farms are abandoned and usually acquired by a neighboring
farmer who has a larger set-up, possibly an 80- or 100-acre farm.
The other county agent said :
There has been a limited amount of farm consolidation in this county. These
are mostly where neighboring farms are united and being placed under one man-
agement. This is done to reduce overhead. Such consolidation can be readily car-
ried out if more power machinery is used. Farm consolidation and the increased
use of more power machinery is slowly coming, in my estimation, to the farms of
southeastern Wisconsin, the reason for it being that it results in more economical
production. This means that it will be accepted by progressive rural people.
An opposite point of view appears to be held naturally by those who
confront the relief situation caused by farm consolidation. In an Iowa,
county this ]Droblem appears to be : What to do with farmers displaced
by farm consolidation ; and the solution proposed is to place them on
small acreages where they can raise subsistence. A United Press dis-
patch describes the plan :
It calls for the return to the land of farmers dispossessed by mechanized farm-
ing and mortgage foreclosures and forced to move to the towns. A survey .several
months ago found that nearly three-fourths of the county relief load consisted of
farmers who had lost their land and moved to town. They knew no trade and
could obtain work only as laborers, a field overcrowded already. They were
forced to live in hovels, and their children went barefoot and were poorly fed.
"I decided the only solution to the problem was to get these people back on
farms where they belonged and where they would be happy. Each would consist
of a few acres. Each farm would be supplied with a cow, two brood sows, and
some farming equipment for the use of tenants, who then would raise a good share
of their own food requirements. During the winter months, when work slackens
it will be no more difficult to call for the tenants in trucks to work at Work
Projects Administration projects than it was when they lived in cities," he said.
"Most of the dispossessed farmers have been Work Projects Administration
laborers in the last years."
This illustration is not cited to condemn measures of relief which
displacement has made necessary. Rather it is presented to point the
futility, as a long-run policy, of standing by while farmers are dis-
placed, then being forced to try to set them up again under circum-
stances less favorable than before, and under which they may even be
exposed to a second displacement. This is hardly the true meaning of
"farm security." Particularly is it futile when we allow displacement
on good land and attempt rehabilitation of the same people on poorer
land. We should seek, by stimulating measures of economic coopera-
tion which will keep farm overhead low, to maintain our farm people
on good land, to enable them to work effectively and for reasonable
hours. This, for the long run, is true farm security.
The Chairman. Do you think a return to the Homestead Act would
improve agriculture ?
Dr. Taylor. The Homestead Act aimed at the establishment of peo-
ple on our best lands and, of course, a farmer independent and secure.
I think the principles are as valid today and as important as they were
during the years of agitation for the Homestead Act in 1862.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3261
The methods by which the Homestead Act sought to secure inde-
pendence on farm hinds was by giving away the hind at $1.25 an acre
in quarter sections. Manifestly the same technique cannot be em-
ployed, but it seems to me that w^e face, on good lands, the same problem
which was faced by the planners of the Homestead Act.
The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Sparkman.
Mr. Sparkman. Dr.' Taylor, going back to an earlier question of
Chairman Tolan, I believe, which he asked you with reference to the
application of the wage-and-hour law, the National Labor Relations
Act, and the social-security benefits to the farmers : Do you make any
distinction between the farm that is operated as a family unit and the
one that employs a great deal of hired labor ?
Dr. Taylor. Yes. I would be disposed, with respect to a number of
social measures, to follow the recommendation of the Social Security
Board, which is to distinguish in exactly the manner that your ques-
tion has suggested.
Mr. Sparkman. As a matter of fact, from the practical standpoint,
that distinction w^ould have to be made, would it not ?
Dr. Taylor. With respect to a number of measures, I think you are
correct. There are some, I think, where it might not be necessary. But
it is a reasonable distinction to make.
TREND TO LARGE-SCALE FARMING
Mr. Sparkman. Do you feel that there is any great tendency away
from the practice of farming by family units ?
Dr. Taylor. Yes ; I think it is plain to see that on the best land the
form of enterprise is undergoing a rather serious change. There are
developing in a number of agricultural areas of the country, in cotton,
corn, and wdieat, very large-scale operations, under managers and
hired labor; sometimes the manager is the farm owner and sometimes
he is not.
I think in the Corn Belt at the present time the tendency is for
the man who has been a family farm operator in the traditional
sense, to expand his operations to such an extent that it becomes
questionable whether he can any longer be called a family farmer.
Mr. Sparkman. I believe that is all.
The Chairman. Mr. Osmers.
Mr. Osmers. I had a question that I wanted to ask you because
I want to have the answer in the record.
You have discussed in general ihe large-scale ■ farm. I wonder
if you would break that down and give us some idea concerning
the financial return on a large-scale farm, taking a certain number
of acres and what they make over the year.
Dr. Taylor. The Census Bureau has defined a large-scale farm as
one with a gross income of $30,000 or more.
Mr. Osmers. Does that definition meet w^ith your idea?
Dr. Taylor. Well, I think it does.
Mr. Osmers. Someone has to set the standard.
Dr. Taylor. You have to use some basis, and I do not know of
any other studies or suggestions aside from that demarcation, but
statistics are available on that basis. I do not have before me the
statistics showing the proportion of the Nation's production which
comes from the farms, but a very small percentage produces a very
large share of our national agricultural production.
3262
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. OsMERS. And I gathered from the previous witness that it
absorbs a large share of agricultural payments, too. But, I would
like to get some idea as to the rate of return on the invested capital
in large-scale operations, in general, if there is some norm that
could be applied over different years.
Dr. Taylor. I am sorry I am not able to answer that question.
There are some data which one of the Senate committees assembled
but I do not have them at hand.
Mr. OsMERS. I was just wondering, inasmuch as you mentioned
a man who had increased his operations from 200 to 1,000 acres in
3 years, and I was trying to find out what effect that type of opera-
tion would have on his annual income.
Dr. Taylor. I wish I could answer your question, but I cannot.
The expansion of the operation, however, seems satisfactory to him
and he wished, as he put it, that he could get hold of more land.
Mr. OsMERs. Just to keep enlarging his operations.
Dr. Taylor. That was the wish he expressed to me, and it is the
practice of a large number of operators in the Corn Belt.
Mr. OsMERS. Do you think that anything or anybody or any law
or regulation will be able to stop the drive in America, anywhere, to
lower unit cost of operation or production, whether it be a pound
of cotton, a radio set, or anything else?
Dr. Taylor. I think in the long run it is extremely doubtful whether
any single measure or series of measures would stop that drive.
I would doubt the wisdom of endeavoring to stop that drive for
economic production in the long run. I rather would urge on the
committee that it lend its influence toward measures which would
turn the benefits of that toward the farmers of the land as much
as possible.
Mr. OsMERS. I am glad to hear you make that observation because
I regard as inevitable this drive for greater efficiency and lower
cost of production, and that we should accept it and proceed from
that point rather than try to break it up artificially.
Dr. Taylor. I agree with you.
Mr. OsMERS. Of course, we have had the very same thing that is
now happening to agriculture happen to industry. It started many
years earlier in industry and stayed there. Of course, the southern
plantation idea was the first large-scale operation in America, and
that largely broke down following the Civil War, when the labor
situation was changed.
organization of farm labor
You made the point — you did not make a large point of it — but
I wonder if you would care to go just a little further into the
matter of organization of farm labor. I am not sure it was in
your own remarks, or something which you may have read from
Chester Davis.
Dr. Taylor. The statement of Mr. Davis was that we have in-
efficiently organized our agricultural people for production.
Mr. OsMERS. He was not referring to unionization?
Dr. Taylor. No.
Mr. OsMERS. To the organization of labor by unions. That is
what I wanted to refer to. Would you care to make any comment
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3263
about the unionization of agricultural workers as it has been ob-
served in California, for instance?
Dr. Taylor. The unionization with respect to what phase of the
problem ?
;Mr. OsMERS. Well, you will recall during our tour through the
San Joaquin Valley we ran across what seemed to have been some
labor difficulties, labor unions, I believe.
Dr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. OsMERS. And there seemed to be considerable dispute as to
the manner in which it was done.
Dr. Taylor. There is always considerable dispute in such cases,
and the dispute has been so keen in California and some other
States that the United States Senate sent out a committee to make
investigation, perhaps with respect to farm labor, which is the point
this committee is interested in.
Mr. OsMERS. I was interested particularly in the migrant farm
labor in California, to get back to the organization question.
Dr. Taylor. The migrant farm laborers do organize from time
to time. They do not maintain an efficient continuous organization,
but they are able to operate sporadically, and where they are able
to do it they exert an upward influence on wages and an influence
for the improvement of their own individual -conditions.
Mr. OsMERS. Now, the large-scale farm provides some different
kinds of employment as compared to the small-scale farm. In other
words, I imagine you would have machinists and mechanics and
employees of that nature, and I wonder whether it is more of a year-
round employment on the large-scale farm than the small-scale farm,
taking a similar number of acres as an example.
Dr. Taylor. I think one of the witnesses who is to follow me can
answer that question better than I can, and I believe the answer
will be in the affirmative.
The small operator, I think it should be remembered, may keep
himself busy the year around but too often it is on the basis of cheap
labor.
The year-around employment that might be provided on the large-
scale farm should perhaps be at better wages than on the small
farm, and it should be employed more productively.
Mr. OsMERS. I was thinking of California, particularly where
the seasonal phase of labor is so marked, where one or two farmers
can operate a farm that would require 50 or 100 additional laborers
during 2 weeks or a month of the year. I was wondering if the
large-scale operation was cutting that down at all.
Dr. Taylor. It is possible to cut down the terrific seasonality of em-
ployment over that of the private operator who does not feel an eco-
nomic responsibility for seasonal employment. One of the advantages
of economic cooperation in such a large-scale enterprise would be
that, working cooperatively, they would have the same incentive that
all farm workers have today in keeping themselves employed the year
round, and they therefore would have the disposition to include in
their farm enterprise enough diversity of operation to employ them-
selves efficiently more of the time.
2264 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
So if the question comes to this : Does the large-scale operation make
possible the support of more people on a given acreage, with better
standards of living, my answer is that I believe it is possible. It is
more likely to occur under the cooperative enterprise than under
private enterprise.
The Chairman. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Dr. Taylor, I think you have made a very fine contri-
Mtion. Unfortunately, I had to be away from the committee at the
time you were referring to certain areas as you went along.
NEED or IRRIGATION
I recall in the first part of your statement that you said you in-
quired of migrants in California what caused them to leave, and you
Avere told they were dried out or blown out, or that their lands were
foreclosed on them?
Dr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Is it not true that the extreme drought has been a
major factor in forcing many of them to leave their farms?
Dr. Taylor. Unquestionably.
Mr. Curtis. You could not require that particular group of unor-
ganized hired men to pay a social-security tax?
Dr. Taylor. Other measures are necessary.
Mr. Curtis. What do you believe as to the value of reclamation
and irrigation in the areas where it is economically feasible and
sound, from an engineering standpoint, as to stabilizing people on
land?
Dr. Taylor. I am in favor of those measures. Congressman Curtis.
I think that at the same time those measures are undertaken, there
should be protection to insure that the farmers who go on those lands
are secured against the liazards of the type of displacement that we
have been talking about for the last few months.
Mr. Curtis. Yes; I believe the Farm Security and the Bureau of
Reclamation undertakes to do that.
Dr. Taylor. I believe they are interested in doing so ; yes.
Mr. Curtis. Now, as you are perhaps aware, the area that has ex-
perienced a tremendous outward migration of destitute people — and
they are very destitute — has been the Great Plains, the drought area.
Would you care to insert in your statement, or do you approve of the
phase that would make for a long-time solution of the problem, the
development of our water resources in those territories where they
are suffering from drought?
Dr. Taylor. I would.
Mr. Curtis. I do not mean to be facetious ; I merely want to know
what you think. Why did all the people seek California ?
Dr. Taylor. They did not.
Mr. Curtis. Why did they go westward; were they still following
the admonition of Horace Greeley — Go west, young man ?
westavard migration
Dr. Taylor. No ; I think most of them had not heard the admonition
of Horace Greeley. They went westward to California, Arizona,
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. They also went eastward into Iowa
^nd other States — the Corn Belt. The reason that they went westward
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3265
in such large numbers is largely because our agricultural labor market
is so disorganized that although it is overcrowded, any nidividuai
has a chance of getting some employment every tmie there is a re-
shuffling of labor opportmiities, and those reshuffling of opportunities
take place every time a new harvest comes on.
Mr. CxTRTis. Do you think the historic trend of people w^estward
when they are displaced in their own operations or jobs throughout
the entire history of the country is a factor ?
Dr. Taylor, there is nothing magical about the direction west,
although I have personally a great fondness for the word and for the
region which we have on the west coast. If economic opportunity
were available in the East, the displaced people would go there. As
a matter of fact, during the 1920's, and in the decades earlier, Con-
gi-essman, they did go to the factories of Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyl-
vania, and Indiana.
Mr. Curtis. I was interested in your very fine and exhaustive dis-
cussion of present and potential trends in the Corn Belt. It is per-
haps true that those same trends came earlier and were more accen-
tuated in the Wheat Belt, is it not ?
Dr. Taylor. Mechanization swept the Wheat Belt first; then it
struck cotton, and very quickly reached corn.
Mr. Curtis. Are you able to state, confining this question now to
California, what percentage of the migrants, these destitute migrants,
were people that were forced directly off the land, and what percent
were jobless people from industry?
Dr. Taylor. I cannot give you exact figures. There are studies,
though, which would suggest them to you.
Mr. Curtis. Do you have an estimate as to the relative percentage ?
Dr. Taylor. Offhand I would saj^ that a very high proportion of the
destitute who migrated to California are people w4io were on the land
in one way or another, either as operators of farms or as farm laborers,
some living in towns and some on fanns. At the same time, when the
farms were stricken by drought and these other forces, many small-
town folk who depended upon agricultural jobs also found themselves
unable to remain.
Mr. Curtis. That was true primarily of merchants and business and
professional men and tradesmen in small towns that were wholly
supported by surrounding agricultural areas.
Dr. Taylor. That is right. The data of the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics show very plainly that a substantial migration also took
place from the small towns, of people who themselves may not directly
have worked in agriculture, but were dependent upon it.
Mr. Curtis. Where would you place that percentage, probably 75
percent from the land ?
Dr. Taylor. Or working upon the land.
Mr. Curtis. Those wlio were on the land or quite closely connected
with it?
Dr. Taylor. 60-40 or 75-25. I could get figures that would be
better than that if it is desirable, but I caiuiot give them offhand.
Mr. Curtis. I would be very pleased if you would submit that to
the committee before the hearings are closed.
Dr. Taylor. I shall be very glad to.
3266 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Curtis. You made the statement — you did not enlarge upon
it — that the price of farm products doubled in the last 8 years. Do
you mean that the price doubled over the average for the time 8
3"ears ago and prior to that?
Dr. Taylor. I simply took the statement of the Agricultural Ad-
justment Administration or the Bureau of Agricultural Economics
that farm income was at a level double that of 8 years ago.
Mr. Curtis. For the purpose of the record, is it not true that they
are comparing it just with 1 year, 1932, and not the 8 years after
1932 compared with the 8 years before 1932?
Dr. Tatlor. 1 would rather answer that question after carefully
perusing their statement. I would rather not be on record as stating
what their statement says, when you can be furnished with the state-
ment itself. What you say may be true, but I am not certain.
Mr. Curtis. Now, you stated, at least so far as your area is con-
cerned, the problem that these incoming migrants have created is
that possibly a good portion of them come from the land or were
almost directlv connected with it.
Dr. Taylor'. They do.
Mr. Curtis. You feel that perhaps the remedies to be applied to
the interstate migration of destitute persons should follow about the
same percentage; in other words, are we going to find the answer
dealing with agriculture and with the land, to a large extent?
Dr. Taylor. To a large extent, but I am not certain that it would
be in the same proportion.
Mr. Curtis. Wliy?
Dr. Taylor. Because of the fact that the land is already overloaded.
Of the gainfully employed, 22 percent receive about 9 percent of the
income. There is a process of stripping people off good land and
putting them on poor land. I think that the land measure to be
employed would have to be scrutinized with some care. I would
refer to my emphasis upon the fact that in the long run we must
recognize that we do not need a very much larger agricultural popu-
lation to produce food and fiber in desirable quantities.
Mr. Curtis. Is that the basis we should accept for our future
planning?
Dr. Taylor. I think so.
Mr. Curtis. You think so?
Dr. Taylor. There are others who disagree, but I think so.
Mr. Curtis. Then the most efficient type of farming is the one we
should encourage?
Dr. Taylor. I think we should not discourage efficiency, per se, but
we should insure that the benefits go to the people who work the
soil. There is a difference.
Mr. Curtis. Through absentee management and through custom
farming you make for efficiency, do you ?
Dr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. They produce more with fewer people.
Dr. Taylor. Yes. That is why I made the qualification in my
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3267
Mr. Curtis. Understand, I just want to get your idea on it; I am not
arguing ^yith you. And you think we should accept that trend and
plun accordingly?
Dr. Taylor. Oh, I did not say we should promote absentee OAvner-
ship.
Mr. Curtis. I know you did no. I asked, Do you think we should
do that in the interest of efficiency ?
Dr. Taylor. No; I do not. I think we should enable those who
work the soil to operate efficiently,
Mr. Curtis. I feel this, that agriculture is in a different sphere from
all other activity. A man may work in a shop, but he goes elsewhere
to live. He may be in a factory or in an office, as his place of business,
but he goes elsewhere to live. Agriculture is not just a matter of pro-
duction, it is a matter of homes.
Dr. Taylor. I agree ; yes.
Mr. Curtis. The thing that appears perhaps the most efficient is not
necessarily the most wholesome in the long-range development of our
agriculture because, as you were pointing out a bit ago, certain of this
absentee management might be efficient merely from the bookkeeping
standpoint.
Dr. Taylor. Quite so. There is a social set of books which may
balance very differently than a private set of books.
Mr. Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, for your very valuable contri-
bution. We appreciate it deeply, and I know it is going to help us.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER E. PACKARD, CONSULTANT, BERKELEY,
CALIF.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Packard, for the purpose of the record, will you
state your official position ?
Mr. Packard. I am a private consultant. I work for the Govern-
ment a portion of the time, and also for private concerns.
Mr. Curtis. For whom have you been employed in the past year ?
Mr. Packard. I have been employed by the Farm Security Admin-
istration and by the Haynes Foundation. I think those are the
only two during the past year.
Mr. Curtis. You are an economist?
Mr. Packard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. ^Yimt was your experience before you went into this
work as a consultant?
Mr. Packard. I first graduated from the Iowa State College in
agriculture, took a 4-year course there. I later took a degree at
the University of California in irrigation engineering and in soils.
I later took economics and graduate work at Harvard University. I
was with the University of California for 10 years. I was then with
Elwood Mead, in State land-settlement work, for 4 years.
I was then consultant for a number of agencies. I was in charge
of the development in Mexico, for the Mexican Government, for a
period of 4 years. I made various analyses for various departments
of government during that time, including an economic survey of
3268
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
the Columbia Basin project for the War Department and an eco-
nomic analysis of the Central Valley project in California for the
State engineer's office.
I then went with the triple A in charge of the program on the
coast; then with the Resettlement Administration, when that started.
I was first director in the region on the coast and then was
Director of Resettlement in Washington covering the rest of the
United States.
Since then I have been a consultant for various agencies.
Mr. CiRTis. Dr. Packard, you have prepared two statements which
will be made part of the record.
(The statements referred to follow:)
STATEMENT OF WALTER E. PACKARD, CONSULTANT, BERKELEY, CALIF.
Can Migrants Be Plackd to Advantage on Lands To Be Served by the Centeai,
Valley Project
Popiilation increase.— There was an increase of 37.7 percent iu the population
of the five counties in the upper San Joaquin Valley during the past decade. The
national figures show a 7 percent increase. In Kern County the increase came to
61.7 percent. Most of this increase resulted from migration from the southern
Great Plains area, many coming from the cotton sections of Texas, Oklahoma, and
Arkansas. The increase in Los Angeles County was 25.8 percent. California
ranked third among the States, with 21.1 percent increase. The percentage in
crease in the District of Columbia was greater than that of any State.
Increase in irriqated area.— During this same period the irrigated area increased
by over 300,000 acres. Much of this increase occurred in areas of restricted water
supply, where continued pumping will eventually cause the abaiuloiunent of irri-
gation if an outside water supply is not provided. An increased run-ott from local
streams has raised the water level in areas where a dropping water table sup-
ported a fear that the ground water supply would never be replaced without
importation from the outside. In other areas the decline in ground-water level
has been continuous. In all of the areas the pumping costs are high. On this
account and because of the uncertainty of the supply, it is difficult for farmers
to secure long-term credit.
Ahandoninent of land. — This fact, together with the effects of surplus pro-
duction and decline in prices, has forced many heavily mortgaged owners and
the owners of inferior lands to lose their properties. These farms have been
taken over by banks, insurance companies, private lenders, and by county and
irrigation district authorities. The Terra Bella Irrigation District, covering
an area of heavy pumping lift and made up largely of third-class land, has
purchased 6,718 acres or more than half of the district area, at tax sales. The
Lindsay-Strathmore District, also an area of high-cost water and with a
considerable acreage of third-class land now owns 4,718 acres, taken over in
tax sales. The Corcoran District owns 3,564 acres, acquired in the same
way. These lands are generally inferior.
This, then, is the record. A dropping water table ; a constant increase
in the draft on a limited ground-water supply; growing costs and increasing
credit risks. And with no attempt as yet, by public or px-ivate agencies to
curb the activities of individual land owners seeking to secure their share
of an inadequate ground-water supply.
the central valley project
The Central Valley project is designed to correct the deficiency in water
supply. But the dams, canals, power plant, and pumping stations which form
the Central Valley projects are not, the final accomplishments. They are but
the instruments of service to be used in securing an ultimate objective.
That objective, in broad terms, is the pronation of the general welfare. Sound
planning and effective execution by engineers are primary prerequisites. They
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3269
form a soimd physical base upon which to build a well-balanced and effective
economic and social structure, but they are not that structure. That struc-
ture consists of tenure patterns, size of holdings, plans of settlement, patterns
of farm operation, labor relationships, credit arrangements, and markets in the
agricultural field ; upon sound labor relationships ; the passing of low-cost
electrical power directly to the consumers of power and upon an equitable
allocation of costs against all increments in value resulting from the
development.
These are the factors w'hich govern the degree of ultimate success or failure.
They require very special consideration now, because general economic recovery
depends upon wise action in numerous fields. Each element in the total
economy must contribute its share toward increasing business activity and
toward a balanced distribution of the income which results from such activity.
The Central Valley project is a major national undertaking. It is an im-
portant element in the State's economy. It is exceedingly important therefore
that planning and execution do not stop with engineering accomplishments.
If they do, little general good will result. And there is the possibility of
much harm.
The public character of the project was emphasized and its relationship to
the whole economy clarified when, through the Central Valley Project Act
of 1933, the people of the State of California "declared that the public interest,
welfare, convenience, and necessity require the construction * * * of a
system of works for the conservation, development, storage, distribution, and
utilization of water, with incidental generation, transmission, and distribution
of electrical energy, which system of works is hereby designated as the Central
Valley project and is licrchy speciticnlly approved and authorized."' In section
3 of the act it is further declared that "Tlie construction, operation and mainte-
nance of said Central Valley project, as herein provided for, is hereby de-
clared to be in all respects for the welfare and benefit of the iieople of the
State, for the improvement of their prosperity and their living conditions, and
this act shall therefore be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and
objectives thereof. The Authority (Water Project Authority) and the depart-
ment (State department of public works) shall be performing a governmental
function in carrying out the provisions of this act."
Great weight was added to considerations affecting the general welfare
when the Federal Government agreed, at the request of the State, to finance
the project, to direct its construction and to administer it when completed.
The Government receives its authority to participate in such an enterprise
from two articles in the Constitution of the United States. The first of these,
article 4, section 3, declares tliat "the Congress Shall have power to dispose of
and make all needful rules respecting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States." It is upon th,e authority of this article that the Bureau
of Reclamaion uses public funds in the development of the public domain by
the construction of irrigation projects. In the AsJncwmJer case, the Supreme
Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, tipheld the right of the Tennessee Valley Authority
to generate and distribute hydroelectric power under the authority of this
article.^
But article 4 provides the authority only. It does not necessarily justify
public participation in such enteiijrises as the Central Valley project nor does
it necessarily authorize the development of a water supply for lands wholly
in private ownership, a point which lias never been finally passed upon by the
courts. The Central Valley project contains no public domain and does not
benefit Indian lands, which might be construed as being a part of the public
domain. The nearest reservation is 20 miles above the proposed canal location.
Under article 1, section 8, of the Constitution, however, the Congress has the
"power to provide for the general welfare of the United States." Under the
broad provisions of this article, ample authority is granted for Govenimeiit
participation in an enterprise which serves the general welfare. This fact
places grave responsibilities upon the administrators of the project, as it is
upon them that the public must depend for the protection of its interests.
The adiministrators- — the Water Project Authority, the State department of
public works, and the Bureau of Reclamation — are, as the California act clearly
Ashu-ander ct a1. v. Tennetisee Valley Authority et al.
3270 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
states, "performing a governmental function in carrying out the provisions of
the Act."
Under the circumstances, the interpretation of the phrase "general vpelfare,"
becomes an Important issue. The declaration of policy by the Congress in
section 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, under which the first funds
were made available for the Central Valley project, provides a broad definition
of the term. This declaration of policy reads as follows :
"Section 1. A national emergency productive of widespread unemployment
and disorganization of industry, which burdens interstate and foreign com-
merce, aflfects the public welfare, nnd undermines the standards of living of
the American people, is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to remove
obstructions to the free flow of ii ' jrstate and foreign commerce which tend
to diminish the amount thereof; ^nd to provide for the general welfare by
promoting the organization of ind v. try for the purpose of cooperative action
among trade groups, to induce and maintain united action of labor and manage-
ment under adequate governmental upervision, to eliminate unfair competitive
practices, to promote the fullest i ;sible utilization of the present productive
capacity of industries,^ to avoid un. le restriction of production (except as may
be temporarily required), to inert se the con.sumption of industrial and agri-
cultural products by increasing p rchasing power, to reduce and relieve em-
ployment, to improve standards of abor, and otherwise to rehabilitate industry
and to conserve natural resources.'
Importance of repayment of cosi ■. — In addition to promoting the general wel-
fare through a spending program ;S a means of initiating business activity, it
is important that all increments ir land and franchise values created as a result
of the activity be assessed in orde- to meet the bill. The Water Project Author-
ity is directed by the Central Vail -y Project Act to construct the project, "When
in the judgment of said authoril f, appropriations, contributions, and revenues
from all sources of every kind ai 1 character which are available upon, during,
after or before construction of Sf.id Central Valley project, including contracts,
for the sale or disposal of water, water flow, the use of water, water storage,
electric energy or other sources in such amounts and at such times as will
afford funds sufficient to pay and discharge all cost and expense, of whatsoever
kind or character incurred, of construction, operation, and maintenance of said
Central Valley project."
Ramification of benefits. — In a study ^ of the economic aspects of the Central
Valley project made in 1930, the fact was pointed out that a wide ramification
of land and franchise values were created as a direct result of irrigation de-
velopment. The increase in farm-land values was shown to be but a part of
these increments in values. In a more detailed study of the direct benefits
resulting from irrigation development in the Columbia Basin project, it was
shown that the increase in farm-land values was less than one-fifth of all in-
crements in value.^ It was shown in both these reports that repayment of costs
would depend upon the assessments of all values created. Farm-land values,
against which costs have been assessed in the past, will not carry the load of
debt on large projects. Other values, created in exactly the same manner that
farm-land values are created, will have to carry an appreciable share of the
total debt if the money advanced is to be paid back.
Agriculture. — Allocation of costs is but one issue which goes beyond the con-
struction problems involved in getting an outside water supply into the upper
San Joaquin Valley. A rough survey of the major land areas to be served
shows a pattern of land use quite out of line with the traditionally accepted
family owned and operated farm ideal. Tenancy, nonresident ownership, un-
economic holdings too small to support an acceptable standard of living, and
large-scale industrialized operations with a relatively low living standard for
the hired laborers who do the work are prominent characteristics of the areas
studied. In addition, there are thousands of acres of excellent irrigable lands,
yet undeveloped, held in large holdings and subject to subdivision and sale, when
a dependable water supply is made available at a reasonable cost.
2 "The determiuation of the value in money of the profits that flow to each particular
county from the standpoint of irrigation if the State water plan is put into operation."
Prepared for the State engineer's office in 1930 by Walter Packard.
3 Report on Columbia River and minor tributaries. Report of the district engineer,
Seattle, Wash., on Columbia River above the mouth of the Snake, 1934.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3271
The survey covered all of the district in Kern, Tulare, and ISIadera Counties
that have been formed for the purpose of utilizing water from the Central
Valley project. These districts, vphen fully developed, will absorb approxi-
mately three-fourths of the water available from Friant storage. They are,
therefore, representative of the general area to be served by the project.
Areas to be served by the Central Valley i)ro)ect.—The areas dependent upon
the Central Valley project for a major pr tion of their water supply are listed
in table I. Two hundred and twenty-t\ 3 thousand acres out of a total of
seven hundred and forty thousand acres are located in areas of excellent soils. The
soils in these areas are equal to the best in the States and are adapted to a
wide range of crop adaptability. Two huncTved and ninety-seven thousand acres
are located in good soil areas where production is slightly above average. The
poor and very poor soil areas account for Mj-proximately IS percent of the total.
Table I.— Soil-classification districts in ^prn, Tulare, and Madera Counties,
organised to utilize water from.Jlie Central Valley project
District
Total
area
Ex'l^llent
,i<il
.ill
Good
soil
Fair
soil
Poor
soil
Very
poor
soil
Acres
150, 000
58, 810
42,900
43, 360
32, 400
152,000
45, 000
18,710
26, 890
173,000
1
A, res
6^,500
2«*;110
18^,470
3i,'360
27,-flOO
3^,1:00
1 110
! 1^0
10, ^70
Acres
57,000
17, 730
4^440
2,700
57, 800
8,000
900
3,340
130, 000
Acres
19, 500
11,050
960
400
Acres
5,250
600
1,430
5,500
366
23, 400
18, 600
2,210
1,740
43, 000
Acres
4,250
320
South San Joaquin municipal utility
district
Wasco-Shafter irrigation district
Delano-Earlimart irrigation district ..-
Tule River-Deer Creek:
Area A
8,360
1,660
18. 300
16, 300
12, 400
7,660
13, 500
300
2,030
Area D
3,880
gadera district
Total
743, 070
222, 680
297, 590
86, 570
102, 096
34, 300
The character of the soils and the present status of development of land under
irrigation are closely correlated. This fact is clearly shown in table I, where
the irrigated land and the soil classification in the Tule River-Deer Creek area
are shown together. As would be expected, the rnost highly developed farms
are on the better soil areas. Range pasture and grain farming are on the
alkali and hardpan lauds.
Lands taken over by the State, through tax sales. — The lands which have
been taken over on tax sales by the State are, in very large part, either of
poor or very poor quality or are in holdings too small for economic operation.
Out of a total of 42 properties taken over by the State in the Tule River-Deer
Creek area, for example, 24 included land classed as poor, very poor, and non-
agricultural, while the soils on the farms was classed as grade 3, which is
distinctly inferior. Of the S farms on class 1 or 2 lands, 6 averaged 12.7 acres,
which is entirely too small for successful operation. In other test area, the
Madera District, the same thing held true. The State-owned farms were in
large part on inferior lands and were visually in small holdings. This corre-
lation is a natural one. It corresponds with the correlation between developed
lands and the type of soil, shown in table I.
The importance of good soil as a factor affecting repayment possibilities. —
The close correlation, noticeable elsewhere, between the quality of the soil
and the character of the development, emphasizes the need for a careful selec-
tion of the lands to be irrigated. The productive quality of the soil, affects
directly the amount of money that can be paid for water. It is out of the
water charges that repayment of construction costs allocated to the land, must
be paid. Good soil is, of course, reflected in high yields. And high yields are,
in turn, reflected in high incomes as compared to income from poor soil. The
effect of good land upon returns and the ability of a farmer to meet water
costs, is shown in the following analysis of cotton production.
260370 — 41— pt.
3272 INTERSTATE MKIKATION
Studies made by the farm-management division of the University of Cali-
fornia show a total cost of $10.95 per hundredweight of cotton grown on an
average family-size farm of ICO' acres. This cost was secured under better
than average conditions, since the 5-year average yield was but 582 pounds
per acre. The cost was based on a land value of $160 per acre, a $40-per-acre
iirigation system, and an $8-per-acre charge for power pumping. Interest was
figured at 5 percent, labor at 30 cents per hour, horse work at 10 cents and
tractor at 70 cents per hour. Where cotton yields but a bale to the acre (500
pounds) the total cost, including depreciation, comes to 13.16 cents per pound.
Where cotton yields 1,300 pounds per acre, on the other hand, a grower on a
100-acre farm can produce cotton for a total cost of 8.11 cents per pound, in-
cluding depreciation. The 5-year average price of cotton in the San Joaquin
Valley is 10 cents per pound. With cotton the principal crop in the area, these
figures are significant.
The better growers on the best land, frequently secure two or more bales of
cotton per acre. A grower securing 1,200 pounds of lint per acre can, accord-
ing to the university studies, pay $8 per acre for pumping costs and have a
reserve or profit of $22.68 with cotton at 10 cents per pound. This reserve
could be considered, theoretically at least, available to meet water costs if
it is not absorbed in increased land values or allocated to profits of manage-
ment. Since the high yields result both from good management and good soil,
all of the profit cannot rightly be credited to water.
On the other hand, tho.^e who secure less than a bale and a half per acre
cannot pay as much as $8 per acre for water, including pumping costs, with
cotton at 10 cents per jwund, unless the cost of land is reduced. If his land
value is reduced from $160 to $80 per acre, for example, the cotton farmer
would have an additional $4 per acre available for water payments, which
"would pay a capital cost for water of $160 per acre over a 40-year period with-
out interest. This additional income from a reduction in land values would
enable the average farmer, as represented by the university studies, to meet
production costs, if he secured a bale and a half i^er acre — a yield which is 50
percent above the State average. If raising the water table appreciably re-
duced the cost of pumping, a farmer securing the average yield of cotton in
the State, would still lose money with cotton at 10 cents and land at $80 per
acre, if he meets full depreciation costs. Only by neglecting depreciation could
he make a profit. Benefit payments enable the average cotton farmer to re-
main in business now. These facts illustrate the importance of good soil as a
factor affecting repayment possibilities.
Special crops as a source of Incmne. — Emperor grapes, an important crt)p in
a portion of the area to be serA'ed by the Central Valley project, yielded a
capital and management income per acre of $73.49 in 1939 in the case of 18
vineynrdists in Tulare County, whose records have been carefully checked by
the Fniversity of California. These vineyards showed an average investment
of $377.00 i>er acre, with land and buildings alone costing $184.67 iier acre, and
the irrigation system costing $54.74 per acre. Power came to $10.56 per acre
on the avefage. But these good returns have resulted in an increased planting
of over 3.000 acres, an increase in shipments from 2.5(X) carloads in 1936, to
3,283 carloads in 1939 and a drop in price. "Before long," says the report,
"these increased plantings will be refiected in increa.sed production which may
be cause for considerable concern among growers." Obviou.sly, Emperor grapes
cannot be planted on any appreciable proix)rtion of the area to be made avail-
able for irrigation development under the Central Valley project.
Cost studies of raisin production show a net return of $4.75 i)er acre above
costs where a yield of 2 tons per acre is secured, where the raisins are sold
for $55.83 per ton ; where land and buildings are valued at $2G0 per acre, the
irrigation system at $30 i^r acre, and where power for pumping costs $7.50 per
acre. The average yield of raisins in California, however, is but 1.33 tons
per acre. With a yield of 1.5 tons, the net returns show a loss of $16.56 per
acre. Only the better lands produce a net return above normal costs under
present conditions. And again, demand at present costs and prices docs not
justify an increase in raisin acreage. Even if the cost of land were (Eliminated,
the 1.5 ton vineyardist would not meet all costs of production. The higher yield-
ing vineyards, however, could carry heavier irrigation charges.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3273
The 5-year average yield of oranges in California is 169 packed boxes per
acre and the average price is $1.17 per packed box. The prodnct of these two
factors is less than the cost of producing oranges, under present water costs
and land values. To increase water costs would mean a reduction in land
values, or a lowering of wage incomes.
Potatoes form a truck crop which appears to be especially adapted to con-
ditions in the upper San Joaquin. With a yield of 200 sacks per acre, and with
land costing $200 i>er acre, the irrigation system costing $30 per acre and with
pumping costs at $10 per acre, potatoes can be grown at 79 cents per hundred-
weight, making a profit of $86 per acre. Some growers get 300 or more sacks
per acre. The acreage in Kern County has grown from 1,400 in 1929 to 28,822
acres in 1939. At present prices and yields, potato growers in the upper San
Joaquin A'alley can pay a high; price for water. But continued increase in
acreage may soon reduce the favorable price level and bring potatoes within
the range of competing crops. Certainly no permanent repayment plan could
be safely based on the assumption that the present income level will be
maintained.
Dairij'niff iciU not carri) heavy irrigation charges. — From the standpoint of
markets, dairying offers the greatest chance for expansion. The relatively high
increase in local population and the increase in population in southern Cali-
fornia means an increase in potential consumption. Milk is the one product
that cannot be transported long distances or stored indefinitely. But dairying
will not support high costs. With land costing $200 per acre, the irrigation
system costing $20 per acre and with a pumping charge of $9 per acre, alfalfa
yielding 6 tons per acre, costs $10.40 per ton unbaled. The average yield of
alfalfa in California is 4.3 tons and the going price is from $9 to $10 per ton
in the stack. Increased water costs will have to come out of laud values, out of
labor, or out of subsidies contributed by the public.
Methods of controUing increments in farm land value as a repai/ment asset. —
The Bureau of Reclamation and other development agencies, from the beginning
of irrigation development, have had to face the fact that bona fide settlers would
not be able to meet both speculative prices for land and irrigation construction
costs out of the returns from agriculture. Various plans have been tried but
none have proved to be sufficiently effectiva Various proposals have been made
for new approaches to the problem and .some of these are now being tried out
in the hope that speculation can be curbed, so that the values created may be
used as a source of funds for repayment of construction costs. Traditionally,
the land speculator has reai>ed the cream of the harvest. And there is every
indication that speculators are planning again to absorb all increments in value,
and through the device of mortgage debt and contract sales, channel all net
income into their hands.
Submarginal land purchase as a^means of protecting repagment possibilities. —
There are certain basic steps which can be taken immediately to safeguard
repayment possibilities. The purchase of submarginal land within and bor-
dering the areas to be served by the project is one of these. It would remove
one danger of unsound speculative development and would prevent a wasteful
use of valuable water. The relative importance of this problem is shown in
table II, where a record is given covering the percentage of good land in
the districts organized to take water from the Central Valley project.
Much of this submarginal area cannot now be expanded from the benefits
of the Central Valley project, because -a general rise in water table occurs
under poor as well as under good soil sections. At present there is no way
of preventing an owner of poor land from pumping water as he wants it from
the underground reservoir. Excluding such land from organized districts does
not prevent the owners from pumping water supplied to the ground water
reservoir by the Central Valley project.
Because of the importance of this submarginal land problem, a submarginal
land-purchase program was started in 1937 under the auspices of the Land
Utilization Division of the Farm Security Administration. The program was
later transferred to the Soil Conservation Service, under whose direction 8,296
acres of submarginal land were purchased in Tulare County. The average
price paid for land and improvements was $10.60 per acre. The land is now
utilized as range for sheep and cattle.
3274 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
A somewhat similar movement was undertaken by irrigation districts in
the upper San Joaquin Valley. The Terra Bella district, for example, pur-
chased 6,718 acres at tax sales. This amouuts to 54.6 percent of all land
within the district boundaries. The Lindsay-Strathmore district purchased
4,718 acres of tax-delinquent land, or 31 percent of the total district area.
The Corcoran district purchased 3,564 acres of tax-delinquent land. These
lands represent the poorer and less developed areas within the districts. The
lands, once acquired, are rented for grazing or dry farming.
The most effective way of meeting this problem of submarginal lands in the.
future is by an expansion of this purchase program by State, Federal, or dis-
trict agencies. If the program which has been started could be extended
immediately to cover all of the inferior soil areas adjacent to lands to be
served by the Central Valley project, the submarginal land problem as it di-
rectly affects the Central Valley project, could be solved. It would prevent
the waste of Central Valley water on poor land and would lessen the creation
of rural slum areas, which add to existing surpluses and represent nothing of
value to society. Those who are now forced by circumstances to accept the
poverty of the submarginal farm can be provided for in sounder ways by
effective social planning. Agriculture need not be a dumping ground for the
casualties of social change. The acceptance by those who favor subsistence
farming as a permanent method of adjustment in a society based on machine
production is but an acceptance of defeat. The logic of technology is a higher
standard of living for all. The immediate problems which the use of labor-
saving devices create can be solved by positive planning and action. This
phase of the problem cannot be analyzed in a preliminary report of this char-
acter, although the problem is definitely a part of any broad program of read-
justment.
Provisions of the reclamation law covering land speculation. — Land and
water charges must come out of the same source of income. It is important,
therefore, that the farm operator get the land at its dry-land value plus the
value of improvements, for if he has to pay speculative prices for land the
income available for the repayment of water costs will be cut down. In
order to provide land to bona fide settlers without speculative charges, the
Congress provided in the reclamation law that "no right to the use of water
for the land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding 160 acres
to any one landholder." The Secretary of the Interior may limit holdings to
less than 160-acre units by requiring the owners of all private lands under
reclamation projects "to agree to dispose of all lands in excess of the area
which he (the Secretary) shall deem sufficient for the support of a family
upon the land in question.*
It was further provided that the land sold under the provisions of the act
shall not carry "the right to receive water unless and until the purchase price
involved in such sale is approved by the Secretary of the Interior." The owners
of excess land are required by law to dispose of excess lands "upon such terms
and not to exceed such a price as the Secretary of the Interior may designate."
In order to put teeth into the act, the law provides that "if any land owner shall
refuse to agree to the requirements fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, his land
shall no be included within the project, if adopted for construction." And "upon
proof of fraudulent representation as to the true consideration involved in such
values, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cancel the water rights
attaching to the land involved in such fraudulent sales."
Exceptions are made for those who acquire excess land at any time, in good
faith "by descent, by will or by foreclosure of any lien." Such excess holdings
may be held "for 2 years and no longer, after its acquisition ; and every excess
holding prohibited as aforesaid, shall be forfeited to the United States by pro-
ceedings instituted by the Attorney General, for that purpose in any court of
competent jurisdiction."
Precedent estuJtlishcd hy the Columbia Basin project. — A recent interpretation
of the excess-land law is provided by the Antispeculation Acts passed by Congress
and the State of Washington dealing with excess holdings under the Columbia
Basin project in eastern Washington. The acts, identical in purpose, limit the
area one man can hold, to 40 acres. A man and wife may own 80 acres. Anyone
* Sec. 431, N. S. C, title 43, ch. 12.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3275
now owning land in excess of these acreages must sell the land at its "nonirri-
gated" current value, as appraised by a disinterested board appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior. The leverage used in forcing compliance is a provision
in the act which stipulates that a landowner wishing to obtain water from the
Columbia Basin reclamation project with which to irrigate his land, must agree
with the Government to comply with the provisions of the Antispeculation Act.
"If a landowner sells excess land at a price above its appraised value, two serious
consequences result. The vendor will not be able to obtain water for the land
which he is entitled to retain for his own use, and the purchaser will not be able
to procure water for the land bought." °
A still more recent interpretation of the excess-land provision is contained in a
1937 amendment to an act authorizing the construction of the Arch Hurley project
in New Mexico. The amendment reads in part, as follows : "* * * That con-
struction work shall not be initiatetl on said irrigation project until * * *
(b) a contract shall have been executed with an irrigation or conservation district
embracing the land to be irrigated under said project, which contract shall oblige
the contracting district to repay the cost of construction of said project met by
expenditure of moneys from the reclamation fund in forty equal installments,
without interest; (c) contracts shall have been made with each owner of more
than one hundred and sixty irrigable acres under said project, by which he,
his successors, and assigns shall be obligated to sell all his land in excess of one
hundred and sixty irrigable acres at or below prices fixed by the Secretary of the
Interior and within the time to be fixed by said Secretary, no water to be fur-
nished to the land of any such large landowner refusing or failing to execute such
contract; and (d) contracts shall have been made with all owners of lands to be
irrigated under the project by which they agree that if their land is sold at prices
above the appraised value thereof, approved by said Secretary, one-half of such
excess shall be paid to the United States to be applied in the inverse order of the
due dates upon the construction charge installments coming due thereafter from
the owners of said land."
These plans for control of land speculation in these two projects are not appli-
cable to the Central Valley project unless they are supported by an air-tight zoning
law or by definite mortgage liens on individual holdings because the ordinary
penalty for noncompliance that of withholding water would have no force. In
the case of the Columbia Basin and the Arch Hurley projects, laud with surface
rights to water has little value. In the upper San Joaquin Valley, however, most
of the irrigators secure a ix)rtion or all of their water from underground. The
underground reservoir can be tapped by any owner. Excluding such land from
a district or denying the owner a surface supply, only relieves it from carrying
any of the construction costs. It does not prevent the owner from pumping
water from wells tapping an underground reservoir supplied with water by the
Central Valley project. A zoning law might be devised to meet such a situation
but the constitutionality of such legislation might be in question.
Removing restrictions upon size of holdings.— Another approach to the problem
is being tried in Colorado. Mr. S. C. Harper, chief engineer of the Bureau of
Reclamation, writes : "In view of the fact that this pi'oject was constructed pri-
marily to furnish a supplemental water supply to lands already receiving an
insufficient supply of water from other sources, the Congress by act approved June
16, 1938 (52 Stat. 764), provided as follows: 'That the excess-land provision of
the Federal reclamation laws shall not be applicable to lands which now have an
irrigation water supply from other than a -Federal reclamation project and which
will receive a supplemental supply from the Colorado-Big Thompson project'." *
In this case, full responsibility for repayment rests upon the local water-users
association, which agrees to meet all costs. The land is already developed and all
increments in value resulting from irrigation have been absorbed in the market
price of developed land. The opportunity for securing the increment in value
before it had been consolidated by sale and I'esale of developed land, is not there,
as it is in areas where large bodies of undeveloped land remain to be irrigated.
Similar provisions are contained in a bill just recently passed by unanimous
consent by the Congress affecting lands under the Washoe County Water Con-
^ Special memorandum on Lands in the Columbia River project, Bureau of Reclamation,
April 1. 1940.
* Letter from Mr. Harper, August 12, 1940.
3276
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
servancy District of tlie Triickee storage project and the Pershing County Water
Conservancy District in the Humbolt area of Nevada. These will serve to destroy
the influence which the Bureau of Reclamation has attempted to exercise in con-
trolling the social and economic character of settlement without providing for
any other controls, such as wages-and-hours legislation, standard housing provi-
sions, old-age pensions, or collective bargaining. It opens the door for a further
trend toward the establishment of a socially unsound percent pattern on modern
lines.
Government purchase of land, as an antispeculation measure.— The land problem
as it affects the Central Valley project must be divided into two parts. The first
part concerns the development of some 270,000 acres of good but as yet undeveloped
land in the area to be served by the Central Valley project. The general location
of these areas is shown in table II. If no outside water is made available, a large
proportion of this acreage will have no more ultimate value than dry-farm land.
Some of the land has a short-time value in excess of its dry-land worth, so long as
pumping is possible. But as pumping continues to reduce the ground-water level,
costs will increase and will finally become prohibitive. A large proiiortion of the
pcissiblo future value of these lands, therefore, rests upon the imiiortatiou of a
water supply, the cost of which should have a prior claim upon income, at least
until it is met.
Table II
Pro-
posed
east
side
district
North
Kern
water
storage
district
South
San
Joaquin
muni-
cipal
utility
district
Wasco
Shafter
irriga-
tion
district
Delano-
Earli-
mart
irriga-
tion
district
Tule
River
Deer-
Creek
area
River
Madera
district
Total
Acreage of good irrigable land
not vet irrigated
88, 000
62.6
36, 435
62.9
9,110
27.5
2,840
7.8
9,094
99.0
95, 805
59.3
38, 349
29.4
279, 633
Percent of total area of good
land in the district
43.5
Some owners of large tracts of undeveloped land without water rights, in the
areas to be served by the Central Valley project, are selling farms at prices as
high as $175 per acre. Such prices make it utterly impossible fo-r the buyers to
meet normal operating costs plus any reasonable charge for water from the
Central Valley project. In these cases the present owners of undeveloped! land
are selling their land at its dry-land value plus the cost of getting water to it. The
buyer in such cases either pays the construction charges twice or defaults in his
payments to the Government.
Because of the seriousness of this utterly unjustified speculation, it would be
well to postpone the construction of the Friant-Kern canal until some plan can
be worked out to curb land speculation.
If the Government should purchase all undeveloped land at its dry-land value,
the increment in land value would remain in public hands and the income nor-
mally passing into the hands of private speculators would go to the Government
and would be available to meet construction costs. Such a program would add 3
to 4 percent to the total cost of the project. But it would add appreciably to the
repayment possibilities.
As in the case of power revenues, those who protest most loudly against sound
provisions for making development projects self-liquidating, are apt to be those
who make the most noise about public debt. In the Central Valley project the
issue is clear. If increments in land and franchise values are taken by private
Interests, the public will have to assume the debt.
Demand for land. — Another point which deserves consideration in this connec-
tion is the fact that public ownei'ship of undeveloped land within the project area
would enable the Government to retard development until demand for the pro-d-
ucts that can be grown justifies an expansion in the irrigated area. Without such
purchase every landowner will strive to put his land into crop at the earliest
possible opportunity in order tO' enable him to get an income with which to meet
the water costs. On the other hand, the demand for land on the part of those
seeking opportunities to locate in California can be met in better ways than by
expanding acreage until basic adjustments Have been made in the plans for set-
tlement.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3277
If everyone in the United States could have the liberal diet recommended by
the United States Department of Agriculture, and if all could be satisfactorily
clothed, there would be an immediate demand for more land. Until effective de-
mand does cause a pressure upon existing acreage, there is no immediate need
for rushing land into use. To bring new land into productioii without also doing
those things which are necessary to insure success would be unwise. Success de-
pends, first, upon an increase in the general purchasing power, which may develop
temporarily as a result of the war. The second factor concerns local project issues,
such as the price of water, the pattern of tenure, and the adequacy of credit.
The problem of new land is not confined to reclamation-projects activities by
any means. The Production Credit CoriKjration, a part of the Farm Credit Ad-
ministration, has assisted in a very large expansion of irrigation by financing the
boring of wells and the installation of deep- well pumps in areas where there is no
gravity supply available. These new developments, furthermore, are financed, in
part, by benefit payments made to growers by the Agricultural Adjustment Admin-
istration. When tiie ground-water supply in these areas gives out, the landowners
will call upon the Bureau of Reclamation to salvage their values. The loss to
county revenues as a result of Federal ownership of land could be met by payments
to the counties in lieu of taxes. This is done by the Forest Service and by the Farm
Security Administration. The future county tax income, moreover, will be
enhanced as an increase in productive wealth results from irrigation development.
Large-scale a)id corporate operations. — The second part of the land problem
concerns the land already developed. There is a definite division in size of hold-
ings which, is significant. Much of the total acreage in the areas to be served by
the Central Valley project is in holdings that are larger than the traditional
family owned and operated pattern. On the other hand, by far. the greatest
number of farms are small. The small farms, moreover, contain less land than
is considered to be necessary to support an acceptable standard of living. As the
various factors affecting both the large and small farms are important from the
standpoint of debt repayment and general social and economic stability, they are
discussed to some detail.
Large-scale farming. — The record of holdings in excess of the 160-acre unit set
for maximum acreage by reclamation law is presented in table III. In the case
of the North Kern water-storage district, one-fifth of the landholders own 95.3
percent of the area. These lands are largely undeveloped. In the case of the
delta area, a highly developed region, nearly all of the holdings are above 160
acres in extent. Over 68 percent of the area in holdings in excess of 160 acres in
the delta contain more than 1,000 acres each. In the Wasco-S'hafter district,
known generally as an area of small farms, 4.8 percent of the landholders own
38.5 percent of the land in the district. In the Delano Earlimart district 6.5 i)er-
cent of the landholders own 44.7 percent of the district area. Less than 8 per-
cent of the landholders in the Madera district own 45.8 percent of the district
lands. Moreover, all of the highly developed and intensively cultivated large-
scale farms in the areas to be served by the Central Valley project, are located in
the best soil areas.
Table III. — Size of holdings in irrigable areas to he served hij the
Central Valley project
District
Area
covered
Area in
holdings
of more
than 160
acres
Percent
of area in
district in
holdings
of more
than 160
acres
Percent
of total
number
of land-
holders
owning
more
than 160
acres
Percent
of area in
holdings
of 300
acres or
more
Percent
of area in
holdings
of more
than
1,000
acres
Acres
58, 810
42,900
43, 360
32,280
173! 000
324, 748
Acres
56, 049
18,209
18, 393
14, 480
7,079
68, 247
324, 748
Percent
95.3
42.4
U.7
60.5
45.3
100.0
Percent
20.6
8.6
4.8
fi. 5
33.8
7.7
100.0
Percent
94.7
26.8
29.4
3.3.0
32.2
38.0
89.3
Percent
South San Joaquin municipal utility
Wasco-Shafter irrigation
10.9
20.9
5.8
Proposed east side'
0
19.2
58.0
1 Out of a sample area of 11,698 acres, not including 1 fruit farm of 6,131 acres.
2 Only the farms in excess of 160 acres were included.
3278 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
No survey was made covering the area lying soutli of Mendota and above the
gravity canals on the west side of the valley, but records of the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration show more than 20 recently developed holdings of
more than 5,000 acres each, financed in part through the Production Credit Cor-
poration. One operating unit developed during the past few years includes
21,000 acres, planted largely to cotton and flax. The owner of this farm, to-
gether with his brother, secured a total of $71,543 in Agricultural Adjustment
Administration payments in 1939.
Corporate operations.— K problem closely related to large-scale operations is
presented by a departmental decision in 1913, which excludes corporations as
applicants for water on reclamation projects. "That Congress," declares this
decision, "did not intend that the reclaimed lands upon which the Government
is expending the money of all the people should be the subject of corporate
contract is conclusively established by the fact that the Secretary is authorized
to fix the farm unit on the basis of the amount of land that will support a
family. These lands are to be the homes of families." This clearly expresses
the feeling in the Congress toward corporate operation on reclamation projects.
But the decision goes on to say: "But existing corporations to which water
rights have heretofore been granted should be permitted to continue without
interference, and in view of past departmental decision, applications by corpora-
tions pending at this date may be allowed." Furthermore, in a decision dated
March 8, 1932, "the Assistant Secretary reversed the decision of the Commis-
sioner of the General Land Office in the case of the Great Western Insurance
Co., a corporation, assignee of reclamation homestead entry of lands in the
Cheyenne, Wyo., land district. It was found that the appellant company did not
take the assignment and apply for a water right with intention of holding and
cultivating the land in competition with individuals or families, and it was
believed that the recognition of the assignment and the granting of a water
right to the company would not be in violation of the spirit of the regulations
of July 11, 1913, there being no statute which prohibits a corporation from taking
a reclamation entry by assignment." This decision reiterates the intent of the
Congress with regard to corporate operations, but lets down the bars for corpo-
rations such as insurance companies, banks, and other lending agencies not
organized primarily for farming.
As high as 98.4 percent of the land in districts organized to receive Central Valley
project water is owned by corporations at the present time. These corporate
holdings include farms held by banks, insurance companies, and. other lending
agencies. A larger percentage of these corporate holdings, however, are owned
by operating companies.
The Kern County Land Co. is the largest of these operating companies, so far
as land area is concerned. They own land in all of the districts organized in
Kern County to take water from the Central Valley project. Most of this land
is still undeveloped. The Kern County Land Co., moreover, is in a favorable
position, so far as water supply is concerned. The lands are served by the sur-
face and subsurface run-off from Posa Creek (rights to which are owned by the
Kern County Land Co.), and by a surface water supply from Kern River, con-
veyed to the lands of the Kern County Land Co. through the Lerdo and Gal-
loway Canals. According to a report by B. A. Etcheverry to the Kern County
water committee, the "North Kern water-storage district thus has, through
existing rights, nearly an adequate supply from Kern River, without acquiring
Central Valley project water, to meet its full ultimate water requirements, pro-
vided it could prevent the escape of its ground water to other adjacent
areas * * *. This it could largely accomplish by limiting the surface irriga-
tion by canal water and spreading to the central part of the district, and by
serving sufficiently wide areas adjacent to the district boundaries with ground
water from wells so located as to prevent as much as possible the escape of
ground water from the district boundaries to outside adjacent areas."
If this surface supply is almost adequate to meet all of the needs of the North
Kern water-storage district, it is undoubtedly sufficient to meet the full needs
of the lands belonging to the Kern County Land Co., vsiiich owns the surface
water supplies and is in no legal way bound to supply other lands in the North
Kern water-storage district, or any other district, with either surface or sub-
surface supplies.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3279
Yet the lands belonging to the Kern County Land Co., possessing the only
rights to surface water in the region, are assessed by the county at from $49.25
to $56.75 per acre, as judged by random samples in the district. Other land,
not possessing surface rights bu"t dependent for replenishment of ground water
upon surface irrigation on Kern County Land Co. lands, have been sold recently
by the Kern County Land Co. for from $150 to $175 per acre.
The Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, through its subsidiary, the Earl Fruit Co.,
is the largest operator in the area to be served by the Central Valley project,
so far as the value of produce is concerned. The Di Giorgio Corporation and
the Earl Fruit Co. own and operate a total of some 10,763 acres in the proposed
East Side project, the south San Joaquin municipal utility district, and the Tule
River-Deer Creek area. The Di Giorgio Corporation is the largest single pro-
ducer of deciduous and citrus fruits in the United States and one of the largest
producers of wine. They produce pears, plums, peaches, nectarines, apricots,
oranges, olives, hay, asparagus, and grapes in California ; oranges, grapefruit,
tangerines, and tomatoes in Florida ; peaches and vegetables in Georgia ; and,
through the Earl Fruit Co., they grow prunes and cherries in Idaho; and
cherries, pears, and apples in Washington. The organization is a widespread
and highly integrated enterprise. It has its own lumber and box factory at
Klamath Falls, Oreg., and sells its own fruit, as well as fruit for others, on a
commission basis in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, New York, and Baltimore.
The continued value of the holdings of the Di Giorgio Corporation in the
Delano-Earlimart, and the proposed East Side water-storage district depends,
in large part, upon the importation of an outside water supply.
Some of the land to be irrigated in the proposed East Side water-storage
district is owned by oil companies, whose interests are primarily in the sub-
surface rights. Some of this land, however, is being operated by tenants or
under the supervision of local managers.
Table IV. — Extent of corporate ownership in representative areas to 6e served
hy the Central Valley project
Percent of
total area
in district
owned by
corporations
Percent of
the num-
ber of
farms held
by corpo-
rations
Proposed east side district '_
142.6
98.4
1 8.5
126.7
1 17.9
30.1
27.9
6.5
South San Joaquin municipal-utility district
7.6
Wasco-Shafter irrigation district..
8.6
5.2
Madera irrigation district
These figures were secured from sample areas selected for special study within the districts.
Advantages of large'Scale operations. — Before condemning large-scale and
corporate types of farming, it will be well to analyze their advantages and dis-
advantages for, certainly, some strong basic economic force has created this
trend toward industrialized farming an,d the pattern may possess values which
should be recognized and amplified in a complete reorientation in our thinking
regarding the relationship of land and people.
On the positive side, large-scale operations permit full use of mechanized
equipment. This reduces the drudgery of work in the fields, permits better
work in land preparation, does the work more quickly when seasonal conditions
demand haste, and does tlie work with less cash costs.
Large-scale mechanized operations not only require efiicient management
but permits the employment of management skills because of the volume of
business handled. Large-scale operations also permit a division of labor which
enables the manager to gain the advantages of specialization. The very large
farms employ specialists — chemists, veterinarians, entomologists, and plant path-
ologists— sometimes on full-time employment, to take care of the technical
problems involved in control of insect pests, plant and animal diseases, and
3280 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
unfavorable soil conditions, or soil management. They employ skilled traotoi
operators and mechanics. Large-scale dairy farmers have full equipment for
efficient milking and for the care of both the milk and the animals. They can
afford good sires and can employ cow testers of their own to check up on
production.
Association in production is another principle which is associated with large-
scale production. When a job is done, several people can be assigned to it.
One man may mow hay, others rake and load, and others haul and stack. The
barn raisings, husking bees, and local threshing crews of old, are traditional
types of association in production, which are now organized and efEectivelj
used by operators of large farms. A view of large-scale farming operations
in any line, whether it be extensive wheat culture or intensive fruit and truck
production, shows groups of men doing specialized work. The cantaloupe picker,
for example, is a specialist. A group of trained pickers cover the fields, while
others haul the fruit, and still others grade and pack it, while the irrigator
sees that water is applied at the right time and in the right quantity, and the
spray crew keeps track of the insect pests and plant diseases.
Division of labor and association in production under management are prin-
ciples of real value, so far as costs of production are concerned. They also
lighten the drudgery and strain of many tasks. They are not wholly associated
with large farms, for independent small farmers do associate together in certain
operations and are employing specialists in constantly widening fields, but large-
scale operations make the application of these principles easier.
Disadvantages of large-scale and corporate farming. — Large-scale farming is
leading to a serious stratification of society in the areas to be served by the
Central Valley project. A class division is being created between the haves
and the have-nots, which is basically antisocial. Its counterpart, concentration
of income in the hands of an owner class, on the one hand, and a curtailment
of buying power, for the large number who are nonowning wage workers, on
the other, is creating a condition that has led to social unrest and disintegration
wherever it has occurred. As pointed out, in the discussion of power, the pres-
ent maladjustment of income is the most serious internal economic problem in
the United States. The pattern of large-scale operation in the areas to be
served by the Central Valley project is accentuating this basically unsound con-
dition. Efficiency in operation, enables the large-scale farmer to remain In
business when the small-mortgaged owner is forced out. Large operators in the
upper San Joaquin Valley, for example, can grow cotton for as low as 6 cents
per pound. They choose the best land and follow the best husbandry. But that
is not the whole picture. In the main, they hire labor for permanent as well
as seasonal jobs without providing the land necessary for subsistence, and with-
out providing insurance against want in old age, which is the basic social value
of the owner-operated farm pattern. The primary virtue of the homestead ideal
is that it is designed to provide job security and a living during the working
period of a farmer's life, and security of a home and income after retirement.
The large-scale industrialized farm pattern does not possess this basic virtue.
The laborers are the lowest paid in the Nation and have less security than the
urban workers.
In addition to the concentration of income resulting from large-scale opera-
tions, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration payments add to the dis-
crepancy. A casual study of these payments in a restricted area in one district
showed benefit payments of $9,950, $9,556.70, and $18,211.65 to individuals and
partnerships. Two brothers in Fresno County received $71,543.
The average benefit payments on cotton in California in 1939 came to $323.10,
but 6.1 percent of the growers receiving $1,000 or more each, received 48.1 per-
cent of the total payments, while 57 percent of the growers, receiving $150
or less, secured but 11.3 percent of the total amount. In all, $3,506,215 were
distributed in cotton benefit payments in California in 1939. These figures in
themselves, are eloquent testimony of the fact that large-scale operation
dominates in volume of business, while small-scale farms dominate only in
numbers.''
'From 1939 Annual Report, Agricultural Conservation and Other Programs for Cali-
fornia, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, Calif.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3281
The effect of a concentration of farm-land ownership and operation upon
income distribution is clearly brought out in a table submitted to your com-
mittee by Dean Hutchison of the College of Agriculture of the University
of California entitled "Minimum average at good yields and 5-year average
prices to produce a net farm income of $1,500 a year for a working farm
owner and operator free from debt. A copy of this table is Inserted here for
reference. In the case of walnuts, for example, capital and management
income amount to $53.11 per acre or $1,189.60 for 22.4 acres during a year.
The owner's labor income, where he does all of the work that one man can
handle, amounts to $14 per acre, or $313.60 per year for a farm of 22.4 acres
all planted to walnuts. If five walnut orchards were consolidated, four owners
might conceivably be retained as laborers. The former individual incomes of
$1,500 per year as owner-operators, would be cut to $313.60 as a labor income,
while the owner of the consolidated planting would get $5,948, as a capital and
management income.
In the case of cotton, the labor income of the owner-operator is $9.80 per
acre, or $597 per farm, while the capital and management income comes to
$14.07 per acre, or $903.29 per farm. If 1 man consolidated 10 or 20 farms
as is frequently done, from 9 to 15 owner-operators getting $1,500 a year would
be reduced to laborers getting less than $597.06 a year, because consolidation
would lessen the total labor. From 20 to 25 percent of the former growers would
be thrown out completely as a result of the use of labor-saving devices, while
1 man, the owner of the consolidated farm, would get from $9,032 to $18,064 per
year as a capital and management income. There are many farms of 5,000
acres and more devoted to cotton and crops associated with it, in the upper
San Joaquin Valley. One 5,000-acre farm represents the consolidation of 78
independent farms of 65 acres each. The owner-operator of the larger farm
would receive a capital and management income of over $70,000, while a large
proportion of the 77 independent operators who are dispossessed by the process
are reduced to wage hands getting a meager income.
3282
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
tS
■3
e average yi
1935-39
11
ill .ll
III nil
1
5§ ^
^
1
|Sj 2S2S
g
25 i
Percent
of labor
hired
10
asK ss ;S
§
1
s
o 0)
I'M t^ 0000 IM
N
-Ht^
i'l!- ^
^^^' ^^£^
s
S5B §
^
^ S.-
=
Net
farm
ncome
er acre
8
^g^ §K ;§
f^
ss s?
§
fegs §s ;^
?5
^n r
ci
-ft
:
Value
erator's
labor
er acre
7
§S8 SSSS
^
§s s
to
3g3^ SSS
oi
•^S "
rji
ft ft
Capital
and man-
agement
income
per acre
6
s
3
5^' "
3;
2
Cash
costs,
borand,
epreci-
ation
er acre
5
§S^ SS38S
lis Esr
g5
S5 fe
S3 ^
0
^
cax! ft
Gross in-
come per
acre
4
8SS §SS^
g
SS J?
S
000 (N ^" -; t-
S
f?
^
qT3
-a
-
1
0
■a
1
s
IS
8^
StJO
'S
c
-o
ear average pri
3
i
hi
8^?
1 a 1
1 :isl
o
2^11 ^^^s;
0
^S ?!
^
1 ,
m
:_g
'H
03
fe
i
c
a
§
1
8
a
ftl
2i
H
ife
c
8
Good yield
2
1
'2
11
llplll
^ 1
■^
^^ rH
to
a
:^
«
e of kind of far
1
1
1
5
I
.
ii
5|
1
III fill
0
mi
Ills
li
c
c
p:
flnfC
u
(^
p-
fq
a a
^ ^
^ 9
:i Bl
b S
wll
o o
CO Q,;
5 PI
- ^5^ g g ^
H a p a a o ••-
a ^1^8 1 ^.1
pisll |-|
ag-ss-a^-a-g
lo'&fellasS
e--s"ftgj35>M
■2 o S-2 ^a 8'^^
§'?2flS|fta5
^§-S.2.2^--o|2
-g o oj ca Ho g (^^
oO a CO « O gv-
S ^ O CO ft5 "S tJ fe
o
(NCOrJHioOt^OOCTi'-l
paaooaqaa
aaaaaaaaa
'o'o'o'o'o'o'o'o'o
000000000
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3283
Keeping families on the farm.— The problem of keeping families on the farms in
order that they may be self-supporting, involves this concentration of ownership
in the hands of a few large operators, or nonoperatiug investors, for it cuts the
funds which would normally pass into the hands of a larger number of farmers
operating family-sized farms. This means an increase in the relief load during
periods of slacli employment.
It means also a heavy increase in publicly supported old-age relief. An ade-
quate family farm will provide a living during the working period of the owner-
operator's life, and the income to ownership will provide an adequate income for
him and his wife after retirement. Where four families are displaced by the con-
solidation of five farms of say, 100 acres each, the income of four families will be
reduced to the wage income, with no ownership income to rely on in old age. A
fivefold ownership income, on the other hand, will go to the larger owner. When
the retirement time comes, the four displaced families will have to be supported out
of the income of their children or by the public, unless adequate social-security
provisions are made to apply to agriculture.
The pictures in plate 1, compared to the pictures in plates 2 to 12, show
graphically what happens to the housing standards. Not only is the income to
ownership withheld from the displaced independent operator, but his dwelling
becomes a meager shack as compared to what he might have had as a successful
operator of an adequate family-sized farm.
Community settlement.— A striking characteristic of large-scale farming is the
settlement of the laborers in villages. The size of villages varies, of course, with
the size of the farming enterprise, and the standards vary with the financial means
and the degree of social responsibility shown by the owners. This practice of con-
centrating the houses of the laborers in a central area, is patterned after the
practice on plantations in the South and is similar in many respects to the old
haciendas in Mexico and elsewhere.
The character of these villages can be presented better by photographs than by
description. Plates 2 to 12 show pictures taken at random through the dis-
tricts to be served by the Central Valley project. The advantages of community
settlement are numerous. The answer which large operators give to the ques-
tion, "Why do you settle your farm help in villages instead of scatteilng them
out?" is always the same. It is the most economical way of housing them and pro-
viding services, especially water. One well, for example, will serve many families.
The village life adds a desirable social contact which is better than the isolation
of the widely separated individual farms, at least for most people. Having the
labor adjacent to the headqtiarters also adds to the facility of management.
Nonresident ownership. — The concern of the Congress and of the Bureau of
Reclamation over spectilative interests, includes, of course, concern over nonresi-
dent ownership. The reclamation law says that no sale of water rights "shall be
made to any land owner unless he shall be an actual bona fide resident on such
land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land." However,
from 2.7 to 29.8 percent of the lands in the districts studied are owned by non-
residents. The lowest percentage was in the North Kern water storage district,
where nonresident and corporate ownership together covered 92.1 percent of all
land. The second lowest percentage was in the proposed East Side district, where
8 percent of the land, in the areas selected for study, was held by nonresidents.
Here again nonresident and corporate ownership combined totaled 50.6 percent of
the total area and over 77 percent of the farms were farmed by tenants in 1939. In
the Madera district, only 10 percent of the land covered by the detailed study was
held by nonresidents and 40.1 percent by both nonresidents and corporations. The
full figures are given in table VI.
3284
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Table VI. — Extent of nonresident ownership in the representative areas to be
served ly the Central Valley project
Proposed east side district
North Kern water storage district
South-San Joaquin municipal utility district
Wasco-Shaftcr irrigation district
Delano-Earlimart district
Madera irrigation district
Percent of total
area owned by
nonresidents
not corpora-
tions
15.7
29.8
10.0
Percent of the
total number
of farms held
by nonresi-
dents
Percent of total
area hold by
corporations
and nonresi-
dents
50.6
92.1
28.1
42.4
47.7
40.1
1 These figures were secured from sample areas selected for special study within the districts to be .served
by the Central Valley project.
2 Taken from records secured by the State engineer's office.
Tenancy.— T\\e: extent of tenant farming cannot be gaged accurately by the
amount of nonresident ownersliip, although most of the land held by non-
residents is farmed by tenants. A large number of local urban dwellers hold
land that is rented to small farmers or to large operators, handling many
farms. A very casual tabulation of multiple holdings in the areas selected for
special study showed the following record :
42 operators handling 2 farms each.
19 operators handling 3 farms each.
7 operators handling 4 farms each.
10 operators handling from 5 to 9 farms each.
2 operators handling over 10 farms or more.
These multiple operators handled cotton and grain land principally. One
grain farmer handled 23 individual tracts in the areas studied. Most of the
tenants, however, are small farmers handling slightly less than the average
acreage. The detailed figures are given in table VII.
Table VII. — Land farmed by tenants in the areas to be served by the
Central Valley project
Percent of
total area
farmed by
tenants
Percent of
total num-
ber of farms
operated by
tenants
Percent of
cotton
growerswho
are tenants
Percent of
cotton
acreage
farmed by
tenants
Percent of
small grain
acreage
farmed by
tenants
Proposed east side district
77.1
7' 6
44.2
21.5
16.1
76.4
41.2
19.5
51.0
29.5
72.4
44.4
18.1
49.6
28.9
70.7
43.9
16.8
44.2
19.3
80.5
South San Joaquin municipal utility district.
40.0
47.9
Delano-Earlimart irrigation district
64.0
28.9
Average for the State in 1931
The family owned and operated farm.— The figures covering the family sized
farm — the standards contemplated by the homestead law, the Reclamation
Act, and the California State land settlement act, and idealized in general
as the accepted pattern in the United States — are no more encouraging than
are the figures dealing with large-scale area corporate operation, nonresident
ownership, and tenancy. Low incomes and the insecurity and low standards
of living, associated with poverty are permanent characteristics of the farms
of less than 160 acres in the areas studied.
In its ideal form, the family owned and operated farm, has many basic
values. It provides an adequate living for a family and provides an adequate
income for the farmer and his wife after retirement.
But it occurs in its ideal form in smaller percentage each generation.
Mortgage debt, subdivision through inheritance, and changing techniques have
reduced the number of family owned and operated farms to less than half
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3285
of the total number of farms and an appreciable percentage of those that
remain are subsistence farms, often located in areas of rough topography or
poor soil where the mortgage lender does not dare to penetrate. The facts
which apply to the country as a whole, apply to the Central Valley project
as well.
The family farm is inflexible in size and is not adjusted to the employment
of trained management nor can the individual farm gain the full advantage
of specialization, division of labor, and association in production, which forms
so important a part in the operation of large farms. The isolation of the
family farm is also in contrast to the greater social contact of rural villages
as are found in Utah or in New England.
Standard of liviiif/. — In order to develop criteria to use in guiding the
standard of living of farm families, it is necessary to go into a little detailed
analysis.
A study of expenditures by farm families in six counties in California
conducted by the home demonstration division of the California Agricultural
Extension Service* shows an average ex^jenditure of $1,459 jjer farm family.
There was a range in average expenditure of from $1,330 for families of two
persons, to $1,531 for families of five persons. The farm family expenditures
as represented by these figures, are above normal. The individual items of
expense compare fairly closely to the expenditures of laborers' families living
in California cities as given in serial No. R. 630, Monthly Labor Review,
September 1937, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department
of Labor. The comparison is presented in table VIII.
Table VIII. — Expenditures for various items of family living for farm families
and urban families in California
Item in family living
Average
expenditure
farm families
Average
expenditure
city families
(Los Angeles
area)
Food
$288
162
139
109
78
62
270
54
73
78
21
29
96
Operating expenses (fuel, light, refrigeration)
132 67
233.32
Clothing
164 70
Furniture and equipment
65 57
Health
62.52
Auto and other transportation
199 98
89.97
Benevolence
47 27
7.63
Personal .
35 10
Total
1,459
314
1 425 20
Savings
1.773
1, 425. 20
The general average income of $1,459 for the farm family showed food as the
Iteaviest expense. Expenditures for food come to $288, or 19.7 percent of the
total cash costs. Food raised on the farm amounted to $96. In other studies made
by the Bureau of Home P^conomics of the United States Department of Agriculture,
shows a low of $126 for food raised on the farm in California, to a maximum of
$553 for food raised on the farm by families studied in North Carolina.
In Iowa, it came to $331 and to $265 in Colorado, Montana, and South Dakota.
The low income from farm-raised produce in California is reflected in the
scarcity of gardens on the farms covered in the present study. Adequate gardens
are rare.
The problem of home production is little understood. It does not represent
a net saving by any means. An expenditure of $438.54 for food for a family of
Home Management Program, Home Accounts, 1939, College of Agriculture.
3286
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
five is considered adequate for basic maintenauce and emergency standards of
living" Of this total, $120.77 consists of prepared foods, some of which can
not be produced on the farm and others which can best be made by commercial
concerns They include $82.27 for bread and cereals; $31.76 for sugar, sirup,
tea, coffee, salt, pepper, spices, etc. ; and $5.74 for cheese. The other items amount-
ing to $317.77 consist of the following : Milk, $130.84 ; vegetables and fruit $71.64 ;
meats and fats, other than butter, $67.91; butter, $28.90, and eggs, $18.48. But
the'^e are not produced without cash costs. Interest on land devoted to garden,
orchard, and feed for cows, hogs, and poultry; interest and depreciation on
minimum building requirements; irrigation water, taxes, interest, depreciation,
and repairs on minimum equipmen* iterest and depreciation on cow, hogs, and
poultry • bull service, seed, fertilize and spray materials, and purchased feed
for cows and chickens, which cannot be produced on the farm, all come to from
$135 to $180 per year, which reduces the possible net savings on home-produced
food to from $137 to $182 per yei Farmers are conscious of the costs and
many gave as an explanation for « gardens that they could buy most of the
food they needed more economical] than they could raise it. Unsound as such
a position is, it is the position tal i by those who do not have gardens or do
not keep a cow. And the position not as unsound as it appears to be at first
glance.
The city worker spent more thai, le farmer for food, rent, and clothes, recrea-
tion and personal items, and less r furniture and equipment, auto, education,
benevolence, and incidentals. The borer's family had no credit for home-raised
produce. The expenditure for he; h and recreation were about the same. The
average income for all families , the Pacific coast in 1935-36 was $1,335—
somewhat below the expenditures bove listed.
It is interesting to know thai Qone of the farm families considered their
expenditures adequate. Each — i ,'ardless of the amount spent — would have
spent more if they could have a' rded it. It is apparent that even the more
well to do farm families can eas' consume more goods and services than they
do now, if their buying power ca be raised.
The farm families saved an av age of $314 in addition to their expenditures.
No record was given covering the ivings of labor. The $314 set aside for saving
is inadequate. Over a period of years with interest at 3 percent, this amount
of savings would amount to $7,25 The average value of wholly irrigated farms
in California is $24,747. The av .ge value of irrigated farms in Tulare County
was $22,100 in 1930. The savings would, therefore, not pay for an average farm
over a normal work period of 40 years, representing the period between the ages
of 20 and 60 years.
Now, to interpret these facts in relation to the farm situation in the upper
San Joaquin Valley. The minimum acreage required to produce a net farm
Income of $1,500 a year for a working farm owner and operator who is out of
debt, secures better than average yields, and receives the 5-year average price
is set forth in table V.^" The acreage set forth in this analysis represents the
size of farms required to approach the standards set in the analysis given in
table VII, where the net farm income came to $1,773, wliich was considered
inadequate by all of the families involved and which did not provide enough saving
to pay for an average California farm over a period of 40 years. The acreage
to secure a net income of $1,500, ranges from 15.2 acres of oranges yielding 240
packed boxes per acre (State average 169 packed boxes), to 67.7 acres, one-fourth
devoted to cotton, one-fourth to sugar beets, and one-half to alfalfa.
« Report on Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency Standards of
Living, prepared by the Division of Social Research of the Worlcs Progress Administration,
based upon studies by Dr. Hazel Steibeling, of the Bureau of Home Economics of the
United States Department of Agriculture.
10 Talven from Some Notes on Acres of Crops Required to Provide Net Farm Income of
$1,500 and ECeect of Size of Farm to Hired Labor Needs, prepared by the College of
Agriculture, University of California, for the Congressional committee appointed to study
the migrant problem.
on
%
a9J?
The pictures on follof^ ing pages were
submitted by Walter J . Packard and
are referred to in his t* timony on pp.
3269 et seq.
Two owner-operated farm homes of the traditionally accepted pattern. One industrialized farm of 1,000
acres with its low income to labor and low standards of living may be substituted for 10 farms of this
type by large-scale operations.
A farm village to be served by the Central Valley project, Calif. Besides the mimerous laborers' homes
(above), the ranch headquaiters provides a store and a bar (below).
Views of (lilTerent parts of one ranch village.
HP
K
trnf
''^itJH-iifci-
-K
'^^^''^-
Communitv settlement on the outskirts of a farm village.
L^
M-"*
The home of a large farm operator.
PLATE 9
A home at one of the headquarters of a 21,000-acre ranch in California.
The Mineral King ranch, established by the Farm Security Administration in Tulare County, Calif.
The farm buildings are in the background. The shade and fruit trees are too young to show, but m a
short time will dominate the scene.
A close-up view of one of the homes on Mineral King ranch (previous page).
!ifai
4 ' u
A close-up view of four of the pennaiieiit homes for part-time farmers in Thuruloii, iu the dellu seel ion of
San Joaquin County, Calif. The gardens serve to reduce the high cost of living.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3287
Table IX. — Holdings of 160 acres or less in districts to he served hy the
Central Valley project
Percent
of total
area in
farms of
160 acres
or less
Percent
of total
number
of farms
160 acres
or less
Total number of
farms of less
than 65 acres
Average
size, acres
Percent
of total
number
of farms
of less
than
40 acres
Percent
of total
number
of farms
of less
than
20 acres
Percent
of total
number
of farms
of less
than
10 acres
Proposed east side district
North Kern water storage
district
South San Joaquin municipal
utility district
Wasco-Shafter irrigation dis-
trict
Delano-Earlimart irrigation dis-
trict
Terra Bella irrigation district _ _
Lindsay-Strathmore irrigation
district
Madera irrigation district
34.2
2.0
54.5
54.9
55.3
93.7
50.5
60.2
18.0
84.3
0.3
.04
70
48.8
95.4
83.2
None
None
31.9
76.3
None
None
15.7
13.0
Local opinion regarding living standards. — Another criterion of desirable size of
lioldings is presented in the "Brief of Land Use Survey of Kern County," prepared
by the county and community committee of farmers. The desirable minimum
farm sizes recommended by this local committee are as follows : Field crops,
80 to 160 acres ; fruit, about 50 acres ; truck, 15 to 20 acres ; and dairying, 160
acres. The family-sized farms in the upper San Joaquin Valley do not conform
to the standard set.
A comparison of actual standards with the theoretical ones.- — In table IX a
division is made of the farms of 160 acres or less in the area studied in the upper
San Joaquin Valley. In the Madera district, where cotton and general farming
predominates, 82.4 percent of all farms in the district under 160 acres include less
than 64 acres per farm, the minimum set as necessary to secure an income of
§!l,500. Furthermore, the 82.4 percent were far from free from debt and the
average small cotton grower did not get a yield of 700 pounds of lint per acre.
The 5-year State average is but 582 pounds per acre. Approximately 50 percent
of all farms in the Madera district are less than half of the 64-acre size set as a
minimum for field crops, yielding above the State average.
Table X. — Relative importance of orchards, vineyards, and vegetables on farms
of JfO acres or less in three districts in the Upper San Joaquin area
Number of
farms of 40
acres or
less
Percent of
farms of 40
acres or
less, hav-
ing or-
chards
Average
acreage in
orchard
Percent of
farms of 40
acres or
less, grow-
ing truck
crops
Average
acreage in
truck
crops
South San Joaquin municipal utility dis-
trict -
72""
233
205
25.0
24.9
17.0
1.5.4
16.2
12.1
15.2
12.8
8.7
5.3
Delano-Earlimart district
8.3
Madera district
4.7
The South San Joaquin municipal utility district in Kern County and in the
Delano-Earlimart area in Tulare County are known as vineyard and orchard
areas. As a matter of fact, however, only 25 percent of the farms of less than
160 acres have trees or vines. Fifty-one percent and 57.9 percent, respectively,
of the farms under 160 acres are under 64 acres in size, the minimum required
for cotton and other field crops. One-third of the farms in the South San
Joaquin municipal utility district, and 41 percent of the farms in the Delano-
Earlimart area, that are under 64 acres, contain less than 32 acres, or less than
260370— 41— pt. 8-
3288
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
half enough land to secure a net income of $1,500 on better than average soil.
The average of all farms under the 64-acre level ranged from 29.9 acres in Madera
County, to 34.5 acres in the South San Joaquin municipal utility district. In
the Wasco-Shafter district 70 percent of all farms are under 40 acres. The num-
ber of farms under 20 acres ranged from 8 percent of all farms in the South San
Joaquin municipal utility district, to 39.1 percent in the Wasco Shafter district.
These small farms, moreover, are not devoted to orchards and truck crops. In
the area selected for special study in the Wasco-Shafter district — the only district
studied where truck crops are important — 50 percent of the potato plantings were
made by 4 growers out of a total of 29 growers. These four handled an average
of 270 acres each. Five other growers handled an average of 117 acres of potatoes
each. The remaining 59 percent of all potato growers handled 17.4 percent of
the iTOtato acreage. In the South San Joaquin municipal utility district where
orchards and vineyards predominate, 71.6 percent of the orchards and vineyards
in the area studied were operated by corporations and tenants. In the Delano-
Earlimart area, al.so devoted largely to trees and vines, 14 corporate holdings
include more than half of the total acreage in orchards and vineyards. The 122
noncorporate vineyards and orchards average 34.2 acres, but 71.3 percent of
these averaged but 15.6 acres. As this is a vineyard area, where 40.8 acres of
raisin grapes are required to make a minimum income of $1,500, the ingnificance
of these figures is apparent. Moreover, the average yield of 2 tons per acre
required to make the $1,500 income is higher than is secured on any but the
better vineyards in the area. The general relationship between small farms and
fruit and tVuck production in the areas studied is shown in table X.
The same general fact is true in the citrus belt also. Approximately -10 percent
of the holdings in the Lindsay-Strathmore irrigation district and 28.8 jiereent of
the holdings in the Terra Bella irrigation district are under 10 acres. The
universitv studies show 15.2 acres of oranges yielding 240 packed boxes per acre
as necessary to bring a net income of $1,500. The State average yield is but 169
packed boxes per acre and the Tulare County plantings, in general, do not equal
the State average.
A fact of importance, then, in considering the farms which come within the
160-acre limit set by reclamation law is that they are, in general, too small-
much too small to bring an adequate income to the owner operator who is iCree
of debt and has better than average yields. This is true, even if the owners
were free from debt, which most of them are not.
Tulare may be taken as a representative large-scale farming section. It c(ni-
tains the largest peach ranch in the world and one of the largest vineyards. It
is the fourth largest county in the United States, from the standpoint of the
value of production. It has more tractors than any other county in the United
States, which is a rough measure of the industrialization of its farming Liiter-
prises. And during a part of the year (1938 record) more than a third of the
population of the county are on relief.
The following extracts from A Social Survey of Housing Conditions Among
Tulare County Relief Clients, April 1939, presents a general picture of conditions :
"Since the case load was widely scattered over the county, representative data
could be obtained on every normally inhabited section. The result is a study of
rural housing in all its phases, along the national highway, the county road, the
ditch, the canal, in a private or public camp, at the back of a better house, in a
tent, in a shack, along a stream, under a fruit tree, or on the unpaved streets of a
rural village.
"While recent fiction and motion pictures have touched incidentally on rural
housing, it should be pointed out that they cover only a phase of the proljlem. the
housing of migrant people, the temporary makeshift structures of families who
have no permanent homes, whose seasonal migrations repeated year after year
produce only temporary migratory shelters in every area in which they work."
Present or potential housing facilities depend on the current demand and the
" ability of private business to build homes for the low-income groups. On ar
Nation-wide basis the housing demand is so great that there are shortages for
almost every income class. This demand reaches intense proportions in the
lowest income groups and results, first, in inflated rents for substandard housing,
and second, in the progressive utilization of poorer types of structures. Relief
agencies in both urban and rural sections artificially stabilize rents, not at their
true housing valuation, but at the level of the budgetary allowance for such
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3289
families. Tlie results of this high demand, the housing shortage and stabilized
relief-rental allowances, are to perpetuate and even extend bad housing.
It is not possible for private business to build housing for the lowest income
groups on a large scale. Rents must be low ; otherwise, the houses will be rented
by persons in higher income brackets. For private business to build large-scale
housing for the lowest income groups two coniiitions would have to be met : First,
low rentals, meaning, of course, a very small return on the investment extending
over several years, prohibiting any profit, and .second, a social approach that
would insure that housing reached the groups for which it was intended. This
would mean denying available housing to persons or families above a certain
income level. Obviously, no private undertaking could successfully carry out such
a plan. A large-scale investment of this type of social undertaking would call
for considerable State and local subsidies in the form of capital outlays, leases
of land, destruction of old buildings, etc.
Specifically, what is the so-called housing that those families live in? They
are blighted houses, unimproved shacks, tents, pump houses, wobbly structures
built out of materials patched together with all types of wood and home-made im-
provised roofing.
As a standard, the minimum requirements of the California State Housing Act
have been used. These requirements are not high. Yet the greater portion of
the housing surveyed falls so far below the minimum standards that it could only
be classified as makeshift, poor, and dangerous.
What types of people live in those houses? They are, in the main, State relief
administration clients, workers on the Work Projects Administration, agricul-
tural workers receiving Farm Security Administration grants, county welfare
clients, recipients of blind aid, and old and infirm persons on old-age security.
These groups in peak seasons amount to about 35 percent of the total population
of the county. During these times the State relief administraticni has about 5,000
families or 22,000 individuals ; the Work Projects Administration, 1,000 families or
4,400 individuals ; the Farm Security Administration, 1,400 families or 6,160 indi-
viduals; county welfare department and categorical aid groups total at least 1.000
families with 4,400 individuals. This is a total of 37,000 individuals. The 1940
cen.sus shows a total county population of 106.285 persons.
The laboratory method applied to the land prohh'iu. — No one has the final
au'-wer to the social and economic maladjustments api'arent in the areas to be
served by the Central Valley project. The problem of large-scale farms, on the
one hand, and the two small farms on the other, cannot be wholly segregated in
any case. They are but a part of the basic lack of balance, created by a failure
to adjust our way of doing things to the needs of a mechanistic age". But the
direction in which economic balance and social stability lie is clear. The correct
formula must be worked out by study and by laboratory trials, just as the
physical scientist works out hypothesis in experiments of many kinds.
Policies of the State and Government have favored the ownership of farm land
by those who till it. Historically, the family owned and operated farm has been
the pattern used to accomplish this goal. These policies are in direct opposition
to absentee ownership, corporate operation, and the concentration of ownership
in the hands of a landlord class. But the facts show that the devices so far
employed have not accomplished the desired result. The accepted pattern is a
reality in part only and where it is a reality, it is not working well. These facts
are amply demonstrated in the areas to be served by the Central Valley project.
The Durham and Delhi colonies were attempts to force land iise into the
accepted pattern. They were based on the hypothesis that the problem was one
•of credit — that long-term payments, low rates of interest, and expert management
assistance through supervision of credit ^expenditures would correct the difli-
culties which there then apparent to all students of the land problem.
Experience, however, showed the hypothesis to be inadequate. The formula
did not take all of the facts: into consideration. It disregarded the inexorable
force of machine production, for one thing. It also disregarded the need for
markets. The project was started at the end of the two l)lad('s df-grass-where-one-
grew-before era and was at the beginning of a period when incchanical power was
replacing horses and mules. Credit was but one problem among many. Fur-
thermore, the plan failed to meet the problem of land speculation which it was
designed to solve. The formula was not complete, nor wholly realistic in this
3290
INTERSTATE MIGKATION
regard. The price paid for the land at Delhi was an example of unconscionable
acquisition of increments in land value by the land speculators who unloaded
to their decided advantage. Easy credit could not overcome this initial disad-
vantage, even if the size of holdings had been more closely geared to machine
production. , ^ , , . -,^ .
The policy followed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Columbia Basin
project was a more direct and effective way of approach to the problem of land
siieculation. There, the price of land was limited by law to its dryfarm value.
This left little room for acquisition of increments in value, at least by the
original owners. Similar provisions elsewhere, however, have not prevented
acquisition of large holdings or speculation in land values later on.
The failure of the formula used as a basis for the Durham and Delhi colonies,
however, does not mean that the laboratory method is inapplicable to land
problems. A mistake was made in considering the colonies as demonstrations
of a solution supposed to be a sound one, rather than as trials of a formula which
many believed to be workable. Condemnation of the colonies was substituted for
critical analysis. The projects were written off as financial failures with no at-
tempt to salvage the experimental results which would have been worth the cost
many times over if they had been analyzed and applied.
The Resettlement Administration, unlike the State land-settlement board,
was started when consideration had to be given to the marketing of the extra
blade of grass and at a time when the logic of technology was becoming ap-
parent. In the light of experience on State land settlements. Federal irrigation
projects, and in private developments, it seemed apparent that new and sounder
ways of doing things might be worked out. It was obvious, also, that credit
was not the whole answer. Neither did it appear that a forced subdivision of
land into family sized farms would meet the problem. A uniform size of unit
does not provide the needed elasticity to meet variations in capacity of the
operators, the varying demands of different crops, or variations in acreage
required to provide an adequate income. Furthermore, it seemed unwise to go
against the experience of commercial operators who were farming large areas
with full use of lavor-saving equipment and management skills and techniques.
In spite of attempts on the part of the Government to force the family farm
pattern, consolidation of holdings has taken place on many projects where con-
ditions favored large-scale operations. This persistent trend toward large
farms may indicate a sound change of direction, as far as land-use patterns are
concerned.
This situation is illustrated by the record on the San Carlos project in
Arizona, administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Over
$10,500,000 were spent by the Government in the development of an irrigation
system to serve 100,000 acres of land. This included construction of the Cool-
idge Dam on the Gila River and the development of 88 supplemental wells.
Most of the land on the project passed from public to private ownership through
the Homestead and Desert Land Acts since 1908. Land was thus distributed
to prospective owner-operators largely in 160-acre units. Shortly after title
passed out of public hands, concentration of ownership set in. The enabling
act under which the San Carlos project was authorized, required that all land-
holders owning more than 160 acres, to deed the excess to the Government at
no cost to the Government.
This was done. But in 1935, 11 years later, when the Resettlement Admin-
istration purchased 3,600 acres of land in the project for the resettlement of
dispossessed farmers, they dealt with with but nine owners, all nonresidents
except two, and none were living on the land and operating it. The largest
landholder was a bookkeeper in San Francisco who owned 800 acres. After
the mortgage liens were all paid, he received $3,000 as his equity in an $80,000
transaction. All of the farms but one, were handled by tenants. One farm
was handled by the owner through a manager. Housing conditions were, in
general, wretched. On one 800-acre farm, 8 families lived in a shed with dirt
floors and separated into 1-room apartments by chicken wire. This repre-
sented the best housing on that ranch — except for the hired manager's house
that had a value of about $300. Some of the farms purchased had no perma-
nent buildings. The tenants lived in town or in tents.
The land on the project was thus given away originally in family sized units
thi-Otigh the Homestead Act. The irrigation system was built with no interest
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3291
charge on the construction costs. A farm adviser and assistant were available
in the county. The State and Government had carried on experimental work
which had answered many technical problems. The land bank had loaned
money in the area. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration contributed
funds for surplus control and soil conservation. But in spite of all their effort,
the area was a rural slum of the worse sort.
Obviously, the bad results which the facts made evident, were not caused by
the efforts which the State and Government had made. Regulations and rec-
ommendations were simply not followed. The laissez faire policy of doing
what appeared to be in your own best interest caused the slums. The desire
for increment in land value and for large profits in operation were more power-
ful in their operation than were the broader social policies of the State or Gov-
ernment. The formulas used were proved inadequate.
In view of these facts— obvious in varying degrees everywhere— where good
soil and favorable topography permits the efficient use of mechanical equip-
ment, it seemed best to develop new formulas and to try them out. Several
projects, therefore, were established as laboratories where new formulas could
be tested. One of these was located in the upper San Joaquin Valley.
THE MINERAL KING PROJECT
The Mineral King ranch, 3 miles east of Visalia, was selected for one of
these experimental settlements. Seven hypotheses were followed in planning
the project. ^ ^
The first hypothesis was that security of occupancy and use of adequate
farming area are essential features of sound tenure. Private ownership of
land has had the insecurity of mortgaged ownership, to tenancy of an undesir-
able type, to soil erosion and land speculation. It seems logical, therefore, to
attempt a complete change in tenure arrangements by providing for permanent
Government ownership of the land with use rights granted to individuals on
leasing terms which protect the public interest and provide security and an
adequate income to settlers. This was done, not only at Mineral King, but on
many other resettlement projects in other States. And so far this phase of
the experiment is working well.
The second hypothesis was that division of labor and association in produc-
tion under competent management offers economies in farm operation which
cannot be fully enjoyed by independent operators. The 530 acres, therefore,
were leased as an operating unit to a corporation composed of settlers who
operate the land as a corporate enterprise.
The third hyiwthesis was that farmers might be able to cooperate in pro-
duction if the difficult problem of distribution of income was handled through
the payment of wages for labor performed under the direction of a ranch
manager, with the normal democratic machinery for protest. This admittedly
is the weakest link in the chain. Producers' cooperatives usually fail because
of disputes over what each contributes toward a common product. The wage
plan may solve that problem. It does not occur in consumer cooperatives
because there the benefits are measured by what one buys for his own use,
not by what one contributes toward a common supply. Marketing cooperatives,
which have been unusually successful are consumer cooperatives in principle.
The farmers cooperate only in buying the goods and services that they need.
They buy paiier wrapping, boxes, advertising services, and transportation. But
they are highly competitive as producers. Each is paid for his own supply.
The f<Hirth hypothesis is that community settlements permit material savings
in utility services and offers definite advantages in the operation of any large
property. The grouping of houses in a village contributed '^ materially to
financing the installation of flush toilets, baths, sinks, and wash trays in each
of the houses. Grouping of houses also permitted the use of natural gas for
cooking and heating. Natural gas is the cheapest fuel supply in the area.
The fifth hypothesis was that the Government cannot collect from people
with inadequate income. The impossibility of securing payments which require
a cut in essential living budgets is well illustrated by the records prepared by
the Bureau of Home Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture,
" As shown in plate.
3292 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
covering the expenditures of over 15,000 farm families located in 19 States
in tlie South, the East, the Middle West, and the West. In all of these accounts
the record of "Change in net worth" showed a loss when the net family income
dropped much below the $l,200-a-year mark. In North Carolina families re-
ceiving $1,117 per year ($674 of which was supplied by the farm in rent, food,
and fuel) saved $82. In Iowa families receiving $1,112, with $476 fur-
nished by the farm, showed a decline in net worth of $38. In California fami-
lies receiving $1,123, with $2[)0 furnished by the farm, showed a net decline
of $151. Families in the $1,000 to $1,249 income class in New Jersey, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, North and South Dtikota, Colorado, Mon-
tana, and California showed a loss in net worth. They apparently preferred
to sacrifice their inventory value rather than cut down their living expenses.
Families in the same class in Vermont, Ohio. Pennsylvania, Washington, Geor-
gia, Mississippi, and North Carolina saved from $26 to $83 during the year.
Families in all of these States, with the exception of Mississippi, showed a
decline in net worth when their incomes dropped down to the $750 to $C99
class. Families in Mississippi receiving an average income of $870 made an
average saving of $9. In New Jersey, on the other hand, families in the
$1,250 to $1,499 income class, with an average income of $1,369, showed a
decline in net worth of $45.
These records indicate rather clearly that there is a point at which families
prefer to sacrifice possible future security for immediate needs. It seems ap-
parent, therefore, that a project organized on the basis of an income below the
$1,500 a year mark has little chance of financial success. It will require an
income of $1,200 to meet immediate needs of a family and savings of $300 per
year in addition to provide a minimum security for old age. Three hundred
dollars in savings with interest at 3 percent will pay for a farm costing $6,928
over a period of 40 years.
On the basis of this theory of income, 10 families were located on the 530
acres comprising the Mineral King ranch. After meeting all contractual obliga-
tions to the Government ; after making payments to the county in lieu of taxes,
and paying themselves 30 cents an hour for their work, there was a profit of
$6,000 in 1938. A portion of the profit was spent for cows as a means of in-
creasing the returns. A serious attack of contagious abortion broke out in the
herd, making it necessary to dispose of all the stock at an appreciable loss to
the settlers who had to foot the bill. In 19S9 the profit rose to $7,500. A por-
tion of this was set aside as a reserve fund. Some of it was used to recoup
the loss on the dairy herd and a portion was distributed as a wage bonus.
This labor bonus was paid both to settlers and to 102 cotton pickers not resident
on the project. Cotton p'ckers were paid at the rate of 90 cents per hundi-ed
for the first 2 weeks. The price was then raised to $1 and later to $1.30 per
hundred. The bonus payments were in addition to these regular payments.
These facts have special significance in view of the strike of cotton pickers in
Madera County in 1939 to raise the pay above 80 cents per hundred, set by the
large growers.
The prospect of 1940 returns on Mineral King are better than for any pi-evious
year. In addition to larger yields, the dairy herd is being established.
The income per family on the Mineral King ranch in 1939 was approximately
as follows: Wage income, $720; wage bonus, $200; rent, $180; income from
gardens and from reduced cost of fuel and milk, $100; total income, $1,200.
Savings are covered in part by the reserve account. The income from the
farm can be appreciably raised by expanding the garden area. The fruit trees
now planted will cut the cost of the fruit supply as soon as the trees are in
bearing. These economies will bring the income per family to $1,500 or more,
including savings. With this standard as a minimum, the Government should
have no difficulty in having payments met in full.
Although the settlers are meeting their contractual obligations, including con-
tributions in lieu of taxes, full water costs, and interest on debt, the debt does
not include the full cost of land and buildings. Construction was, at first, car-
ried on under the handicap of relief labor requirements, which raised the cost.
Interest is, therefore, based on the appraised value rather than actual cost.
Furthermore, the present cost of superintendence is higher than a project of
this kind can carry. An isolated settlement of this kind faces this heavy over-
head, which must be charged against the experimental character of the enter-
interstatp: migration 3293
prise. If the principle proves wortli while, the pattern can be expautled on a
scale which will reduce the overhead to a figure that can be borne.
A sixth hypothesis was that farmers do not like chores. The extra work of
raising a garden and tending to cows and other livestock before breakfast and
after supper, adds little to the value of a "way of life." It is why gardens are
not what the outsider thinks a farmer should raise, and many prefer to work
for wages on the outside and to buy milk rather than keep a cow. In a village
set-up with cooperative operation of the farming enterprise, there seems to be
no reason why division of labor could not be used to eliminate the chores. At
Mineral King, therefore, there are no family cows. The ranch dairy supplies
all of the needs. Milk is distributed on the same basic principle that governs
any publicly owned service, such as a domestic water supply, for example. It is
a consumer-controlled service. Milk is sold to settlers at 20 cents per gallon,
and the supply is adequate. The main garden can also be operated as a part
of the regular ranch work, thus eliminating this rather burdensome chore and
at the same time providing an ample supply of garden products at a low cost.
This application of the principle of division of labor is one effective way of
shortening the working day for the farmer and of absorbing more people in
agriculture as an occupation, without lowering their standard of living. On the
Mineral King ranch, some are engaged full time in taking care of the duties
which form the chores on the family farm. Developing new services such as
a central water plant and sewer system, creates jobs for some of those who are
displaced by the machine. It is but an application of the logic of technology
which calls for a general raising of the standards of living as a way of creating
a market for the goods and services which industrialization makes possible.
The same principle of specialization applies in other ways as well and leads
to the seventh and last hypothesis, that diversification is sound husbandry.
It conserves the soil and spreads both the business risk and the labor loads; and
diversification has been preached for many years, but it is not generally prac-
ticed on the average farm. Agriculture is rather becoming more specialized ;
diversification, however, is being carried out effectively on a community basis
in many areas. In Imperial Valley, for example, old cantaloup land, freed of
Bermuda grass by intensive cultivation, is rented by dairymen who must have
clean land for alfalfa. The cantaloup man, on the other hand, wants rich land
and rents the old alfalfa land given up by the dairyman. It is badly infested
with Bermuda grass as a result of pasturing and lack of cultivation, but right
plowing soon eliminates it. Tlius, two separate interests, each specializing in
a particular crop, operate on a community rotation basis which meets basic
needs.
At Mineral King, this type of rotation is carried out on a well organized basis.
The dairymen take care of the cows. The irrigator specializes in irrigation.
Cotton men raise cotton, and the fields are rotated. But the rotation does not
mean that each man must be a specialist in many lines. Each, on the other
hand, does the thing he can do best. At least, that is the theory.
Lahor camps. — Another experiment was tried. Seasonal farm laborers are
normally congregated in shack towns. Obviously, their wage earnings are not
large enough to meet normal costs of living. Their standards of housing are
necessarily low ; their health becomes a public problem ; and their children lack
the basic care and culture which any child in a rich country should have.
In order to alleviate the conditions found by this migrant group, the Farm
Security Administration has established^ several rural villages where the fami-
lies can live in comparative comfort. Running water is installed at each house ;
hot and cold showers, flush toilets, and washing machines are located in utility
buildings situated in the center of a group of houses at convenient intervals
through the camp. A central building serves as meeting place and recreation
hall. Kindergarten classes, sewing groups, and church organizations utilize
the building. Outside playgrounds for children and adults provide seasonal
recreation facilities. Educational classes, movies, and entertainment, usually
put on by local talent, occupy the evenings. The assembly hall is frequently
crowded to standing room at these various functions. A village nurse is em-
ployed to look out for health conditions. A clinic is located in each village.
In one village in Arizona a GO-bed hospital is nearing completion. It will serve
a wide area. Plates submitted with this statement show views in three of these
migrant villages established by the Farm Security Administration.
3294 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The services available to these families form a forceful challenge. Many of
the features of village life have been urged for the group by the home econ-
omists w^ho are atempting valiantly to improve conditions in the ordinary home,
where isolation limits opportunity and raises the cost of services which any
village group can have at moderate cost.
This brief discussion of recent attempts to adjust land-use patterns to modern
conditions is not offered here with any idea that these experiments necessarily
provide the best or final answer. They do show, however, a needed willingness
to face the issue squarely. They probably point in the right direction, but
they are trials only.
CONCLUSIONS
This reconnaissance study of some of the social and economic aspects of
the Central Valley project, indicates four needs. The first concerns reclamation
laws and administrative rulings covering land use. They are not geared to
present-day conditions which are set, in part, by the use of new mechanisms
in production. The need for variation in size of operating units and of new
patterns of tenure require a revaluation of past concepts and an adjustment
of laws and regulations to meet the new conditions.
The second need concerns a change in the existing patterns of land use
which have developed fortuitously in the areas to be served by the Central
Valley project. The trend is toward small part-time farms on the one liand,
and large feudallike estates on the other. The trend is away from the family
owned and operated farm that is large enough to provide an aceptable standard
of living without supplemental income from outside labor. An attempt to
blindly force a family pattern, may be both socially and economically vmsound.
The large-scale farm offers many distinct advantages. But the present patterns
of large-scale operation contain the seed of its ultimate destruction, for it is
basically unsound and cannot form the foundation of a permanent society.
These large-scale farming patterns deserve careful analysis in order to evaluate
properly their positive and negative values as a basis for planning wisely for
land use and tenure.
The third need concerns repayment of construction costs. This problem
cannot be divorced from the problems of land and franchise values, which pene-
trate deeply into existing ways of doing things. If the pi'oject is to be self-
liquidating, all major increments in value will have to be assessed.
Furthermore, the full increments in farm-land value will have to be directed
into repayment channels, if the costs, properly chargeable against farm land,
are to be met in full. This will involve a consideration of the salvaging of
existing values which will disappear if an outside water supply is not provided.
The power issue is, of course, involved in any consideration of repayment
possibilities.
The fourth need concerns procedure. The problems involved call for new
national policies. They affect labor, the farmer, and the public ; and they are
basic in character. No one agency represents a sufficient breadth of interest to
undertake the task of formulating policies for consideration by the State and
the Congress, so far reaching in effect as these will necessarily be. Changes
are needed in the present policies of the Farm Credit Administration, the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration, the Farm Security Administration, and
the Soil Conservation Service as well as those of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Each of these administrative agencies are directly involved in the area. These
agencies should join together witli research and planning organizations in
formulating new policies. The University of California ; State and coiTuty
planning boards; the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Office of Irrigation
Investigations of the United States Department of Agriculture ; the State
department of public works ; the State and Federal Departments of Labor ;
the Farm Bureau Federation ; the Grange and Farmers Union ; all should have
an important part in investigations, research, and policy formation. The
Central Valley project, in a very definite way, is the major test of the capacity
of a political democracy to meet basic economic issues through study and planning,
rather than through disintegration, with the necessity of rebuilding upon a new
foundation.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3295
In view of these needs and in view, also, of tlie serious cliaracter of tlie present
trend in rural areas, it is felt that construction of the Madera and Friant Kern
Canals be delayed until some provisions have been made to safeguard the public
interest. Perhaps the water to be stored in the Friant Reservoir could be used
on the west side, under strict provision covering size of holdings or social legis-
lation protecting the interests of labor and the public, pending the completion of
negotiations regarding these matters in the other areas.
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER PACKARD, CONSULTANT, BERKELEY,
CALIF.
Can the Low-Income and Destitute Farm Population IMPK0^^ Their Status
Through Cooperation
Although circumstances govern human action very largely the social order is
formed in part by the philosophies held by those who cast the votes. A philosophy
of class rule, for example, whether it be by an owning class or by labor, may lead
to action which is opposed to the general welfare.
The present lack of balance in our economy is due to a concentration of income
resulting from an uneconomic application of the philosophy of private owner-
ship. Dr. Harold G. Moulton, president of the Brookings Institution, has this to
say regarding this particular problem :
"As to income distribution and its results,* we found in the second division of
our study the proceeds of the Nation's productive efforts going in dispropor-
tionate and increasing measure to a small percentage of the population— in 1929
as much as 23 percent of the national income, to 1 percent of the people. We
found the unsatisfied wants — needs — according to any good social standard — of
the 92 percent of all families who are now below the level of $5,000 annual income
sufficient to absorb the product of all our unused capacity under present condi-
tions of productivity and still demand much more from such unexplored poten-
tialities as might thereafter be opened up. We found the incomes of the rich
going in large proportion to savings and these savings strongly augmented by
others impounded at the source by corporations through the practice of accumu-
lating corporate surplus. These savings, after providing for such increase of
capital goods as could be profitably employed, we found spilling over into less
fruitful or positively harmful uses, ranging from foreign loans (bad, as well as
good) to the artificial bidding up of prices of domestic properties, notably cor-
porate securities.
"Thus, we begin to discern the answer to our question whether the basic defect
in our economic system, not discovered in the technical processes of production,
is to be found in the way we conduct the distribution of income. The answer is
affirmative ; this is the place at which we do find basic maladjustment."
Private ownership of land including forests and mineral resources and the
granting of private franchises for the performance of services essentially monopo-
listic in character have been the source of most of the great fortunes in the
United States. Patents and other restrictive measures have added to monopoly
control. These actions on the part of society are based on a certain philosophy of
enterprise. This philosophy is based upon the assumption that the passing of
these privileges of ownership and control into private hands will lead to the
greatest good to he greatest number. Evidence indicates that this is not wholly
true. But society, through democratic action, can modify this policy when other
and better policies are worked out. Many modifications have already been made
as circumstances have develo-ped which demanded change. Other changes are
imminent.
Control by labor, as contrasted to control by an owning group, leads to class
action also. And this is not always in harmony with the general welfare. The
American labor movement has been based, quite largely, upon the philosophy of
Income and Economic Progress, pp. 156-157.
3296 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
high money wages, rather than upon a philosophy of high real wages. The gen-
eral well-being — including, of course, the well-being of labor as a major portion of
society — depends upon an expansion of production and of services and a lowering
of prices. This does not mean that labor should not have a greater share of the
output than they now have. Advancing labor's share of the wealth produced, if
wisely managed, will promote rather than retard enterprise and will lead to an
adjustment of prices to basic purchasing power.
****** *
This type of enterprise is important for three basic reasons. Public owner-
ship and operation of essential services and of basic resources serves to dis-
tribute income. The Central Valley project in California supplies an example.
If the power from Shasta Dam is distributed through private channels and
the private companies secure the same rate of profit per kilowatt-hour that they
now secure, the stockholders of the private utility interests will receive over
$200,000,000 over a period of 40 years with interest at 3 percent on the full
amount, or approximately the total cost of the entire Central Valley project.
If, on the other hand, this power is distributed through publicly owned and
operated lines, the profit will flow into the hands of several hundred thousand
consumers in lower rates.
In one case this large sum is channeled through higher rates from the hands
of a large number of consumers into the hands of a relatively small number
of stockholders. This accentuates the concentration of income, which, as already
pointed out, is the most serious internal economic problem in the United States.
In the other case the profits are passed on to the consumers, which increases
directly their purchasing power. The basic profit motive is not abrogated.
The only difference is that a consumer profit motive is substituted for a producer
profit motive.
The concentration of land in large holdings in the area to be served by the
Central Valley project also results in an uneconomic concentration of income.
The growth of these holdings accentuates the existing lack of economic balance.
The figures supplied to your conunittee by Dean Hutchinson, of the College of
Agriculture of the University of California, shows that the capital and manage-
ment income from a family sized farm large enough to provide a net income
of $1,500 per year, runs from 1.4 to 3.7 times as much as the operator's labor
income. Where farms are consolidated this capital and management income
goes to one man or to a small group of men who are the owners, while those who
were displaced in the process are either forced out of the agricultural field
entirely or are reduced to laborers with relatively small incomes, and no security.
When they become too old to work they will not have a farm to rely upon as a
source of income, but will be forced to live on their children's income or on the
public. The income to ownership which would be theirs in the case of an
owner-operated farm is concentrated in the hands of the owners of the large
farms, leaving the dispossessed without the old-age security which the family
farm is supposed to offer. This provision for old-age security is the primary
virtue of the family farm pattern. It is absent in the large farm, at least for
the larger number who do the work.
Some sort of social security will have to be developed if the large, privately
owned, and corporate types of farm operation are to remain. Legislation is
needed covering old-age pensions, good housing, adequate wages, and collective
bargaining between farm operators and labor. Such legislation would be the
result of a broad cooperation action through social control. These needs are
covered quite fully in the La Follette committee reports.
A fact of importance, affecting provision for the low-income group, is that this
concentration of capital and management income in the hands of large operators
is materially lessening the number of families that can be carried by the laud
and is adding to the permanent relief load. The situation in Tulare County cited
in my statement to your committee on the Central Valley project is an illustration
in point. It is the fourth largest county in the United States, from the stand-
point of the value of agricultural products. It contains the largest peach orchard
in the world and one of the largest vineyards. It has more tractors than any
other county in the United States, which provides a rough measure of its
industrialization, and during a part of the year more than one-third of all of
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3297
the people in the county arc receiving aid of some form from county, State, or
Public ownership and control of land and social control of size of holdings
through a distribution of holdings by forced subdivision, as in the case of the
Columbia Basin project, are remedies which are being tried. These are discussed
luore fully in my statement on the Central Valley project. .^ , .
The remedial measures being tried are designed not only to distribute income
to prevent stagnation in the invest nu'iit fit-kl but to increase the general pur-
chasing power. The effect is well illust rated in power, where lower rates under
public ownership tend to increase consumption. A rate of 3.39 cents per kilowatt-
hour charged bv the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., for example, has been a factor
in the consumption of 829 kilowatt-hours of energy per consuming unit. In Modesto
a rate of 2 80 cents per kilowatt-hour has been a factor in a per-customer consump-
tion of 1,206 kilowatt-hours. In Winnipeg the rate is 0.825 cent per kilowatt-hour
and the consumption 4,838 kilowatt-hours.
A third, and by no means the least, effect of public ownership as a consumer
cooperative activity is expansion of enterprise. This is closely associated with
the increase in consumers purchasing power just mentioned. A lowering of power
rates, for example, not only affects the amount of power used by retail consumers,
but it affects industry as well. Where power is an important cost of production,
the effect upon private profit and volume of consumption may be very great.
The effect of public ownership and operation upon wealth creation and unem-
ployment is well illustrated by the record of the Forest Service. Under its
administration the Government secured, by withdrawal from entry and by
purchase, a total of 160,000,000 acres of land, consisting largely of second-rate
timberland, cut-over areas, brush-covered hills, and overgrazed range. The better
stands of timber and the most promising cut-over lands are still in private
ownership. , „ ,. «
Of the 108,145,000 acres of commercial timber in national forests needing tire
and other protection, only 2,000,000 are unprotected, while of 404,000,000 acres
of private lands needing protection, 189,388,000 acres are unprotected. Of the
41,400,000 acres of forest lands burned over annually, 40,600,000 are in private
hands. About one-fourth of the national forests are under intensive management
plans, while but six-tenths of 1 percent of private forest lands are under such
management.
This conservation and development work costs approximately 38 cents per
acre of Government-owned forest land. Private holders, owning by far the best
timber, spend but 1.4 cents per acre in conservation and development. The
Government, in other words, spends 27 times as much per acre in fire protection
and other conservation and development work than private owners spend. The
fffect upon employment is clear. The Government spends all of the income
from grazing fees and from sale of timber for salaries, wages, and materials.
If the private forest lands on the Pacific coast were publicly owned, .nil of the
migrants who have come to the coast during the past 5 years could be con-
structively employed for some time, and quite a large number could be per-
manently employed in douig work which is very much in the public Interest.
Three hundred thousand Civilian Conservation Corps boys, working out of 1,500
camps in United States forests and parks, have cleaned up and fireproofed
5,000,000 acres of land ; planted nearly 2,000,000,000 trees, built 109,000 miles of
trails and roads and 46,000 bridges. This work could be expanded four- or five-
fold if all of the timberlands were in public hands.
This type of activity, public ownership of power or of forests, let me repeat, are
important types of consumer cooperation. The consumers of the Nation, under
the leadership of Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt, became conservation-
conscious and initiated this plan of recapturing forest lands into public ownership
as a means of protecting a rich heritage. As a secondary but very important
result of that philosophy, many people are now constructively employed who
would not be employed otherwise.
More recently the consumers of the Nation have become concerned over the
wastage of soil resources. An average of approximately $22,000,000 are being
spent each year for technicians, clerical help, and materials in the Soil Conserva-
tion Service. About 15,C0O people are employed directly, and a much larger
number indirectly, through conservancy districts and by individuals cooperating.
3298
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
This money is secured, very largely, from nonfarm people through taxation and
the sale of Government bonds.
The present program enhances private-land values, in part at least, from direct
Government spending. The submarginal land purchase program represents a
different approach. In that case no money is spent until the lands are acquired
so that all increments in value go to the public, as partial or total compensation
for the work done. Over 10,000,000 acres of submarginal lands have been pur-
chased under this program since 1933.
A further example of the effect of a philosophy of social action upon economic
and social conditions is presented by the Homestead Act. This act was based
upon the theory that society would be best served by passing land into the hands
of those who would till it themselves. But the plan has not worked well. There
is a lower percentage of land ownership among farmers now than there was in
1862 when the act was passed. This is particularly true, moreover in these States
where the Homestead Act resulted in the transfer of the largest acreage into
private hands.
The owner-operated farm pattern, about which popular support rallied, is a
reality in part only. More than half of the farm land in the United States is
farmed by tenants, "and tenancy is increasing. Furthermore, where it is a reality,
it is not aceomplishins the results expected. Owner-operated farms are con-
centrated in the (»zarks, the Southern Appalachians, and in New England where
topography prevents an adjustment in patterns of tenure to the use of machines.
The broad fields of rich soil and favorable topography everywhere is going into
large holdings where machinery can be used to advantage. The semifeudal
pattern of land use, described in my statement to your committee covering areas
to be served by the Central Valley project in California, is an example of the
social pattern which is developing in all sections where large scale and corporate
operation are replacing the family farm.
Recent legislation and administrative action dealing with tenure problems have
led in two directions. The Tenant Purchase Act is an attempt to reestablish the
owner-operation pattern. It, like the Homestead Act, is based on the philosophy
of private ownership of land. It aims to put land into the hands of those who
will till it themselves.
Another direction was taken in the resettlement program. There the fact was
recognized that experience indicates a basic weakness in the accepted pattern.
A new approach based on public ownership of land was, therefore, tried out. The
Mineral King ranch, described in my statement to you on the Central Valley
project, is an illustration of one pattern under public ownership of land. Other
projects were established where individual farms of the traditional type were
located on land owned by the Government.
Both the individual and the community type of farms on Government land
meet the weaknesses in private ownership which have led to tenancy and the
creation of a landlord class. Land speculation has been a major factor in the
failure of private ownership. Debt and the high capitalization associated with
large-scale operation have been factors of great importance recently. Inherit-
ance has resulted in heavy mortgage indebtedness and in unwise subdivision.
Small holdings, tenancy, mortgage debt, and soil erosion have resulted in all
too many cases.
The record is not an indictment against landloi'ds as persons. But because
of the circumstances governing their interests they have made tenancy the
unsocial influence that it is. It is the landlords who force tenants to cultivate all
of the land "right up to the back door" without leaving room for garden, pasture,
or wood lot. It is they who prepare short-term leases; who refuse to allow
compensation for improvements; who make it difficult for a tenant to plan a
rotation of crops, fertilize his fields, or have livestock. It is they who provide
bad housing, which forms the basis for low living standards. In altogether
too many cases they are fighting controls, chiseling on benefit payments, and
seeking greater subsidies, but refusing to pass benefits on to the labor they hire.
Refusing to bargain collectively, they have on occasion resorted to vigilante
methods and have secured the passage of laws which support their positions
as against labor. The antilabor laws passed in 11 counties in California are
examples of this type of action.
There is a tendency on the part of all landowners to accept the income to
ownership as a right rather than a social sanction and to pass on to govern-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3299
ment more and more of the responsibilities of administration. Both owners
and tenants look to government, Federal and State, for aid in ever-widening
fields. It is government that established and supports agricultural colleges
for the training of young men. It is government that runs the experiment
stations where science is applied to agricultural techniques. It is govern-
ment that maintains the extension service with agricultural agents in every
county in the Nation. The tenant and the landlord enjoy an elaborate market-
ing service covering current news by press and radio, and covering prices
and commodity movements. The farmer and the landlord use roads built by the
Government, receive valuable bulletins supplied free of charge by the Gov-
ernment, and get bailed out by government when bankruptcy looms ahead.
It is the Government that provides weather forecasts, directs control of insect
pests and plant diseases, controls floods, drains land, aids in erosion control,
develops large irrigation works, builds levees, helps finance railroads and control
their traffic. It is government that assists farmers in control of supply when
surpluses pile up, and aids him when drought strikes.
These contrasting trends in private and public activity are but illustrations
of the sound and fundamental character of consumer cooperation working
through economic as well as political democracy.
The circumstances facing agriculture now call for a change in these rela-
tionships. The adoption of a policy calling for an increase in public owner-
ship of farm land would be an important step toward conservation, increased
employment, and sound land tenure. The advantages in such a policy are great
enough to justify serious consideration to the possibilities of further experi-
mentation along those lines. The policy might be initiated in the Columbia
Basin and Central Valley projects. They would make excellent laboratories
for the comprehensive trials of new ways of adjusting farm tenure and land
use to the revolutionary conditions created by machine production. Sucii
purchase has been recommended for all undeveloped land in both projects and
the idea is receiving surprisingly wide support. It, undoubtedly, offers the
most direct method of meeting the perplexing land problem presented by
these projects. It would add but 3 percent or so to the cost of the Central
Valley project and not much more than that in the case of the Columbia Basin.
Income would flow to local county governments through payments in lieu of
taxation. This problem has been worked out by the Forest Service and by the
Farm Security Administration. Government ownership of land conserves rather
than restricts local income.
The tax-delinquent lands in the Dust Bowl offer an exceptional opportunity
for public acquisition. Evidence presented to your committee by E. R. Hanson,
coordinator for the United States Department of Agriculture, at Amarillo shows
a total of 485,000 acres of land in Baca County, Colo., acquired by the county
through tax sales between 1934 and 1937, inclusive. Figures for Lincoln County
show a similar trend. In Los Arrinos County, Colo., over 600,000 acres have
been delinquent for over 3 years. This situation is not confined to the Dust
Bowl. It exists in many irrigation districts in the West where fairly good land
can be acquired for back taxes.
The situation now, so far as land is concerned, is far different than it was
when the country was first settled. At that time 80 percent of the people were
on farms, and farm ownership by individuals was a stabilizing infiuence of
importance. But science has changed all that. Now 80 percent of the popula-
tion, or thereabouts, is in urban centers. > They are nonfarm people, but they
depend nonetheless upon the productivity of the land. Ownership of the Na-
tion's farm land resources by 20 percent of the population, even if owner-
operation of family sized farms could be made a reality, would be less significant
now than formerly. Public ownership of land, and rigid social legislation
covering old-age pensions, wages and hours, housing, and collective bargaining
are the two alternatives which offer the best chance for a use of the Nation's
land resources in the interests of the greatest number.
The use of water as contrasted to land has naturally drifted into a consumer-
cooperative pattern. The irrigation district and mutual water users associa-
tion are consumer cooperative organizations which have proved to be very
effective, and are the type usually used. Farmers have followed their urban
neighbors in this respect. As consumers of irrigation, water farmers have found
3300
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
it to their advantage to cooperate in the consti'uction and operation of dams and
canals to get water to their lands, just as urban people have organized under
municipal laws to provide streets, water facilities, and the like. The protit
motive is there. But it is a consumer profit.
Rural school districts form another example of consumer cooperation, follow-
ing the urban pattern. "
Still another similarity exists between urban centers and rural villages. The
settlers on the Mineral King ranch, for example, being consumers of services
as are the citizens of any town, joined in a cooperative organization which
.supplies running water, light and gas for heating and cooliing. This has proved
to be a particularly effective type of cooperative effort. The savings in wells,
roads, and power lines in many projects will more than pay for a complete
lilumbing system in each home, including flush toilet, bath, sink, lavatory, wash
trays, iuid septic tank. On the ("()lnnil)ia r.;isin project the saving in these three
items wnuld rangt^ from .'j;! ."),()( )().(!( 10 to .SLM.ddd.itOU if the homes were located in
villages rather than on isolated farms. The gas service at Mineral King would
be too expensive for installation on isolated units, but, as it is, it furnishes a
cheaper fuel than any other fuel available in the State.
These economies are similar to the ones secured by large operators when
they settle their workers in villages, as they always dp. These savings on
large farms, however, are not translated into running water, baths, flush
toilets, and other conveniences. They simply add to the net returns by cutting
down the capital cost of providing for the laborer's essential needs.
Settling families in communities facilitates other forms of cooperation.
The cooperative production of milk, for example, fits in perfectly with such a
set-up. The families at Mineral King get milk at 5 cents a quart and the
supply is abundant. The surplus is sold as fresh milk, as the conditions on
the ranch conform to all county requirements. The dairy is large enough to
permit the installation of an eflScient working plant, so that the milk can
be well cared for.
In Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand, milk is distributed as a
publicly owned and operated utility service. The milk is sold for 8 cents a
quart, on the basis of equivalent American money, and the city makes a
normal profit. It has brought about economies in the cost of treating and
distributing milk which has made possible the reduction in the consumer
price. The system has been operating for 20 years. There seems to be no
reason why any city might not do the same. The only difference between this
system serving a iiopulation of 135,000 people is that at Mineral King the
settlers not only process and distribute the milk, but they own and operate
the dairy as well. Milk is produced and sold in the labor camps in much
the same way that it is produced and sold at Mineral King.
The advantages in the cooperative plan for handling milk is an important
matter in the area to be served by the Central Valley projt^ct because indi-
vidual farmers prefer to produce fruit, cotton, or truck, which are not so
confining, but which do not offer the opportunity for expansion. The objec-
tion to dairying is removed by the cooperative plan. The milkers have their
regular days ofl: and their annual leave, just as others do.
Dairying is the most promising farming enterprise in the area and will be
stimulated by a community type approach. There is nothing that would
stimulate consumption of milk in the areas to be served by the Central Valley
project more than the low price which would result from municipal distribu-
tion. The increased consumption would materially increase the need for farm
land for the production of dairy products, which would, of course, provide in-
creased opportunities for dispossessed farmers seeking new opportunities.
Cooperative marketing has been more highly developed in California and
in the United States generally than any other t.vpe. The advantages are
obvious. Duplication is reduced or eliminated, and services are secured at
lower cost. These cooperatives are called producer organizations because they
are composed of producers, but the cooperative activity is wholly on a con-
sumer basis. The growers cooperate in buying paper wrapping," box stocl?,
advertising services, transportation, marketing, and storage service. They hire
labor for services in packing and often in picking. These are all goods and
services which the growers consume as a byproduct in the process of selling
their products. As producers they are highly individualistic and highly com-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3301
petitive. Marketing associations are found in every State of the Union. Farm-
ers in the United States have been building their own marlieting machinery
for 70 years or more. Over 2,000 farmers' marketing and buying associations
have been in operation for more than 25 years. Sales of farm products and
supplies now exceed $2,000,000,000 per year, with 295 associations reporting
annual sales of more than $1,000,000 each, and 34 associations reporting sales in
(xcess of $10,000,000. More than 3.000,000 farmers participate in cooperative
activities in the United States.
Processing co-ops are also organized on the consumer basis. Growers hire
labor and rent or own canning plants for the processing of their fruits or vege-
tables. Again the returns are divided on the basis of what each man as an
individual produces, which is his affair. Each brings in a supply of peaches,
for example, and each gets paid on the basis of the volume and quality which
he delivers to the cannery, which is a highly individualistic matter. The co-
operative activity is wholly concerned in buying equipment and service which
the growers can secure more cheaply as a unit than they can as individuals.
Farmers operate cotton gins, cheese factories, and fruit and vegetable packing
plants. Nearly half of all creamery butter produced in this country is made in
cooperative plants.
Buying is an important activity in both mai'keting and processing coopera-
tives. This portion of the cooperative activity corresponds with the consumer
buying cooperative which deals with gasoline and with the ordinary consumer's
goods handled by retail stores. Farmers buy $80,000,000 worth of oil and gas
through their own cooperatives each year.
The laboring class, along with some of the lower middle class, have formed
the backbone of the consumer cooperative movement in England, Scotland,
Sweden, Switzerland, France, and Belgium. In Denmark the consumer co-
ojierative movement is identified with the small farmer. Consumer coopera-
tives in Europe have paid higher than going wages, they have recognized the
unions and set up collective bargaining machinery with the closed shop. And,
in return, the unions have, in general, refused to force wages so high or hours
so short as to force the cooperatives out of business.
The record is not so good in the United States. American labor for many
years held the philosophy of high wages. At present, however, a change is
taking place. The number of successful consumers' cooperatives have con-
vinced labor leaders that consumer cooperation will work here as it has In
Europe and labor is beginning to realize that to get a high real wage, it needs
a volume of business and low prices as well as a greater share in the total
purchasing power. Consumer cooperation in the United States has apparently
demonstrated that it can put goods through co-op stores more cheaply than
can private enterprise. Various factors have contributed to this end — among
them being lower rents, fewer lines of goods with heavy turn-over, low capital
cost, and low advertising costs.
The competition of chain stores has affected the rate of growth of consumer
cooperatives in the United States. The price range offered by chain stores is
low — often as low as the cooperative prices. The basic fault here is not
primarily in the price or service field. The danger in the chain-store movement
is in the concentration of income, which, as already explained, presents the
most serious internal economic problem in the United States. It is important
from the standpoint of economic balance to have the numerous small profits
go to a large number of consumers in lower prices and to labor in hi^htn- wages
than to a very few private enterprises, for in the aggregate these small profits
represent millions of dollars.
Small cooperative organizations among farmers are increasing. This move-
ment is an expansion of the old threshing rings where 5 to 10 farmers joined
in working and owning a threshing machine. These small co-ops now own
tractors and tractor equipment for operating land as well as for harvests.
This enables them to get good equipment. It helps the small farmer to compete
with the large operator.
In 1939 the Farm Security Administration helped more than 200,000 farmers
in the organ izition of small service cooperatives, in every State in the Union.
Nearly 1,500 farm groups were aided in buying bulls, stallions, boars, .jacks,
:and rams, which means better livestock and larger incomes. In Box Elder
-County, Urah, more than 200 small co-ops are now in operation. They are
3302 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
engaged in a wide range of activities and include approximately 900 farm
families.
Health protection has been stressed more recently as an effective field for
cooperative work. In 1939 the Farm Security Administration, which has
taken the lead in this work, helped more than 150,000 farm families to form
health associations. These groups usually include from 150 to 300 families
in a single county. Each family pays in advance a fee ranging from $15 to
$80 per year. If anybody in the family gets sick, they go to the doctor of
their own choice and get whatever treatment and medicine they need. The
doctor turns the bill into the association for payment. The movement received
its first big impetus in California where the poor health conditions among
migrants necessitate action. The county health authorities were unable to
handle the problem.
The cooperatives so far discussed have all been of the consumer type.
They might be divided into three types. The first represents the larger interests
of the public whose interests as consumers concern the natural resources of
the Nation, their conservation and proper use. The second includes consumers'
cooperatives, starting with municipal ownership, or public ownership of utilities
on a wider base than the city, and ending with retail store ownership by
consumers. The third type of consumer cooperatives are those made up of
producers who as producers are consumers of goods and services. In each of
these the motive is to get more for less. But in addition there is a vital
effect upon basic economic balance due to the fact that consumer cooperation
effectively distributes income.
Producers' cooperatives are of a diiferent nature. They include industries
owned and operated by those who themselves do the actual work, in contrast
to consumer cooperatives who hire work done or who buy collectively in order
to save cost. Producer cooperatives include self-help cooperatives, and any
enterprise where labor joins together to produce goods on services that are
for sale.
Producer cooperation has one primary advantage. It permits individual
producers to join together on a basis which permits the employment of manage-
ment skill and permits, also, the economies inherent in specialization, division
of labor and association in production. These are the advantages enjoyed
by private industry. Applying them in a cooperative venture channels the
economies into the hands of those who do the work rather than into the
hands of stockholders who may have no other connection with industry than
that of ownership.
The much-talked-of cotton picker can be used as an illustration. If the
cotton picker is owned by stockholders or individuals who own or operate a
large plantation it will result in a very large increase in the number of dis-
possessed farm families, for the cotton picker will do their work and the
employers will not need them. If, on the other hand, the cotton picker is
owned by those who till the fields and pick the cotton it will result in In-
creased attendance at school, better homes, and larger incomes for those
who work. Women and children pick much of the cotton in the United
States. Ownership of the cotton picker by the farmers who do the work in
the fields would release the women and children from the necessity of working
in the fields. But the leisure thus created will be very different from the
leisure of unemployment. The women will be able to remain at home where
they are very badly needed and the children will be free to go to school,
while the men do the work in the field. The income to ownership will flow
into their hands to augment their meager wage income.
There are two problems which are involved in producer cooperation. One
concerns class interest. Any group of producers, whether private producers
or cooperatives, who control production tend to promote their interests at the
sacrifice of the welfare of consumers. An industry owned and managed by labor
is apt to want to raise prices, even by securing monopoly advantages if they
can, just as private enterprises do. That is wiiy essential services such as
water distribution, or highways, ai'e publicly owned.
The second disadvantage in producer cooperation is that there is no wholly
satisfactory way of dividing the produce. The fishermen of Norway did it by
each doing his part in handling nets and boats and then following the principle
of share and share alike. The Amana colony in Iowa, a producer cooperative
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3303
which lasted longer than any other in the United States, changed its basic organiza-
tion to that of a consumer co-op because the principle of contributing according
to your ability and consuming according to your need developed a surprising
number of drones.
In a consumer co-op this difficulty is avoided, as a man gets what he pays for
only. His share of the consumer profit depends upon the volume he buys and that
is wholly his affair. If, for example, he has 1,000 tons of peaches to be sold or
canned through a marketing or processing cooperative, he gets 10 times as much
consumer profit as a farmer who has but lOO tons of peaches to be sold or processed.
On the Mineral King ranch which is a mixture of consumer and producer
interests, the division in tlie production activities is made through the payment
of wages. Each member works for the corporation, of which he is a member.
What each gets out of it depends upon the time employed and the character of the
work performed. Profits above wages and capital costs are distributed in wage
bonuses after setting aside a reserve for contingencies. This method may work
well. It may solve the biggest obstacle to producer cooperation.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER E. PACKARD— Resumed
Mr. Curtis. Will you give us briefly the liigh lights of those two
statements which you have prepared, for the benefit of the committee?
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Mr. Packard. The first statement covers an investigation that I
have made covering the Central Valley project in California. I made
this for the Haynes Foundation of Los Angeles. This project is of
interest to your committee because of two facts.
In the first place, the counties that are to be served, or the areas
that are to be served by this project, have shown a very large increase
in po]:)ulation during the past 10 years. The rate of increase has been
from 25 to 61 percent, as against an average for the United States of
about 7 percent during the same period.
The second point is that the project will serve about 280,000 acres of
land not yet developed under irrigation. That means that there will
be that much irrigated land available for settlement during the next few
years, when water is made available.
I might say, however, in that connection, that during the past 10
years there has been a very ap])reciable increase in irrigation in this
area in spite of the fact that those who have developed these lands
have know that it would be impossible to continue irrigation from
pumping very long without depleting the supply. They apparently
have developed land during these past 10 years with full confidence
that the Government would supply an outside source of water to re-
plenish the ground water supplies from which they are drawing their
irrigation water now.
Those two points, however, are the reasons why this particular
problem is presented to your committee.
The situation in the areas to be served by the project is, in my
estimation, in general, rather unsocial and uneconomic. On one hand,
you have large farms that are in many respects similar to the old
feudal estates of former days ; and, on the other hand, you have very
email farms that are too small to enable a man to make a living.
You have, of course, another group, intermediate farms, that are
all right. But the great, the outstanding fact, in the area is that
there are large farms on this feudal pattern and small farms on the
200370— 41— pt. 8- 15
3304 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
other side. The feudal problem, or the large-scale operation, is what
I want to mention first, because it is the most important.
In the areas that I investigated from 50 to 73 percent of all of
the land — 50 percent if I just include the upper San Joaquin area,
and 73 percent if I include the delta area also — is in large farms, or
farms of more than 160 acres, which is the limit the Bureau of Rec-
lamation has set. Their law says that no water shall be furnished
in any irrigation project to a holding in excess of 160 acres, and in
this area a very large portion of the project, something more than
half, is now in holdings that are larger than that limit.
Mr. Curtis. Is that area already receiving water ?
Mr. Packard, A portion of it is, not all of it.
Mr. Curtis. When that is supplied with surface water, that then
will be corrected.
Mr. Packard. Part of it is supplied with surface water and part
of it by pumping. All of the gravity water that is available is be-
ing used in canals for surface distribution. But there are large
areas that are receiving water from pumps, where they are pumping;
from an underground reservoir.
Mr. Curtis. But eventually, when they get water under a reclama-
tion management, will this 160-acre law be applicable ?
Mr. Packard. It will be applicable unless the law is changed. It
is a basic part of the Reclamation Act.
I might say in that respect — I will come to that later, if I may
follow through with this; I will discuss that particular part a little
later.
There is one point I wanted to make i-egarding large farms, whicli
1 think is quite important, and that is that they do not provide secur-
ity for those working on the land as the old feudal system did. I
lived in Mexico for a number of years. There a peon is born on the
farm, he lives there, and he dies there. He has security. He knows
where he is going to live. On the newer type of development, we
find that these people are educated first by the State, and when they
become able to work, they are employed when there is work. When
there is not work they are not employed, and frequently are sup-
ported on relief of one kind or another. And when they become old
and are not able to work, they then are supported on public relief..
They are not supported by the land. That, I think, is a very funda-
mental problem.
In broad outline, the situation can be pictured perhaps by these
facts that apply to one of the counties that is to be served by water
from the project. It is, I think, the fourth largest county, agricul-
turally speaking, in the United States. It has the largest peach or-
chard in the world. It has one of the largest vineyards. It has
more tractors than any other county in the United States. It is
strictly an agricultural county. During a portion of the year, more
than one-third of the entiriJ population, rural and urban, in that
county, is on relief. I think that, in general, pictures the type of
thing that flows out of the concentration of ownership of land in
the hands of people who employ the industrial process in agriculture..
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3305
There are various ways in which the conditions that exist in the
area do not conform to basic reclamation law. I have mentioned
one of them, the 160-acre unit.
On page 25 of the report (table III, page 327 ^ this volume), you
will see a table that gives the acreages. In the first district, 95.3 percent
of the land in the district that has been organized to take water from
the Central Valley project is in excess of the limit that is set by the
Bureau law. The next one, 42.4 percent of the area is in excess.
In one case, in the delta, of all the farms that I could find, covering
nearly 300,000 acres, not one, in that whole area that I studied, was
less than IGO acres.
The second requirement in reclamation law deals with corporate
farming. The law says, in substance, that no water will be furnished
by the Bureau of Reclamation to land owned by corporations.
Again, on page 30 (table IV, page 3279. this volume) , you will find a
tabulation of the land that is now farmed by corporations. In one dis-
trict, 98.4 percent of the land is owned by corporations. I think that in
that district of 58,000 acres, 53,000 are owned by two corporations. The
ownership in one was only 8.5 percent. In the others, it ranged from
42 percent, to 26.7 percent, 17.9 percent, and 30.1 percent of the area
that was farmed by corporations.
Then, again, the Bureau of Reclamation law and administrative
rulings provide that people must be res'ident operators. It was the
intention of the Congress, and the Bureau, I understand, when the
Reclamation Act was passed, to have the farms in the hands of those
who tilled them.
But on i)age 38 (table VI, page 3284, this volume), you will find
aiu)ther tabuhition of the hind that is held now by nonresident owners
in the areas, and that goes as high as something over 60 percent in one
area.
The tenant operation, of course, is a supplement to that, and in
one of the districts, 77.1 percent of all the land is farmed by tenants.
Tenancy is higher in most of the districts to be served by the project
than in the State as a whole.
So, you can see that in general it requires some modification of the
reclamation law or it requires a modification of the patterns that are
existing in the area now, before this matter can be worked out.
Another point that I think is also of very great importance is the
fact that the act that established the project was very clear in stating
that the project should be operated in the interest of the people of
California.
I think I am right in saying that the constitutional authority which
the Government has for developing water for private lands only —
where there is no public land involved, and there is none in this area —
depends almost wholly upon the general-welfare clause of the Con-
stitution. Therefore, it seems to me it is exceedingly important that
that matter be studied in order to be certain that what is done re-
garding these situations that do exist now — and they do not conform
to reclamation law — is done in such a way that the general welfare
will be promoted. That is a policy, I think, that should run through-
3306 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
out, because not only did the act say so, but I think that is the con-
stitutional authority which the Government used.
There are certain advantages to large-scale operations which are
very apparent. In the first place, they cut costs of operation. They
do that in many ways, but chiefly perhaps by applying the principles
of management, division of labor, specialization which goes with
division of labor, and association in production which enables oper-
ators to put crews in and do work quickly. Those are the principles
upon which industry is established and they are the principles that
are being used in the development of these large farms.
The matter of cost also, of course, involves other matters, but I
will come to that a little later. There is another point about all of
these large farms which I think you will find very interesting.
They are all organized on a village basis. Every large farm that I
know of in the State settles the laborers' families in villages. The
village may not contain more than 5 families. It may contain 200
or 250 families. But they are always located in villages.
That represents one economy. One well will support 10 families.
It will support 1 family. It will support 100 families. It will
give them all the water they need and provide a large operator with
an advantage in investment in the very beginning because by putting
1 well down he can supply many people with water, while, if they
are scattered out, each man has to put down his own well, with
much greater cost.
As to the disadvantages of large-scale operation, in the first place,
the large owners of land are the ones who own most of the land
that is yet undeveloped. I know of one area of many thousands
of acres owned by one company that is now selling undeveloped
land from $150 to $175 an acre without water. That means that
that company will get all of the increment in value, all of the pos-
sible increment in value, in this project before the Government
gets a dime, before the Government even develops its water supply,
because that supply has not yet been developed. And if they are
able to continue selling this land, they will come out with all of
the increment and the Government will have to deal with buyers who
have already paid high prices and charge against them a high
cost for water. So that this speculative matter is exceedingly im-
portant. It involves the general welfare very definitely, because I
think it can be shown quite definitely that it is not in the interest
of the general welfare that absentee OAvners of land, or large owners
of undeveloped land should take all the increment in value that is
being created by the development of a water supply at Government
expense. .
In the second place, many of the cuts m cost, due to large opera-
tion, come from labor itself, which I think is quite an important
matter. It is involved in another problem which is also important
and is closely related to it, aiid that is the concentration of income.
If you will refer to page 35 (table V, page 3282, this volume) , I have
a table there that was presented to your committee in San Francisco by
Dean Hutchison, of the University of California. By this table I think
I can explain what I mean by both concentration of income and this
question about cutting costs due to labor.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3307
In columns 6 and 7 of that table you will find figures showing
the capital and management income per acre, and the value of the
operator's labor. In the first instance, you have walnuts. The in-
come to the management and ownership is $53.11 per acre. The
income to labor — and this is a case where the owner is doing all
the labor he can possibly do on that farm — comes to $14. Now,
obviously, if you should concentrate 10 farms of this size, which
is a size that will make $1,500 net income to the operator, you will
immediately throw by far the largest portion of that farm income
into the hands of 1 man, and 9 farmers would be receiving only
$14 per acre, or a low labor income. It is an exceedingly important
thing.
Now, run down the line to cotton. Cotton is the most important
crop, from the standpoint of acreage, in this area. Here $9.30 goes
to labor; $14.07 goes to ownership. Farms of 5,000 to 10,000 acres
are common in that area. I know of one farm of 21,000 acres of
land that has been developed in the last few years, operated by 1
man, largely in cotton. If you have a farm of that kind — 20,000
acres — there are 200 farmers who might be operating 100-acre farms
that are displaced, and you have a tremendous concentration of
income in the hands of 1 man, and it is taken out of the hands of a
large number of operators who might be getting that amount if
they were farming independent holdings.
That is important in this way : The ownership of land and the in-
come from that ownership is the prime virtue of the family-sized
farm, because when the man gets old and is ready to retire, the income
from ownership is supposed to support him and his wife during
old age. Now, if you take that out from under him and concentrate
it in the hands of a large operator, you are taking out from under
him all of the social security that the traditional type of farming in
America has provided, and it makes it necessary for the community,
as they are doing out in Tulare County — as I mentioned a moment
ago — to support those iDeople out of old-age taxation. I will come
to the application of that, but you can see that is a tremendously
important thing.
First, you have the concentration of income, which, itself, is a
serious matter. I think the Brookings Institution over here has made
studies to show it is the most serious internal economic problem in
America today — the concentration of income in the hands of a few
people. Now, you have that on the one side. On, the other side,
you are taking away the security^ from old age; you have people
who mioht be independent owners of farms that would largely sup-
port them not only in rather good income during their life, but
support them during old age. Again, where you take away income
from a large number of families, you are, to tliat extent, destroying
the market for goods in America, and the market is a thing we must
depend on. We must depend on our own market now more than
ever before and where, as in cotton, you take $14 away from the
owner-ojjerator and put it into the hands of large-holding owners,
you are reducing him to a labor wage and taking away from him the
portion of that money he might supply to the mai'ket in liuying the
3308 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
things lie might need. I think it is an important thing from the
standpoint of the development of markets.
The last point in this covers honsing. One of the economies that
these large operators make is by providing low-cost housing. And
when I say "low-cost housing,"' I mean it ; because, in many cases,
it is exceedingly low. I have a number of pictures here that I
would like to present at this time, with your permission, showing
not only the type of housing, but showing, also, the type of settle-
ment that we are getting in these communities.
The first picture I am presenting shows two farms in the area
to be served by this project.
The Chairman. Just wait a minute: I suggest that the reporter
mark them and attach them together as one exhibit, so that we will
have the use of them.
Mr. Packard. Yes.
The Chairman. I think that it j^robably would be very much better,
to have them become a part of the record. Of course, if you just
talk about a picture it means nothing; but we will understand what
you refer to if you mark them.
(The pictures alcove referred to were received in evidence) }
Mr. Packard. The picture I am presenting first shows views of
two farms in the area to be served by the Central Valley project,
which represents, I think, the ideal type we have in mind when we
speak of the family owned and oi)erated farm. It is the type of
standard we have in mind. (See photos 1 and 2.)
I have here several other pictures showing not only the type of
housing, but showing also the community type of settlement that is
created on those large farms. Here is one where in the lower pic-
ture [exhibiting], you have the headquarters; a store, a bar, an
office, and the home of the operator of a large operation. (See
photos 3 and 4.) In t\\& upper picture you have the houses, perhaps
25 of them, that are grouped around this central office, and you can,
of course, see the low standard of housing on that particular ranch.
Here is another picture of a large beet plantation in one of the
counties, operated by a hired manager living in a boxcar. (See
photo 6.) The upper picture shows the houses occupied by the
laborers in that area. (See photo 5.)
I do not need to go ahead and describe the others; I think they
are all self-explanatory.
I am also presenting one picture of the type of community set-
tlement that is created in the outskirts of these villages and towns
in the area. They are generally called Little Oklahomas. It shows
the type of housing developed in these small settlements. (See
photo 7.)
The next two pictures are of the homes of owners of large plan-
tations, showing the tremendous contrast that there is in the living
standards of the large owner, and the living standards of the large
number of people who are operating the land. That is also self-
explanatory. (See photos 8 and 9.)
Now, as to the remedies that have been suggested. The Bureau
of Reclamation, of course, have certain traditional remedies that
^ See insert of pictures, p. 3288 et seq.
INTERSTATE JNIIGRATION 3309
have been applied. Almost the most recent is the one that is applied
in the Columbia Basin project. There the Government has limited
the holdings to 40 acres to an individual. A man and his wife can
hold 80 acres; but the man now who owns more than that must
sell all the surplus to the Government, or to any buyer, at a price
not to exceed the price that is set by the Government, and the Gov-
ernment has appraised the land at its dry-land value. That act
was not only approved by the Bureau of Reclamation and passed
as an act of Congress, but was supported by a law passed in the
State of Washington, which also provides that that will hold true.
A more recent project in New Mexico follows the same plan, where
the area that the man can handle is limited, and anyone holding
more than that area must sell the surplus at a price that is set
by the Government, and the price set is the dry-land price.
There are, however, other precedents I wish to mention. One is
a project in Colorado, where all of the restrictions regarding the
excess holding of land have been dropped, and a man can hold any
amount of land there that he wants to hold.
Mr. Curtis. May I ask where that is?
Mr. Packard. It is the Big Thompson project in Colorado.
Mr. Curtis. That was built by the P. W. A., was it not ?
Mr. Packard. I do not know whether it was built by Public Works
Administration or not. I am imder the impression it is an older
l^roject, where the water being developed now is purely a supple-
mental supply that will furnish land already under irrigation and
already in j^rivate ownership and already developed ; so that the effect
is quite different than it would be in other areas. However, two
other projects are being affected by a similar act. They are both
in the State of Nevada, and I understand they certainly will act as
a precedent for California, if they finally are passed. They have
been ])assed by Congress, as I understand it without a dissenting
vote — opening up the destroying of the excess provisions of the Recla-
mation Act for both projects in the State of Nevada. If that is used
as a ]n-ecedent for California, it will mean that these restrictions that
have been ap]:>lied in the past to all Reclamation Bureau projects, will
not apply to these large holdings in California.
Mr. Curtis. Were there any justifiable and unusual reasons for this
action in Nevada?
Mr. Packard. I have looked up the record in Congress and there
was no debate. There was simply a letter from the Secretary to the
Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, saying that the Bureau of
Reclamation know notliing about the merits one way or the other of
the proposal and, therefore, could not make recommendations, but that
they were studying the problem in a general sort of way and would
ultimately know, but did not know then. That was all I could find in
the record. And it passed, I think, unanimously but has not been
signed by the President as yet.
This Bureau of Reclamation proposal is one cutting the holdings
down to family sized farms and forcing owners of excess land to sell
at the price set by the Government. That is No. 1. That is in opera-
tion now and, unless the act is changed by Congress, I suppose that
will ap])ly to the California project.
3310 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The second proposal for remedy is a proposed act somethinoj like
the Tenant Purchase Act, where the Government buys land and sub-
divides it into small holdings and sells to small operators, as they
are doing nnder the Tenant Act. That, of course, is following the
Homestead Act in theory— at least in part.
The next provision is social legislation. I think the situation in
agriculture is very different from the situation in industry, because
land has certain characteristics that do not hold ordinarily in in-
dustries. For example, if you have this ownership income con-
centrated in the hands of one group and you pass social legis-
lation, you are in reality taking a portion of that income back
that the' Government, by the Homestead Act, intended to have in the
hands of a large number of operators; you are taking that back and
using it to support these people in their old age, or using it in sup-
porting other services that the Government is rendering. And if
you take that up, the large diiference is the differential rent value of
that land. You will not injure the owner from the standpoint of
the cost of operation ; it will simply reduce the cost of the land. And
that can be taken without any disadvantage socially, without affecting
the costs of production, and it can be used in various social ways.
You get the point. Those people have taken these values from a
large number of small operators, by buying their farms and consoli-
dating them. Now, the Government can come along, through social
legislation, and take back direct the land income of that land, and
use it to support those families through social legislation, without
affecting the cost of the product that is raised.
Following that, of course, is another proposal; that is, for the
Government to buy the land directly ; then let the Government own
the land permanently, and rent the land in place of simply taking
the rental income. That is being done on a number of Farm Security
Administration projects.
There is one project in the area that serves as an illustration. 1
have some pictures here of that project, that I would like to submit
for the record.
This picture [exhibiting] is a view of the Mineral King ranch
in Tulare County. (See photos 10 and 11.) In establishing thig
ranch, the Kesettlement Administration, now the Farm Security
Administration, attempted to apply all of the principles that large
operators have applied to their holdings, to this new settlement Tlie
farmers are settled in a village in the center of this property That,
of course, enables them to have one well and running water which
is supplied all from one well There are many economies in that
type of thing. It enables them to employ management ; it enables
them to specialize. They divide their labor — associate in production.
In other words, they apply all of the principles that large-scale
operators apply, and get the same advantages, with the additional
advantage that all of the i>eople working on the land get the ad-
vantage of the association in income.
I have also here a picture of another type of village that has been
established by the Farm Security Administration in the area, repre-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3311
sentin^ labor camps that you are all familiar with. The labor camps
not only include places for temporary laborers, but also include small
farms, where the laborers live in the area for a year or more and can
have a garden and that sort of thino-. In most of those large camps,
they have land associated with the camp that is operated coopera-
tively, and it provides milk, for instance, at a cost of five cents a quart
in liberal quantities, and the land can also be used in supplying
vegetables to those families at a large saving in cost. (See photo 12.)
(The photographs last above referred to were marked as an exhibit
and filed with the committee.)
That brings me to a discussion of small farms, and I clo not- want
to take very much time on that. I think that point is perfectly
evident.
The university has set a certain standard — for example, $1,500,
as the income for a family, to be a satisfactory income, and quite a
proportion — it varies in diiferent sections, but quite a large propor-
tion of the farms that are less than 160 acres, or are within the limits
set by tlie Bureau of Reclamation. They are very much smaller
than and in many cases, only half as large as the farms that the
University of California say are necessary to make a living with
an income of $1,500. The problem there, of course, is obvious.
Just one more thing about this Central Valley project, that covers
the repayment. That, of course, brings in power and brings in other
beneficial interests as well. I have not much time to speak about
this, but will simply say this, that in the Shasta Dam a large amount
of power will be developed. If that power is retailed through pri-
vate agencies, it will cost nearly as much as any other power, because
the whole income from the project will flow into the hands of the
stockholders of the company, while if that power is distributed by
publicly owned utilities under municipal ownership and that sort of
thing, \\mt very large income (exceeding $200,000,000 in 40 years,
plus 3 percent)' will flow into the hands of the consumers of the
power in northern California. Again, that will involve, I think,
the general welfare, because, in the one case, you are channeling the
large income through a large number of consumers, who are charged
higher rates, into the hands of a comparatively few stockholders ; by
municipal ownership, you are reversing that process; you are giv-
ing the large consumer-profits to the consumers in lower rates. It
expands their buying power very appreciably, as can be demon-
strated by this chart which I would like to pi-esent, Mr. Chair-
man.i It is the Effect of Low Rates on Urban Domestic Con-
sumption, Year 1938. It is confined almost wholly to California, but
it shows tlie very definite increase in the use of power as the
rate for power is decreased, and the rate is decreased ordinarily
through municipal ownership. But publicly owned systems in
California, in general, sell power at a lower rate than pri-
vately owned utilities; so it is quite important from the standpoint
of repayment and also important from the standpoint of the general
welfare, as to whether or not the power in that project is distributed
by the public, through publicly owned lines, or by private utilities.
Chart held in committee files ; not printed.
o2j^2 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The next paper I have prepared - covers the general subject — Can
the Low-Income and Destitute Farm Population Improve Their
Status Throuo-h Cooperation. In order to hurry this thnig along,
I will read a portion of it.
Mr Curtis. Dr. Packard, there was just a question or two m
regard to the Central Valley project that I had. Would you prefer
that I ask them now, or wait until you finish this other ?
Mr. Packard. It does not make any difference to me at all.
Mr. Curtis. When will this project be completed?
Mr. Packard. I do not know. I understand Shasta Dam will be
completed probably by 1944, although I am not certain about those
figures, but I think the project will be completed by 1944 or 1945.
Mr. Curtis. Can you make an estimate in regard to this question :
Assuming that some sort of arrangement is arrived at for the use
of the land through small operators, how many people will it assimi-
late?
Mr. Packard. If you consider the undeveloped land only, you
could settle perhaps 3,500 families in that area on farms. That
would mean perhaps as many on farms and in towns, because I
think, in general, you will find it requires about as many people in
town as it does in the country, in a balanced rural area. That is
only on the new lands not yet developed.
Mr. Curtis. Now, suppose the Eeclamation Bureau's rule is not
modified as to already developed land
Mr. Packard. And that land is operated in large holdings?
Mr. Curtis. No; supposing the existing reclamation law is not
modified.
Mr. Packard. Oh, yes. That would make no difference in the
figure I just gave you, because the figure I gave you was based
on a family sized farm, and I was assuming some program of that
kind would be worked out.
Mr. Curtis. But you applied it only to undeveloped land; I am
applying it to all the land in the area, in my second question.
Mr. Packard. I do not know it would increase the total number of
families that the area would carry, because of this fact: There are
too many people now on farms that are too small to make them
a living.' That number should be reduced. The proper settlement
of the large holdings may provide homes for this surplus who are
now on small farms, without providing any new homes for people
not now on farms. In other words, perhaps the area is carrying as
many total families as it should carry now, and there might be sim-
ply 'a shift, where you shift families from very small farms to
larger farms where they can make more income.
I want to say, too, 'l do not necessarily recommend those large
holdings be broken up. I think the cooperative operation of those
lands does offer one satisfactory way to operate them in large units
and I think, in the establishment of social legislation such as sug-
gested— wages and hours; old-age pensions; housing; collective bar-
gaining— it would at least help in meeting the social problems
that these large farms have created.
See p. 3313 et seq.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3313
Mr. Curtis. But in discussing this subject, you do not suggest
to this committee that even its best handling will enable this project
to assimilate a portion of those immigrants that are now in Cali-
fornia ?
Mr. Packard. It will not absorb any large number.
Mr. Curtis. Now, go on with the next paper, please.
CONSUMER COOPERATION IN AGRICULTURE
Mr. Packard (reading) :
Cooperation, if considered witliin its broad horizon, can be a tremendous
factor in creating new opportunities for employment and in increasing the
national income. There is no physical reason why the low income and destitute
farm population cannot find, along with others in like circumstances, a place
of security on a relatively high standard of living. But not wholly on the
land by any means. There are more people now engaged in agriculture than
can be maintained on the land at an acceptable standard. The problem goes
to the root of our economy. To accomplish the desired ends, our way of
doing things must be geared to the requirements of machine production. The
logic of technology is a high standard of living for all. And the necessary
adjustments require cooijeration on a broad front and in many lines.
Cooperation, as considered in this analysis, includes political democracy as
an essential base. People cannot depend for long upon autocracy or dictator-
ship of any kind no matter how benevolent, as no man or group of men is
wise enough, or sufficiently free from the disturbing effects of power, to be
substituted for the choice of a free people.
Universal sane adult suffrage is, then, the primary basis for effective
cooperation. It is but an example of people joining together "in a mutually
helpful undertaking — which is democracy." This calls for an abolition of
poll taxes and other restraints upon free expression. Unimpaired, universal,
adult suffrage among sane people is the surest safeguard against class rule
of any kind. This is important just now because of the desire of some to
disfranchise the unemployed who are, in the main, but casualties of an
economic change.
But suffrage also carries grave responsibilities. Democratic action cannot be
wise if it is not based upon understanding. The spirit of the town meeting,
working within a framework adjusted to a broad expression of opinion, is a
necessary technique in any complex society. This technique has not been fully
worked out, but the radio has. been a vast aid toward that end. Understanding
flows, in part, from discussion. It is based in part also upon a native sense of
right and wrong. But formal education is also necessary. Literacy is the most
important avenue to knowledge.
By and large, one lack among the low-income and destitute people In the
United States is that many of them are not wholly literate. Most of them can
read and write, but many do not do so easily, because their training has not
given them sufficient facility. As a primary means of promoting informed
action, the school facilities should be expanded. This applies less to buildings
than to the number and training of teachers. The problem of schools for migrant
families doing seasonal work presents special difficulties which require a better
answer than has yet been developed.
*****«♦
The consumer interest, however, is the only common denominator. All are
consumers and all want an ample supply at reasonable cost. A national philoso-
phy based upon consumer interest rather than upon any class interest will promote
the interest of all.
The philosophy of consumer cooperation has been widely accepted in the
United States. Consumers of services in most towns and cities have banded
together in the development of water and power facilities for their own use.
They have built schools, roads, parks, and libraries. Federal operation of the
post office and Federal ownership and control of rivers and harbors, highways,
national parks, and national forests are examples of consumer cooperation
through political democracy acting in an economic field.
Q3I4 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
TESTIMONY OF WALTER E. PACKARD— Resumed
This, I think, is important for three reasons. Again, I am going to
mention this distribution of income. Consumer cooperation doe.s
effectively distribute income, as shown in the iUustration which I gave
of the Central Valley project, in regard to power and also land.
The Chairman. Is what you are reading from a part of your state-
ment ?
Mr. Packard. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is it a part of the statement you will introduce for
the record ?
Mr. Packard, Yes, sir.
Now, the second point I wish to make is in reference to consumer
cooperatives, which do aid in the development of markets. One point
I have not mentioned is that the consumer cooperative is one method of
expanding activities and enterprises very largely. It is one method
of affording employment or putting people to work. An illustration
that shows this principle better than any other is, perhaps, the Forest
Service.
The Federal Government owns 25 percent of the forest lands of the
United States, and it spends 27 times as much per acre on that land as
the private interests do on the three-fourths of the forest lands in
private hands. Tlie three-fourths of the forest lands in private owner-
ship re])resent by far the best forest lands. Now, that inoney is used
in the employment of people in putting out fires, cutting brush, and
doing conservation work of one kind or another. In that work the
Government spends something like 33 cents per acre, while the private
forest land owners spend 1.3 cents per acre. When it is in ])rivate
ownership, it is affected by the desire to earn profits and, of course, any
inoney spent on the conservation or protection of the land is taken
from profits.
Where you have consumer ownership through the Government, all
ihe money derived from grazing fees as well as the money derived from
the sale of timber or sale of the land, is tiirned back in the employ-
ment of services on the land. That is a very good illustration of the
way employment can be increased by consumer activities through
consumer enterprises.
More recently, of course, the people of the country have become
concerned over soil erosion, just as we became^ concerned over the mat-
ter of forest destruction some years ago. At the present time we are
spending about $23,000,000 a year in the employment of experts in
erosion control in the United States. Another example of consumer
cooperatives used in expanding activities is where other motives do not
serve. There are, of course,, many other types of cooperative owner-
ship, such as the ownershi]) of land resources. For illustration, there
is the Mineral King ranch project. That is one example which is
very basic.
I know that there are a great many people who have recommended
that all the land in the Columbia Basin project be purchased by the
Government, and some have recommended that all the undeveloped
land in California be purchased by the Government. That means
getting those resources into the hands of the Government so they
may be used in the interest of all.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3315
Now, marketing and processing cooperatives are important m re-
ducing the cost of operations. They are especially helpful to any low-
income group that must look for economy m its operations. Both
marketing and processing enterprises are common. I want to point
out that they are essentially consumer cooperatives and not producers
cooperatives. They are composed of producers, but the producers buy
the materials and services they need. The same thing is true of the
cooperatives that are being extended very greatly now through the
Farm Security Administration. That is where farmers get together
and buy mechanisms that the large farms use, so they can be used
cooperatively, thus giving to those individual operators some of the
economies that the large operators have.
An illustration of the self-help producers' cooperatives is the Min-
eral King ranch project, where they must divide the product that they
tliemselves together produce. It is a difficult thing to divide it.
That is one profit that arises in all producers' cooperatives. In the
case of the Mineral King ranch project, the profits are divided in the
form of wage payments. The system used on that project is one of a
stock corporation. They employ themselves, and the division of the
profit is on the basis of the work they do, because they are paid wages,
and that is their share. If there is any profit left over, it is paid in
the form of bonus wages and not stock. The division is made wholly
on the basis of the contribution made in labor. That, I think, will get
away from the difficulty that jeopardizes most producers' cooperatives.
Now, there is one further statement I want to read here [reading] :
In this very brief discussion of cooperation, I liave attempted to lift tlie co-
operative idea out of a framework of mediocrity in wliich many are apt to place
it and to put it into the iwsition of eminence that it deserves.
We face a situation that is similar in essential features to that faced by the
founding fathers. Hamillon in an appeal in the Federalist to the people of the
State of New York had the following to say :
"After an unequivocal experience of inefficiency of subsisting Federal Govern-
ment, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United
States of America. The subject speaks its own importance comprehending in its
consequences nothing less than the existence of the Union, the safety and welfare
of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the
most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to
have been reserved for the people of this country, by their conduct and example,
to decide the important question whether societies of men are really capable or
not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they
are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and
force. If there be any truth in this remark, the crisis at which we are arrived
may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made ;
and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be
considered as the general misfortune of lilankind."
We are facing a like issue now. Political democracy must be trans-
lated into economic democracy. The interest of the consumers must
prevail — for it is only through their desire for an ample supply of
goods and services at reasonable cost that an economy of abundance
can be built.
The Chairman. You have made a valuable contribution to our dis-
cussion, Dr. Packard, and we appreciate it very much. The state-
ments that you have submitted are a part of the record.
3316 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned until to-
morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Thereupon, the committee adjourned to meet tomorrow, Tuesday,
December 3, 1940, at 10 a. m.)
(The following correspondence was received subsequent to the hear-
ing and accepted for the record :)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,
San Francisco, Calif.. January 16, 19Jfl.
The Honorable John H. Tolan,
Chnirman, Select Committee to Investigate th-e Interstate
Migration of Destitute Citizens, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mb. Tolan: I enclose a copy of a letter, dated January 10, 1^1, ad-
dressed to Dr. Walter E. Packard, of Bei-keley, Calif., who recently testified
before your committee and in the course of his testimony commented on electric
consumption and electric rates in the territory served by this company.
The letter sets forth facts and views which we believe should be published
in any record containing Dr. Packard's testimony. We ask the courtesy of
such publication, either in the report of the committee or in the Congressional
Record.
Yours very truly,
W. G. Vincent.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,
San Francisco, Calif.. Janunrii 10. 19Jil.
Dr. Walter E. Packard,
Consultant, 773 Cragmont Avenue, Berkeley, Calif.
Dear Db. Packard : Recently, in testifying before the Select Committee of
the House of Representatives Investigating the Interstate Migration of Destitute
Citizens, you referred to a chart which you said "illustrates gi*aphically how
lower rates under public ownership tend to increase the consumption of power"
and added :
"A rate of 3.39 cents per kilowatt-hour charged by the Pacific Gas & Electric
Co., for example, has been a factor in the consumption (»f 829 kilowatt-hours
of energy per consuming unit. In Modesto a rate of 2.80 cents per kilowatt-
hour has been a factor in a per consumer consumption of 1,206 kilowatt-hours.
In Winnipeg the rate is 0.825 cents per kilowatt-hour and the consumption Is
4,838 kilowatt-hours."
The figures applied to the Pacific Gas & Electric system and to Modesto
are new to us. Our record shows that in 1939 the domestic use on our system
was 1,008 kilowatt-hours and the average revenue 3.33 cents.
In the city of Modesto the domestic use in 1939 was 1,240 kilowatt-hours
and the average revenue 2.78 cents; in the Modesto irrigation district as a
whole (city and rural) the domestic use was 1,917 kilowatt-hours and the
average revenue was 2.27 cents.
Your Winnipeg figures are substantially correct, but you fail to mention
that of the 4,838 kilowatt-hours all but about 750 kilowatt-hours are used for
heating, i. e., cooking, water heating, and heating the house, upon which
climatic conditions and the absence of cheap fuel have an importnnt bearing.
Low electric rates alone do not account for greater consumer usage. Many
other factors affect the situation. San Francisco, for example (with adjoining
East Bay cities), has the lowest domestic electric rates on the Pacific Gas &
Electric system, yet in 1939 the annual kilowatt-hour use per customer was
only 694. On the other hand, 5 large cities on the Pacific system located in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, having slightly higher rates, had in
1939 an average use per domestic customer of 910 kilowatt-hours. A group of
95 small cities with rates higher than these 6 larger cities had an average
use per domestic customer of 1,163 kilowatt-hours; 22 of the 95 had a use
over 1,500 and 6 exceeded 2,000 kilowatt-hours per year. In the unincorpo-
rated territory served by the company (about 180,000 customers), at rates
higher thau in cities, the average annual use per domestic customer was 1,377
kilowatt-hours. These figures clearly indicate the opposite to your contention.
Factors other than low rates are equally, if not more important.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3317
For instance, the following may be cited. First, San Francisco is a metro-
politan city with a large number of apartment houses, whose dwellers fre-
quently dine out and visit the theaters and other places of entertainment.
They use electricity only for lighting and for the operation of small or "con-
venience" electrical appliances. Second, the city is supplied with cheap natural
gas which is generally used for cooking, water heating, and house heating.
That domestic rates are low in San Francisco is shown by the rate schedule
itself, which is: Service charge, 40 cents; first 40 kilowatt-hours, 3 cents;
next 60 kilowatt-hours, 2.2 cents ; next 100 kilowatt-hours, 2 cents ; and all in excess
of 200 kilowatt-hours, 1 cent.
Official agencies have frequently noted San Francisco's low rates. A survey
made by the Federal Power Commission as of January 1, 1940, placed San
Francisco fifteenth among the cities of 50,000 and over in the bill for 100
kilowatt-hours. ,^ . , -,rv^/^^
A later survey made by the United States Bureau of Labor (October 1940)
shows that in 51 cities surveyed by the Bureau only 4 had lower bills for 100
kilowatt-hours than San Francisco. ^.^ , -r, ..
In its annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, the Railroad
Commission of California stated that California's utility rates are among the
lowest in the country. . , ^
The commission included in its report a table "of the amounts paid for gas,
electric, and telephone service in the 25 largest cities of the United States,"
which placed San Francisco in first position, with Louisville, Ky., second,
and Los Angeles, Calif., third.
In your testimony the argument also is made that low rates increase the
general purchasing power." Apparently this statement is made without regard
lor the contributions made by the private utilities in taxes. If low rates are
secured by elimination of taxes, which must be made up by levies upon the
citizens' income through some other medium, there is obviously no net gam
in purchasing power. «.-, o nnn r.r.n
In the year 1939 the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. paid upward of $18,000,000
in taxes. Federal, State, and local.
Property taxes and franchise taxes levied by counties, cities, and districts
totaled .$9,225,000. .^ , ,.
Taxes paid directlv to the State aggregated ,$2,006,000 including unemploy-
ment-fund taxes, corporation franchise taxes, sales taxes, and motor-vehicle
taxes.
Federal taxes — income taxes on 1939 earnings, a tax on sales of electricity,
taxes under the Social Security Act, taxes on stock and others— totaled
:$6,755,000.
The companv is the largest taxpayer in 25 counties in the State, including
San Francisco." In some of the 25 it pays more than 50 percent of the total
on the tax rolls— or, in other words, more than all the rest of the taxpayers
combined.
In San Francisco our tnx payments in the year referred to on all property,
gas and electric, were $1,617,891.21, representing 20 cents of the tax rate.
That is, except for the company's taxes, the taxes of everybody else in the
communitv would be at least 20 cents per $100 higher.
Taxes Tire continuallv increasing. Our taxes for 1940 will be considerably
greater than thev were in 1939. In 1940 they will approximate the total amount
paid by us in dividends to all classes of stockholders, and we have a total of
•95,000 stockholders, of which 70,000 live in California.
In California no public agency supplies electric service at rates less than
the private utilities if taxes are deducted from the rates of the private com-
panies. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. could supply service lower than the municipal
enterprises in its territory if it were free of taxes.
When you speak of "customer profits" as flowing "to a large number of
consumers in lower rates," yon leave a one-sided impression. The "flow in
lower rates" would not create a new economic current ; it would change the
flow of money that now goes into taxes and dividends into another channel.
Farmers and home owners would not be helped if they gained a few cents or a
few dollars in electric rates and then found themselves paying as mu<'h or
more in taxes.
Yours very truly,
W. G. Vincent
3318 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Berkeley, Calif., Janiianj 30, 1941.
Dr. Robert K. Lamb,
Chief Investigator, Committee on Interstate Migration,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Lamb : Your letter of January 24 enclosing copies of letters to
Mr. Tolan and myself, from Mr. Vincent of tlie P. G. and E. has been received.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of my reply to Mr. Vincent.
Since the matter has been called to the attention of the committee I am
giving a more complete answer to the points raised by Mr. Vincent in this
letter tlian I did in the letter to Mr. Vincent.
Mr. Vincent refers to figures given in a chart entitled "The Effect of Low
Rates on Urban Domestic Consumption. Year 1938." The figures from this
chart were quoted on page 8 in my testimony on "Can Low Income Population
Improve Their Status Through Cooperation V These figures are for the year
1938 and are correct. The figures cited by Mr. Vincent are for year 1939.
The chart itself may be misleading because it does not show all factors
involved in relationships between consumption and price. I am, therefore,
in favor of having the chart deleted. The second and third sentences in the
first paragraph on page 8 can be changed to read as follows : "The effect is
well illustrated in power where lower rates under public ownership tend to
increase consumption." ^
In my analysis I did not say that low rates were the only factor affecting
consumption. Mr. Vincent admits that they are a factor, which is my only
contention. Mr. Vincent points to the fact that a recent survey by the Federal
Power Commission "placed San Francisco fifteenth among the cities of 50,000
or over in the bill for 100 kilowatt-hours." On the first page of a publication
by the Federal Power Commission dated January 1, 1940, and entitled "Typical
Electric Bills, California," a table is presented which shows the lowest and
highest residential bills for connnunities of 50.000 and more, in California.
Los Angeles, where power is distributed through a public agency, has the lowest
bills, while Long Beach and Fresno, where power is distributed by private
agencies, have the higliest bills.
No one wishes to deny that the P. G. and E. is an efficient organization.
The fact remains, however, that rates charged by the P. G. and E. are higher
in general than those charged by towns and districts where power distribution
is publicly operated.
Mr. Vincent next speaks of the effect of taxation upon rates and says "If
low rates are secured by elimination of taxes, which must be made up by
levies upon the citizen's income through some other medium, there is obviously
no net gain in purchasing power." He goes on to say: "Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. could supply service lower than the municipal enterprises in its territory
if it were free of taxes." The facts are that the amount contributed to the
payment of general expenses of cities by publicly owned electric utilities is
appreciably greater than the amount paid to cities in taxation by privately
owned utilities. The following paragraph from the report of the Federal
Power Conunission proves this point: "The combined total amount of taxes,
net cash contribution, and free services furnished governments by publicly
owned electric utilities for the year 1936 was 25.8 percent of the gross revenue
and 13.2 percent of the gross revenue for privately owned electric utilities."
In the year 1937-38, the P. G. and E. i)aid 16.4 percent of their gross revenue
in taxes. Alameda contributed 26.3 percent of its gross revenue under public
ownership. Gridley contributed 23.6; Healdsburg, 43.5 percent; Lodi, 23.9;
Modesto irrigation district 37.7; Palo Alto, 33.6. These are all towns where
power is distributed through publicly owned agencies. These figures effectively
answer Mr. Vincent's contention about taxes. These facts will all be ampli-
fietl in my Haynes report.
Sincerely yours,
Walter E. Packard.
See p. 3298.
INTERSTATE MIGUATION 3319
Berkeley, Calif., January 25, 19-'il.
Mr. W. G. Vincent,
Pacific Gas d Electric Co., San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Me. Vincent : I was glad to get your letter of the 10th with suggested
jiiodiiications iu my analysis of the Central Valley problems.
I am rewriting the report and shall take into consideration the various pomts
vou have raised. There are points you make with wliidi I disagree. On a broad
basis, price always affects consumption. Tlie data presented, however, is mis-
leading and wilfbe deleted. Another fact is that publicly owned utilities con-
tribute more to city and other public funds than privately owned utilities pay
in taxe!^. This fact is well established.
It is understood, of course, that we view the problem from ditferent angles.
The Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is an outstanding example of efficient management
and serves the community well. But the basic issue remains. And it is my
feeling that it is an issue of tremendous imijortance. It symbolizes, in a sense,
the broad economic factors which have led to basic lack of balance. Whether we
like it or not, we must expand consumption and restrict the present channeling
of income into the hands of a comparatively small proportion of our popula-
tion. Our continued existence as a democracy depends upon it. And so does
world peace. Our economic patterns are not geared to the requirements of the
machine age, and they must be adjusted if we are to continue using these aids
to production.
Sincerely yours, ^ ^
Walter E. Packard.
National Press Club,
Washingtwi, December 10, 19^0.
Representative John J. Sparkman,
Migrant Labor Commitice, House Office Building, Washingt07i, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Congressman : I want to call to the urgent attention of you
and the Tolan committee an incipient migratory labor problem which is de-
veloping fast in my home State of Tennessee and in neighboring Kentucky.
The locale is the dark-tobacco-growing country lying between Nashville, Teim.,
and Padueah. Ky. Growers there are facing a disastrous situation as they
market their 1940 crop and make plans for the next crop year. The war has
all but wiped out their export market. And exi>orts comprise more than half
their total market for this particular type of tobacco. You can readily imagine
the economic consequences of such a situation. Especially when it developed
within the short span of one growing season and particularly when it occurred
in a farming area where the average grower has always had to struggle to earn
even a subsistence living.
It will not be necessary for me to go into detail concerning the plight of the
dark-tobacco grower. The attached data, which I shall identify later, presents
the over-all picture perfectly. At this point I should like to explain the
relevancy of the dark-tobacco problem to the scope of your investigation. I
should like to tell why I believe it offers an excellent subject for consideration
of the committee at this time.
In some respects, the plight of the dark-tobacco grower is not unlike that of
the southern cotton grower, about which you are already eminently well in-
formed. With both crops we have witnessed the loss of a great share of our
foreign trade because of nationalism, world trade barriers, and finally the out-
break of war in Europe and Asia. Before the war started in September 1939,
the difference between the two situations might be described as mainly one
of degree. The tobacco situation was similar to but not as bad as the cotton
situation. Or, to put it another way, the disease which had been sapping the
strength of our cotton economy was in a more advanced stage. At any rate,
after the war did break out the dark-tobacco farmer had to make more adjust-
ments and make them more rapidly than the cotton farmer. That is what he
has to do now. That is why his plight is so desperate.
The present seems an opportune time to study migratoi-y labor aspects of the
dark-tobacco problem in Tennessee and Kentucky. You have looked at migra-
tory labor in the cotton field. But there the process by which growers are
being forced down the ladder from owners to tenants to sharecroppers to
260370— 41— pt. 8-
3320
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
migrants— that process has been going on in the cotton kingdom for so many
years that it must have been difficult for your committee to get a panoramic
view of its workings. On the other hand, the effect of war is so pronounced
and so intense in the tlark-tobacco belt that your committee should find a rare
opportunity there to watch migrancy in the making and from the over-all point
of view. . , , , ^ ,
Aside from this, there are other reasons why migrancy in the dark-tobacco
region presents an attractive field for investigation. It is a problem which is
comprehensible. It is not too large to be readily grasped. The geogi-aphical
area is restricted. The region where dark types of tobacco are grown is com-
prised of a relatively few counties lying roughly in two congressional districts-
one in Kentucky and one in Tennessee— and having a population of not more
than 750,000 people. In fact, so small and compact is the region and so
restricted the population that it would be entirely feasible to attempt a statisti-
cal analysis of the development of migrancy there during the next year or so.
This could be done county by county and without undue expense, in my opinion.
If the life of the Tolan committee is extended by the next Congress, I suggest
this as a possible project. Or if, as has been proposed, some permanent com-
mission is created to deal with the problem, the suggestion is equally fitting.
Finally, I should imagine your committee is turning its attention more and
more these days to the effects of war and national defense upon the migratory
labor problem. As the conflict abroad sprea<ls and becomes more intense, un-
doubtedly there are many noticeable changes in the complexion of the subject
which tlie committee is studying. And the same holds truis no doubt, as our
national defense drive broadens in scoi>e and increases in tempo. I know of no
area in the Nation where your committee could so clearly observe the impact
of war and defense on the general problem as in the dark-tobacco-growing area
of Tennessee-Kentucky. Our present ills are, for the most part, the ills of war.
And perhaps our main hope of relief depends upon the coming national defense
developments to that locality.
I have referred to the migratory labor situation in the dark-tobacco belt
vaiionsly as "potential," "incipient," or simply as a migratory "problem." Not
having at my personal disposal the means of thoroughly investigating the situa-
tion, I am n"ot certain which term most accurately describes it. On the basis
of my own knowledge and the facts at hand, I am of the opinion that this
region has produced at least some migrant farm labor within the last several
years. For example, an official of Davidson County (Nashville) recently re-
lated how whole families were moving into that county from the surrounding
rural areas — and particularly from the tobacco belt to the north — and filling
public and private charitabit' institutions. These people, who were without
funds to enter private hospitals, apparently had cut loose from their moorings
in the black-tobacco belt and drifted away. This official said the institutional
problem in Davidson County was getting serious. In connection with the ques-
tion of the extent of migrancy in this region during recent years, I call your
special attention to one of the attached lettei-s on this general subject (Mr
Helm's).
Regardless how serious the problem may have been in the past, a situation
many, many times more serious looms in the imminent future — unless, of
course, there are strong offsetting factors. To me, it seems almost inevitable
that dire economic dislocations will result shortly if exports of dark tobacco
are reduced from seventy-one to twenty-five million pounds within the space
of little more than 1 year. And on top of that, growers in this section are
confronted with a cut of one-fourth or one-third in triple-A allotments next
year — a cut in allotments which are already small enough. (As evidence of
their willingness to cooperate in solving this problem, dark-tobacco growers
recently voted to undergo these drastic cuts by approving marketing quotas for
the next 3 years. Eighty-five percent voted for 3-year quotas in the November
23 i"ef erendum. )
Loss of export market, disastrous market prices, and the prospect of further
and moi-e vigorous cuts in allotments — all these point to a precipitous drop
in total income from the crop. This will be reflected in smaller individual
incomes, of course. And, unless the unexpected happens, this will pave the
road to migrancy. As Administrator R. M. Evans of the Agricultural Adiust-
ment Administration told your committee on December 2, there is a direct
relationship between income and migrancy. "There is no question but that
the main single cause of migrancy is lack of income," he said. "If a farmer
is making enough money, he will not lose his farm and go down the ladder to
tenancy, and sharecropping, and migrancy. If a farm laborer is making enough
wages, he will not be forced on the road in search of stray jobs * * *."
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3321
Some agricultural experts with whom I have talked profess to see certain
oftsettiiig factors. For instance, they see an antidote to migrancy m the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration practice of cutting small growers pro-
portionately less than large growers, in the making of tobacco allotments.
Indeed, this would seem to be of some importance in helping the small grower
remain on the land, but I am wondering just how effective it will be in the
face of the export losses and quota cuts which lie in store for the dark tobacco-
man before the next planting season rolls around.
As another offset, mention is made of the fact that plans for the defense
program call for location of plants in rural areas. This seems fair enough
and particularly appropriate in the dark-tobacco belt, whose troubles are
directly attributable to the war. But the question arises whether the Govern-
ment has any specific plans for locating defense industry in this area. I have
heard of none so far. Even assuming there are such plans, the further question
arises whether the plants will be constructed and in operation in time to meet
the first impact of the agricultural crisis in that region. All in all, this does
not seem to be a very strong reed on which to lean our hopes at this time.
In my opinion, Mr. Congressman, the dark-tobacco grower can place more
reliance and hope in certain suggestions made to your committee — larger Farm
Security loans to give growers time to diversify their crops ; more public works
in the area; Social Security funds to take care of potential cases of migrancy
where public works are not feasible; establishment of a permanent Government
commission to study and experiment with the situation.
Regarding the attached material : The first item is an article from the Nash-
ville Tennesseean of Sunday, November 17, 1940, headed " 'Black Patch'
tobacco growers face darkest year as Europe's markets continue padlocked
by war." The author is John Lipscomb, a member of the staff of that paper,
who has done a comprehensive and thoughtful article on the plight of the
grower. I call to your special attention that part of the. article dealing with
the outlook for tenants and sharecroppers in the region.
The second item is a letter from the same writer, giving some supplemental
data about the labor situation and prospects of migrancy there.
The third item is a letter from Mr. Hugh Helm, who is a member of the
Christian County, Ky., bar. Mr. Helm is a native of the dark tobacco country
of Kentucky, just as I am a native of the same region on the Tennessee side
of the border. Incidentally, he plans to return to his home within the next
few weeks and make a more detailed survey of conditions there. If your com-
mittee is continued the next session of Congress, my thought is that you might
find his observations valuable at that time.
We wish to thank you and the Tolan Committee kindly for giving us this
opportunity to make a preliminary statement on migrancy in the dark tobacco
belt. We earnestly hope you will seek and obtain authorization to continue
your investigation "nevt year so that you will have time to deal more thoroughly
with the Tennessee-Kentucky situation.
Yours very truly,
J. Lacey Reynolds.
[The Na.shville Tennesseean, Sunday Morning, November 17, 1940]
"Black Patch" Tobacco Gkowees Face Darkest Year as Europe's Markets
Continue Padlocked by War — Opening Sales Approach With Dim Hopes
for Good Prices
By John Lipscomb
The future never looked blacker for the Tennessee-Kentucky "Black Belt"
than it does right now.
That's a doleful note on which to begin a story, but in this case it's justi-
fied— as the farmers in the biggest dark-fired tobacco area in the world will
tell you if you care to question them.
For many-many yenrs farmers in southern Kentucky and middle Tennessee
have produced the finest dark tobacco obtainable in the world. Tightly packed
hogsheads went down to New Orleans and were loaded in the holds of steamers
bound for France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy —
Jind of course a good-sized percentage was sold to tobacco firms here in the
United States. But the best market by far was in Europe. Today that market
has been cut in half by the war and eventually will be virtually eliminated.
Of all the former foreign markets, little Switzerland is the biggest one remain-
ing— and her purchases are of little help.
3322
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
BIG DIFFERENCE IN TYPES
There is a big difference between burley and dark-fired and air-cured tobacco.
Burley growers, who are also numerous in this Kentucliy-Tennessee area, have
been touched only slightly by the war. Their market always has been con-
centrated in the United States, burley being used mainly for cigarettes and
other ' light smoking." Dark tobacco, though, is used mostly in the manufac-
ture of chewing tobacco (yes, a few still chew it), snuff, heavy pipe tobacco,
and cigars.
Confronting dark-tobacco growers at present are these questions :
What will happen to prices this year? (The market opens early in De-
cember. )
Wlu'J does the future hold for us?
How much tobacco should we grow next year?
VOTE SATLTBDAY
Naturally, nobody can give an exact answer to the first two questions — but
the growers themselves will decide the latter question next Saturday when
they cast their vote on the Agricultural Adjustment Administration quotas for
1941.
If two-thirds of all the growers in the district vote for the retention of Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration quotas, then Government loans will be
granted again ; the amount of tobacco to be grown next year will be cut dras-
tically, in some cases 25 percent or more, with each farmer growing a propor-
tionate share.
If the quota system is not approved, then every farmer — big and little — will
be free to grow as much dark-fired tobacco as he wants to grow. Agricultural
Adjustment Administration men say that such a course would be disastrous,
and most of the growers agree — although some are doubtful. Scores of the
growers were interviewed in a trip through the "Dark Belt" during the past
week and less than 5 percent of them expressed opposition to the quota plan.
In past "normal" years (JO percent or more of the dark tobacco produced in
the "black patch" was sold abroad through export buyers in Clarksville, Spring-
field, and Hopkinsville. Some of these buyers have virtually closed their
offices — and the rest are literally twiddling their thumbs and wondering what
is going to happen.
Farm agents and Government officials say that of the current crop, not
more than half of the usual amount will be sold to the foreign markets — and
next year the export trade probably will be just about zero.
ONE LONE OKDER
As an example, W. H. Simmons «& Co., of Springfield, has received one lone
foreign order for dark tobacco since last May 30, and that order still has not
been delivered to its European buyer because of tie-ups in navigation.
Adolf Hach, another large export buyer at Clarksville, also said that his
business had just about hit bottom. Hach, like the other export buyers in the
area, was doubtful about the outcome.
"If the war should end soon," he said, "it wouldn't be such a big problem.
Countries that have bought in the past would buy again. They probably would
fill their present needs and buy for future demands — thus boosting the market
again — but nobody knows when the war is going to end."
The situation, everybody agrees, is dark but not hopeless. Both the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration officials and the growers already are look-
ing around for a crop that will take the place of dark-fired tobacco.
SEEIC NEW CROPS
So far, the answer to the problem seems to lie in the develolpment of stock
raising and new crops. County agents in Kentucky and in Robertson, Mont-
gomery, and other Tennessee counties were preaching diversification even before
the war started in Europe — but the dark-fired growers are hard to convince.
"I've been working tobacco all my life," Jake Reeves, a grower near Hop-
kinsville, said. "There have been years when I made money out of it — and there
have been years, like this one may be, when I didn't make anything."
"It begins to look like I've got to find something else, though," he continued.
"I ain't had much schooling, and I don't know much about big business, but
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3323
I can see there's no use in growing tobacco if there ain't no place to sell it.
What am I gonna tiu-n to? I don't know, but I guess it'll be livestock. I've
been so worried over next year that I hadn't thought much about it yet."
And tliat was just about what the other small growers said. Many of the
smaller ones, of course, won't be affected by the quotas that will be placed
in force if the vote is favorable.
HEXP ASSURED
Help for the "small patch" growers was assured last Monday at a con-
ference of dark-tobacco growers. Those who have no more than half an acre
of tobacco under cultivation will not be affected in any way. Those who culti-
vate from six-tenths of an acre to a full acre will not be required to cut their
crop more than 10 percent under the quota system.
Those who are really taking it on the chin from the war are the "middle
sized" growers, the specialists, and the tenant farmers.
A 3-mile ride over a dirt road in Montgomery County, turning south from
Highway 112 about 6 miles from Clarksville, leads to the comfortable farm
home of G. T. Bearden and his son, C. G. Bearden. Last year the Beardons'
crop of dark-fired tobacco brought the highest average price in this dark-lired
district— $17.42 per hundred pounds for the whole crop.
The Beardens are discouraged but not downhearted.
"It's a bitter pill to swallow," the younger Bearden said, referring to the
mutilated market. "I've been worrying about what we'll turn to, but that's
not bothering me so much as the question of what's going to happen to tlie
sharecroppers.
'There are a lot of sharecropper families who depend almost entirely upon
dark tobacco for their living. Of course, my father and I can start growing
livestock and maybe make up what we will lose if the tobacco market stays
the way it is. But thei-e tenant farmers over the district can't solve the
problem that easily.
GEOW OWN FOOD
"It's easy enough to say 'just grow some other crop,' but it isn't as simple
as that. I believe the same thing that a lot of others believe — the tobacco
growers, and especially the small ones, are going to have to grow more food-
stuff and quit depending on the money they hope to get from tobacco.
"Growing your own food for the table— and not having to run to the store to
buy it — will go a long way toward solving the problem."
Among the plans offered for relief of the tobacco problem was one by Hach
based on "farm exchange," under whicli growers of dark tobacco woiili con-
tinue to grow their product, and would receive Government "credits" on their
surplus. These credits then could be used to purchase other farm products
which the tobacco grower does not produce.
"It might work," Hach said. "Anyway, they'll have to work out some-
thing— unless the war ends pretty soon."
OFFICIAL SUMMARY
Here is an official summary of the situation as set out by J. E. Tlugpen,
Chief of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration Marketing Quota Section:
"A year ago when farmers were getting ready to sell their 1939 crop of dark
tobacco the market situation was fairly good. Surplus supplies had been
eliminated. Domestic consumption and exports in the preceding year had
amounted to around 145,C0O,00O pounds and the crop to be placed on the
market was 139,000,000 pounds.
''The war, which already had caused the closing of the flue-cured markets,
fortunately did not interfere seriously with the selling of the 1939 crop of
dark tobacco.
"Today, as farmers get ready to market their 1940 crop they face one of the
worst market situations in the history of the industry. Exports during the past
marketing year ending October 1 amounted to only 46,000,000 pounds. Indications
now are tliat exports for the current marketing year will be under 20,000,000
pounds. Prospects for future exports are so bad that export buyers are almost
entirely out of the market.
"There is practically no demand for one-half of the estimated 1940 crop of
137,000,030 pounds. Buyers for the export trade, farmers and farmer cooperative
representatives have conferred with ofiicials of the Agricultural Adjustment Ad-
ministration. With uncertainty about the reopening of export markets and with
3324 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
some tobacco of the 1939 crop still on hand — even though it may have been sold —
export buyers are unwilling to invest much of their money in making purchases
from the 1940 crop."
MARKETS CLOSED
If you want figures on what has happened to the market, here's what the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration says : In 1939 a total of 68,272,000 pounds
of dark tobacco was exported. Today, markets that received 40,33,7,000 pounds
out of that total are closed ; markets that received 7,768,000 pounds are partially
closed by blockade, and only the markets that received 3,271,000 pounds are now
open.
These figures, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration points out, repre-
sent the weight of the tobacco at the time it was sold abroad. The actual farm
weight — or weight of the product at the time the farmer sold it — was 75,500,000
pounds.
That is the situation as it stands now — and it has been a big surprise to a lot
of the growers.
The United States Department of Agriculture, though, is not surprised. As a
matter of fact, the Department would be justified in handing out a formal
"I told you so."
Through the University of Tennessee Extension Service, directed by C. E.
Brehm, the Department for the past 3 or 4 years has been urging growers of dark
tobacco to ease off and go in for diversified farming.
AWARE OF DECLINE
Here's what Director Brehm, Agronomist J. E. Hendricks, District Agent A. B.
Harmon, and other Extension officials say about the problem :
"The Extension Service has been aware of the declining dark-tobacco market
for several years, as has the United States Department of Agriculture.
"The solution — at least the only solution we see at present — is diversification
of farm crops ; but that's not as easy as it sounds. A farmer who has been growing
tobacco for years just can't shift to other crops suddenly. It requires a gradual
transition. They will have to learn the characteristics of new crops. They will
have to learn new farm methods — almost like a man who enters a new trade.
"No matter when the war ends, the dark-tobacco market will never be the
same. People — especially in the United States — don't chew much tobacco any
more ; they don't dip much snuff — and there aren't many other uses for dark
tobacco. Its use for the production of nicotine and other byproducts is limited
and certainly has no great effect on the market."
Hendricks, Brehm, Harmon, and other Extension Service specialists also agreed
that the soil of Montgomery, Robertson, Macon, and Stewart Counties is well
suited to diversified farming.
Such farming, they point out, might include livestock, especially sheep and
hogs ; fruit, and any crop that would help the farmer become more nearly self-
sufficient.
The problem when boiled down, they maintain, is not just what is going to
happen to the dark-tobacco market. The war, apparently, has settled tliat. The
growers can't switch over to hurley tobacco because" that would upset the hurley
market — and so they sum up the problem this way :
"Since the dark-tobacco growers will have to begin diversified farming —
how are they going to be cared for while the transition is in progress?"
That problem, they say, "will have to be settled by bigger brains than ours."
In the meantime, the Government is offering the more-or-less temporary quota
plan and is hoping that the farmers will approve a 3-year plan instead" of the
customary 1-year plan.
Three years. Agricultural Adjustm'ent Administration ofiicials insist, will give
opportunity for a long-range planning program that may take up some of the
slack from the dark-tobacco market. The growers, of course, must decide be-
tween now and November 23 whether they want a 1-year program, a 3-year
program, or whether they want to start swimming bv themselves.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3325
The Nashville Tennesseean,
Nashville, Tenn., December 10. 19'i0.
Representative John Sparkman.
Migratory Labor Committee, House of Representatives.
Wasliiiif/ton. D. C.
Deab Sib: I have been informed that the problem of several thousand grow-
ers of dark-fired tobacco, who are facing almost certain ruin because of the
virtual collapse of their market, is to be called to the attention of your com-
mittee and I should like to offer some information that I have obtained along
this line.
There are approximately 30,000 growers of dark-fired tobacco in the Tennessee-
Kentucky territory commonly called the "black patch," and of this number
approximately 10,000 (certainly no less) are tenant farmers.
The market for dark-fired tobacco has been declining steadily for 20 years,,
according to attaches of the United States Department of Agriculture here,
and the last props of this market have l)een knocked out by the European war,,
which has closed all of the big foreign markets and most of the smaller ones.
Marketing specialists tell me tliat, within the next 3 or 4 years at the most,
these small farmers will be growing a crop that positively cannot be sold.
The larger growers, of coiirse, realize what is happening and are rapidly
being educated to the fact that they must begin diversified farming if ther
are to survive. A great number of these large growers are planning to convert
their farms to the growing of livestock or to crops that require less labor thau
dark-fired tobacco and which have a market. The solution, though, is not a&
easy for the small growers who operate their own little farms, or for the tenant
farmers who own nothing and who, under the "new order," will be left literally^
out on their own.
These are the people who are going to create a critical problem for us
Tennesseeans and Kentuckians. It is obvious that, when their present work is
ended — either this year, next year, or the next — they are going to start mov-
ing to what they consider "greener pastures" — and your guess as to where
these green pastures are to be found is as good as mine.
As a newspaperman I am especially interested in this problem and I have
talked to many of these tenant farmers and small growers. Neither I nor they
know where they will turn when their dark-fire market eventually breathes
its last gasp.
Incidentally, I am using the term "tenants" as a general term and including
sharecroppers under it.
This class of farmers — here as in other sections of the Nation where labor
migration has occurred — looks to the landlord to solve such problems. Natur-
ally, when confronted with such an immense problem, the landlords can offer
no solution except whatever solution is proposed by the Government specialists.
If no such solution is offered them, it seems logical that what occurred in
the Dust Bowl and in other sections where the demand for farm labor has
stopped will occur here.
Those unfamiliar with this problem immediately suggest: "Grow some other
crop if dark-fired tobacco won't sell." But — to enlarge upon the point I
mentioned earlier — there are few other crops suitable to this section which
produce as many jobs and as much work as this type of tobacco. For instance,
the State specialists for some time havQ been trying to persuade these growers
(meaning the landlords) to shift gradually over to fruit crops. But as you
can readily see, this offers no help for those thousands who have kept busy
with tobacco.
Livestock obviously is not the solution for the tenants and sharecroppers,,
because it takes more money than they have ever made to start a paying live-
stock farm.
Agents for the University of Tennessee Extension Service, who have been
watching this problem develop and who now regard it with real concern, tell
me that there can be no quick solution. The only possible answer, they say,,
is a long-range program (10 years or more) during which the farmers gradu-
ally shift over to the most suitable crops.
3326 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
This is the point : no matter what program is adopted, it cannot immediately
solve the problem of feeding thousands of persons who have no credit rating
and who cannot support themselves while new work is being found.
If I can be of service to you and your committee in any investigation you may
make, I trust that you will not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
John Lipscx)mb.
December 13, 1940.
Hon. John J. Sparkman,
Migrant Lahor Committee,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
My De.ar Congressman: The activities of your committee have come to my
attention and I would like to make a brief statement in behalf of the tenant
fariuers and sharecroppers of the dark-flred-tobacco region of Kentucky.
As you doubtless know, this section of the United States has long followed
the agricultural policy of depending on one money crop, namely, dark fired to-
bacco. The extensive and almost exclusive use of large areas for this purpose
has limited the expansion of demand for luanpower on farms, largely to the
expansion in tobacco acreage, while the increase in consumption of that
commodity has by no means kept pace with the expansion of the population.
As a matter of fact, the rate of increase in consumption of dark-fired tobacco
has hardly exceeded the rate of increase in productivity per man, and the
expansion of acreage in Kentucky.
This situation has, for the past decade, been approaching the paradox
of too many people for the present system of cash-crop farming, and at the
same time, a large acreage of idle, though fertile, land. It is very obvious
that we are now faced with a migratory-worker problem in the dark-fired
tobacco region of Kentucky.
In 1930 the excess of births over deaths in the South was about 15 per
thousand, which would mean an annual rate of natural increase of 11/2 percent
each year, enough to double the southern rural population in about 45 years,
if none of the natural increment moved away. Looking back 4.5 years to 1885,
however, it appears that even with the higher rate prevailing in those years,
the rural farm dwellers of the South did not double in number, but increased
only slightly. Evidently millions of people emigrated during the generation.
The extent of this migration can be seen by looking at the figures themselves.
These figures indicate that the rural farm South in the decade 1920 to 1930,
exported about a quarter of a million persons each year to cities. Census
statistics of birthplace further indicate that 24,100,000 of the native born
population of the United States in 1930 were born in the rural southeast, but
only 17,000,000 of them were living in the area of their birth. Thus, it is
evident that over 6,600,000 had moved elsewhere, probably some 3,800,000 leav-
ing the section entirely, and 2,800,000 moving to southern cities.
Thus the southeast rural districts, after supplying their own growth, had
exported about a fourth of their natural increase in population, supplying
a large proportion of the growth of southern cities, and sending about 3,800,000
to other sections of the United States. This was the situation up to 1930.
Southern farms were exijorting populations to the sections were laborers were
in demand, first to the west, then to eastern and midwestern industrial cities.
Since 1930, the natural increase has continued at approximately the same rate,
but the urban demand for this excess labor supply has ceased. During the
depression years, the population piled up in rural areas, and as the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration bai-red the entry of new farmers into
agriculture, the problems of relief jind rehabilitation in the South were
consequently accentuated. All of this is particularly true of the dark-fired
tobacco area of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Modern America for the past few years has ceased using snuff and chewing
tobacco in the quantities that prevailed in former times. Therefore, a large
portion of the domestic dark-fired tobacco market has been irrevocably lost
to the farmers of Kentucky. With the advent of present hostilities in Europe,
the foreign market has been completely lost to the dark-fired farmers. On
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3327
top of all this, the Federal Government, through its voluntary quota program,
has cut the 1941 acreage quota 25 percent. Where will the tenant farmer and
sharecropper of the dark-fired region of Kentucky turn? The land ov?ners
can turn to diversified farming, and particularly stock farming. But what
will happen to those so unfortunate as to depend on sharecropping or renting?
There must be some long-range program worked out by your committee to
take care of this imixtrtant portion of our population. However, immediately
there is suggested the location of some defense projects in this area. It
seems to me that this would benefit the landowners, the growers, the merchants,
in fact, the Nation as a whole, as well as the sharecroppers and tenant farmers
of the dark-fired tobacco region. After all, their plight is not of their own
making. They are but the victims of a progressing, modern civilization in
America, and the unfortunate war in Europe. These people should not be
forced to leave their native soil and wander over the States of the Nation
looking vainly for a chance to work in seasonal employment in order to keep
body and soul together. They deserve better than this. They are not shiftless,
irresponsible vagrants without hope or care for the future. They are worthy,
dependable citizens who are the backbone of their Nation.
Respectfully submitted.
Hugh B. Helm.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1940
House of Representatives,
Select Cojmmitt'ee to Investigate the Interstate
Migration of Destitute Citizens,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10 a. m., in the caucus room, Old House
Office Building, Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives John H. Tolan (chairman), Claude V.
Parsons, John J. Sparkman, Carl T. Curtis, Frank C. Osmers, Jr.
Also present were Dr. Robert K. Lamb, chief investigator ; Henry
H. Collins, Jr., coordinator of field hearings; Creekmore Fath,
John W. Abbott, field investigators; Ariel V. E. Dunn, Alice M.
Tuohy, assistant field investigators ; Irene M. Hageman, hearings secre-
tary; Richard S. Blaisdell, editor; Harold D. Cullen, associate editor.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. We will call as
our first witness the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins.
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANCES PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR
Secretary Perkins. Mi\ Chairman, I believe you have received my
statement of facts.
The Chairman. Yes; we have; and it is a very valuble statement,
Madam Secretary. It will go into the record at this point.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCES PERKINS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
MIGRATION A NORMAL PROCESS
Mobility has always been and still is a normal and vital feature of American
life. So long as our economic and social patterns continue flexible, this will
be true, and it is sound and wholesome for it to be so.
The migration of workers is a healthy, sign of an advancing economy. We
need a flexible adjustment of the population from the depressed areas, to the
areas of opportunity, whether rural or urban, where people can hope to make
a better living. The hardship of migration results fx-om failure to give efficient
direction to the worker and his family who have the enterprise to move in
search of opportunity.
Since 1921, migration from abroad has been restricted. The burden of ad-
justment to changing economic conditions has fallen upon native Americans.
During the decade 1921-30, the chief migration was the northward movement
of Negroes from the rural South into the urban centers of the North. During
the great depression of 19.30 to 1933 both white and Negro workers moved from
the cities back to the rural areas, seeking to exchange meager security among
family and friends for the industrial opportunities which had disappeared.
Today the majority of migi'ant workers are native white Americans who seek
3329
3330
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to escape from drought, depleted soil, or outmoded industry to larger oppor-
tunities of advancing industry or agriculture. If we could provide these
expanding opportunities in sufficient volume to take care of all the surplus
population of the regions suffering from this decline in economic opportunity,
the problem of migration would be quickly solved, although there would still be
problems connected with absorbing those Who would move.
SPECIFIC NEEDS FOR MIGRATION
The largest increases in our population are in rural ai-eas, especially in the
southeastern section of our country In some of the areas where population
Increases most rapidly, the soil is too poor to support even the present popula-
tion on a good standard. In other areas, industry has moved away for various
reasons. The largest increases in the demand for labor are in the northern
and western sections, and in southern urban centers.
Our cities, generally, do not maintain themselves by births in the city popula-
tions. Yet these cities and their surrounding areas afford the greatest employ-
ment opportunity. As a result, there was a net movement of more than
6,000,000 persons from farms to cities during the decade 1920-SO.
Migration is also needed to meet seasonal demands for agricultural and
industrial work. Until recently, most American farming was conducted on
a family basis, with the help of a few hired hands or sharecroppers who were
provided with maintenance throughout the year. Today agriculture is becom-
ing mechanized and specialized, in one region after another. As a result,
there is a demand for large numbers of workers at harvest time, but not at
other reasons of the year. This change increases the need for a mobile work-
ing force which will "move in response to shifting seasonal demands. A very
large number of people also move from place to place, often crossing State lines
to take seasonal jobs in industries.
At the present time, migration is also needed to meet the needs of our na-
tional defense. Effort is being made, through the National Defense Advisory
Commission, to place orders and build plants in areas where unemployed labor
now exists. However, other considerations sometimes interfere. Speed dic-
tates that our defense materials be produced in the areas where the facilities
already exist. Strategy dictates scattered locations in the less-exposed areas
of the country. These locations may or may not correspond to the places where
adequate supplies of labor of the requisite skills are already available. Again
a considerable volume of migration will be required to meet these needs, and
it is already taking place.
MIGRANTS ARE NORMAL PEOPLE
The people who move in search of greater opportunity today are mostly
native white Americans. Cheap automobiles and good roads facilitate migra-
tion, with the result that wliole families, including young children, now move
more often than formerly. .
Many of the migrant workers are those who have not made a good adjust-
ment in the areas from which they came. But it does not follow that they
are unemployable. On the contrary, the migrants are among the most ambi-
tious and enterprising of our people and comprise more young people than the
population as a whole. They are the modern pioneers who accept the burdens
of adjustment to changing circumstances as did the travelers in the covered
wagoii and the immigrants from foreign lands in earlier days. Our social
problem of migration is that of guiding the migrant to the place where he may
find the work he seeks, of avoiding useless and wasteful migration, of acceptmg
the migrant worker for what he is, an. American citizen like the rest of us and
not an outsider, and of establishing minimum standards so that the migrant's
necessities will not undermine the wages and working conditions of the estab-
lished worker.
DISTRESS OFTEN CONNECTED WITH MIGRATION
Not all migration is accompanied by distress. Much of the moving about is
accomplished without creating a problem in public health, or in relief, or in
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3331
housing. Distress occurs wtien migrants come too rapidly or in too great num-
bers to permit ready absorption into our economic or social community life,
when they appear to constitute a separate social or economic group or when
the shortness of their stay makes effort on their behalf seem of temporary
value.
It is the migrants who usually pay the price of the economic adjustment they
enable the community to make. Migrants often suffer because seasonal jobs
which they take, in agriculture, pay low wages but require long hours on per-
ishable crops. Such jobs are usually followed by periods of unemployment.
Living conditions that go with these jobs are often far below any American
standard of health or decency.
Even in national-defense jobs, subject to Federal supervision and Federal
labor laws, where, as a rule, hourly rates of pay are high, problems arise, be-
cause the emergency may bring a sudden influx of workers, and often their
families, to areas unprepared to receive them.
Migrants frequently lack the protection of labor laws and social-security
laws, not so much because they are migrants (although that is a special handi-
cap and a bar to eligibility for certain services) as because they secure em-
ployment in occupations that are exempted from most labor laws, and in sec-
tions of the country that are poorly equipped with social services and with
labor laws. The local population, which works alongside of the migrants, suf-
fers from many of the same conditions. Both groups would benefit from
broader occupational coverage in labor and social-security laws.
WHY MIGRANTS LACK THE PKOTECTION OF LABOR LAWS AND SOCIAL- SECURITY LAWS
1. Community attitudes :
Our social and political institutions were made to fit the needs of resident
rather than moving people.
A striking example is our settlement laws, which still hark back to an Eliza-
bethan idea that a man will live and die in the parish where he was born.
People who move, even today, lose their claims on one community before they
acquire a foothold in a new one. These people travel in order to perform useful
work, much needed by the communities through which they pass, and most of
them are citizens of the United States. Yet they do not obtain the right to
apply for assistance such as is given to other people with similar needs, simply
because they have not lived long enough in any one place to qualify. This is
an unrealistic situation, and one for which I hope this committee will try to
find some remedy. If there are to be settlement laws, at least they should be
uniform within the State, and also uniform as between different States.
The compulsory school attendance laws also are intended primarily for resi-
dents. Even where the right to attend school is given to children of migrant fami-
lies, school attendance officers often overlcok the children of migratory families.
These children are a greater burden because of their irregular attendance, short
stay, and fluctuating numbers, so that even with the best of intentions it is diffi-
cult for the schools along their routes to fit them in.
Many other examples could be cited of treatment which might be called "dis-
criminatory," which arise from the fact that our communities are based on a
settled existence, in spite of our long tradition of pioneering, and our need for
these migratory people.
2. Migrants are employed in o"CCupatioiis that are generally excluded or ex-
empted from protective legislation :
Migrants find employment on a large scale in occupations that are for the most
part excluded or exempted from the coverage of State and Federal labor laws, and
social-security laws: e. g., agriculture, packing and canning, and casual employ-
ments, some G-f them in industry.
Casual labor is not covered by workmen's compensation laws except in a few
States. Casual workers rarely receive unemployment compensation between
jobs because they have not had enough continuous employment in one State to
qualify. Mr. Stanchfield, of the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Com-
mission, pointed out before this committee at one of its field hearings that 42 i>er-
cent of the claims filed in his State for unemployment compensation by migrants
were disqualified for this reason, compared to only 12 Vo i^ercent of resident claims.
Child labor is common among those migrant families that are employed in agri-
culture and in processing of food products, these industries being the largest
3332 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
users of child labor. Child labor goes with low earnings (which induce families
to put to work every pair of hands they can muster) and rush work on perishable
products (which induces the employer to hire all whom he can get).
In general, State child-labor laws governing industrial and commercial occu-
pations have not been applied to agricultural work. But, with the extended
production of truck, fruit, and berry crops and the increase in large-scale farm
operation, the work of children on farms has beco-me increasingly industrialized,
with repetitive tasks, long hours, and small earnings. Such work seriously inter-
feres with schooling of child workers, both resident and migrant.
While compulsory school attendance laws may, to some extent, restrict farm
work during school hours, there too frequently is a lack of vigorous enforcement
in the case of the rural child. In addition, these laws contain numerous exemp-
tions under which children may leave school for farm work.
3. Migrants are employed in areas lacking in labor laws and social services :
iNIigrants are employed very largely in rural areas where social services are
inadequate even to meet the needs of the residents. In many of these areas, too.
there are few labor laws on the statute books, and such laws as exist are often
poorly enforced.
For example, one State estimates that between forty and sixty thousand agri-
cultural migrants, and even larger numbers of temporary out-of-State workers in
(he service trades and clerical occupations — between seventy-five and one hun-
dred thousand — enter the State each year. This State lacks a fully organized
State labor department and many of the essentials of a well-rounded State labor
code. For example, a State official has recently pointed out that a wage payment
and wage collection law could be used to good advantage in assisting the numer-
ous workers ( chiefly in service trades) who file complaints that they have failed to
receive the wages due them. When this happens, the migratory workers are left
stranded.
Migratory workers and their families are usually in areas where public health
and medical care, even for residents, are inadequate and where there is little pos-
sibility of extension of such services to incoming and temporary groups unless
local resources are supplemented by outsid*^ fluids.
The children's bureau found that out of S2 counties, in 17 States, where
migrants worked, less than one-third provided any opportunity for e'ther resident
or migrant mothers and children to secure such medical advice as is afforded by
prenatal and child-health conferences and public-health nursing services, unless
the families could afford to consult a private physician. The urban counties
where migrants worked were only slightly better off than the rural counties.
Although the very fact of migration connotes family instability, social as well
as economic, migrant families are usually outside the protection of our community
social services. Family welfare services are limited or lacking; ])iil)lic relief or
assistance is usually not available for nonresidents. The protective services we
provide to guard ciiildreii against dependency, neglect, and delinquency do not
reach the children of migrant families. Recreational opportunities are limited,
except for the cheapest commercial rec-^atiou.
RISKS TO WHICH MIGRANTS ARE EXPOSED
Migrants are often the very groiip most in need of protective services and of
the benefits that labor laws are supposed to confer. The occupations in which
many migrants work are low paid, highly seasonal, often with bad working
conditions, and often bad living conditions, too. This is true in agriculture,
canning and packing and preserving of foods and sea food, and in lumbering ;
and some of it is true of the service trades in and about seasonal resorts. In
most of these occupations, it is difficult for workers to organize to protect
themselves.
Migratory workers are often preyed upon by unscrupulous labor contractors,
who are nowhere as yet subject to any effective regulations. Whole families
may be brought long distances from homes by these conti'actors and forced to
remain even under intolerable conditions, because the contractor has advanced
the money for transportation and food, or because the worker will lose his sea-
son's earnings if he goes back, assinning he can finance the return journey.
Incidentally, farmers, too, are often victims of the contractors' practice of labor
stealing.
The transportation facilities provided for migratory workers by labor con-
tractors and others, for which fares are collected, are in manv ciises not only
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 333^
disgraceful but dangerous to the migrants themselves and to others on the
highways. jMuch of the transportation concerning which we have received com-
plaints is in overcrowded, open trucks, making long journeys, crossing one or
more State lines. Some of it is intrastate. The collision in Texas between
a railroad train and a truck carrying 44 farm workers, the youngest being 7
years old, is a striking illustration of the prevalent abuses. This particular
accident did not come under the jurisdiction of the I. C. C, but many trucks
similarly loaded are known to operate in interstate commerce.
Unemployment is perhaps a greater terror to the family on the move than to
the settled family. People forced to move in search of a livelihood soon exhaust
their resources "if they do not find work. The earnings on one job are con-
sumed at once or go to buy gas or pay for transportation to the next job.
Even a short waiting period between jobs, or between pay days, means misery.
Unemployment among migrants is not cushioned by funds for unemployment
compensation, W. P. A. work, or general relief to the same extent as among the
resident population. When individuals and families need help to survive, our
present residence laws and patchwork provision for relief in effect deny them
that aid. Surplus commodities made available by Federal funds, relief grants
from the Farm Security Administration, and private charity are the chief
sources of what little aid the mi,i;raut now receives.
Migrant families suffer niorc illness and receive less medical care than even
the .lowest income groups with settled residence. Many women go through
pregnancy and childbirth without prenatal supervision or care at delivery by
doctors or nurses. A higher proportion of children in these families suffer
hunger and malnutrition, and develop serious physical and mental handicaps as
a result of irregular and insecure living, lack of proper diet and lack of medical
care. Hospitalization and medical care are pi-ovided oidy occasionally, in dire
emergency.
Even where there are not enough health and welfare services to go around,
residents would gain something — in the crudest practical calculation — ^by making
existing resources more accessible to migrants, for no community can isolate
itself from the diseases which the migrants may bring with them, or which may
originate in insanitary migrant camps. It is true here, as has been ob-
served in another coimection. that you cannot keep a man down in a ditch
unless you stay there with him.
BROADER COVERAGE FOR GROl'PS NOW KXCLl'DEI) FROM LABOR LAWS HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY XTRGED BY NATIONAL GROUPS
The National Conferences on Labor Legislation, the White House Conference
on Children in a Democracy, the Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate
Health and Welfare Activities, the Baltimore Interstate Conference on Migratory
Labor, the Social Security Board and its Advisory Committee all have urged
extension of labor law coverage to workers now excluded. (Copies of these
recommendations are submitted herewith.)
Specifically, the recommendations of these bodies include —
(a) Extension of authority of State labor departments to all places of em-
ployment.
(b) Immediate inclusion of workers now exempted under workmen's com-
pensation and wage-collection laws.
(c) Elimination of present exemptions in State labor laws. The most fre-
quent exemptions are —
(1) Agriculture and domestic service, from practically all tyijes of labor
laws.
(2) Hotels, canneries, also telephone and telegraph establishments, from State
hours legislation.
Wherever exemptions could not be eliminated outright, the national confer-
ence felt they should be narrowed as much as possible.
The definition of agricultural work for purposes of exemption from the
Social Security Act, which was adopted by Congress in 1939, runs counter to the
commonly accept(>d meaning of that term. It exempts, along with agricultural
field occupations, hundreds of thousands of cannery and packing-shed workers
who are really performing industrial operations. The industrial nature of these
jobs has been recognized by many authorities, in addition to the Social Secur-
ity Board and its advisory conmiittee, who strongly advised against this exemp-
QQ34 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
tion and who are pressing for reinclnsion of these workers. The National
L-ihor Relations Act also exempts agricultural workers. The board has kept
this definition within the commonly accepted meaning of the term, and has
held that packing-house workers are covered. In this it has been upheld by
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in California in a decision which
the United States Supreme Court has refused to review. . ,. ,
(d) Setting a minimum age for employment of children in industrialized agri-
culture, as dtstiuct from the home farm. ^ r.^^-, f n
Improved educational facilities, equal to those for resident children, for all
children of school age in migrant families and Federal and State aid to
reniedv inequalities in educational opportunities.
The' Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 applies the basic muiimum-age
standu-d of the act to the work of children in agriculture during the periods
when they are legally required to attend school. Within this limitation the
act applies its basic child-labor standard to agricultural employment wher-
ever the child-labor provisions of the act apply, that is to employment in
establishments producing goods for shipment in interstate commerce, for exam-
ple to truck farms whose products move in interstate commerce.
In New Jersey, where there has been extensive use of young workers on
industrialized farms, the State's 1940 child-labor law contains special provi-
sions establishing minimum-age standards for agricultural work both during
school hours and outside school hours, and includes specific administrative
provisions for agricultural regulation. ,..,..
These are pioneering legislative measures. Experience in their administration
w
origi
work
ill be valuable in pointing out ways of adapting methods of labor regulation
•iginally develoix-d for industrial and commercial employment to agricultural
Recommendations
I. Extension of the coverage of labor and social-security laws, both State
and Federal, to workers in industrialized agriculture and to all workers
engaged in processing and packing agricultural products.
This means, specilically, bringing these workers under such laws as work-
men's compensation, child labor, wage and hour laws, wage payment and wage
collection laws, legislation for collective bargaining, unemployment compensa-
tion, old age and survivor's insurance. The places of employment should be
under the jurisdiction of the State labor departments, so that investigations
of working conditions can be made.
One device which has been used to establish labor standards for certain
agricultural workers is to make crop benefit payments to farmers conditional
upon their observance of required labor standards. This has been done in
the case of one agricultural commodity — sugar.
EXTENSION OF CONCILIATION SERVICES
Both state and Federal agencies engaged in mediation and conciliation of
labor disputes should give increased attention to methods of settling disputes
involving agricultural and migratory workers.
On account of the shifting nature of the group of workers involved, special
techniques may be needed to develop equitable and peaceful labor relations.
II. Strengthening and extension of public employment service, along the
following lines :
ia) A farm placement service, operating on a regional basis, which will esti-
mate crop needs in advance, make contracts with both resident and migratory
labor, and with employers, route labor from job to job, and thus decrease
the waste motions and cross-currents of migration, and the waiting time between
jobs.
(b) An industrial and construction placement service, with interstate clear-
ance, is now being developed. It is badly needed in connection with national-
defense projects.
1 North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v. National Laior Relations Board, decided
January 12, 1940, U. S. C. C. A., 9th Circuit. Certiorari denied by U. S. Supreme Court
May 20 and October 14, 1940.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3335
III. Regulation of labor contractors:
(a) By State law. Some States have no regulation for any kind of private
employment agencies; others have laws which need to be revised in order
to cover the typical labor contractor who recruits migratory, seasonal agri-
cultural labor, who operates with his office under his hat and does not
have premises that can be located and inspected.
(b) By a Federal law designed to regulate agents who do interstate recruit-
ing and placements.
At present these operations escape all regulation except in a few instances
where they may be caught under the emigrant agent laws which a few southern
States have adopted.
Such regulation should be under the jurisdiction of the State labor depart-
ments and of the United States Department of Labor, respectively.
IV. Improved enforcement and extension of regulation of transportation
facilities, especially trucks :
(a) By the Interstate Commerce Commission, for interstate traffic.
(&) By the State commissions, for intrastate traffic. Apparently much of
the transporting of migrants at the present time is illegal, and is done in
violation of existing regulations. However, the regulatory bodies lack staffs
and funds for enforcement. Existing regulations and basic ^^uthority to regu-
late may need some revision.
V. Housing :
(a) Continuation and expansion of the Farm Security camp program.
(6) State housing and sanitary regulations should be applied to shelter of
migratory and seasonal labor, where codes already exist. Where there is no
code, regulations should be adopted and enforced. Increased personnel and
appropriations will be needed by enforcing agencies. The State labor depart-
ment is the logical agency to make inspection of labor camps.
(c) Low-rent housing projects to take care of demonstrated housing needs
for workers on national-defense projects, along the lines of the projects aided
by the United States Housing Authority, to be undertaken by local, State, and
national housing agencies (authorities) where private enterprise is unable to
build the necessary housing at rents the workers involved can afford. For
higher-income defense workers, likewise, adequate housing will have to be
built with the aid of public agencies and public funds. Housing developments
will be needed for workers, both white and colored. Where pei-nianent housing
(»f this sort is constructed, it should be planned not only to fill the immediate
shortage, but to fit into the life of the local community.
For short-run defense projects, temporary and in some cases portable housing
will have to be constructed by public agencies.
VI. Health, medical care, and welfare services:
(a) Increased Federal funds under titles V and VI of the Social Security
Act.
These are urgently needed to enable the State health agencies to strengthen
existing public-health organization, and to extend to migrant citizens and their
families public-health protection, maternal and child-health services, and medi-
cal care facilities, especially provision for mothers and infants before, during,
and after childbirth.
(6) Allocation of national-defense funds to meet emergency needs for sani-
tation, control of communicable disea.ses, medical care, and health services
(especially those for mothers and children) and welfare services in areas
where defense projects are causing a sudden influx of population with concomi-
tant public-health problems.
(c) Expansion of local child-welfare staffs in areas where migrant families
congregate, whether for agricultural, nonagricultural, or defense employment,
to aid families with children, and to devise necessary protective services for
boys and girls.
VII. Public assistance:
(a) Uniformity of settlement laws, both within each State and among the
States.
(6) Federal, State, and local cooperation in pi-oviding for aid to migrants in
need of assistance.
Federal grants-in-aid to the States similar to those now available for public
assistance under the Social Security Act can be adapted to this end with the
260370 — 11— pt. 8-
•^336 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Federal Government meeting the full cost of assistance for those who have not
acquLi-ed residence in the States to which they have gone.
(c) In areas undergoing rapid expansion for defense projects, special emer-
gency provision for relief needs of industrial workers and their families who
may be temporarily stranded because defense jobs are not ready for them, or
because the jobs have closed down, or because they are not equipped for such
employment as is available.
VIII. Education:
Adequate school facilities for all children, migrant and resident, with State
or Federal aid where necessary to secure equal opportunities.
IX. Guidance of migration ; rehabilitation, and resettlement programs :
(a) Continuing study of regional resources and of economic opportunities by
regions and by occupations.
This would yield a picture of the need for outward migration from some areas,
and the needs of other areas for immigration ; it should also include studies which
give a picture of the obsolescence of some jobs and the emergency of others, e. g.,
the Labor Department's occupational outlook service.
(&) Programs of assisting surplus population either to find new possibilities
of employment at home or to migrate to economic opportunities elsewhere.
Anything that can be done to rehabilitate areas such as those in some of the
southeastern States, which today constitute a great reservoir of potential mi-
grants, will decrease both the magnitude and the intensity of the migrant prob-
lems here discussed, and should be encouraged. Planning would include, for
example, public works programs for the conservation of natural resources — soil,
forests, water power ; the promotion of sound industrial expansion ; the location
of defense projects and the placing of defense orders in places where labor is now
unemployed, insofar as compatible with other national considerations such as
speed and strategic location. The education of our stranded populations in new
skills, both agricultural and nonagricultural. is important.
X. Need for a central coordinating agency to assist in planning future study
and to promote both study and action :
It would be desirable to have such an agency set up for a specified period of
time, in order to focus all the scatti-red efforts that many agencies are directing
at different phases of this vast problem.
Whatever agency is set up should work closely with State and local groups and
agencies where the problem is acute, in order to adapt the program to local needs.
Our experience with regional conferences has been that local groups participate
actively in a Federal-State program when they are given a chance to know what
can be done.
FUNCTIONS NOW PEEFORMED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF I^\B0R IN REGAltD
TO MIGRANTS
In any future programs the Uuited States Department of Labor can be counted
on to continue its present services and to add facilities for dealing with this
problem, including —
Bureau of Labor Statistics.- — Occupational outlook service surveys of economic .
conditions, working conditions, earnings, etc.
Women's Bureau. — Studies of employment and working conditions of women.
Children's Bureau. — Studies of child labor in both industry and agriculture.
Administration of child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fed-
eral aid for maternal and child health, crippled children, and child welfare services.
Division of Labor Standards. — Promotion of labor standards, including assist-
ance to State labor departments and interested groups in the States. On the
problems of migration, this has included assistance in holding regional conferences
to discuss improving the status of migrants through cooperation of State, Federal,
and local agencies.
GENERAL SUMMARY
Some of the measures discussed are primarily for migrants. But we do not
need to create many separate institutions and programs for migrants, if we
recognize these jpeople as part and parcel of the whole community of the 48 States,
and take down some of the barriers in the way of their getting the same treatment
as those who stay at home.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3337
Such a policy rests on a primary assumption that the total volume of services
(health, welfare, public assistance, etc.) will be amplified to take care of the-
needs of both resident and migrant, and that the coverage of labor laws and
social-security laws will be extended to cover many workers in occupations now
left without protection.
Migrants do not live apart from our whole social and economic system. In
the long run, the best assurance of a decent life for migrants Is in the continued
Improvement in the standard of living, and the opportunities for work, of all
Americans.
Appendix A
RECOMMENDATIONS CITED IN SECRETARY'S STATEMENT
1. Reports of committees and resolutions adopted by the Fifth National Confer-
ence on Labor Legislation, 1938.
Report of Committee on Extension of Labor Law Protection to all Workers
(p. 3).
2. Report of committees and resolutions adopted by the Sixth National ('onfer-
ence on Labor Legi.slation, 1939.
Report of Committee on Child Labor, p. 4.
Report of Resolution Committee, p. 22.
3. Recommendations of the White House Conference on Children in a Democracy.
Children in Migrant Families, p. 24.
4. Recommendations of the Interstate Conference on Migratory Labor (Mary-
land, Delaware, New Jer.sey, Virginia).
5. Report to the President on' Migratory Labor, by Interdepartmental Com-
mittee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
Recommendations, p. 20.
Appendix B
list of puhlrations oe united states department 01" i^vhol! wiih respect to
migratory workers submitted by the secretary of labor
Division of Labor Standards
Statement of Clara M. Beyer, Agricultural Workers Under State Labor Laws,
submitted to La Follette Civil Liberties Committee, May 22. 1940.
P-roeeedings of Interstate Conference on Migratory Labor, February 1940.
Women's Bureau
Women in the Fruit-Growing and Canning Industries in the State of Wa.shing-
ton, Bulletin 47, 1926.
Women's Employment in Vegetable Canneries in Delaware, Bulletin G2 1927
page 29.
Application of Labor Legislation to the Fruit and Vegetable Canning and
Preserving Industries, Bulletin 176, 1940.
Employment Conditions in Citrus Fruit Packing, 1939.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Migration of Workers. Part I, Nature of the Problem, 1938.
Labor Conditions in Onion Fields of Ohio, Monthly Labor Review. February
1935, page 324.
Patterns of Agricultural Labor Migration Within California. Monthly Labor
Review, November 1938.
"^*193?^ ^^^^^' ^^^^^''^^^^^ *^ California, 1937, Monthly Labor Review, August
Di-ought and Depression Migration Into Oregon, 1930 to 1936, Monthly Labor
Review, January 1938.
Seasonal Agncultural Labor in the Yakima Valley. Monthly Labor Review,
August 1937.
3338
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
A Survey of Labor Migration Between States, Monthly Labor Review, July 1937.
Migratory Farm Labor in the United States, Monthly Labor Review, March
Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California in 1936, Monthly Labor
Review, December 1936.
Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California, June-December 1935,
Monthly Labor Review, February 1936.
Children's Bureau
Statement of Katharine Lenroot, submitted to La FoUette Civil Liberties Com-
mittee, May 27, 1940. . .^. ,,
Statement of Dr. Eliot, submitted to La Follette Civil Liberties Committee, May
27, 1940.
Statement of Beatrice McConnell, "Child Labor in Agriculture," submitted to the
La Follette Civil Liberties Committee, May 27, 1940.
Migration of Workers, Part II, Social Problems of Migrants and Their Families.
Wages, Employment Conditions, and Welfare of Sugar-Beet Laborers, reprint
from' Monthly Labor Review, February 1938.
Children in Agriculture, Bulletin 187, 1929.
Children in Fruit and Vegetab'e Canneries, Bulletin 198, 1930.
Welfare of Families of Sugar-Beet Laborers, Bulletin 247, 1935-39.
Report on Social Problems of Migrants and Their Families Summarized, The
Child, August 1937.
Age Certificates for Young Workers Under the Sugar Act, The Child, October 1939.
Regulation of Child Labor in Industrialized Agriculture, The Child, April 1940.
Child Labor in Vegetable Canneries in Maryland, The Child, August 1940.
Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Aetivities
Migratory Labor, A Report to the President by the Interdepartmental Committee
to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANCES PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR—
Resumed
Secretary Perkins. I understand that in the review of that state-
ment of the background you have discovered what is quite nat-
ural—that it covers much' the same ground and deals with much
the same circumstances and situations as do the factual statements
of all the other witnesses who have appeared here. I presume that
there is nothing new in it. We all derive our information from the
same sources, with slightly different observations, due to the em-
phasis either upon social, labor, or health aspects, of the situation.
Of course, our people, in studying this for some years now, have
naturally emphasized the labor aspects of the problems of the migra-
tion of populations looking for work. But we recognize that there
are other aspects to the problem, too.
We delivered here yesterday a volume of all the reports that have
been made in the Department of Labor over a period of time ; it is a
rather large volimie, as you can see, of reports of one kind or another
that have been made by different agencies and different groups in the
Department of Labor.
The Chairman. I might say to you, Madam Secretary, that this
committee has traveled about i 0,000 miles. We went into New York,
Alabama, Illinois, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and into San Francisco
and Los Angeles in California. We think, really, that we have some
facts. We came back here to Washington to conclude our discus-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3339
sions with officials like yourself, who have made studies of this prob-
lem for years, as it has related to the work of your departments. _
Secretary Perkins. I would like to say, sir, that original studies
in the Department of Labor were made by virtue of suggestions
that came from labor commissioners of a number of States. They
were being overwhelmed by some of the problems that came to them;
migratory labor came into their States, and they had no way of
regulating it, and did not know what to do about it.
'We became aware that this problem was common along the whole
Atlantic seaboard and this was even earlier than the time when the
world became aware that the problem was acute in the western States.
and on the west coast. The migration from the Middle Western and
Middle Southern States to the West was largely due to a specific cause,
the drought ; whereas, the migration in the Atlantic Seaboard States
was largely local and was generally in the nature of following the crop.
I am sure you have had described to you the following of the
potato crop and all that sort of thing. But that had been going
on over a number of years in New York State, where I was indus-
trial commissioner for a number of years before I became Secretary
of Labor. We had, for a great many years, been dealing with it
as a purely local problem. We were not aware of the fact that it
affected aiiy other part of the country and, in fact, a great deal of
the migration was intrastate. It was the migration out of the cities,
in what we call the upper tier, and the southern tier, also, into the
vegetable-growing areas of the great black swamp area of New York
where the land is so fertile and where they use it for market garden-
ing, and into the cherry orchards. The people went out from the cities
in the summertime to pick the cherries and other fruit.
This was rather an orderly migration out of New York City up to
the farms along the Hudson River, in the berry and fruit season
generally, which created migratory problems within the State. We
had never been aware of it as anything except a local problem and
tried to deal with it in that way.
Also, there has been for many years in New York State, going
back 30 years or more, a law with relation to the handling of migratory
labor when those groups were immigrants; that is, aliens. There
was a great deal of exploitation of newly arrived immigrants, alien
labor, at one time in New York State. Among your labor agencies,
labor contractors, employment agencies, they were exploited and, in
places, as you know, if you read some of the old magazine articles
of 30 years ago, there was ex]:)loitatibn almost amounting to peonage ;
people being taken out to labor camps by a contractor or a padrone,
as they were called, and really kept there, and unable to leave the
camp, with no means of getting away until the job was done. And
then often there were deductions made from their wages, so that
when they got through with the job they found that they owed the
camp all but ]!erhai^s the carfare back to the city.
That sort of thing, of course, required regulation, and laws were
passed in New York State many years ago for the regulation of labor
3340 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
camps, immigrant labor camps, where the exploitation was of aliens,
and also for the regulation and inspection of immigrant lodging
houses, where another great form of exploitation had been found.
But this problem of migration from other States had not come to the
surface at that time. We were not aware of it. But I think many of
the same problems, in lesser degree, that afflicted those early immigrant
groups in New York State can be found scattered all through this situa-
tion in lesser degree because of the fact that these people we are now
dealing with are mostly native-born and speak English and, to a certain
extent, know their rights and are not strangers in a strange land, so
that this is not an entirely strange, new social and economic problem.
The thing that is strange about it is that we find native-born Ameri-
can citizens on the move in families rather than as individual mi-
grants, which we have long been familiar with in the old gToups of
harvest hands who followed the crops.
The thing that is unique about this today is that you have family
groups migrating. I sup])ose the automobile and rapid transporta-
tion have contributed to making that possible.
The decline of economic opportunities in certain areas has made
it almost imi^ossible for these families to remain settled. But I feel
that we ought to regard some of this migration as a normal part
of American life and not to be too startled by it.
Another aspect of labor settlement in the development of the coun-
try and in the development of economic opportunities has been the
capacity of the American people to be very mobile. It is the mo-
bility of labor that is commented on, for instance, by all European
economists who write on the subject.
By contrast, in England, for instance, I have seen areas where the
economic life had deteriorated. The coal vein was worked out. There
would be no more coal mined there ever. And yet the people would
not leave the valley and go somewhere else. It was that immobility
of labor which created in itself a profound social and economic
problem.
So that, if there are areas in this country which have ceased to be
procluctive areas, it is desirable that people should leave those areas
and they should leave those areas and find for themselves, or with
direction and assistance from the Government, suitable places for
settlement.
Migration, of course, relieves the pressure on the overpopulated
areas and also meets the seasonal demands for labor in agricul-
ture and in industry. We have to recognize that many industries, as
well as agriculture, need a certain extra seasonal supply, and we
have to recognize that if there is a proper regulation of this flow
of people and a proper direction of it, so that it does not cause individual
hardships, there is no objection to.it.
Today, when we see the expansion of the defense program taking
place, and the deliberate effort on the part of the Government to build
up industrial centers in parts of the country which have not previously
had much industrial life— partly for safety of the population and partly
for the protection of the plant itself— we realize that it is necessary for
people to be willing to pick up and go to those areas. We have had
perhaps a little too much of it in some places. The people have arrived
INTERSTATE MKJ RATION 3341
in advance of the works being prepared to receive them and to employ
them.
That is, before the shipyards and the ways were erected, the
people were ponring into Newport News, I understand. So that
you had the arrival of prospective working populations before the
work was ready for them.
FEDERAL INFORMATION SERVICE
What I think we need in that field is mfinitely more direction
on the part of the States and of the Federal Government. And I
mean direction not in the sense of law or regulation, saying that
you cannot go there, or you must go somewhere else, but direction
in the form of information and advice as to where particular groups
can best find resettlement and reemployment.
I think, myself, that one of the important aspects of this whole
problem is one which is in no way part of the work of my Depart-
ment, and about which I therefore have no first-hand information,
but only information of an observer who views situations from the
labor side; and that is with regard to resettlement.
RESETTLEMENT
I think a very large proportion of these people, who are the most
distressed of the migratory groups, are people who both need and
are desirous of resettlement. They want to be resettled somewhere.
They do not wish to be migrant workers following a crop. They
want a home and a base of operations.
Some of them may want to continue to work as agricultural
workers part of the time, but they want above everything a settled
home. And I do believe that there is opportunity in this country
for the provision of resettlement of that sort under proper super-
vision.
I am greatly impressed with the opportunity which is now avail-
able to us to open up the lands which will be newly irrigated by
these great dams and water-impounding projects — to open up those
lands for resettlement. But I realize that that has to be done
under the most cautious and careful circumstances, and not only
has the Government itself got to make provision about the sale of
lands to homesteaders, but it probably has to make provision for
taking back those lands when any individual family fails to make a
go of it. Otherwise they will fall into the hands of large operators,
who will collect them, farm by farm, until they have a great tract of a
thousand or three thousand acres which again will be operated as an
industrial farm.
So that I think there will have to be some pro\Tsion for taking
those homestead allotments back from people wdio fail to make a
go of it.
Also, I realize that not everyone can operate on irrigated land.
It takes a specialized kind of farming and many of the people who
are desirous of resettlement have no familiarity with the problems
of farming on irrigated land. So w^e will have to expect the De-
partment of Agriculture and the associated States agencies to take
the lead in developing some instruction and information and even
perhaps supervision, over a period of years, in regard to farming and
3342 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
fann operations for people newly settled on irrigated lands. Other-
wise I doubt if a large proportion of them could make a success
of it.
If we could do that, it would settle the problems of perhaps one-
third of the people who are now migrants unwillingly, who need to
be settled and want to be settled, and who will make first-class settlers
and homesteaders, capable of operating a family farm in cooperation
with others very successfully.
One is impressed, as I am sure you have been, wnth the rather extra
good quality, physical and mental quality, of the type of people who
are migrants today. They seem to be among the healthiest and most
vigorous and most vital of the people of the United States.
I presume that there is something in the idea that the more vigorous
people are the ones that get up and move rather than become reconciled
to a low standard of living in a depressed area.
At any rate, they impress one as being people of vitality and people
who, given an opportunity, would be rather certain to make good; so
that it would be a very profitable investment for the future of the
country to provide for the resettlement of a great many of them.
As you know, the migratory people who come into a community
have to make all of the adjustment themselves. It is an expensive
thing to mio-rate and the communities rarely make any of the adjust-
ments for them. They are on their own. They have to look out for
themselves. They are seldom covered by labor and social-security laws,
and they do not get their share of the local social services, partly be-
cause of the attitudes of the community, which we can understand.
A community is always fearful of the lowering of its own social-service
standards. If they spread them out too thin, they are fearful of the
lowering of those social-service standards, and often it is because the
institutions, like the settlement laws themselves, are unfavorable to
extending the coverage of social services to migratory or unsettled
people.
PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION
They often work, as you know, in occupations that are exempted
from all protective legislation. They are found also in very large
numbers in some of the areas which themselves have a lack of labor
laws or of social services even for their own residents.
The migrants, it seems to me, need this protection of legislation
quite as much, if not more, than other grou])S, because they are fre-
quently exposed to bnd living conditions and bad working conditions,,
and because, as a shifting group, it is difficult for them to organize to
protect themselves. They apparently suffer more illness and receive
less medical care than even the lowest income groups of the settled
population. And the sudden influx of large groups of workers and
their families often taxes the resources of the local community and
creates health hazards for the locnl residents. Also, it creates edu-
cational problems for the local residents.
It is undoubtedly true that if an epidemic breaks out in a camp, it can
spread very rapidly, and it is likely to endanger the local communi-
ties. The resident populations themselves in many of these areas need
broader coverage of labor laws and social-security laws. These resi-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3343
dents, the people who live in these areas, work alongside these migrants
and compete with them for jobs, so that whatever social services are
made available on account of the migrants coming into a community
will benefit the total population. That is true, particularly, of course,
of such things as health and welfare and educational facilities, which
are very necessary for the local population as well as for the migrants ;
also improved educational facilities which are needed by both. _
I have seen, in a town that was near several of these migratory
camps, the educational facilities pulled down, lowered, in ordered to
accommodate these new people who crowded in. The taxes of the
town had built up a good school system, which was just sufficient to
supply their resident population. They had a system Avhere they had
20 or 25 children to a classroom. With this influx of children coming
in, uncounted, unknown, they were unprepared for them, and we
found classes ffoing up to 60 or 70 or 80 per teacher, which is, of course,
not a sound educational standard. And the teachers, of course, Avere
unable to deal effectively either with the migratory children or with
the local children, the residential children.
An extension of aid in the way of educational facilities would have
the effect not only of helping the migrants but of helping the local
populations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It seems to me that I ought to recommend at this time the extension
of the coverage of labor and social-security laws, both_ State and Fed-
eral, to workers who are not now covered, specifically including work-
ers in industrialized agriculture and in processing and packing agri-
cultural products.
I want to emphasize industrialized agriculture because it is there
that you have large-scale farming operations where the farm is car-
ried on as it would be if it were a factory, as a matter of production
of goods in a factory. And it is there that we have the most intense
form of this problem, and that we have the opportunity to regu-
late it.
I am told that only 1 percent of the farms in the United States employ
four or more laborers. This relatively small number of farms employs
almost one-third of all the farm labor.
Where you have the industrialized type of farming youffet the same
problems arising that you do in industry. And the technique of using
legislation as a method of establishing and creating certain standards
seems to me to be suitable.
Wliere you have a farm operated by a farmer who works it himself,
you have a very different situation. There you have a situation in which
the working conditions of the farmer and his family are determined
by the farmer himself and not bv an employer. There, of course, his
capacity and the quantity, quality, and ]n-ice of products he is able to
obtain from the land with his own labor will largely determine the
degree of schooling and health opportunity which he is able to give his
own children.
I think also I should recommend the extension and strengthening
of the public employment services, particularly along the lines of an
3344
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
interstate farm placement service. When that is done real attention
is given, not to meeting the temporary needs of the farmer by any
means available, bnt to meeting these needs through an orderly and
systematic method of handling the migratory laborers who want to go
to work on farms for a season. This not only would meet the needs of
farmers, through an orderly system, but would also make as much work
as i)ossible available to those who are in the class of laborers who fol-
low the crop.
There is also at the present time a project being carried on by the
public employment office in the Federal Security Agency, with special
reference to developing industrial and construction placement service,
particularly in connection Avith the national defense. This in itself,
of course, will be of great assistance in handling the momentary acute-
ness of the migratory-labor problems, but will perhaps not he necessary
on a permanent scale.
Then I think I should recommend that there be some regulation of
labor contractors, both by State and Federal laws; by State laws,
where possible, and by Federal laws to reinforce the State laws, where
there is transporting of contract laborers across State lines.
Then I think there should be much stricter regidation of transporta-
tion facilities for migrants. And by this I do not mean special regu-
lation of their travel in their own cars from place to place, except
that those cars and their method of travel should, of course, meet
whatever local laws there are. But I mean the transportation of
migrants by trucks and busses in a sort of wholesale way under some-
body's control . Tliere have been accidents and there are serious hazards
involved in that, and we should have some regulation of it.
Then I think we ought to recommend that there be a sound public
housing program especially for migrants in agriculture. I think there
shoukrbe recognition of the fact that there are two kinds of housing
needed ; the one, temporary housing, for those who come really only
for a feM' brief weeks to harvest a crop, and then move on, and the other,
housing which is intended to establish a nucleus of pretty well settled
people who will work over a whole area on the crops of a great many
different farmers.
There are two kinds of housing needed. But they should both be
developed with a view to the })ublic welfare. The temporary housing,
and even temporary camp facilities, can be made good. There is no
reason why they should be made bad.
I should like to recommend in the appropriation of Federal funds
under titles V and VI of the Social Security Act that we extend to the
States public-health, maternal, and child-health services to migrants.
This is particularly necessary in the States that receive very large
numbers of migratory workers.
There probably should be some iipmediate allocation of national-
defense funds to "meet the emergency health needs in areas where the
defense projects are attracting a sudden influx of population way
beyond the capacity of the existing public-health services to meet the
needs of these newcomers.
Then I think one must reconunend a movement toward a uniformity
of settlement laws, both w^ithin each State and among the States, so
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3345
that public assistance in the various States may be handled with
regard to these migrants on a fair and reasonable basis.
There is, I understand, a great difference in the settlement laws
among the States; that counties themselves have settlement laws, and
that witliin a State these settlement laws are not uniform. This, of
course, makes for the greatest confusion. It means, of course, that
persons will try to establish themselves in a county of a State where
the settlement law is generous rather than in a place where settlement
is very restricted, thus creating a very large burden upon the particular
communities that are the more generous.
That, of course, creates another problem. As you begin to get re-
strictive laws, and as tlie counties of the States cannot bear any longer
the increased burden, I think we have to look forward to Federal and
State cooperation in providing aid to localities. They, in turn, then
may give public assistance where necessary to migTants in need of
public assistance.
Then, with regard to education, I think we cannot in this country
continue to endure a situation where we have inadequate school facili-
ties for all of our children, whether their families find it necessary to
move around as migrants or are settled in a high-standard community.
We cannot bear this unfairness of opportunity offered to young
children. So I think we have to look forward to State and Federal
aid, when necessary, in order to secure equal educational advantages
and opportunity.
It is quite true that some of the States that are receiving these migra-
tory families and their children are the least able under their tax sys-
tems to support, and to increase the support, of school facilities and
extend them to these children.
Then, I think, there should be a continuing study of the regional
resources and occupational outlook, with a special view to guiding the
migration of families and of people who want to work or to settle in
this country.
You may have heard of the beginning of studies of occupational out-
look in the Department of Labor. It is always very discouraging to
any committee of Congress when we report that, although we are doing
this work, we will not be ready to make a prediction with regard to
occupational outlook for 10 years. This is what the wisest heads who
have dealt with trends of population think is the limit. We should
not attempt to say what occupations or what industries are shrinking
or extending on a narrow basis — that is, 1 year or 2 years or 3 years —
because that does not really show you anything; their trends do not
show themselves effectively in a short period of time. Only trends that
you can plot over a 10-year period will give you any sound basis for a
conclusion. The conclusions drawn in a shorter time would be useless
as a basis for planning. It would be dangerous to use them to suggest
the movement of populations.
I think that these studies should be continued, and that they should be
a i^art of the scheme of things in developing assistance to stranded
populations and in guiding migrants to suitable areas, either for agri-
cultural or industrial employment, and in developing resettlement
programs.
3346 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Then, of course, I think ahnost everyone who has appeared before
you probably has recommended that there be a central agency set up
to have some responsibility not only for taking the work that you will
have done when you finish your report but also for taking all of the
other work that has been done in the Government or outside of the
Government and correlating it into a program of action.
We know that you will have discovered a great deal when you have
finished your work and have made your report, and what the country
will have learned by that, and what the country has learned, and what
Government officials know from their own reports and studies is really
considerable.
What we need at this time is to apply the knowledge we have.
I have always observed that when you get people beginning to apply
even a small amount of what they know to a particular problem, at
once their comprehension of the situation becomes infinitely more
realistic and less radical. And their treatment of the whole problem
begins to be practical and realistic.
So I think what the committee ought to do is to recommend crea-
tion in some of the operating agencies of the Government a function
in some bureau or division, whose duty it is not to examine and report
alone but to apply or cause to be applied, through other agencies or
through their own efforts some of the recommendations which will
be made by your committee and have been made by others who have
studied the subject. That, I think, is the most important part of it.
If we begin to apply only a small part of our present knowledge to
this problem, we would find that a large part of the problem would
dissolve as the knowledge of the people dealing with it became more
realistic, and as the solution of one part of the problem — say the
health problem, or the housing problem, or the settlement problem —
became established other parts of it would fall away.
Of course, one cannot fail to observe that to a very considerable
extent the acuteness of the problem today lies in the fact that we had
climatic and agricultural disturbances which caused abandonment of
certain parts of the country for agricultural purposes. At the same
time we had the great economic depression, and that created insta-
bility of employment in industry. Those two things coming together
have made the problem particularly acute, and if employment im-
proves and industrial expansion goes forward, as is anticipated, in
the next few years a large ])art of the problem of unemployed migrants
will disappear — at least temporarily.
But I think one ought to point out that not all of the problem
will disappear, and that the disappearance which does take place is
not permanent. We must, therefore, consider the problem of perma-
nent settlement of some of those people with relation to life on the
land, and with relation to more permanent forms of industrial occu-
pation. For instance, we know, if the war ends, or, if for any reason
the defense program can be reduced, expansion such as the laying of
ways at Newport News is going to be stopped 2, 3, or 5 years hence —
whenever it may be. That will mean a large number of people at
Newport News who came there as migrants, some from the land and
some from industrial occupations, will again get in their cars and
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3347
see what tliey can find elsewhere. I believe that through the coor-
dinating of the problem in some agency — one of the operating de-
partments of the Government— it would be as useful a thing as could
be done. When there is some group of sworn officers of the Govern-
ment responsible for this problem, not only for research but for action,
then, I think, you will begin to see practical and realistic results.
That will conclude the recommendations I feel I ought to make at
this time.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, some of the Congressmen may
want to ask some questions of you.
Mr. Sparkman. Madam Secretary, I have read your paper with
much interest, and I have listened to "your review of it Avith equal inter-
est. I think you have made a very fine contribution to the record.
There are a few things that I want to ask you something about. Prob-
ably a good part of it w^ill be a rehashing of the statement you have
already made, but one thing I noticed in your prepared statement —
and you mentioned it in the beginning of your testimony this morn-
ing—^was your reference to migration as an economic necessity. I
wonder if you would enlarge on that a little and tell us just why you
consider it an economic necessity ?
MIGRATION ECONOMIC NECESSITY
Secretary Perkins. Well, say they find a new oil field, what would
we do if nobody would go to some remote part of the country where
they found it? How would we ever get the oil out? I mean it is
both natural for people to go there, and is necessary, from the point
of view of the economic develo])ment of the country.
What would we have done if working people had not been willing
to go from their quite comfortable homes in the East and build rail-
roads out across the mountains? I mean it was one of the economic
necessities in the development of the West, wasn't it? You could
not have had the West developed, otherwise, and the country would
not be what it is today, and we would have a very different United
States of America if there had not been a mobility and willingness
of people to go into unsettled territory and into new enterprises.
The same thing happens in the opening of a new mine. The
opening of mines of metals and coal has required the mobility of
labor and the migration of families of people who are willing to
work at new enterprises. It still is true, I think, as we find new
resources and new raw materials which become important, and which
we want to exploit. Today we are told there has been, for the
last 10 years, the pickinc: over of diggings of old gold and silver
mines in Colorado and Nevada, because new metals — molybdenum,
and things of that kind — have become important, and I think there
is a great list of metals found only in small quantities in the slag
or diggings that were abandoned, and large gi^oups of people are
going out to work those over. Now, it is necessary for the economic
life of the country to have these metals; therefore it is economically
necessary for people to be willing to go and get them.
We never can look at this problem of the migration of people
to the great industrialized farm lands and this working of those
farms on an industrialized basis, without feeling that it is so remote
from our American conception of agriculture that it does not seem
3348 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
like a farm at all. It is like a factory. But we never can look at
it and be asked to realize the horror of it without recognizing that
the children in school — take the New York students — are eating
spinach, they are eating carrots, oranges, grapefruit, and everytliing
else that is good for their health and that gives them vitamins at
a low price today because of those farms.
When I was a child, fresh spinach in the winter was unthinkable.
1 guess there was a little of it grown in the hothouse, but it was
not on the market and people just did not eat it. They ate — what
did they eat ? They ate turnips, or beets, in the wintertime, or went
without fresh vegetables and did not eat any. So much about
vitamins. But today we know it is true that protective foods are
raised on those great farms which make the supply of those pro-
tective foods available all over the country, so that a large propor-
tion of our people are better fed today than they were a generation
ngo. And that is part of the economic result of the willingness of
people to migrate and to work those crops.
Mr. Sparkman, Would not you say, also, it is an economic neces-
sity, in a negative way; that is, in some instances, the particular
locality in which they live may not offer them an opportunity, and
they get out in order to better themselves?
Secretary Perkins. Oh, yes, sir; that is very essential, of course.
And I think the Department of Agriculture has always reminded
me that the industrial workers of the cities have been, for genera-
tions, regularly recruited from people who grew up in farming areas
where there was not enough agricultural opportunity to support all
of the children born there, and today those areas have remained
prosperous only because the young people went to the city to work.
Of course, I think we ought to recognize this, as Americans — that
there is a certain amount of psychological relief, too, in this ability
to move around. A great many people now — I do not mean just
itchy-foot people — there is a great necessity for people of vitality,
vigorous people, to get out of places of restricted opportunity into
other places and make new homes for themselves according to their
earning capacity and adaptability. I think to cut that off completely
from American life and to develop a system where everybody had
to stay where he was born and could not hope to find a job any-
where else would be about as unpleasant as anything that could
develop.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, the point is that migration itself
is certainly not an evil?
Secretary Perkins. No.
Mr. Sparkman. And is not something to be stopped?
Secretary Perkins. That is my opinion.
Mr. Sparkman. But it is something
Secretary Perkins. To be regulated and directed.
Mr. Sparkman. To be controlled, and certainly to be understood?
Secretary Perkins. Yes; and to be so handled as to make it pos-
sible for people who migrate to have social services and healthful
surroundinirs.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3349
Mr. Sparkman. You referred a minute ago to the fact that all of
those people are not people with itchy feet, and I noticed, in your
prepared statement, that you say migrants are among the most am-
bitious and enterprising of our people. Of course, you know a good
many people look upon them as being made up almost entirely of
that'class of people simply with the urge to go, and a great many of
them they consider as being simply loafers. You do not agree with
that viewpoint?
Secretary Perkins. Well, I suppose per thousand of population
they have "just about the same kind of characteristics that any other
thousand of i)opulation of Mio United States would have. I recognize,
too, among the students in college, among any thousand students, you
will find a certain number of loafers, a certain number of unadjusted
people, and a certain number that won't study at all. I guess it is
about the same proportion.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you think they constitute a pretty
fair cross-section of our population?
Secretary Perkins. I think so. And certainly among them there
must be some people who are merely loafers, some people who are
merely restless, and some people who are a little overexcited, un-
adjusted, unadaptable people, but also a very large number of good,
solid people who want to work.
Mr. Sparkman. Optimistic people who are seeking an opportunity?
Secretary Perkins. Yes; but if you have any large number of
people in a community where they are forced, by social circum-
stances, to live a degraded life, invariably that affects the com-
munity, and everybody stays down on that level.
Mr. Sparkman. You referred, too, in your statement, to its effect
with respect to schools.
Secretary Perkins. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. And you think it would apply to conditions gen-
erally in the community?
Secretary Perkins. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. Health, housing, and living conditions?
Secretary Perkins. It applies very much, too, as you always see,
with regard to wages. If you can hire a man for a dollar a day,
that tends to be the going price even for the native before long. I
mean if there is a large group of people camping on the outskirts
who are working for a dollar a day, then, before long, employers
will be offering only a dollar a day to the people who have lived
there all their lives and had received $3.50 a day. That is my obser-
vation. It tends to bring down the wage level for the native popula-
tion, as well as other things, to the standard of the camps, and tends
strongly to depress the health standard. I think that is one of the
first things one notices — that when a large number of people live
under unsanitary, unprotected conditions, you get, first, a loss of
housing comfort and then a flu epidemic, and that is spread to the
total population around. They cannot be protected against it. So,
if you cannot take care of and protect the people who are in the
most disadvantageous position, eventually it affects the whole body
of the community.
3350 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Sparkman. You made reference to the disadvantage that
migrants had with reference to social-security benefits. I wonder
if you might specify to what extent, or some of those benefits that
they do not enjoy?
Secretary Perkins. For instance, a great many of them work in
the agricultural lines which are so largely exempt, as you know,
from any of the social-security benefits and are so largely exempt
from labor laws everywhere, the laws of every State of the Union,
as well as the Federal labor law. And many of them work for
employers who employ a very small number of persons and who,
therefore, are exempt from the social-security laws. These people
are without the cash benefits which are paid to unemployed industrial
workers during periods of unemployment, and are without the
building up of the old-age pensions which are gradually being
built up by industrial workers all over the country. The only thing
they have in the way of security is public assistance, and public
assistance laws, as you know, usually exclude them from its benefits if
they are not settled. They are really out at both ends and, being
very largely occupied in enterprises not covered by the Social Secur-
ity Act, or by the labor laws, they get neither the protection of the
regulation of wages and hours, nor the regulation of working con-
ditions, nor do they get the protection of unemployment insurance,
or old-age insurance.
SEITLEMENT LAWS
Mr. Sparkman. You made some reference there to settlement laws
and I notice, in your prepared statement, you referred to it, but I
wondered what your recommendation was in regard to them. With
reference to the settlement laws, some people advocate that they
be made uniform; others advocate that they be eliminated com-
pletely. I wondered what your recommendation would be.
Secretary Perkins. Well, as I have thought of it, I think I have
thought of it in the terms of a movement toward uniformity, which
1 think can only be brought about by cooperation and conference
between the States and between the counties within the States.
First of all, of course, it is highly important that the counties
within a State and the towns within a State should have uniform laws
in regard to settlement, and then the States themselves should move
toward uniformity.
I do not know whether you are familiar with the program that has
been carried on under tlie auspices of the United States Department
of Labor now for 7 years, and is still continuing — a program of con-
ferences between the States here in Washington, annually, with re-
gard to their labor legislation. It was out of one of those labor legis-
lation conferences that this question 'of the labor aspects of migra-
tory workers came sharply to our attention. These conferences have
adopted standards of relatively uniform laws in regard to labor
legislation. Not all of those have been adopted in the States and
made law, but there is, for most of the subjects covered by labor
legislation, a model bill, so to speak, drafted by the labor commis-
sioners of the various States, together with the labor delegates ap-
pointed by the Governors. Our experts in the employ of the United
States Department of Labor assisted them in drawing up model bills
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3351
covering most of the subjects ordinarily covered by State legislation.
And many of those have been adopted — at least bills along those
lines, modified to meet the needs or habits of the particular State,
are being introduced regularly in the State legislatures and are being
heard before their committees, and sometimes are votetl on and made
into law ; sometimes not. But at least those programs are beginning
to be adopted today.
Now, I see no reason why there could not be almost the same thing
in regard to settlement laws. There ought to be. Of course, the
impetus ought to come from persons primarily concerned with pub-
lic assistance, but it is so desirable that there should be uniform — or
practically uniform — regulation in regard to assistance in all parts of
the country, that I should believe there would be a ready response to it
if anybody would take the lead.
Mr. Sparkman. Of course, as you know, the tendency in the last
few years has been toward harsher settlement laws, rather than
easier.
Secretary Perkins. Yes; I know.
Mr. Sparkman. Increasing the period of time and making it easier
to lose citizenship in a State.
Secretary Perkins. That ought to be corrected, I think.
Mr. Sparkman. The suggestion has been made that if the Fed-
eral Government should participate in direct relief, then it might
make such participation dependent upon some kind of uniform pro-
gram of settlement laws. Do you think that might answer the ques-
tion?
Secretary Perkins. I think that might answer. I think the Fed-
eral Government certainly should not do that unless there were some
uniformity on the thing; it could not relieve one county because it
had easy laws and all of the other counties dumped their unfortu-
nate people into that county. We have seen that happen in some
States that would regularly pay their way to some county where
there was a large city that had developed rather reasonable care for
migrants, or transients, as we used to call them.
Mr. Sparkman. I noticed your distinction between industrialized
farming and farming by the family unit, and I agree with you most
heartily in the distinction you made. And I think we must come
more and more to recognize that distinction. As I understand, your
recommendation would be for these various benefits to be made ap-
plicable to the employee, where the nature of his employment is that
of an industrial employee.
Secretary Perkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Sparkman. But still you would leave the family-unit farm to
operate very much as it is operating now ?
Secretary Perkins. Yes. I think the problems of a family-unit
farm have to be treated differently. I dare say there is the same equa-
tion of a standard and opportunity necessary for them; but I think
the method of treatment under legislation would be quite different.
Mr. Sparkman. How do you think the most effective approach can
be made toward eliminating the evils of child labor among migrants?
Secretary Perkins. I think, sir, only by legislation.
260370— 41— pt. 8-
^2^2 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Sparkman. You referred, in your verbal statement, to a law
that evidently you approve of, enacted by the New Jersey legislature
in 1940. I wonder if you might tell us a little more about that?
Secretary Perkins. That is a law that is an attempt to regulate
and abolish child labor on industrialized farms. I am not familiar
with the details of that act at this moment, but I dare say ^ye can give
you a copy of the New Jersey law, if you would like to have it.
Mr. Sparkman. I was interested in your reference to it, and if a
copy of it could be supplied without too much trouble, I would be very
glad to have it.
Secretary Perkins. We will be very glad to supply that.
(Co;3y of the law was supplied and reads as follows:)
NEW JERSEY CHILD LABOR LAW
NEW JERSEY, 1940, NEW LAWS, PAGE 237 (REGULAR SESSION)
New .Jersey
Chapter 153, Laws 1940
[Assembly Bill No. 174, Substitute A (Regular Session)]
AN ACT To limit and regulate child labor in this State ; to provide foi- examinations and
inspections under the provisions of this Act ; to provide for the enforcement of this Act
and regulations made thereunder ; to prescribe penalties for the violation thereof ; and
to repeal other acts
Whereas The employment of minors in occupations or pursuits wherein they
are subject to exploitation is contrary to public policy ; and
Whereas, Such employment as will impede tlie progress of minors, prove a
detriment to their health, or interfere with their education should be abolished
in the State of New Jersey ; and
Whereas The work of minors in occasional and nonrecurrent occupations when
not required to attend school is not thus detrimental, nor will it, when properly
supervised by parent or guardian, constitute such exploitation ; therefore
Be it enacted hy the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. As used in this Act :
(a) "Employment certificate" means a certificate granted by the issuing oflScer
authorizing the employment of a child as permitted under this Act.
(b) "Age certificate" means a certificate issued for a person between the ages
of eighteen and twenty-one years.
(c) "Issuing officer" means any superintendent of schools, supervising prin-
cipal, or teacher in a school district who is designated by the Board of educaticip
in the district to issue certificates or' permits in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
(d) "Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among other things
includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultiva-
tion, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities
(including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section fifteen (g)
of the Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended), the planting, transplanting, and
care of trees and shrubs and plants, the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing
animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering opera-
tions) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction
with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to
storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market, provided that
such practices shall be performed in connection with the handling of agricidtural
or horticultural commodities the major portion of which have been produced tipon
the premises of an owning or leasing employer.
2. No minor under sixteen years of age shall be employed, permitted, or suf-
fered to work in, about, ot in connection with any gainful occupation at any time ;
provided, that minors between fourteen and sixteen years of age may be em-
ployed, permitted or suffered to work outside school hours and during school
vacations but not In or for a factory or in any occupation otherwise prohibited by
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3353
law or by order or regulation made in pursuance of law; and provided, further,
that minors under sixteen years of age may engage outside school hours and
during school vacations in agricultural pursuits or in street trades as defined in
this Act, in accordance with the provisions of section fifteen of this Act. Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to apply to the work of a minor engaged in domestic
service or agricultural pursuits i3ei'formed outside of school hours or during
school vacation in connection with the minor's own home and directly for his
parent or legal guardian.
No minor under sixteen years of age not a resident of this State shall be em-
-ployed, permitted, or suffered to work in any occupation or service whatsoever
at any time during which the law of the State of his residence requires his at-
tendance at school, or at any time during the hours when the public schools in
the district in which employment in such occupations or services may be available
are in session.
3. Except as provided in section fifteen and except for domestic service or mes-
sengers employed by communications companies subject to the supervision and
control of the Federal Communications Commission, no minor under eighteen
years of age shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in
connection with any gainful occupation more than six consecuti\ e days in any one
week, or more than forty hours in any one week, or more than eight hours in any
one day, nor shall any minor under sixteen years of age hv so employed, per-
mitted, or suffered to work before seven o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock
in the evening of any day; nor shall any minor between sixteen and eighteen years
of age be so employed, permitted or suf'fei-ed to work before six o'clock iii the
morning or after ten o'clock in the evening of any day ; provided, that minors
between fourteen and eighteen years of age may be employed in a concert or a
theatrical performance up to eleven P. M. ; and provided, further, that male
minors between sixteen and eighteen years of age may be employed up until
eleven P. M. during the regular school vacation. seasons but not in or for a factory
or in any occupation otherwise prohibited by law or by order or regulation made
in pursuance of law. The combined hours of work and hours in school of children
under sixteen employed outside school hours shall not exceed a total of eight
per day.
4. No minor under eighteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to
work for more than five hours continuously without an interval of at least thirty
minutes for a lunch period, and no period of less than thirty minutes shall be
deemed to interrupt a contiiUTOus period of work.
5. Every employer shall ix)st and keep conspicuously posted in the establish-
ment wherein any minor under eighteen is employed, permitted, or suffered to
work a printed abstract of this Act and a list of the occupations prohibited to such
minors, to be furnished by the Department of Labor, and a schedule of hours of
labor which shall contain the name of each minor under eighteen, the maximum
number of hours he shall be required or permitted to work during each day of
the week, the total hours per week, the time of commencing and stopping work
each day, and the time for the beginning and ending of the daily meal period. An
employer may permit such minor to begin work after the time for beginniiig, and
stop before the time for ending work stated in the schedule: but iie shall not
otherwise employ or permit him to work except as stated in the schedule. This
schedule shall be on a form provided by the Department of Labor and shall re-
main the property of that department. Nothing in this section shall apply to the
employment of minors in agricultural pursuits or in domestic service in private
homes.
6. Every employer shall keep a record, in a form approved by the Department
of Labor, which shall state the name, date of birth, and ' address of each
person under nineteen years of age employed, the number of hours worked by
said person on each day of the week, the hours of beginning and ending such
work, the hours of beginning and ending meal periods, the amount of wages
paid, and such other information as the Department shall by regulation require.
Such record shall be. kept on file for at least one year after the entry of the
record and shall be open to the inspection of the Department of Labor, of
attendance oflacers, and of police officers. Nothing in this section shall apply to
the employment of minors in agricultural pursuits, or in domestic service in
private homes.
3354
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
7. Except as permitted under section fifteen, no minor under eighteen years
of age shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in con-
nection with any gainful occupation, unless and until the person employing
such minor shall procure and keep on file an employment certificate or special
permit for such minor, issued by the issuing oflieer of the school district in
which the child resides, or of the district in which the child has obtained
a promise of employment if the child is a nonresident of the State; provided,
htat no certificate or special permit shall be required for any child sixteen
years of age or over employed in agricultural pursuits. Such certificate or
special permit shall be issued in triplicate in such form and in accordance
with such instructions as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Education.
The Commissioner of Education shall supply to the issuing officers all blank
forms to be used in connection with the issuance of such certificates, and
special permits as provided for in section fifteen.
Employment certificates shall be of two kinds, regular certificates per-
mitting employment during school hours, and vacation certificates permitting
employment during the school vacation and during the school term at such
times as the public schools are not in session.
The original copy of the employment certificate shall be mailed by the
issuing officer to the prospective employer of the minor for whom it is issued;
a duplicate copy shall be mailed to the Department of Labor in Trenton
as provided in section twelve, and a triplicate copy shall be kept in the files
of the issuing officer. The issuing officer may refuse to grant a certificate,
if in his judgment the best interests of the minor would be served by such
refusal and he shall keep a record of such refusals, and the reasons therefor.
8. The issuing officer shall issue such certificates only upon the application
in person of the minor desiring employment, and after having approved and
filed the following papers :
(1) A promise of employment signed by the prospective employer or by
someone duly authorized by him, setting forth the specific nature of the
occupation in which he intends to employ such miuor, the wage to be paid
such minor, and the number of hours per day and days per week which said
minor shall be employed.
(2) Evidence of age showing that the miuor is of the age required by this
Act, which evidence shall consist of one of the following proofs of age and
shall be required in the order herein designated, as follows :
(a) A birth certificate or certified transcript thereof or a signed statement
of the recorded date and place of birth issued by a registrar of vital statistics
or other officer charged with the duty of recording births, or
(b) A baptismal certificate or attested transcript thereof sliowing the date
and place of birth, and date and place of baptism of the minor, or
(c) Other documentary evidence of age satisfactory to the issuing officer,
such as a bona fide contemporary record of the date and place of the minor's
birth kept in the Bible in which tlie records of the births in the family of the
minor are preserved, or a passport, showing the age of the minor, or a certifi-
cate of arrival in the United States, issued by the United States Immigration
Office, showing the age of the minor, or a life insurance policy, provided that
such other documentary evidence has been in existence at least one year prior
to the time it is offered as evidence, and provided further that a school record of
age or an affidavit of a parent or guardian or other written statement of age
shall not be accepted, except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) In the case none of the aforesaid proofs of age shall be obtainable and
only in such case, the issuing officer may accept the school record or the school-
census record of the age of the minor together with the sworn statement of a
parent or guardian as to the age of the minor and also with a certificate signed
by the physician authorized to sign the statements of physical fitness required
by this section specifying what in his opinion is the physical age of the minor.
Such certificates shall show the height and weight of the minor and other facts
concerning his physical development which were revealed by such examination
and upon which the opinion of the physician is based as to the physical age of
the minor. If the school or school-census record of age is not obtainable, the
sworn statement of the minor's parent or guardian, certifying to the name,
date, and place. of birth of the minor, together with a physician's certificate of
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3355
age as hereinbefore specified, may be accepted as evidence of age. The issuing
officer shall administer said sworn statement.
The issuing officer shall, in issuing a certificate for a minor, require the evi-
dence of age specified in paragraph (a) of this section in preference to that
specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section and shall not accept
the evidence of age permitted by any subsequent paragraph unless he shall re-
ceive and file evidence that the evidence of age required by the preceding para-
graph or paragraphs cannot be obtained.
(3) A statement of physical fitness, signed by a medical inspector employed
by the applicable Board of Education, setting forth that such minor has been
thoroughly examined by such medical inspector that he either is physically fit
for employment in occupations permitted for persons under 18 years of age,
or is physically fit to be employed under certain limitations, specified in the
statement. If the statement of physical fitness is limited, the employment
certificate issued thereon shall state clearly the limitations upon its u.se, and
shall be valid only when used under the limitations so stated. The method of
making such examinations shall be prescribed jointly by the Commissioner of
Education and the State Department of Health.
(4) A school record signed by the principal of the school which the minor
has last attended or by someone duly authorized by him, giving the full
name, date of birth, grade last completed, and residence of the minor ;
provided, that in the case of a vacation certificate issued for work before or
after school hours, such record shall also state that the child is a regular
attendant at school, and in the opinion of the principal may perform such
work without impairment of his progress in school, but such principal's state-
ment shall not be required for the issuance of a vacation certificate for work
during regular school vacations.
9. Upon request, it shall be the duty of the issuing officer to issue to any
young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one years residing in
his district and applying in person, who expresses a desire to enter employ-
ment, an age certificate iipon presentation of the same proof of age as is
required for the issuance of employment certificates under this Act. A young
person between the said ages nonresident of the State may apply to the
issuing authority of any district where such person states he intends to
seek employment. The age certificate shall state the color, name, sex,
date and place of birth, residence, color of hair and eyes, height, and dis-
tinguishing facial marks, if any, and the kind of proof of age submitted.
All copies thereof shall be signed in person by the applicant in the presence
of the said issuing officer in whose name it is issued.
Any employer before employing a minor may require him to produce an
age certificate and sign his name for comparison with the signature on the
certificate. If in his judgment the signature and characteristics of the child
correspond with the signature and description in the certificate, the employer,
on employing the child, may require and retain the certificate during the
minor's employment and shall return it to the minor upon the termination
of his employment.
10. An employment certificate shall state the name, sex, color, date and
place of birth, residence, color of hair and eyes, height, weight, any dis-
tinguishing facial marks of the child — the employer's name, address and
type of business, the occupation of the child, the kind of proof of age sub-
mitted, the grade completed, physician's^ approval, and the name and address
of parent. Every such certificate shall be signed in the presence of the issuing
officer by the child in whose name it is issued.
11. An employment or age certificate or special permit issued in accordance
with this Act shall be conclusive evidence of the age of the minor for whom
issued in any proceeding involving the employment of a minor under the
child-labor or workmen's compensation law or any other labor law of the
State, as to any act occurring subsequent to its issuance.
12. Every issuing officer issuing an employment or an age certificate or
special permit shall send immediately to the Department of Labor at Trenton,
a duplicate of the certificate or permit and the original papers upon which
the certificate or special permit was granted. That department shall examine
and promptly return to the issuing officer the said original papers and shall
3356 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
keep on file the duplicate of said certificate or permit. Whenever there ig;
reason to believe that an employment or an age certificate or special permit
was improperly issued, the Commissioner of Labor shall notify the Com-
missioner of Education and the board of education of the school district in
which the certificate was issued. The board of education of the school district
may cancel any employment or any age certificate or special permit issued
by it, and shall cancel the same when directed so to do by the Commissioner
of Education. Whenever any employment certificate has been cancelled, the
board of education cancelling the same shall immediately notify the Com-
missioner of Education, the Commissioner of Labor, and the person by whom
the child is employed, of its action, and such employer shall immediately upon
receiving notice forward the certificate to the board of education.
AH birth certificates, baptismal certificates, pas.sports, insurance policies, or
other original papers submitted in proof of age shall be returned to the minor
ui)on request after they have been returned to the issuing ofiicer by the depart-
ment of Labor and after the issuing officer has transcribed for his files infor-
mation pertinent to the issuance of the certificates. The Commissioner of
Labor and the issuing ofiicer may destroy all employment and age certificates
and special permits or copies thereof when the birth dates set forth in such
certificates and special permits are more than twenty-one years before the
date of destruction.
13. If a child within the ages for compulsory school attendance is employed
in a school district other than that in which he lives, the issuing officer of the
district in which the child lives shall immediately send a duplicate of the
certificate, properly filled out and the address of the employer to the superin-
tendent of schools of the county in which the child resides who shall thereupon
send said duplicate to the superintendent of schools of the county in which
the child is employed.
14. Every employer receiving an employment certificate shall within two
days after termination of the employment return said certificate to the person
issuing it. A new employment certificate shall not be issued for any minor
except upon the presentation of a new promise of employment. An employment
certificate shall be valid only for the employer for whom issued and for the
occupation designated in the promise of employment. Said employer shall,
during the period of the minor's employment, keep such certificate on file at
the place of employment and accessible to any issuing ofiicer and to any attend-
ance officer, inspector, or other person authorized to enforce this Act. The
failure <>f any employer to produce for inspection such employment certificate,
or the presence of any minor under eighteen years of age in his place of work
at any time other than that specified in the posted schedule of hours required
by this Act, shall be prima facie evidence of the unlawful employment of the
minor. The presence of any minor under eighteen years of age in any place
of employment shall be prima facie evidence of the employment of such minor,
except that the presence on any farm or place of 'agricultural pursuit of any
such minor shall not constitute such prima facie evidence.
15. No boy under fourteen years of age and no girl under eighteen years of
age may engage in any street trade, which term, for the purpose of this section,
shall include the selling, offering for sale, soliciting for, collecting for, dis-
playing, or distributing any articles, goods, merchandise, commercial service,,
posters, circulars, newspapers, or magazines or in blacking shoes on any street
or other public place or from house to house. No child under twelve years of
age may be employed in agricultural pursuits.
Whenever a child under sixteen years of age desires to work during such
times as: the schools of the district in which he resides are not in session in
any street tr'ade or in agricultural pursuits, the parent, guardian, or other
person having the custody and control of the child may file with the issuing
officer in the school district in which the child resides an application for a
special permit authorizing such work. Such application shall show the exact
character of the work the child is to do, and the hours and wages and special
conditions under which said work is to be performed.
If upon investigation it is found that the facts set forth in the application
are true and that the work will not interfere with the child's health or stand-
ing in school, the issuing officer shall, upon presentation to him of the same
proof of age as is required for the issuance of an employment certificate, issue
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3357
a special permit, allowing the child to work at such times as the public
schools in the district are not in session, but such work except in agricultural
pursuits to be otherwise subject to the maximum hours of labor provisions set
for minor under sixteen years of age in Section three of this Act; provided,
that nothing in this section shall prevent boys between twelve and fourteen
years of age from delivering, soliciting, and collecting for newspapers and
magazines over routes in residential neighborhoods at such times and under
such conditions as are not prohibited in this Act and boys between fourteen
and sixteen years of age from delivering and selling newspapers and magazines
between the hours of five-thirty o'clock iu the morning and six o'clock in the
evening of any day; and provided further, that children engaged iu agricul-
tural pursuits may be employed no more than ten hours per day.
Such special permit shall show the name, address, and date of birth of
the minor for whom it is issued, the kind of proof of age submitted, the
nature of the occupation in which the minor is to engage, and such other-
information as the Commissioner of Education may i-equire.
Any such special permit for work in agriculture shall be issue for a period
not to exceed six months and shall show its date of expiration. Any person
employing a minor under sixteen years of age in agriculture shall obtain such,
a certificate from the minor and keep it on file during the period of the
minor's employment and shall return it to the minor to whom it is issued upon
termination of his employment.
16. No fees or expenses incurred in obtaining any certificates under this
Act shall be charged to or paid by any child, parent, guardian, or other
person having custody or control of such a child for any service had under
this Act.
17. No minor under sixteen years of age shall be employed, permitted, or
suffered to work in, about, or in connection with power-driven machinery.
No minor under eighteen years of age shall be employed, permitted, or
suffered to work, in, about, or in connection with the following :
The manufacture or packing of paints, colors, white lead, or red lead.
The handling of dangerous or poisonous acids or dyes.
Injurious quantities of toxic or noxious dust, gases, vapors, or fumes.
Work involving exposure to benzol or any benzol compound which is volatile,
or which can penetrate the skin.
The manufacture, transportation, or use of explosives or highly inflammable
substances.
Oiling, wiping, or cleaning machinery in motion or assisting therein.
Operation or helping in the operation of power-driven woodworking ma-
chinery ; provided, that apprentices operating under conditions of bona fide
apprenticeship may operate such machines under competent instruction and.
supervision.
Grinding, abrasive, polishing, or buffing machines, provided that apprentices
operating under conditions of bona fide apprenticeship may grind their own
tools.
Punch presses or stamping machines if the clearance between the ram and the-
dye or the stripper exceeds one-fourth inch.
Cutting machines having a guillotine action.
Corrugating, crimping, or embossing machines.
Paper lace machines.
Dough brakes or mixing machines in bakeries or cracker machinery.
Calendar rolls or mixing rolls in rubber manufacturing.
Centrifugal extractors, or mangles in laundries or dry-cleaning establishments.
Ore-reduction works, smelters, hot rolling mills, furnaces, foundries, forging
shops, or any other place in which the heating, melting, or heat treatment of
metals is carried on.
Mines or quarries.
Steam boilers carrying a pressure in excess of fifteen pounds.
Construction work of any kind.
Fabrication or assembly of ships.
Operation or repair of elevators or other hoisting apparatus.
No minor under eighteen years of age shall he employed, permitted, or suffered
to work in, about, or in connection with any establishment where alcoholic liquors
3358 INTEKSTATE MIGRATION
are distilled, rectified, compounded, brewed, manufactured, bottled, or are sold
for consumption on the premises, or in a public bowling alley, or in a pool or
billiard room. No girl under the age of eighteen years shall be employed, per-
mitted, or suffered to work as a messenger in the distribution or delivery of goods
or messages for any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of trans-
mitting or delivering goods or messages.
No minor under eighteen years of age shall be employed, permitted, or
suffered to work in any place of employment, or at any occupation hazardous or
injurious to the life, health, safety, or welfare of such minor, as such occujiation
shall, from time to time, be determined and declared by the Commissioner of
Labor to be hazardous or injurious to the life, health, safety, or welfare of such
minors, after a public hearing thereon and after such notice as the commissioner
may by regulation prescribe.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to the work done by pupils in
public and private schools of New Jersey under the supervision and instruction of
officers or teachers of the schools.
18. It shall be the duty of the Department of Labor and its inspectors and
agents, acting under the Commissioner of Labor, to enforce the provisions of this
Act, to make complaints against persons violating its provisions, and to prosecute
violations of the same. The Commissioner of Labor and any inspector or other
authorized person acting under him, attendance officers and other persons em-
ployed by law to compel the attendance of children at school, and officers and
agents of any duly incorporated society for the protection of children from
cruelty and neglect, shall have authority to enter and inspect at any time any
place or establishment coveicd by this Act. and to have access to employment or
age certificates or special permits kept on file by the employers and such other
records as may aid in the enforcement of this Act.
19. Whoever employs or permits or suffers any minor to be employed or to work
in violation of this Act, or of any order or ruling issued under the provisions of
(his Act, or obstructs the Depai'tment of Labor, its officers or agents, or any
other person authorized to inspect places of employment under this Act, and
whoever, having under his control or custody any minor, permits or suffers him
to be employed or to wT)rk in violation of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor
more than five hundred dollars (.$500 00), or by imprisonment of not less than ten
nor more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day
during which any violation of this Act continues shall constitute a separate and
distinct offense, and the employment of any minor in violation of the Act shall
with respect to each minor so employed, constitute a separate and distinct offense.
20. If any provisions of this Act or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such
provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
21. The provisions of article two, chapter two, of Title 34, Revised Statutes, and
of Sections 18:14-15 to 18:14-33, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes, are hereby
repealed.
22. This Act shall take effect September first, one thousand nine hundred and
forty.
Approved, June 25, 1940.
new jersey, 1940, new laws, page 2,s.") (p. 2.t4 — in blank) (regui^ar session)
New Jersey Chapter 154, Laws 1940
[Assembly Bill No. 174, Substitute B (Regular Session)]
AN ACT Relating to the public schools of this State, and amenrling Sections 18 : 14-14,
18:14-34, 18.14-35, and 18:14-49, and repealing Section 18:14-38 of the revised
Statutes
Be it enacted &?/ the Senate and General Asscmhli/ of the State of Ncuy Jersey:
1. Section 18:14 14 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended to read as
follows :
18:14-14. Every parent, guardian, or other person having custody and control
of a child between the ages of seven and sixteen years shall cause such child
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3359
regularly to attend the public schools of the district or a day school in which
there is given instruction equivalent to that provided in the public schools for
children of similar grades and attainments or to receive equivalent Instruction
elsewhere than at school.
Such regular attendance shall be during all the days and hours that the public
schools are in session in the school district, unless it is shown to the satisf;i(tion
of the board of education of the school district that the mental condition of the
child is such that he cannot benefit from instruction in the school or that the
bodily condition of the child is such as to prevent his attendance at school.
2. Section 18 : 14^M of the Revis( d Statutes is hereby amended to read as
follows :
18 : 11-34. Any child between the ages of seven and sixteen years who shall
repeatedly be absent from schoftl. and any child found away from school during
school hours whose parent, guardian, or other person having charge and control
of the child is unable to cause him to attend school and any pupil who is incor-
rigible, actually vagrant, vicious, or immoral in conduct, shall be deemed to be a
juvenile disorderly person or a juvenile-delinquent and shall be proceeded against
as such.
3. Section 18:14-35 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended to read as
follows :
18 : 14-35. Any attendance officer who shall find any child between seven and
sixteen years of age who is a truant from school, shall take the child and deliver
him to the parent, guardian, or other person having charge and control of the
child, or to the teacher of the school which such child is lawfully required to
attend.
4. Section 18 : 14-38 of the Revised Statutes is hereby rei)ealf d.
5. Section 18 : 14-49 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended to read as
follows :
18 : 14-49. The Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Labor may
grant employment certificates to pupils over fourteen years of age who study
part time in grammar or high school grades or in vocational schools established
under Sections 18 : 15-27 to 18 : 15-58 of this Title, to work part time in factories,
workshops, mills, and all places where the manufacture of goods is carried on
designated by the board of education, which employment shall be considered as
a part of the schooling of such children.
The Commissioner of Education or the Commissioner of Labor may revoke
the certificate at any time without assigning cause.
6. This Act shall take effect September first, one thousand nine hundred and
forty.
Approved, June 25, 1940.
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANCES PEEKINS— Resnmed
REGULATIOX OF LABOR COXTRACTORS
Mr, Sparkmax. You also deal with the problem of controlling
labor contractors who recruit migratory labor. How do you think
that best can be dealt with ?
Secretary Perkins. Well. I think, sir, in the first place, that they
should be licensed by the States and that their operations in inter-
state commerce, if they have any — that is, if they send people across
State line.s — should be subject to some supervision by the Federal
Government. That is, licenses within a State to do this business
might well be recognized by the Federal Government as a license
to take them across State lines. I think they should be recognized
and brought under the supervision of some particular agency in
the State. Rules and regulations under which they operate .should
be drawn up in a State to meet the particular problems which they
have in that State.
For instance, there are some cases where the problem is one of
almost holding a man in peonage, and such rules would have to be
3360 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
made in some States as to those cases, that employers must pay the
persons regularly once a week, or once every 2 weeks. That is neces-
sary, since you have always to combat that evil of holding back the
pay until the job is over* because of the tendency toward peonage.
I speak with some feeling on this, because we had just this situation
in New York State.
You must also provide for camping, and for living quarters if
they are permanent; there must be rules and regulations about the
running of the camp, sanitary regulations, and some regulation
about the rate charged for the board and lodging of migrants in
these camps. Also there should be some regulations about deducting
from their wages to pay for this. All sorts of rules like that need
to be made. iGid, of course, they have the bad practice of charging
people for getting them jobs. You see, a percentage of the wages
goes to the contractor. That has to be broken up by regulation, too.
I mean in different States they have different problems, and the
rules must be different, but I think the first step toward solution
would be the licensing hj a particular agency which the States sets
up to make rules and regulations, and then the enforcement of those
rules and regulations by that agency.
Mr. Sparkman. Madam Secretary, you realize, of course, it is our
duty, upon the conclusion of our hearings, to make a report and rec-
ommendations to the Congress for Federal legislation. Of course,
a good many of the things you have mentioned are matters exclu-
sively within the jurisdiction of the respective States. In what way
can "the Federal Government participate in such a program as you
have mentioned?
EXTENSION or SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Secretary Perkins. First, it seems to me by extending the Wage
and Hour Act to cover workers on industrialized farms. At once,
you see. it would bring a minimum wage into operation. That would
23erha])S do more than any other one thing to discourage the use
of child labor on these industrialized farms, because it is not profit-
able to employ a child if you have to pay him the minimum wage.
He does not produce enough to make that a profitable arrangement.
So that in itself would be a considerable contribution toward raising
the standards on industrialized farms and making for better income
ior migratory workers.
Then there might be an extension of the Social Security Act to
migratory workers; and the extension of titles V and VI of the
Social Security Act — that is the public health services and maternal
and child-welfare service — with appropriations from the Federal Gov-
ernment to at least enable the States to carry on those extended social
services. Those things woukl be, I think, primary among things
which the Congress of the United States should do from the labor
end of it.
resettlement
Then, of course, there is the resettlement program of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, which, I think, needs only from the Congress
a still further reenforcement by appropriations. In other words,
they now function, but they do not have adequate appropriations
to do all that they might do in the way of providing both temporary,
and more or less permanent, housing and settlement for migratory
workers.
INTEK.STATE MIGRATION 3361
The Federal Government must take the responsibility for develop-
ing the proper use of those lands newly irrigated by great public-
works projects for which the Government has been responsible.
There, I think, we must watch the situation closely, and Congress
perhaps could provide by law for some appropriate agency to see to
it that those homestead lots, when given to, or purchased by, or leased
to settlers who are among the migrant class today, do not fall back
into the hands of industrialized farmers operating industrialized
farms on a great scale. But that, I think, would take an act of
Congress.
These seem to me to be among the most important things that Con-
gress can do, as well as to set up in some operating agency of the
Federal Government the responsibility for the application and further
development of these principles so far as migrants are concerned.
I do not suggest that that be in the Department of Labor, sir.
CHILD LABOR
j\Ir. Spakkman. Now, you make reference to the elimination of
child labor in industrialized farming and the application of wages
and hours. A few minutes ago you stated that the migration today
consisted very largely of families. I just wonder what your reaction
to this kind of a situation would be : Back in the latter part of July
this committee went up through New Jersey and we stopped at one
particular farm and I remember seeing a Negro woman with three or
four children, living as a family unit, harvesting potatoes. And those
young children — 7, 8, or 9 years old — seemed rather boastful of the
fact that they could pick potatoes. They all picked together, picked
into the same bag or barrel or Avhatever it was. Now I wonder just
what the distinction is between a family working together that way,
as a single unit, and working on their own farm ?
Secretary Perkins. Well, there is a considerable distinction, really.
Mr. Sparkman. May I say I mean to limit it so far as child labor
is concerned? I realize the other health and living conditions.
Secretary Perkiks. Yes. It seems to me there is a considerable dif-
ference there ; because, in the first place, a family operating on its own
farm operates over the whole period of the year, and, if they are
responsible, provides for their keeping up to the general level of the
culture of the community. Such a family responds to the idea that
they should send their children to school and they should take proper
care of their health, send them to a doctor and have them regularly
examined; and it responds to the idea that they should send them to
church and to Sunday school. I mean that all of the community
culture operates to keep up the level of that family, and the natural
instincts of members of the family are to help each other out so that
the child who is not well, or is underdeveloped, has the help of all of
the rest of the family — not only in doing his work but in maintaining
his social and health standards.
When you get a family moving around in migration, you have
the drive of the employer on them all of the time to get more pota-
toes, more potatoes, and more potatoes. That family is not living
in a commimity where there is any cultural level, or any social pres-
sure to help them keep up their own standards of educat/ing their
children, keeping their children in health, keeping their children on
the general local level of the community. In other words, they are
just a part of the herd; they are no longer citizens living in their
3362 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
own home, and responsible to, and participating in, the cultural-rais-
ing activities of the community. So the temptation to exploit the chil-
dren is infinitely greater. In fact, it makes their battle harder and
they are not inspired by the economic nature of the family. That is
where I think you are likely to find this pressure very great.
And, of course, the work of the migrant children is not building
up the family farm, but is creating profit for a commercial employer
who gets very cheap labor by getting their work, and who might just
as well be employing able-bodied men, adult persons, instead of these
young children.
CENTRAL AGENCY ON MIGRATION
Mr. Sparkman. Let me ask one more question, and I am through.
Madam Secretary, in your prepared statement, you recommend that
there be set up some sort of central coordinating agency empowered
both to study and to act upon these various problems. I wonder
if you might develop that thought a little further ?
Secretary Perkins. I would not feel free to say in what depart-
ment of the Government it should be placed, but I think it should
be placed in one department of the Government, or in one operating
agency. By that I mean an agency that administers and that has its
agents sent out over the country. It should be one that is ac-
customed to administering activities, rather than a research agency.
I think the ]3roblem should be studied by that agency, and I think
it should not only make a study and exploration of this subject of
migrant labor, but that it should be its duty to put into action or
into effect such part of the recommendations that have been made to
it as the agency may think wise and in the public interest to put into
effect. Insofar as it applies to the status of the migratory worker in
relation to the wage-and-hour law, the administration of that, I think,
should be through the regular agency, or the Wage and Hour Di-
vision of the De])artment of Labor. So far as it relates to social
security, unemployment insurance, old-age insurance, placement, and
so forth, that work should be done through the Social Security
agency. The administration should be in the hands of the appro-
priate agency; but there should be some agency of the Government,
or some particular division of the Government, whose duty it should
be to see that this planning and extension work is properly done,
and that the application of such recommendations and such knowl-
edge as we now have is made in a systematic way, and that new
information and new recommendations be brought before Congress
for legislation, if necessary, or brought to the attention of the co-
operative agencies, where they can. carry them out through their own
administrative organization.
Mr. OsMEr.s. Madam Secretary, I have been very nuich interested in
your answers to many of these questions. When the committee was
out in California, we found that there were two schools of thought
in that State, particularly with respect to housing. In the case of
housing for workers that were employed on large farms, one school of
thought felt that the grower should provide for the housing, while
the other school of thought felt that it was the Government's job,
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3363
because the Government would do a better job of it. Of course, we
found that generally the Government camps were operated on a much
more lavish scale than those provided through private capital. Do
you have any opinion you care to express on that subject?
Secretary "Peekins. Well, I think that problem is somewhat mixed,
and I suppose my answer to it will be somewhat mixed. You have
two or three kinds of problems involved there.
Mr. OsMERS. I will put it this way : Let us take the housing where
the worker lives while he is working.
Secretary Perkins. As I see the situation there, and as I have
examined the housing facilities on the farms, that is where the par-
ticular farm maintains a place for everybody to live ; and then there
are the casual camps, which are either just squatters' camps, or some
that are built up as tourist camps. They are rather low-grade tourist
camps, and then there are Government camps. There are, as I see it,
four types of provision made for these migrant workers in California.
Some of the housing on the farms is very good, and some of it
indifferent, and it seems to me that it would be most unlikely that any
farm would ever provide housing for all the workers at all times of
the year.
They provide, on the whole, pretty good housing for those workers
who are regularly attached to the farm or who work for 8 months
in the year on the farm. They are a practically permanent staff on
the farm. Those men work regularly on the farm, some of them all
the time, and they are on a practically permanent staff. Those ])eople
have fairly good houses. The housing there is not bad enough to be
disturbed about, but I do not believe that it would be natural for any
farm to provide housing for people who work for 2 or 3 weeks during
a particular peak of rush crops. They gather tomatoes on a farm, for
instance, in a week or less than a week, and they employ a great many
people during that week or two. Then they do not employ them any
more, and tliose people move on to another place. They do not know
who will employ them next week. In other words, when the tomatoes
are ripe they must be picked. That is when they want people to pick
tomatoes and that is when they come in, and it is most unlikely that
they would provide housing for ])eople who work for them only 1
week.
Then the family must have a wide range in order to make a living
and a reasonably high daily wage. They have to have a wide range
in which to circulate, in order to ])ick up enough money out of this
kind of work to make a living. There, I think, we will probably re-
quire some kind of centralized housing. Everybody recognizes that
the squatter camps are most unsuitable and undesirable, and the low-
grade tourist camps are not much better. In some cases they are quite
expensive, but the wages of the migrant worker being what they are,
he can hardly afford the lowest grade of provision developed in tour-
ist camps. Therefore, some sort of cooperative-housing camp facil-
ities seem to me to be desirable.
I should not have said that the facilities I saw in the Government
camps could be covered under the word "elaborate." I think they were
the simplest I had ever seen. They were the simplest and yet decent.
If they did not have .somewhat careful provision for water and sani-
tary facilities, they would be most simple. The water and sanitary
3364 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
facilities were the only part of the development that could be said to-
be elaborate. Except for the water supply and sanitary facilities,
they would represent the roughest kind or the simplest conditions in a
place to live. It was simply providing for some of the social facilities
that cost practically nothing. It does not provide anything in that
connection except, perhaps, a shed where the i)eople may play a banjo
and have some entertainment.
Mr. OsMERS. I think that by comparison you might class them as
elaborate. We have not come down to the solution of it. From my
examination of the problem, it seems to me that if the grower cannot
afford to build the necessary housing on his own farm for his own
workers— although, I understand, in California, through rotation, it
is possible to extend the season of work considerably— but if it is not
possible for private growers to provide houses for their workers, I
hardly see how the Federal Government would be able to build camps
on each one of tliose large industrialized farms.
Secretary Perkins. No, sir; not on farms, or on each farm, because
one farm does not need enough workers for that.
Mr. OsMERS. What would your suggestion be ?
Secretary Perkins. What! would like to suggest is that I do not
think it likely that it would be done in that way. I think that the
industrialized farms, that want a large supply of migratory labor
available Avhen the peak of the crop season comes, should combine and
on a cooperative basis build cooperative camps on public pro])erty.
The camps should not be privately owned, but the farm owners should
be required to pay the cost of maintenance, and the people should live
in them like citizens of the community.
Mr. Osmers. Who would pay for the construction of the camp?
Secretary Perkins. I think the people who own the property or
the industrialized farms. I think that would be a desirable thing.
Mr. Osmers. As one member of the committee, I saw enough evi-
dence of grower-owned camps in California to feel that that type
of farm must require a considerable amount of money for the con-
struction of housing. Of course, whether the growers operate them
as a group or singly, they would still be grower camps.
Secretary Perkins. If the family is living on the land or property
of a particular grower, certainly he has the first call on their time,
and they would be apt to find themselves somewhat handicapped in
finding other employment.
Mr. Osmers. There is one thmg that enters very prominently into
this, and that is the problem of distance. If you take a 5,000-acre
operation — and that is not unusual in California — you have the
distance problem. Those large farms, of course, are the ones that
require the largest amount of laboi\ You have there the distance
problem from the central part of the farm to the edge of the farm,
and that might increase the cost of labor because of the transpor-
tation cost involved. However, getting away from that for a mo-
ment, would you care to hazard a guess as to the probable migrant
problem when the national-defense program is over or when peace
arrives?
Secretary Perkins. I would not hazard a guess as to what it
would be. We feel now that for the next 2 or 3 years the migrant.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3365
problem will be less acute because the younger members of the
families of migi-ants are apparently finding work in the industrial
l^lants.
Mr, OsMERS. Would you agree with the statement that at the
conclusion of the defense program we will probably face one of the
AYorst depressions we have ever seen?
Secretary Perkins. No; I would not want to say that. I do not
see any evidence of that. I think that is a pessimistic and defeatist
attitude to take. There are all kinds of things that might happen
to prevent that.
Air. OsarERS. I wish I knew that.
Secretary Perkins. I will give some testimony on that later in
the year. We are making some preliminary studies in the Depart-
ment of Labor on this problem, trying to develop all that is known
about industrial management, development, and cooperation, the use
of public works, methods of distributing labor, and so forth.
Mr. OsMERs. This is the time to do that.
Secretary Perkins. We are studying that now, because we are not
under pressure. Nobody wants the answer tomorrow.
EXTENSION or WAGE- AND- HOUR LAW TO FARM LABOR
Mr. Curtis. Madam Secretary, I want to make an inquiry with
reference to the extension of the wage-and-hour law and other bene-
tits to the workers in industrialized agriculture. Can you tell us
about how many individuals are so employed?
Secretary Perkins. In agriculture?
Mr. Curtis. In industrialized agriculture.
Secretary Perkins. I think there are about three million. There
are, according to figures compiled by the Census of Agriculture, and
I have them only second-hand, about 63,000 farms in the country
which employ -i or more laborers; 181,000 farms employ 2 or 3
laborers; 723,000 farms employ 1 laborer, and 5,800,000 farms em-
ploy nobody, showing that tlie great bulk of the farms are indi-
vidual family-operated units, while the largest number of laborers
are employed on farms that employ 1 laborer each.
Mr. Curtis. What would be a rough definition of an industrialized
farm ?
Secretary Perkins. If I were going to draw an act covering that,
I think I would probably say you would have to draw the line at four
or more laborers employed. It is hard to say just where the line
should be drawn.
Mr. Curtis. A small wheat farm on the Great Plains might employ
more than 4 people for 3 or 4 weeks in the vear; would that be an
industrialized farm?
Secretary Perkins. No; I would say 4 or more persons regularly
employed, or employed for at least 6 or 8 months in the year.
Mr. Curtis. That would affect about 3,000,000 people, 'you say?
Secretary Perkins. It might.
Mr. Curtis. Do you know the total number of individuals who con-
stitute a family on that type of farm?
Secr^^tary Perkins. No, sir. I know there are 5,800,000 farms
(hat employ no labor.
INIr. Curtis. Perliaps, with the average number in a family, it would
afiect 30,000,000 people. Assuming an average of 2 children in each
3366 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
farm family, it would be 30,000,000 people. Now, the question 1
was about to ask — and I do not want to be unfair in withholding
anything that might be provided for any particular group— but upon
what social criterion would you extend the wage-and-hour provision
or any other factors of security to 3,000,000 hired men, and not extend
it to a group of, perhaps, 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 people who toil regu-
lar hours the year around on the family type of farm ?
Secretary Perkins. Well, the man who works on his own farm is
not an employee, even if he is not an employer.
Mr. Curtis. That may be so, but in our price structure in arriving
at the value of farm products, that situation prevails.
Sacretary Perkins. You mean that they Avork long hours and receive
a small income?
Mr. Curtis. Yes ; they work long hours and receive a small income.
Secretary Perkins. Yes ; and a good many who own stores work
long hours and get a small income out of them. I know almost noth-
ing about the price structure in agriculture, so I do not think I could
ever give an answer to the question ; but I realize the impracticability
of determining the hours a man shall work on his own farm or sliall
work in his own store. I do not see how that could be done.
Socially speaking, he has certain opportunities and satisfactions
that the "man who is working for an employer does not have. Pre-
sumably, he enjoys opportunities for the initiative in private enter-
prise that the employee does not have. On the fai'm. he has his own
land and tools, his own cattle, and his own labor, and can make free
use of his ingenuity. Some of them, of course, make good, and I sup-
pose there are many other factors that enter into that, but those in
themselves, it seems to me, are determining factors.
Of course, the man who is working with his own labor and i)rop-
erty is at a competitive disadvantage today because of the greater effi-
ciency of operation on the industrialized farm. The fact that they
can put a crop on the market in quantities and at prices which the
man who is working for himself, with his limited capital, cannot do,
places the latter at a competitive disadvantage. He is always at a
competitive disadvantage in selling his crop. To a certain extent, per-
haps, legislation extending social advantages to people who work on
the industrialized farms would serve to balance a part of that com-
petitive disadvantage which he has to meet, making it possible for
him to market at a cost comparable to the cost of iiroduction under
the other industrialized operation.
Mr. Curtis. I am inclined to feel that you have there an answer of
considerable merit. I can very well see how you could not apply the
wage-and-hour provision to the man who is running his own farm;
but here is the position the United States Congress is plac_ed in: These
are measures under which the Government is protecting, in the matter
of wages, hours, and other things, 3 million people, while, at the same
time, we are neglecting a group engaged in the same kind of activity
comprising 30 million people.
Secretary Perkins. I would like to say that I do not for one moment
think we should include individual farm owners and operators in those
benefits. It has been the custom of the country to solve its problems
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3367
piecemeal. We take a problem and apply what information we have
to the solution of that problem, and then let the other problem involved
find another solution in some other way. I do not believe you can
solve the problem of the one-family farm, with that of low prices, by
applying to it the Wage and Hour Act, nor do I think you can help
its solution by not applying to the industrialized farm the benefits of
that act. It seems to me that it will be worth while to start with some
part of the problem by applying this type of legislation.
Mr. Curtis. In our American way of thinking we have arrived at the
point where we think that if one labors a given number of hours a day,
then he is entitled to a fair American price. Now, if the farm laborer,
or the farmer himself, labors long hours for months, and brings the
fruits of his labor to market, we have not yet asked the question, "How
much is this individual entitled to because of the time and labor he
has put into it?"
COOPERATIVE HOUSING DEyELOPMENTS
Secretary Perkins. I do not know how to answer that question.
May I make this statement: One of my clerks has just handed me a
note in which it is stated that some people have gained the impression
or the idea that I think that we should provide housing developments
on private farms, or that that would be a desirable way of solving the
housing problem in California. I do not wish to be so recorded or
understood. I think it would be desirable for the owners of these
industrially operated farms to pay the cost of building the housing,
and I hope I made myself clear that I think they should pay the cost
of building it. It would be an economic advantage to thei.i to have the
housing-. Tile housing should be built. I thiiik, under community
su])ervision.
The housing should be located on land not owned by the private
farms but in towns, and not connected with any one farm. The towns
should have supervision, or this housing should have such supervision
as any other part of the town or village. In other words, this housing
should be erected by a group of industrialized farms and not by a
single farm. It should be a part of a village and not a part of a farm.
1 presume that the State, by the taxation of these private farms, would
provide funds for the necessary housing. That money could be made
available to them, and they could see that proper housing w^as pro-
vided. Other housing could be provided through the Farm Security
Administration, and I think that work should be extended at the pres-
ent time rather than curtailed. I want to make myself clear on this
point, because I would not want to see set up at this time any farm-
company towns, or any company towns, only to find them translated
into agricultural use.
Mr. OsMERS. From my experience in New Jersey, where we have
had some very bad conditions with respect to grower camps, the solu-
tion that has been working has been to require the growers to meet
certain standards set up by the State department of labor and the
State department of health. That has gradually been the approach
to the solution of the problem. In New Jersey the time of employ-
ment occurs more or less in the summer school-vacation period, which
makes a great deal of difference in the problem.
Secretary Perkins. Your migration is heaviest in midsummer.
260370— 41— pt. 8 19
3368 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. OsMERS. Yes; during tliat period when the schools are not in
session.
The Chairman. On behalf of the committee, Madam Secretary,
we want to thank you. You have contributed a very valuable state-
ment to our discussions, and I am sure it will be very helpful to the
committee when we come to make our report.
Secretary Perkins. Thank you very much for giving me the op-
portunity to appear.
The Chairman. The j)repared statement you have submitted to
the committee will appear in the record.
The Chairman. The next witness is Colonel Fleming.
Colonel, will you please give your full name ?
TESTIMONY OF COL. PHILIP B. FLEMING, ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Colonel Fleming. I am Col. Philip B. Fleming.
The Chairman. What is your official position?
Colonel Fleming. Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
The Chairman. That is not a very easy job, is it, Colonel?
Colonel Fleming. It is a very interesting and very trying job.
The Chairman. The connnittee will be very glad to have a state-
ment from you. Colonel, in reference to the subject we have under
consideration.
STATEMENT OF COL. PHILIP B. FLEMING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
The Fair Labor Standaeds Act in Rel.\tion to Interstate Migration
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am appearing before you
today at your invitation to disenss briefly the Fair Labor Standards Act in
relation to the migration of indnstrial and agricultural workers across State
lines.
IMy remarks today will be a summary of a more extended factual statement
of the problems involved, and I have a copy of this statement available if you
care to have it included in the record of your proceedings.
This statement reviews some of the more evident effects that the Fair Labor
Standards Act has had upon the migration of labor; it explains various exemp-
tions in the act which have a bearing upon the migration problem ; and it dis-
cusses several aspects of the possible extension of minimum-wage and maximum-
hour legislation to the type of employment in which migratory workers con-
stitute a substantial portion of the labor supply.
It should be emphasized that any conclusions which have been reached or
suggestions that are made at this time are tentative. Our information on these
problems and our experience in dealing with them grow constantly, and it is
liossible that, in the future, this continuing study and experience will open up
different and better methods of approach to the problem posed for the Fair
Labor Standards Act by the migratory worker.
The Fair Labor Standards Act has as* one of its specific purposes the outlaw-
ing of substandard wages and long working hours as a means of competition
between communities. There are indications that the act has had a beneficial
effect in connection with the migration of workers by reducing the migration of
plants from one geographic area to another when this migration has had the
sole objective of obtaining a source of cheap labor ; also the act has increased
opportunities for employment by the reduction of the basic workweek to 40
hours, and it has, by the establishment of minimum-wage standards, reduced
the incentive of low-paid workers to migrate.
In the statement submitted for the record, special attention has been given
to the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to agricultural labor. At
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3369
the present time the relation of the act to the problem of the migration of farm
and rural workers is bound up with the various exemptions in the act applicable
to such workers. I should like to explain these exemptions very briefly.
There is an exemption which includes all workers employed in farming opera-
tions, or in work on a farm as an incident to farming operations. At a mini-
mum this exemption affects more than 3,000,000 wage earners.
Workers employed off the farm who prepare and process agricultural com-
modities for market are the subject of exemptions ranging from a complete year
around exemption from both the wage-and-hour provisions to an hours exemp-
tion limited to 14 weeks in the year, and to 56 hours a week, or 12 hours a day.
These exemptions affect approximately 1,U(-0,0€0 wage earners, of whom about
175,000 receive the complete wage-and-hour exemption.
Exemptions provided for workers who are engaged in the first processing,
packing or canning of fresli fruits and vegetables, have presented a particularly
difficult problem in the administration of the act. After several months of
experience, and following numerous conferences, public hearings, and research
studies it was determined that the complete wage-and-hour exemption for work-
ers performing these operations "within the area of production" would be
extended only to those very small establishments whose commodities come from
farms in the general vicinity of the plant and employ no more than 10 workers
in these operations.
This complete exemption applies, therefore, only to about 8,000 workers in the
whole fruit and vegetable processing industry, where more than half a million
are employed. At the same time, however, it was decided to meet the most
urgent requirements of these industries by liberalizing their hours exemptions,
and provision was made for the allowance of an additional 14 weeks exemption.
However, this additional period carries with it a limitation of the workweek
to 56 hours, and the workday to 12 hours.
There is a complete wage-and-hour exemption provided in the act for all em-
ployees engaged in the fishing industry or those industries which market and
process fish products or byproducts. This exemption applies to approximately
250.000 workers.
In brief, these are the exemptions applicable to farm and rural labor. I will
not take time to discuss them further. The thing th;;t I want to bring to your
attention as being intimately related to the migration question is the possibility
of extending tlie act to cover the workers employed in the larger type of agricul-
tural operations.
Since the enactment of tlie Fair Labor Standards Act a number of outstanding
authorities have urged or supported the extension of ,some form of wage-and-hour
protection to agricultural workers on large-scale farms. Such recommendations
have been based on the recognition that the same considerations which led Congress
to enact minimum-wage legislation for industrial workers apply with even stronger
force to this group of agricultural wage earners.
The extension of wage regidation to the large employers of farm labor would
affect only a minute fraction of all the farms, but it would afford this protection
to tens of thousands of workers in periods of active seasonal operations. I would
not suggest at this time just where a dividing line ought to be drawn between
small and large farms. If we take, just for purposes of illustration, the farms
which regularly employ four or more hired workers as indicative of the larger
commercialized farming operations, only about 1.5 percent of the country's farms
would be affected. These farms, however^ employ approximately one-third of the
agricultural wage earners. The average size and investment of these farms
indicate that relatively few of them would be representative of the typical Ameri-
can family farm, the laboi' and economic conditions of which have often been used
as an argument against the extension of wage regulation in agriculture.
If mininnnn-wage regulation were to be extended to agricultural labor it is not
likely that the present provisions of the act could be directly applied. While ade-
quate data are not now available to determine appropriate minimum-wage stand-
ards, it is possible that minima varying from 15 to 30 cents an hour might be estab-
lished if the exi.sting wage structure and prices of different agricultural commodi-
ties were taken into consideration.
Experience with Federal wage regulations as applied to sugar beet and sugar-
cane field workers under the Sugar Act of 1937, and the experience of several
foreign countries with both wage-and-hour legislation, indicates that it is possible
3370 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
to devise an administratively practical plan for the extension of this type of
social legislation to agricultural v^^age earners.
As a practical matter of administration the establishment of minimum wage
standards for agricultural wage earners might be carried out by means of com-
mittees similar in character to the industry committees now provided for in
the act.
Limitation of working hours in agriculture would be a much more difficult prob-
lem than wage regulation. The flexibility that would be required in any practical
plan of hours regulation in agriculture would, in all likelihood, tend to neutralize
a large part of the benefit to labor contemplated by the shortening of hours.
TESTIMONY OF COL. PHILIP B. FLEMING— Resumed
EFl^ECT OF WAGE-AND-IIOUR LAW ON MIGRATION OF INDUSTRY
The Chairman. Colonel, according to your statement, one of the
most important effects of the wage-ancl-hour law has been the successful
elimination of the migration of plants — runaway plants — solely to take
advantage of substandard wages for labor. This substandard wage
labor was mostly in the younger industrial parts of the country, such
as the South, was it not?
Colonel Fleming. That is true to a certain extent, although I do not
think the South had any more runaway plants than any other parts
of the country. There was a migration from urban centers to rural
communities. Most of them went to the rural communities.
The Chairman, How do you define a runaway plant ?
Colonel Fleming. It is a plant that moves from some site to another,
where it can get cheaper labor. By setting up a minimum standard of
Avages the wage-and-hour law reduces migration, because previously,
witli the runaway plant, there was this possibility of getting cheap
labor.
The Chairman. We have heard many witnesses state that numer-
ous people should migrate from the southern States where job
opportunities are not numerous enough to take care of the rapidly
growing population. Now, has not the placing of a floor under
wages resulted in improving the quality of the job opportunities,
and hence made it easier for the surplus southern population to
find an independent livelihood at the destination of their migration?
Colonel Fleming. It has improved job opportunities, and I think
it has created more jobs.
The Chairman. That is your experience?
Colonel Fleming. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And your conclusion?
Colonel Fleming. That is my conclusion.
The Chairman. And, further, is not the South better off as a
result of the wage-and-hour laWj because, as you state, the fact that
industrial expansion in the South has continued at a fairly rapid
rate since the passage of that law, is an indication that the South
offers other advantages besides cheap labor ?
Colonel Fleming. I think the South is better off because of the
enactment of the wage-and-hour law. The enactment and enforce-
ment of that law has raised the standard of living in the South.
The Chairman. It is true, is it not, that although it might appear
on the surface to be contradictory to what you have just said, that
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3371
the wage-ancl-hour law has had the effect of reducing the aimless
migration of people who formerly quit extremely poorly paid jobs
in order to look for the pot of gold at the ends of the rainbow ?
Colonel Fleming. I think that is correct ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is it not true that workers in industries in which
migratory labor is the most obvious— agriculture, certain types of
agricultural processing, fisheries, and so forth— were not given the
protection of the floor below their wages ?
Colonel Fleming. That is correct; agricultural workers and proces-
sers of agricultural products, in their first processing.
exemption or farm labor from labor legislation
The Chairman. Is it your understanding that the reason Congress
did not include agi'icultural labor in the coverage of the wage-and-
hour law was because it was felt that the relation of the farmer
and his hired man was too intimate and informal to make necessary
the application of the legal minimum wage ?
Colonel Fleming. I think that is correct, although as to the intent
of Congress, you are better able to answer than I am.
The Chairman. I do not know about that ; I can fix my own intent
once in a while, but I cannot answer for 434 other Members.
Colonel Fleming. I have to take into consideration 435 Members.
The Chairman. If Congress were to apply the minimum wage to
commercialized farms, or farms hiring four or more workers, about
what proportion of the country's farms would be affected?
Colonel Fleming. Our figures indicate that about IV2 percent of
the farms employ 4 or more employees. Just where the line is for
commercialized farms, we are not prepared to say. They may have 8
or 10 employees. If you go to 8 employees the percentage is less,
according to the number of workers involved.
The Chairman. In terms of figures. Colonel, about how many
would 1 percent amout to, I mean according to the number you
have indicated?
Colonel Fleming. I do not know the exact number of farms in-
volved. Our figures show that the number of employees on farms
employing four or more is about a million. If you go to the number
of farms employing eight or more, the figure is a little over half a
million.
The Chairman. In other words, about 98 percent of the farms
of this country employ less than four or five ?
Colonel Fleming. That is correct, about 98^,^ percent. Our fig-
ures show about 100,000 farms in the country.
Mr. Parsons. That is, employing four or more.
Colonel Fleming. Employing 4 or more, and about 30,000 em-
ploying 8 or more.
The Chairman. In other words, the great bulk of farms in this
country are what are called family farms, employing four or five
people, or less.
Colonel Fleming, That is correct.
The Chairman. If Congress were to apply the minimum wage
to commercialized farms, or farms hiring four or more workers,
about what proportion of the country's farms would be affected?
I believe you have answered that question.
3372 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Colonel Fleming, Yes, sir; just about one-third of all farm labor
would be covered, because about one-third are employed on farms
that employ four or more people.
Mr. Parsons. Colonel Fleming, as administrator of the wage-and-
hour law, would you recommend that those farms be covered by
the Wage and Hour Act ?
Colonel Fleming. I would recommend it; yes, sir.
Mr. Parsons. Do you think it would have a beneficial effect, not
only on those farms, but upon the family farms, too ?
Colonel Fleming. I think if you applied it to those farms it would
raise the standard, and, therefore, benefit the family farms.
The Chairman. So that, if I understand you correctly, the ex-
tremely low wages which are paid to farm labor on commercialized
farms could be raised without injuring in any way the incomes of
the small family farm operators.
Colonel Fleming. That is correct.
The Chairman. Your statement has indicated that, in your opin-
ion, it would be administratively feasible to extend the minimum
wage regulation to commercialized farming. Would you explain
how that might work?
Colonel Fleming. I think that could be done. You have the
Sugar Act of 1937, which does the same thing for sugar labor, and
I think it could be extended to diversified farming.
The Chairman. You feel we have a precedent for the successful
administration of minimum wage protection for workers under the
operation of the Sugar Act of 1937?
Colonel Fleming. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I imagine that the toughest administrative prob-
lem of the Wage and Hour Division has been that of administering
the area of production exemption. Is that correct?
Colonel Fleming. I think it has been tough to administer it, and
it has also been tough to define that area of production. That was a
sort of "hot potato" which Congress dropped into the Administrator's
lap, when they asked him to define that.
The Chairman. You have been working with the question of the
area of production; I wonder if you coukl tell us what it is.
Colonel Fleming. Congress said that a certain type of workers
employed within this area of production, as defined by the Admin-
istrator, would be exempt from both the wage and hour provisions,
and some from the hours provision of the act. That meant that we
had to draw a line, because obviously the area of production was
not tlie whole United States.
We tried our best to get what the intent of Congress was, and
we found in the debates talk about small operators employing a
limited number of people. They also talked about plants in the
open country, or in a small town, so we drew a line, and on one side
there were their small plants employing seven or less people which
drew all of its material from the general vicinity, and we also took
a larger plant, without any limit to the number of people employed,
which was in open country, or a town of less than 2,500. But that
set some inequalities.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3373
We have found, for instance, two exactly similar plants, one on
one side of the road and one on the other ; one was in town and the
other in open country. They were in direct competition, one in the
area of production exemption, and the other outside of that area.
We had one amusinfr case of a plant in a town of five or six
thousand people, located on the edge of the town and owned by
the mayor. He called the city council together and had them enact
a city ordinance which threw the town's limits inside and left this
plant in open country, and therefore in the area of production.
The Chairman. And you were the head linesman in that case?
Colonel Fleming. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever find out the intent of Congress in
that respect?
Colonel Fleming. No, sir.
The Chairman. Has any one else?
Colonel Fleming. I do not think so.
The Chairman. Then it would make it much more efficient to
eliminate the present exemption for agricultural processing, would
it not?
Colonel Fleming. It would be much simpler; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is there any significant difference between the need
for minimum wage protection on commercialized farms and the need
for it in canneries and packing houses ?
Colonel Fleming. No difference at all.
The Chairman. Does not the experience of foreign countries with
minimum wage legislation for agricultural workers indicate that
such legislation is administratively feasible?
Colonel Fleming. Yes; we have a record of the experience in
European countries where they have had minimum wages and they
have been able to make it work.
The Chairman. I know, Colonel Fleming, that this is not covered
in your original statement, but I think we would be interested
to have you express yourself on the question of the necessity for
maintaining wage-and-hour standards during the present defense
emergency.
Colonel Fleming. I have expressed myself on numerous occasions
on that question. I think there is no need for relaxing any wage-
and-hour standards at the present time.
The Chairman. Is it your feeling that in the interests of total
defense, that is, in order to get the maximum efficiency for our
productive equipment, both men and machines, it is necessary to
maintain the labor standards which are represented by the wage-
and-hour law ?
Colonel Fleming. Absolutely; I think so. We had the experience
in the last war, where we found that increasing hours of work does
not increase production. As a matter of fact, there is a certain
limit when production begins to decrease. The British found the
same thing to be true in the last war, and they conducted some
very interesting experiments in some of their mimitions plants.
They started at 66 hours a week, and then they reduced the number
of hours until they got to 45 hours, and they found that a plant
3374 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
produced 9 percent more with 45 hours than with 66 hours, that is,
an individual produced that much more.
Mr. OsMERS. Colonel Fleming, did they find that 45 hours gave
about peak production ?
Colonel Fleming. They did not reduce the time below 45 hours.
As a matter of fact, their records show that 55 hours produced very
little more than 45 hours. Tliat was 20 years ago.
Our assembly line type of production, developed in this country
in the last 20 years, and largely used in defense production, and
under which a worker has the task of keeping up something which
is passing by constantly, is such that probably 40 hours gives the
peak.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you not say that the tremendous speeding up
olf American industry, that is the quicker tempo of American in-
dustry, has had a tendency to lower the optimum?
Colonel Fleming. That *is tnie. We find some big plants down
to 36 hours.
Mr. OsMERs. Of their own volition.
Colonel Fleming. Of their own volition, working 36 hours. Of
course, Mr. Ford went to 40 hours in 1926, and he has held to that.
Wliatever else you may say about him. Ford is a good businessman,
and if he thought he could produce more by reducing the hours,
I am sure he would reduce the hours. It is hard to tell what is
the optimum.
Mr. OsMERS. It varies with the operations.
Colonel Fleming. It varies with the operations, and with the
individual.
The Chairman. What standard is England employing now?
Colonel Fleming. I do not know what it is, but I know they forgot
about the lessons of the last war in this war, and in July, when they
were in the middle of the blitzkrieg, they found that production was
decreasing because of the long hours, and they reduced the number of
hours.
Mr. OsMERS. Is it true that they still have quite a serious unemploy-
ment problem, and would it not be better for them to shorten the
hours ?
Colonel Fleming. I am quite certain they have an unemployment
problem. I think the thing for us to do today is to absorb some of
our unemployment by working the machine 24 hours and training new
workers in the various skills that are necessary, and work them more
effectively.
The Chairman. In other words, you feel that the wage-and-hour
law is directly related to national defense because of its influence in
maintaining the health and vigor of our labor supply ?
Colonel Fleming. I certainly do.
Mr. Curtis. Colonel, there is one matter I would like to get straight
in my mind. If I understood the Secretary of Labor correctly, her
definition of industrialized agriculture was a farm on which four or
more people were employed. She said there were about 3,000,000 such
employees, as I understood her. If I understood you correctly, you
said that there are 1,000,000.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3375
Colonel Fleming. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. Curtis. Which is right?
Colonel Fleming. I stick to the 1,000,000. I think the Secretary
was thinking of the number of farm employees altogether, which is
about 3,000,000, and the farms employing 4 or more people have
about one-third of the total number, or 1,000,000.
Mr. Curtis. I am inclined to think it is about 1,000,000.
As you realize, this committee is assigned the task of studying the
subject of interstate migration of destitute persons. I am not quite
clear about your theory as to the extension of the Wages and Hours
Act to that 1,000,000 group, and how that will tend toward the
solution of the problem.
Colonel Fleming. I do not know whether it will stop migration, but
if we apply the wage-and-hour standards to them — most of them
working on the big industrial farms — their pay will be increased and
their hours reduced.
Mr. Curtis. In other words, you are offering it as a desired social
gain and not necessarily as a remedy for the wandering of the jobless,
homeless. Stateless people.
Colonel Fleming. It is just to improve their condition where they
are. It does not stop them from moving; the;^ are always going to
move. There is a group that starts in in Florida in the spring and
follows the crops up the coast until they get up to New Jersey, where
they work at harvesting potatoes.
Mr. Curtis. Most of those people have homes to which they can
return, do they not ?
Colonel Fleming. I think they do ; yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Do you have an opinion as to what effect the placing
of industrialized agriculture under the wage-and-hour law would have
upon the family-operated farm?
Colonel Fleming. It will affect the income of the family-operated
farm, and by increasing the standard of living of other workers it
will generally improve the family farm also.
Mr. Curtis. In what way ?
Colonel Fleming. I think that application of the wage-and-hour law,
making for an increased price of agricultural products from the
industrialized farm, would be reflected in the sales price on the family
farm.
Mr. OsMERS. Do you feel it would give the family type of farm a
better competitive position by increasing the standards to which their
main competition must appeal ?
Colonel Fleming. That is correct.
Mr. Curtis. Does the cost of pr^oduction of any agricultural com-
modity determine the sales price?
Colonel Fleming. I am not an economist and cannot answer that,
but I should imagine it would, if these big farms
Mr. Curtis. If the big farm has a monopoly on a particular product
and all similar products, it perhaps would?
Colonel Fleming. Yes ; not even a monopoly, but a governing rate.
Mr. Curtis. Do you think it would tend to increase the labor cost
of the family type of farm, which, for short periods of time, employ
two or three men ?
2376 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Colonel Fleming. It probably would, because you would have a
standard rate of pay. Someone was talking about the wheat fields.
If the industrialized farms had to pay a minimum wage, 3,000,000 har-
vesters who came in during the harvest season would probably get
the same rate.
Mr. Curtis. Would that tend to lead to a further abandonment of
tlie family farm, if someone trained in farm labor would go to work
on the industrialized farm ? In other words, will the man who is going
to get minimum hours and maximum wages, with old-age security
and better housing conditions, going to want to desert his family
type of farm, where his housing is poor and his income very low, in
some years getting nothing on account of a crop failure, with no old-
age security ? Will that cause a further abandonment of the family
type of farm?
Colonel Fleming. I cannot answer that ; I do not know.
INDUSTRIALIZED FARM
Mr. OsMERS. Colonel, would you care to express a general opinion
as to the future of industrialized farming in contrast to the family
type of farming?
Colonel Fleming. I should say that the industrialized farm is here
to stay.
Mr.' Osmers. Would you say it is on a steady, sharp increase through-
out the United States?'
Colonel Fleming. It is on an increase, but not a sharp increase.
But the curve is going up.
Mr. Osmers. It has been my opinion — I do not say whether it would
be a good thing or a bad thing — that if we imposed upon the indus-
trialized farm the ordinary type of industrial standards that it will
accelerate the pay considerably. Do you feel that might happen ?
Colonel Fleming. I cannot say it would accelerate it if we had
to impose those conditions.
Mr. Osmers. I have this thought in mind, that the family type
of farm is so affected by competition that it has become a some-
what heartbreaking situation, and there seems to be a tendency in
America today to seek security rather than independence, and it
seems to me it might express itself there, when there are farmers
leaving the Dust Bowl and going to California because they think
they might get 50 cents an hour there.
Colonel Fleming. That may be; that sounds like sound reasoning.
The Chairman. Congressman Curtis asked you what effect the
application of the Wage and Hour Act would have on the migration
of destitute ^citizens. That is u problem we are investigating.
Of course, the migration of people has many causes, as you realize,
such as unemployment, mechanization, and various other things, so
there is not any single answer to the question.
Anything that will keep people at home will reduce the migra-
tion of our citizens, will it not?
Colonel Fleming. I think so.
The Chairman. You cannot keep them all at home.
Colonel Fleming. No.
The Chairman. Because there comes a time when people will not
starve standing still ; they are too good American citizens.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3377
Colonel Fleming. Yes.
The Chairman. Colonel, I want to express to you on behalf of
the committee our thanks for your appearance here. You have
given a very valuable contribution to our consideration of this
subject.
Colonel Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF COL. PHILIP B. FLEMING
Peoposed Federal Legislation in Relation to Interstate Migration
This statement is presented in response to a request from the Special Com-
mittee of the House of Representatives Investigating the Interstate Migration
of Destitute Citizens. I have been asked to discuss "present and proposed
Federal legislation affecting Industrial and agricultural workers migrating
across State lines." My discussion will be restricted, of course, to Federal
wage-an-hour legislation.
A consideration of the Fair Labor Standards Act in relation to the problem
of migratory workers involves the question of the application of this act
to certain industries that are now exempt and in which industries we find
a large part of the country's migratory population. The most important of
these industries are agriculture, fishery and fishery products, and certain
portions of the industries which prepare and process agricultural commodities.
My opinion was requested regarding "* * * new legislation or extensions
or modiflcations of already existing statutes which would in your judgment im-
prove the situation created by agricultural migration and surplus rural popula-
tion pressure." This statement, therefore, deals primarily with a discussion of
the possible extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the industries men-
tioned above.
It seems desirable to preface the discussion by indicating, in a general way,
some of the beneficial effects of the act in the industries now covered. The
discussion will then be followed by a detailed statement of the exemptions con-
tained in the act for agriculture, agricultural processing, and the fishery in-
dustries. The arguments for extension of the coverage of the act to these in-
dustries will be summarized briefly and followed up with an appraisal of pos-
sible economic effects of the extension of coverage to agriculture. Finally, a
brief summary will be presented of American and foreign experience with wage-
and-hour legislation in the agricultural field.
I. THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND MIGRATORY WORKERS
The act at the present time prescribes a basic minimum wage of 30 cents an
hour and a maximum workweek of 40 hours; work lieyond 40 hours must be
compensated at the rate of time and a half the regular rate of pay. These pro-
visions apply to all employees "engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for coinmerce," ^ with specific exceptions, some of which will be described
below.
The act seeks to protect workers from actual want by fixing an irreducible,
though low, minimum below which wages may not fall. It also seeks to protect
workers from excessively long hours of work and at the same time create addi-
tional opportunities for employment by fixing a maximum workweek beyond
which employers are restrained from working their employees by the necessity
of paying overtime compensation.
One of the most important effects of the Fair Labor Standards Act on migra-
tion is through its effect on the migration of plants. Prior to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, it was common to find plants moving from large cities to smaller
towns and from one geographic area to another solely with the objective of
1 Sec. 3 (j) states: 'TroduceJ means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any
other manner worked on in an.v State ; and for the purpose.? of this act an employee shall
be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed
in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner
working on such goods, or in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof,
in any State."
3378 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
obtaining a better source of cheap labor. This movement was assisted by many
communities under the mistaken impression that the establishment of local
industries, regardless of what level of wages it brought to the community,
would be a source of prosperity for the community. This bidding by communi-
ties for the opportunity to have their citizens work long hours at low wages
resulted, of course, in stranded populations of wage earners in the communities
left by the migratory establishments. The stranded workers either had to be
taken care of through public relief or had to migrate to other communities in an
effort to obtain new employment. In the communities to which the plants
moved a new supply of labor was trained and employed at extremely low rates
of pay until better opportunities for the employer were offered elsewhere.
One of the declared objectives of the Fair Labor Standards Act was to bring
to an end this migration of plants due solely to the desire to obtain a source
of cheap labor. In discussing this legislation, the President in his message to
the special session of the Seventy-fifth Congress on November 15, 1937, urged :
"End the unsound practice of some communities — by no means confined to
any one section of the country — which seeks new industries by offering as the
principal attraction labor more plentiful and much cheaper than may be found
in competing communities. To them the Congress should reiterate the oft-
repeated pledge of political parties that labor is not a mere commodity."
This objective was concurred in not only by leaders of organized labor
who saw their standards undermined by runaway plants, but also by the great
bulk of the employers, who were faced with ruinous competition from these
low-wage plants.
No thorough study has been made to determine the extent to which this
migration has been reduced by the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is some
evidence, however, to indicate that this movement has been considerably re-
tarded. The .Journal of Commerce for April 1, 1940, reported that "* * *
since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, industrial engineers have
been inclined to place less emphasis upon a crude comparison of wage rates in
selecting locations for new industrial plants. The establishment of minimum
wage rates by Federal and State law, and the likelihood that such minimum
rates will be raised further in the future, cause them to place greater emphasis
upon other pertinent considerations."
The president of a dry-cleaning plant located in New Jersey with 85 retail
outlets in New York City, when informed that its cleaning operations came
within the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act, protested to a Wage and
Hour Division representative:
"It's outrageous. It puts me on the disadvantage side. We started a New
Jersey corporation to gain a competitive advantage over New York cleaners,
the New Jersey minimum wage statute reduced some of that advantage and if
we have to comply with the Federal law, we will lose all of our advantage.
It isn't fair."
A story in Business Week for November 19, 1938, reported on the reopening
in St. Louis, Mo., of the Hamilton Brown Sunlight plant which had been closed
since 1930. The local citizens interviewed by the Business Week correspondent
asserted that the opening of the plant was a definite indication that the migra-
tion of the shoe industry to smaller towns was definitely checked. The
reporter further stated :
"* * * it was no coincidence, say well-known informed St. Louisians,
that the Sunlight plant, reported to be the largest under one roof in this
country, was reopened immediately after the Federal wage-hour law became
effective. With the Wagner and wage-hour legislation, the small-town labor
markets aren't what they used to be."
The Fair Labor Standards Act is not directed against migration of industry
which is based on sound economic advantages offered by different areas of the
country. It is directed solely against that migration which depends upon the
impetus of cheap labor. The fact that industrial expansion in the South has
continued at a fairly rapid rate despite the passage of the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act is an indication that the South offers other advantages besides the
traditional one of cheap labor.
Urban as well as rural migration has been affected by the Fair Labor
Standards Act in another way, namely, by creating increased opportunities
for employment. The reduction of the basic workweek to 40 hours has un-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3379
donbtedly created thousands of new job opportunities for unemployed workers
who otherwise would have been under the necessity of considering the problem
of migration. Again, it is not known how many jobs have been created by
the Fair Labor Standards Act. When the workweek under the act was reduced
from 44 to 42 hours, it was estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that
this would result in a shortened workweek or overtime pay for some 1,GOO,000
workers. The best evidence that the act has created jobs is furnished by
concrete illustrations. Both employer and labor representatives in a metal
mining area informed a Division representative that when the mines in the
area reduced their workweek to 40 hours from a previous level of 48, an
opportunity was offered for the first time in many years for hundreds of
youths in the community to obtain employment. Since they were practically
no alternative opportunities for employment these additional jobs definitely
reduced the necessity for migration for hundreds of young people. Similar
reports regarding increased employment of workers who would otherwise
have had to migrate have been received from the dried fruit processing areas
in California. If the information were available these illustrations could
undoubtedly be duplicated elsewhere throughout the country.
The Fair Labor Standards Act has affected migration in still a third way.
To the extent that migration has been caused by a desire on the part of
low-paid workers to better their economic status, the establishment of minimum
wage standards and maximum hours of work has reduced this stimulus to
some degree. While the standards established by the act are not so high
as to make a worker satisfied with his economic level, a comparison of these
standards with the levels that existed prior to the passage of the act indicates
tliat many thousands of workers have achieved a substantial Improvement in
their wages and earnings. Such improvements could not help but reduce the
urge as well as the necessity for seeking employment in other parts of the
country.
IT. EXEMPTIONS UNDEE THE ACT
In accomplishing the purposes outlined above, Congress considered that
tills legislation was exploratory in nature. Provision was, therefore, made
for the specific exemption of millions of Avorkers in agriculture and in indus-
tries allied to agriculture where it appeared that correction of substandard
working conditions might be administratively more difficult than in industry
generally. To a considerable extent it is in exempt industries that migi-atory
workers predominate, because of the highly seasonal natiure of most of
these industries.
(«) Exemptions under the definition of "agriculture." — ^The Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act provides (see. 13 (a) (6)) that the minimum wage and maximum
hours standards of the law shall not apply to any person employed in
agriculture. Agriculture is defined in section 3 (f) as follows:
" 'Agriculture' includes farming in all its branches and among other things
includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, culti-
vation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities
(including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g)
of the Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended), the raising of livestock,
bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry
or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident
to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for
market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to
market."
It will be seen that in addition to such operations as the growing and
harvesting of crops and the raising of livestock and poultry — operations most
commonly identified with farming — this definition also includes some forestry
and lumbering operations, the raising of fur-bearing animals, and the opera-
tion of turpentine farms on which oleoresin is obtained from living trees
and gum spirits of turpentine and gum rosin are produced by distillation.^
Nurseries, greenhouses, and establishments producing mushrooms and seeds
also fall within the definition of agriculture.
2 Section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act.
3380
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
"Agriculture" as defined in the act may also include operations which are
not ordinarily carried on by a farmer or on a farm under the proviso which
brings within the definition all practices which are incidental to or per-
formed in conjunction with actual farming operations. Such operations
are "agriculture" if they constitute a subordinate and established part of the
farm enterprise, provided the products handled or processed are raised entirely
by the farmer or on the farm in question. These subordinate operations may
include even such industrial and commercial operations as the canning and
packing of fruits and vegetables and the manufacture of dairy products.
Forestry and lumbering operations, which fall within the definition when per-
formed on a farm, have been interpreted to include the cultivation and manage-
ment of forests, the felling and removal of timber, the conversion of logs and
timber into rough lumber and similar products, and the piling, stacking, and
storing of all such products. Tl>ese operations must, however, be incidental to
actual farming operations and must constitute only a minor proportion of the
farmer's activities.^
The Census Bureau reports that during the first week in January in'?;") there
were 1, 645,802 hired laborers working on farms (in addition td 1(1,7(11^.012 unpaid
family laborers; i. e., farm operators and members of their families who did not
receive wages). As farm employment is at a minimum in January in most parts
of the United States, this figure is not representative of maximum employment
during the year. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that on
July 1, 1940, the number of hired farm laborers totaled 3,112,000.*
The Fair Labor Standards Act definition of "agriculture" is somewhat broader
than the Census and Department of Agriculture definition. It covers all employees
included under the latter definition and, in addition, employees of packing houses,
canneries, and similar establishments operated by a farmer or on a farm, and
employees of fur farms and turpentine farms. No accurate estimate is available
of the total number of w(n'k('rs onyaged in these additional tyi>es of operations.
(ft) EdTniptioii of iiidnfifrics which handle and process agricultural commodi-
ties.— In addition to the complete exemption of agricultural labor just discussed,
the Fair Labor Standards Acr also exempts completely from both the wage-and-
hour provisions persons employed "within the area of production (as defined by
the Administrator)" who are engaged in "liaiulling, packing, storing, ginning,
compressing, pasteurizing, drying, preparing in tlicir raw or natural state, or
canning of agricultural or horticultural commodities for market, or in making
cheese or butter or other dairy products." °
It is estimated that this section of the act exempts a maximum of approxi-
mately 175,000 emploj-ees from the wage-and-hour provisions. The principal
industries in which these exempt workers are employed are dairy-products manu-
facturing, cotton ginning, canning and packing of fresh fruits and vegetables, and
the handling of grain, livestock, poultry, and poultry products. These 175,000
exempt employees are only a small percentage of the total number of persons
employwl in the industries specified by this section of the act, since the exemption
a])plies only within the "area of production" and to handling, packing, etc., "for
market."
The act also provides additional exemptions from the hour provisions applicable
to industries which handle and inoccss agricultural commodities after they leave
the farm. Some of the hours' cxciniiiious are year-round exemptions, while others
are limited to 14 weeks in any calendar year.
"In the case of an employer engaged in the first processing of milk, whey,
skimmed milk, or cream into dairy products, or in the ginning and compressing
of cotton, or in the processing of cottonseed, or in the processing of sugar beets,
sugar-beet molasses, siimnianc, or maple sap into sugar (but not refined sugar)
or into sirup, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to his employees
in any place of employment where he is so engaged ; and in the case of an employer
engaged in the first processing of, or in canning or packing, perishable or seasonal
»A full discussion oi the deflnition of "agriculture" in the Fair Labor Standards Act is
to be lound in Inleriireial ive Bulletins Nos. 7 and 14 issued by the Solicitor's Office of
the United States 1 icpartnunt of Labor.
* United States L>ei>artment of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Farm Labor
Keport, September 13, 1940. The number of family workers (including farm operators)
on farms on the same date is estimated at 8,925,000.
^ Section 13 (a) (10).
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3381
fresh fruits or vegetables, or in the first processing, within the area of production
(as defined by the Administrator) of any agricultural or horticultural commodity
during seasonal operations, or in handling, slaughtering, or dressing poultry or
livestock the provisions of subsceti.-n (a), during a period or penods of not
more than 14 workweeks in the aggregate in any calendar year, shaU not apply
to his employees in any place of employment where he is so engaged.
It is estimated that this section of the act exempts a maximum of approxi-
matelv 6S.1000 employees. The principal industries in which these workers
are employed are dairy products manufacturing ; cotton compressing ; cottonseed
oil manufacturing ; sugar manufacturing ; fruit and vegetable processing, pack-
ing and canning ; and the handling, slaughtering, and dressing of poultry and
livestock. It will be observed that there is some duplication of operations
between those which receive a complete wage-and-hour exemption under section '
13 (a) (10) and those which receive an hours exemption under section 7 (c).
Where this duplication occurs, the complete wage-and-hour exemption applies
only to operations i^erformed "within the area of production,' while the
hours exemption for these operations has no such limitation. In the case of
the hours exemptions provided for first processing operations performed on all
agricultural or horticultural commodities other than dairy poducts, cotton,
cottonseed, sugar products, fruits and vegetables, and iwultry and livestock,
however the "area of production" limitation again applies.
Provision is also made in the act for a partial exemption from the hour
provisions for industries which have been "found by the administrator to be
of a seasonal nature."' This exemption, which is limited to 14 weeks in
any calendar year and to 56 hours a week or 12 hours a day, is also applicable
to many indiistries which handle and prepare agricultural commodities. As
of November 25, 1940, this exemption had provided some relaxation of the
hours provisions to industries including those engaged in storing cotton;
storhig fresh fruits and vegetables; cleaning and processing several types
of seeds; handling, stemming, and storing green-leaf tobacco; Smithfield ham
curing; spring freshet driving of lumber; sap peeling of pulpwood; ice and
snow road hauling of lumber; harvesting, handling, and processing of deco-
rative greens; storing and packing of nursery products; handling and storing
of sugarcane baeasse; and raw fur receiving. The first processing, packing,
and canning of fruits and vegetables had also been granted exemption as in-
dustries of a seasonal nature, thereby extending the hours exemptions for
these industries to 23 weeks. In addition, prima facie determination dealing
with the handling and storing of several types of nuts and the storing of
grain had been issued but had not become final. The various determmntions
dealing with the handling and preparing of agi'icultural and horticultural
commodities and lumber had extended the 14-week hours exemptions to ap-
proximately 140.0(X» employees in addition to those ^engaged in the first proc-
essing, paddng. and canning of fruits and vegetables.'
(r) Exemption of industries engaged in the first processing, packing, and
canning of fruits and vegetables; It appears desirable to make some special
reference to the industries which prepare and process fruits and vegetables,
since these industries are as highly seasonal as agriculture itself and are
typically characterized bv the employment of migratory workers. It is also
in these industries that the Administrator of the AVage and Hour Division found
some of the Anost diflSeult problems arising from the exemptions provided by
the act. The statutory recpiirement that he should define the "area of produc-
tion" within which a complete wage and hour exemption would be applicable
presented particular difficulties in these industries.
In developing the regulations on "area of production," the administrator
realized that to avoid giving any competitive advantage to particular employers
it would be necessarv to grant no exemptions or to grant complete exemption
for all the establishments in these industries. It was not the understanding
of the administrator that either of these two alternatives was contemplated
by Congress. To grant no exemption would be to nullify the provision Congress
« Section 7 (c).
8 Other "imlustries such as placer gold mining in some areas and tin mining inAlaska,
which have obtained seasonal exemptions under sec. 7 (b) (3) also employ some migratory
labor.
3382
INTERSTATE MIGRATIOI")
had written into the act. Unlimited exemptions, on the other hand, are stated
throughout the act as unlimited exemptions, and it would have been pre-
sumptuous to assume that the "area of production" limitation was intended
merely as a form of words without content. It was also noted that section
7 (c) grants a partial hours exemption to the packing or canning of fresh
fruits or vegetables without limitation as to the place where the operations occur.
A definition of "area of production" broad enough to exempt from the wage
and hour provisions all the canners and packers of fresh fruits and vegetables
under section 13 (a) (10) therefore would have rendered meaningless the partial
hours exemption in section 7 (c).
After a period of experience under the current regulations, the administrator
undertook various regional conferences to obtain relevant facts and the varying
opinions of interested parties. The Wage and Hour Division also made $50,000
available to the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor to make a
detailed survey of wages, hours, and seasonality of employment in the fruit
and vegetable canning and packing industries. Several public hearings were
held at which representatives of employers and employees from every section
of the country testified. As a result of these studies and hearings the admin-
istrator found that packers and canners of the major part of the volume of
fresh fruits and vegetables voluntarily paid wages equal to or above the
statutory minimum under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was also found
that any definition which would seriously disturb existing competitive relation-
ships would be highly unsatisfactory to the members of the industries. Large
volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables are canned and packed in cities such as
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Los Angeles, Calif. : Baltimore, Md. ;
Pitt.sburgh, Pa. ; Camden, N. J. ; Tampa and Orlando, Fla. ; Racine, Wis., and
in other towns and cities of substantial size in the Midwest and other southern
areas. Further, many of these plants draw their produce from considerable
distances, in some cases 200 or 300 miles away. It was evident that such can-
neries and packing houses could not be considered within the "area of pro-
duction," however defined. Yet it was also obvious that a definition of "area of
production" which excluded establishments in these large packing centers and
exempted their competitors would result in unfair competitive disadvantages
between employers and also in wage differentials between employees engaged
in the same occupations.
From the evidence obtained at these conferences and hearings it was quite
clear that the minimum-wage provisions of the act had not resulted in any
serious increases in labor cost except in a few areas affecting a minor part
of the industry. Even in these areas there were employers willing and fre-
quently anxious to pay the minimum wage if their competitors were also re-
quired to live up to the same standards. It did not appear, however, that
peak seasons of packing and canning employment frequently exceed the 14-week
period for which an hours exemption is provided in section 7 (c) of the
act. It was, therefore, determined that the complete wage-and-hour exemp-
tion would be extended only to those plants receiving fresh fruits and vegetables
from farms in the general vicinity and employing not more than 10 persons,
but that all of the establishments in the industry would receive a partial
hours exemption under the seasonal industry provisions of section 7 (b) (3).
In this manner the administrator found it possible to give some meaning to
the intention of Congress by granting complete exemption only to the very
small rural plants whose aggregate production would not disturb the com-
petitive structure of the industry. At the same time he gave some attention
to the most urgent requirements of these industries by liberalizing their hours
exemptions. It is estimated that with the final effective date of these
regulations to all branches of the industries (Dec. 1, 1940) not more than
eight thousand of the more than half a million emi^loyees who perform some
operations on fruits and vegetables after they leave the farm will be exempt
from the wage provisions of the act. Approximately 380,000 of this same
group of employees will be completely exempt from the hours provisions of
the act during l4 weeks of the year, and will also be exempt from the hours
provisions during an additional 14 weeks up to 12 hours a day or 56 hours
a week.
id) Exemption of employees engaged m fishing and the fishery-products
industries. — Among several other exemptions provided for in the act is a com-
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3383
plete wage-and-hour exemption for "any employee employed in the catching,
taking, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish,
Crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable
life, including the going to and returning from work and including employ-
ment in the loading, unloading, or packing of such products for shipment or
in propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, canning, curing, storing, or
distributing the above products or byproducts therefor."*
It is estimated that this section of the act exempts approximately 250,000
employees from the wage-and-hour provisions. Somewhat more than half of
this number are fishermen or are engaged in related occupations, while about
100,000 are employed in various wholesaling and processing operations per-
formed on fish products or the byproducts thereof.
The seasonality of employment in the fish-processing industries and ths fact
that the establishments are often remote from urban areas gives rise to many
problems comparable to those in the processing of agricultural products. In
some instances fruit and vegetable and fish canneries are identical ; in other
instances persons who are employed in one type of cannery during part of the
year will find employment in the other type during a different period. ITiere-
fore, consideration of extension of the act to agriculture and processing of agri-
cultural commodities should involve consideration of simultaneous extension to
the fishery industry as defined above.
(e) A note on the legislative history of the aricultural exemptions. — When
the Fair Labor Standards Ast was first proposed there appeared to be no
question but that all farm labor would be exempted from any minimum-wage
or maximum-hour provision. The only questions raised were those dealing
with the extent of such exemptions. This is indicated by an examination of
the language of the various amendments and the ensuing debates on these
amendments to the original versions of the act."
The continuous thread of the argument underlying these debates seemed to be
the problem of clarifying the scope of the agricultural exemption and the equaliz-
ing of any competitive advantage that might accrue to the larger farmer versus
the small farmer. The "area of production" clause of the act was formulated
largely to remove the possibility of any ineqxiities as between the larger farmer
who was able to perform on the farm some of the preparing and processing oper-
ations on his products, and the small farmer who was unable to do so because of
the lack of necessary equipment.
The debates in Congress indicate clearly the intention to exempt farmers and
farm laborers from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This
intention was supplemented by the exemption of certain preparing and processing
operations usually performed on farm products immediately after they leave the
farm through the provisions now contained in sections 13 (a) (10) and 7 (c) of
the act. The considerations that seemed to weigh most heavily with the pro-
ponents of the various exemptions provided in these two sections of the act were
the following beliefs : ( 1 ) that any increase in the cost of carrying out the
specified operations would be passed back to the farmer; (2) that labor condi-
tions in rural communities are better than in urban and industrial communities :
and (3) that the labor supply in rural areas is limited. The chief emphasis in
the debates was on rural areas and the assumed necessity of relieving establish-
ments handling farm products in such areas from the application of the wage
and hour standards. The debates suggest, however, that there was some ques-
tion as to whether these processing exemptions should extend to plants which
employ large numbers of workers when these plants are located in rural areas.
III. TESTIMONY OF AUTHORITIES KEGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MINIMUM WAGE AND
MAXIMUM HOUR LEGISLATION TO WORKERS WHO ARE NOW EXEMPT
It was pointed out above that, at the time the Fair Labor Standards Act was
under discussion, little consideration was given to the possibility of covering agri-
cultural workers under the act. The sole question under discussion concerned the
»Sec. 13 (a) (5).
i"Cf. Joint hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. Senate, and
the Committee on Labor, House of Reprenestatives, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., on S 247.5 and
H. R. 7200. Eighty-first Congressional Record. Pt. 77, pp. 7325, 7648, 7656, 7876-7878
79i9-795T. H. R. Rept. No. 2182, 751h Cong., 1st sess.
260370—41 — pt. 8 20
3384 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
most suitable dividing line between agriculture, which everyone assumed would
be exempt, and the industries which were to be subject to the act. Since the
passage of the act, an increashii;' amount of attention has been placed on the need
for added protection for workers employed in the exempt industries. Even before
the passage of the act, the President's C'ommittee on Farm Tenancy made the
following recommendation in 1937 with respect to farm laborers :
"In general, farm laborers have not shared in the benefits of either Federal or
State legislation providing for collective bargaining; unemployment, accident,
and old-age insurance ; and requirements for assuring safe and sanitary conditions
of employment. These types of legislation might well be applicable to the large
employers of farm labor — those who systematically employ laborers in large num-
bers, as distinguished from the operators of family farms."
The interbureau committee on technology of the United States Department of
Agriculture, in a recent report recommends a I'ural counterpart of wage-and-
hour legislation as a partial solution of the agricultural, migratory-labor
problem : "
"For the fiirther benefit of the low-income farm labor group, we should have a
rural counterpart of the wage-and-hour legislation and the unemployment insur-
ance and old-age retirement that are ncnv in effect for urban workers. To accom-
plish this will not be easy, but these people need protection and security just as
much as urban workers. This is particularly true of that large group of migrant
seasonal laborers who follow the crops."
In testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education
and Labor, Dr. Paul S. Taylor, of the University of California, a well-known
student of agricultural labor problems, declared : ^
"To those [agricultural workers] for whom we cannot reopen opportunity
with new patterns for security on the land, we must offer some alternative
protection, in harmony with democratic methods, from the harsh working of
competition. In the light of a long and honorable tradition of protective
legislation in both English and American industry, this need for protection
requires logically the extension of social legislation to workers in 'agriculture."
Directing himself specifically to the question of the desirability of extending
the Federal and State wage-hour laws to the lai-ger employers of farm labor,
Dr. Taylor stated : "^
"The belief has long been held by many persons that social legislation cannot
properly be applied to agricultural laborers because they are so scattered, be-
cause the laws would prove burdensome to the great majority of American
farmers, and because difliculties of administration would be insuperable. Care-
ful statistical analysis of our agricultural structure, however, yields little
support for these common apprehensions. On the contrary, it confirms the
hope of the Farm Tenancy Committee that those who labor for agricultural
employers can be protected with neither burden to the traditional American
farmer nor wih excessive administrative costs."
Governor Culbert Olson, of the State of California, also stated before that
conmiittee : "
"I likewise feel that the Federal wage-and-hour legislation should be extended
to include large-scale farming operations and that amendments which have
been proposed to the act, designed to eliminate from its provisions certain
processing and canning operations, should be defeated."
A similar stand was taken by the Secretary of Labor when she urged before
the same committee the extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to agri-
cultural workers on "industrialized farms" :
"Wage-and-hour legislation of Federal and State Governments should be
extended to workers on industrialized farms — many of whom are migrant
laborers * * * produce 'a definition of the industrial farm, as differentiated
11 Technology on the Farm, a special report by an interbureau committee and the Bureau
of Agricultural Economics of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. August 1940, p. 8S.
12 Hearinns before a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor (S. Res.
2G6, 74th Cong.), U. S. Senate, pt. 47. p. 17280 ,. .u t^ , , , o. .
13 Ibid pt 50 p 18201. The specific question was Should the Federal and State wage-
hour law's extend to the employees of large agricultural corporations, processors, and/or
producers who have an annual wage bill of more than $1,000 a year, or employ more than
l.'i employees simultaneously?
1* Ibid.," pt. 47, p. 17263.
INTERSTATE MIGKATION 3385
from the home farm, where the hired man has a 'moral ch\im' to participate
in his employer's ups and downs." "
The Secretary of Agriculture, in a letter to Senator E. D. Thomas on May 11,
1939, wrote : ^"
'Wage exemption should be limited to workers employed by farmers engaged
on the farms in growing and preparing farm products for market. Even on
the farm when workers, agricultural or processing, are employed in large
numbers for considerable periods in connection with the large-scale semi-indus-
trialized operations there is reason for including them under provisions de-
signed to benefit labor generally. Most farms in America have no hired
workers. On those farms which have u man or two, regularly or in certain
seasons, no questions are likely to arise which cannot be settled equitably by
the persons concerned. However, when workers are employed on the farm
in large numbers, the individual workman is at the same disadvantage in
dealing with his employer as the worker in large-scale industry and should be
entitled to the same protection."
Reconunendatlons for the extension of Federal wage-hour regulation to agri-
cultural workers have emphasized "large-scale farming" or "industrialized agri-
culture" as the field to which such regulation is deemed advisable. These
terms are generally used to distinguish such farms from what may be referred
to as the '-traditional or typical American family farm." A well-stated de-
scriptive definition of the terms "family farm" and "typical American farmer"
is quoted by Dr. P. S. Taylor from Dr. J. Schafer's The Social History of
American Agriculture : '' _ ,, .,
"The farmer is one who oi)erates a 'family-sized farm for a living ratlier than
for 'an actual or potential modern fortune' : a farm on which the owner and his
son or sons can perform the actual work of tillage, the female members of the
household smoothing the way by providing home comforts, a.ssisting about chores,
or in field or meadow as pressure of work may dictate. Hired men are rather
the exception than the rule in this typical agriculture. So far as they are em-
ployed, it is usually with the instinctive purpose of raising the labor force to
the' normal family plane rather than in the hope of abnormally expanding the
business beyond the family farm size."
Without attempting to produce a definition of an "industrialized farm" mention
may be made of some of the principal characteri.sts often associated with it. It
is a large-scale enterprise, highly commercialized in its specialized crop pro-
duction ; it is a relatively large employer of labor, particularly during seasonal
operations when gangs of seasonal labor, often migratory, are hired and com-
monly paid wages by the day or hour or piece rates. Corporate or absentee own-
ership is often associated with such farming; managers, foremen, labor, "bosses,"
or contractors are frequently met with on such farms. Hiring and firing on
these farms closely resembles the old-fashioned industrialized pattern, with the
management assuming no financial or moral responsibility for the welfare of the
workers outside of the brief periods of their employment. The employer-employee
relationship is generally devoid of the personal and intimate relationship that
is often associated with the traditional relations of the small, typical farmer
and his hired man.
IV. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF EXTENSION OF WAGE AND HOITR REGULATION
Fundamental to any consideration of the possibility of extending the act to
agriculture is the economic effects of sqch action. If. after such an analysis, the
extension of the act appears to be appropriate, it follows that similar exten.sion
to labor engaged in processing agricultural commodities would be required. It
has been indicated previously that one of the primary reasons for the present
exemptions for processing labor has been the difiiculty presented in determining
where agriculture ends and industry begins. This ground for exemption of
processing operations would have no validity if the provisions of the act were
1' Statement of Secretary of Labor before a subcommittee of the Committee on EfUication
and Labor (S. Vesi. 2R6, 74th Cons.), U. S. Senate, May 6, 1940.
^« Letter on S. 2008 to E. D. Thomas, chairman, Senate Committee on Education and
Labor.
"Testimony of Dr. P. S. Tayhir, op. cit., pt. 47, p. 17215.
3386 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
extended to agriculture. Moreover, there has been a marked tendency in recent
years toward the integration of marlieting and processing activities with farm-
ing. This tendency would seem to provide another reason for treating all such
processing operations wherever performed as equally subject to the act.
The problem of hour regulation for the industries preparing and processing
agricultural commodities would still present some difficulties. Not only are these
products normally of a highly perishable nature but the season of operations is
often so short that some workers feel that it is to their advantage to work long
hours in order to increase their seasonal earnings. However, the same reasons
which make some limitation on hours of work desirable for industry in general
apply with equal force to these seasonal industries. The problem, therefore, be-
comes one of determining the number of hours of work which will not result in
"conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living
necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." Sufficient
research has not yet been done on this subject to warrant discussion here.
1. Conditions underiyiny the recommendations for extension of the act to ayri-
culture. — The economic conditions that have prompted the previously quoted
statements in favor of the extension of wage hour regulation to agricultural
laborers are manifold in character. In basic outline, however, these conditions
are the same as those which led Congi-ess to enact the existing legislation for
industrial workers.
That the annual earnings of the great majority of agricultural workers are
inadequate to maintain "a minimum standard of living necessary for health,
efficiency, and general well-being" is indicated by the available studies of farm
laborers' incomes. Information on the earnings of migratory farm workers,
which has been summarized by N. A. Tolles, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
shows, as he states, that "such wages are clearly inadequate for any decent level
of existence." "
The average annual earnings per hired farm worker may be computed
roughly from the United States Department of Agriculture estimates of the
total farm wage bill and the average number of hired workers during the
year. The average annual income per hired worker computed in this manner
for the period 1934-36 was $258, including the value of board, lodging, and any
other perquisites furnished. For 1938 the average wage income per hired
worker computed from the wage bill was $300, while the figure for 1939 was
practically the same. Since these earnings reflect p irt-time employment it is
of interest to note that the average annual earnings per farm worker assuming
full-time employment at the average monthly wage rate prevailing in 1939 would
have amounted to $430."*
Low-wage conditions bring about the same social and economic evils in
agriculture as in industry. The competitive advantage secured by some pro-
ducers as a result of low wages contributes to the spreading and maintenance
of law-wage levels. Strikes and civil strife in agriculture, often marked by
serious violence, have been pi'incipally an outgrowth of the economic condi-
tions of farm laborers. These strikes occurred with greatest frequency during
the rapid fall in farm wage rates with the onset of the depression in 1929-30.
While in the 1927-29 period only 1 to 4 strikes, involving a total of from
100 to 400 agricultural workers, occurred per year, the number of agricultural
strikes increased to 10, involving a total of 14,000 workers, in 1931, and to
50 strikes in 1933 involving a total of 59.000 workers.-" It is significant to note
that most of the agricultural strikes occurred in those branches of agriculture
in which there is a relatively heavy concentration of large-scale, intensive
farming and the migratory type of labor predominates. Out of the 157 strikes
reported from 1927 to 1936, 114 were among fruit, vegetable, and truck-crop
workers."' California, which has the largest proportion of large-scale farms
^8 A Survey of Labor Migration Between States, Monthly Labor Review, July 1937,
U. S. Department of Labor.
^^ Based on 12 months of employment at the prevailing all-cash M'age per month.
^ Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1937, p. 39.
21 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1937, p. 39.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3387
of any State in the country, had slightly over half of all the agricultural
labor strikes that occurred in the decade 1930-40.^
Further evidence of the need for some regulation of agricultural wages is
afforded by the marked divergence between the trend in farm wages and
in farm income since 1933. This is indicated in the data presented in table
1. It will be noted that by 1933 total cash farm income and average farm
wage rates had both decreased to approximately half of their 1924-29 aver-
age. Beginning with 1933, farm income climbed to 85 percent of the 1924-29
average by 1937, while farm wage rates lagged behind each year and in 1937
were only at 71 percent of the 1924-29 level. The subsequent recession in farm
income reduced this disparity somewhat, but average farm wage rates in 1939
were still at 70 percent of the post-war (192^29) level, while cash farm
income was at 79 percent of that level.
In contrast with the trend in farm wages has been the trend in wage rates
of all nonagricultural workers. The average hourly earnings of nonagricul-
tural workers also reached their lowest depression level in 1933, but they
dropped only to 78 percent of the 1924^29 average, in contrast with a decline
to 48 percent of that average in farm wage rates. By 1939 average hourly
earnings of nonagricultural workers were 3 percent higher than in 1924-29,
while farm wage rates were 30 percent lower (table 1).
Table 1. — Index numbers of cash farm income, farm and non-farm wage rates,
and annual average loage incomes per farm worker and per factory worker.
United States, 1924-39
[1924-29=100]
1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931
1932
1933.
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
Cash
farm
income
Percent
94.3
101.6
97.9
99.5
102.5
104.3
82.6
58.4
43.5
50.3
62.5
70.5
79.1
84.7
75.1
79.2
Non-
farm '
Average annual
vage income per—
Hired
farm
worker '
100.0
101.6
100.5
99.3
92^4
72.9
54.2
49.1
55.1
60.0
64.1
71.8
69.4
70.1
Factory
worljer
Percent
97.2
. lOO'. 2
100.5
101.4
101.7
94.5
84.8
68.8
66.7
73.5
79.2
84.5
94.1
86.9
93.5
1 Hourly earnings of nonagricultural wage workers.
2 Includes board, lodging, and other perquisites.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics and U. S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A comparison in the trends of wage incomes of hired farm workers and
the wage incomes of industrial workers may be made on the basis of total
wage bills and employment for these two large classes of workers (table 1).
The average annual wage income per worker in all manufacturing industries
23 Numbers, distribution, composition, and employment status of the Farm Labor Group
in the United States, statement of W. T. Ham and J. C. Folsom, of the Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and
Labor, May 8, 1940.
3388 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
had declined in 1933 to two-thirds of the 1924-29 average, but by 1939 had
increased to 94 percent of that average. The average annual income per
hired farm worker from agricultural employment (including the value of
board, lodging, and perquisites furnished) in 1939 was still at 70 percent of
the post-war base period.
The tigures above cited indicate that agricultural wage earners failed to
.share proportionately in the gains made since 1933 both in farm and nonfarm
incomes. Many factors have contributed to this development, but the principal
one is probably the pressure on farm-wage rates of surplus farm workers
and unemployed industrial workers. The existence of such pressure upon
farm wages plus the cumulative effects on farm income of surplus farm
produce and restricted foreign markets for agricultural commodities constitute
depressing influences on farm-wage rates which subject the entire agricultural
wage sti-ucture to the effects of severe competitive conditions.
Students of the farm-labor problem have indicated that the immediate future
holds no prospect for an automatic advancement in farm-wage rates that
would reestablish the balance between farm wages and farm and nonfarm
incomes that has existed in the past. As stated by the Secretary of Agriculture
in his 1937 report : ='
"Along with other agricultural groups, hired farm workers suffered severely
during the depression ; but when recovery got under way they did not share
proportionately in the benefits * * *. Farm wages advanced somewhat
after 1932, but not sufficiently to bring them back to their post-war relation
to farm prices and city wages. They are now ijt about the same level as
farm prices relatively to the pre-war averages but considerably lower than
the average city-wage earnings. It would be nece.ssary to raise them 25
percent higher in order to restore them to the post-war relation to farm
prices, farm income, and city-wage rates. There is little prospect of that
in the near future. Farm wages depend greatly on the income of the farmers,
and normal crops during the next few years may reduce farm prices and
farm incomes. There is no certainty, moreover, that industrial employment will
continue at its pre.sent relatively high level. Moreover, technical progress in
agriculture will undoubtedly contiiuie, and the competition of other countries
for a restricted world market will continue likewise. These factors In the
outlook for farm wages di.scourage the hope that improved living standards
and greater economic security for farm laborers will come about automatically."
A m>re recent statement' of somewhat the same viewpoint was made by
L. H. Bean, of the Department of Agriculture.^ He said :
"Fai-m wage rates since 1932 have not borne the same relation to farm and
nonfarm income as they did throughout the period 1910-32. They seem to be at
present at least 15 percent lower than the past relationship would suggest. * * *
The pressure of surplus farm labor and of industrial unemployment on farm
wage rates is not likely to be lifted in the immediate future by ordinary develop-
ments. * * * These facts and trends indicate that the aggregate amount of
money purchasing power that is likely to be available to hired farm labor in
general in the immediate future will continue to be inadequate if hired farm
laborers are to enjoy a higher standard of living."
The vulnerability of farm wage rates and farm workers to the forces of compe-
tition that have become especially serious in late years indicates a need for some
form of regulatory action whicli would limit the effect of competition on farm
wages. The Department of Agriculture has done, and is continuing to do. a
great deal to maintain and improve the income levels of farm operators. The
industrial wage structure has been given protection by Congress throush the
enactment of the Pair Labor Standards Act. There remains the problem of
devising some means of protecting the most disadvantaged group of workers in
our society, farm wage earners, particularly those who do not have the benefit
of the somewhat more permanent type of employment which characterizes the
regular hired hand employed on the smaller farms.
2. Ecnvnniir fartnrfi f/Orrniiin/ the f.r/o?.s(0» of minimnm-wof/e repiilotion to
(if/rirylfuye.—The economic effects of the extension of minimum-wage regulation
24 Trends in Farm Wages, Farm and Nonfarm Income, Industrial Troduction and Unem-
ployment. Statement nresented before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
Education and Labor, May 1940.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3389
to agricultural workers would depend, of course, on the particular statutory and
administrative form that such an extension might take. The simple extension
of the present provisions of the act by elimination of the complete exemptions
noAv provided for agriculture would raise one set of economic considerations,
AA'hile the extension of the principle of the act to agriculture, with the particular
standards to be worked out after appropriate study of agricultural conditions,
would give rise to an entirely different set of economic considerations. Since the
present act was framed to cover nonagricultural employment, with the definite
exclusion of agricultural workers in mind, a discussion of possible economic effects
on agriculture of niinimuni-wage regulation may be more useful if the discussion
is based on the premise that the principle of the Fair Labor Standards Act might
be extended to agriculture rather than the specific statutory provisions.
Basic to any consideration of Federal minimum-wage regulation for agricul-
tural workers are the following factors: (1) Employment of hired workers in
agriculture; (2) the wage structure; and (3) the cost burden that prescribed
wage standards would involve for the industry or branches of the industry.
(a) Employment of hired workers in agriculture: Only a small proportion of
farms hire labor at any time during the year, with the result that there is a
concentration of the majority of hired workers on a very small fraction of the
farms in the country. This is indicated by estimates of the distribution of farms
according to the numbers of hired workers in July 1935 (tables 2, 2A, and 2B).^^
Only 1 farm in 5 (21.8 percent) used any hired labor in the peak (or near peak)
operating month of July. Farms with 4 or more hired workers represented
only 3 out of every 20O farms (1.6 percent) in the United States, but they
employed 35 percent of all hired farm workers at the height of seasonal operations.
Table 2. — Cumulative distribution of farms and hired lahorers hy number of
hired laborers per farm, January and July 1935
Farms
Hired farm laborers
Number of hired
laborers
Number
Percent of all
farms
Percent of
farms hiring
labor
Number
Percent
Janu-
ary
.Tuly (es-
timate)
JaTiu-
ary
July
(e.sli-
mate)
Janu-
ary
July
(esti-
mate)
January
Juiy (es-
timate)
Janu-
ary
July
(esti-
mate)
967, 594
244, 949
107, 279
63, 809
41,325
28, 790
20, 570
16.840
15,006
11,410
1,482,697
408,299
183, 880
109, 535
70, 994
49, 700
36, 129
29, 598
23. 269
20, 122
14.20
3.60
1.57
.94
.61
.42
.30
.25
.22
.17
21.76
5.99
2.70
1.61
1.04
!53
.43
.34
.30
100.0
25.3
11.1
6.6
4.3
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.2
100.0
27.5
12.4
7.4
4.8
3.4
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.4
1,64,5,602
922, 957
647,617
.517,207
427, 263
364,528
31,5,278
289, 168
258, 496
244, 13J
2, 679, 340
1,604,942
1,156.104
933, 069
778, 905
672,435
591.009
545. 292
494, 660
466, 337
100.0
56.1
39.4
31.4
26.0
22.2
r.). 2
17.8
1,5. 7
14, S
100.0
,59.9
3 or more
43.1
34. S
29.1
fi or more
25.1
22.1
20.4
18.5
17.4
Source- U. S. Census of Ajriculture 1935 and Monthly Labor Review, September 1937, U. S. Department
f Labor. (The July estimates were rnado by J. T. Wendzcl, of the Social Security Board.)
-5 Census of Agriculture data represents -employment as of January 1, 1935. Since
employment on farms is generally the lowest of the year in January, estimates of tlie
number of hired farm workers in July are more significant. The estimates used here are
those made by Dr. J. T. Wendzel, of the Social Security Board, which were reproduced in
the Monthly Labor Review, September 1937.
3390
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Table 2a. — Cumulative distribution of farms and laborers by number of hired
laborers per farm, and by geographic divisions, January and July 1985
Total
number
of farms
Number of farms with—
Number of hired laborers on
farms with—
Geographic division
1 or more
hired
laborers
4 or more
hired
laborers
8 or more
hired
laborers
1 or more
hired
laborers
4 or more
hired
laborers
8 or more
hired
laborers
United States:
6, 812, 350
6, 812, 350
158, 241
158, 241
379, 684
379, 684
1, 083, 687
1,083,687
1, 179, 856
1, 179, 856
1, 147, 133
1, 147, 133
1, 137, 219
1, 137, 219
1, 137, 571
1, 137, 571
271, 392
271, 392
299, 567
299, 567
967, 594
1,482,697
37, 279
45, 617
93, 669
107, 433
175, 296
279, 540
155, 440
265, 955
186, 615
232, 014
93, 904
123, 686
121,439
222, 256
39, 281
75, 613
64,671
130, 583
63, 809
109, 535
2,500
2,921
4,028
5,256
3,839
7,444
3,452
6,360
17, 557
21,640
7,411
8,858
12,412
21,310
4,024
10, 537
8,586
25,209
16,840
29, 598
607
719
873
1,237
792
1,489
509
1,041
4,445
5,132
1,507
1,794
3,861
5,690
1,204
2,674
3,042
9,822
1, 645, 602
2, 679, 340
63, 440
77, 875
139, 065
173, 902
224, 444
361, 519
196, 158
346, 897
358, 175
446, 181
160,025
210, 388
259, 426
457, 434
84, 141
165, 116
160,728
440,008
517, 207
933, 069
18, 623
23, 184
28, 727
46, 335
26, 219
43, 064
21, 087
41, 743
135, 045
166, 650
48, 583
62, 340
116.010
193,914
37,584
70, 372
85,329
285, 467
289, 168
July (estimate)
545, 292
New England:
9.491
July (estimate)
12,712
Middle Atlantic:
13, 550
July (estimate)
East North Central:
26, 819
11,515
14, 672
"West North Central:
7,133
16, 535
South Atlantic:
January
71, 341
86, 230
East South Central:
January
20, 103
28,403
West South Central:
January
74, 438
July (estimate)
118, 268
Mountain:
January
23, 656
July (estimate)
32, 185
Paciflc:
57,941
July (estimate)
209,468
Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture 1935 and Monthly Labor Review, September 1937, U. S. Department
of Labor.
Table 2b. — Percentage distribution of farms and laborers by nimiber of hired
lab rrers per farm, and by geographic divisions, January and July 1935
Percent of all farms with—
Percent of hiring
farm with—
Percent of hired
laborers on farms
with—
1 or more
hired
laborers
4 or more
hired
laborers
8 or more
hired
laborers
4 or more
hired
laborers
8 or more
hired
larobers
4 or more
hired
laborers
8 or more
hired
laborers
United States:
January..
14.2
21.8
23.6
28.8
24.7
28.3
16.2
25.8
13.2
22.5
16.3
20.2
8.3
10.9
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.1
1.4
.4
.7
.3
.5
1.5
1.9
.7
.8
0.2
.4
.4
.5
.2
.3
.1
.1
.04
.4
.4
.2
6.6
7.4
6.7
6.4
4.3
4.9
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
9.4
9.3
7.9
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.6
.9
1.2
.5
.5
.3
.4
2.4
2.2
1.6
1.5
31.4
34.8
29.4
29.8
20.7
26.6
11.7
11.9
10.8
12.0
37.7
37.4
30.4
29.6
17.6
20.4
New England:
15.0
16.3
Middle Atlantic:
January
9.7
14.5
East North Central:
January
5.1
4.1
West North Central:
January
3.6
4.8
South Atlantic:
January
19.9
July (estimate)
19.3
East South Central:
January
12.6
July (estimate). -
13.5
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3391
Table 2b.— Percentage distrlMition of farms and laborers ly numUr of hired
laborers per farm, and by geographic divisions, January and July 1935 — Con.
Geographic division
West South Central
January
July (estimate).
Mountain:
January
July (estimate).
Pacific:
January
July (estimate).
Percent of all farms with-
1 or more
hired
laborers
21.6
43.6
4 or more
hired
laborers
3 or more
hired
laborers
Percent of hiring
farm with —
4 or more
hired
laborers
10.2
9.6
10.2
13.9
13.3
19.4
i or more
hired
larobers
Percent of hired
laborers on farms
with —
4 or more
hired
laborers
44.7
42.4
44.7
42.5
8 or more
hired
laborers
28.1
19.5
36.0
47.6
Source: Based on data in table 2a.
Regional differences in the distribution of hired farm workers are indicated
by the data in tables 2A and 2B. The greater prevalence of large-scale farming
in Arizona and California results in a higher proportion of farms with four
or more workers in the Mountain and Pacific States than in any other region
in the United States. The heavy concentration of total hired workers on a
small proportion of all farms is, however, characteristic of each section of the
country. , ^.
A number of advocates of the extension of minimum wage regulation to agri-
cultural workers previously quoted have limited the proposed extension to
workers on "large scale" farms. A precise definition of 'large scale" farm
presents many difficulties. It is assumed, but purely for the purpose of dis-
cussion, that farms which systematically employ for regular operations four or
more hired workers might come under a definition of large-scale farms. Farms
with this number of workers in January 1935 are shown by the census to
have averaged 1,522 acres per farm and to have an average investment value
in land and buildings of $35,775, compared with averages for all farms in the
United States of 155 acres and $4,823, respectively. Extension of the minimum
wage regulation to such farms would affect an estimated 1,075,000 workers
employed at the height of seasonal operations on about 111,400 of the country's
6,920,000 farms.'*
(b) Wage structure: The only comprehensive data on farm wage rates are
those published quarterly by the United States Department of Agriculture
based on reports from a sample of farmers who comprise a part of the Depart-
ment's voluntary crop reporters. The reported and published rates are average
wage rates and are based upon the mailed replies to questions calling for the
average per month and per day rates currently paid in the reporter's locality.
One limitation of the existing data is that no information has been published
on the distribution of farm workers receiving wage rates at given levels above
and below the average rates. Knowledge of this wage structure is essential to
an analysis of the possible effect of a given minimum wage on the labor costs
or wage bill of an industry. Another limitation of the available farm wage
data arises from the question of the adequacy and reliability of the published
day rates in reflecting the earnings of workers who are paid on an hourly and
piece-rate basis rather than on a per day basis." This is a very important
28 Estimated by taking 34.8 percent of all hired farm workers in July 19.39 and 1.61
percent of all farms in the country in 19.39. It is these percentages of farms and of
workers that were employed on farms with four or more hired workers in July 1935.
These estimates assume, of course, that the proportion of total hired farm workers and
of total farms on which workers were employed in groups of four or more was the same
z'See report on" Reliability and Adequacy of Farm Wage Rate Data by R. F. Hale and
R. L. Gastineau, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service,
February 1940, p. 3.
3392
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
factor since a great many of the casual and seasonal workers, both resident
and migratory, who are employed on the large farms are paid piece or hourly
rates. The wage data here presented are the cash wages paid to workers who
do not receive board as part of their compensation.^*
Table 3 presents the per day and per month cash wage rates and the equiv-
alent hourly earnings for the United States as a whole from 1929 to date.^^ It
will be noted that the equivalent hourly earnings of farm workers hired by the
day have averaged between 15 and 16 cents since 1938. The hourly earnings of
farm workers hired on a monthly basis have averaged between 14 and 15 cents
during the same period. In 1929 the equivalent hourly earnings of farni workers
were 20.5 cents for those paid by the month, and 22.5 cents for those paid by
the day. From this predepression level farm-wage rates had declined by 1933
to 10 and 11 cents an hour, and rose again from 1933 to 1937 to an equivalent
of 15 and 16 cents an hour, respectively. From the standpoint of minimum
wage regulation, the hourly earnings computed from the day rates may be
more significant since most of the casual and seasonal workers are not hired
on a monthly basis.
Table 3. — Avei'age wage rates and equivalent average hourly earnings of farm
tvorkers hired by the month and by the day ivithout board: United States,
1929-JfO
Year
Wage rates
Equivalent
hourly earn-
ings of workers
hired by the I —
Year
Wage rates
Equivalent
hourly earn-
ings of workers
hired by the '—
Per
month
Per
day
Month
Day
Per
month
Per
day
Month
Day
1929.
Dollars
51.22
48.10
38.38
28.88
25.67
28.19
30.24
Dol-
lars
2.25
2.08
1.62
1.20
1.11
1.26
1.33
Cents
20.5
19.2
15.4
11.6
10.3
11.3
12.1
Cents
22.5
20.8
16.2
12.0
11.1
12.6
13.3
1936
Dollars
32.28
36.32
35.63
35. 85
35. 27
36.41
Dol-
lars
1.42
1.61
1.58
1.56
1.55
1.55
Cents
12.9
14.5
14.3
14.3
15.2
15.3
Cevts
14 2
1930
1937
16 1
1931
1938
15.8
1932 -
1939
15 6
1933
1934
1935-
1940, Jan. 1 ._..
1940, Apr. 1
16.7
16.3
1 Converted to hourly equivalents by using 25 working days per month and a 10-hour workday for the
yearly average wage rates.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics i
Service. Revised .series.
Agricultural Marketing
Table 4 reveals a pronounced diversity in wage rates among the major
geographic divisions of the country. In contrast with the Pacific, Mountain,
Middle Atlantic, and New England States, where wage rates averaged from
20 to 30 cents an hour in 1939 or 1938 for workers hired by the day, are the
Southern and Southwestern States where the corresponding hourly earnings
have averaged from 10.5 to approximately 12.5 cents. The hourly earnings
of workers paid by the month is lower than the corresxionding figures for those
paid by the day in each section of the country.
"^ Farm workers frequently receive other perquisites besides board and lodging. These
may consist of certain food products produced on the farm, fuel or light, or such services
as transportation to and form work, laundry privile.ges or other miscellaneous items. The
cash value of all these other perquisites besides board and lodging has been estimated by
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to average for the country as a whole from 10 to
13 percent of the annual wage bill (cash wages plus board and lodging) during the 1933-38
period. No allowance has been made in the wage-rate data presented above for the value
of these other perquisites.
^^ Data used to convert the wage rates into hourly equivalents are shown in table 6.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3393
TABLE 4.— Average hourly earnings equivalents'' of per month and per day imges,
tmthout board,- paid to hired farm workers, by geographical regions— January
1938-April 1940
1938
Region
January
April
July
October
Average 1938
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
United States --
Cents
per
hour
14.9
Cents
per
hour
16.7
Cents
hour
14.2
Cents
per
hour
16.3
Cents
per
hour
14.3
Cents
hZr
15.7
Cents
per
hour
14.3
Cents
hour
15.7
Cents
hour
14.3
Cents
per
hour
15.8
New England
21.6
18.2
15.6
13.6
11.1
10.1
12.3
21.1
30.1
25.7
23.7
20.4
18.2
13.2
11.5
13.9
23.2
32.1
22.3
18.4
16.6
15.7
10.5
9.8
11.6
21.9
30.0
25.5
23.2
20.4
19.4
12.4
10.8
13.0
2.3.5
31.6
22.7
18.1
16.0
14.9
9.6
9.0
11.1
22.1
29.0
25.9
23.0
20.6
19.5
11.3
10.1
12.5
23.8
30.5
22.3
18.0
15.9
14.4
10.0
ll!l
21.1
26.4
26.1
23.4
20.6
19.4
11.8
10.3
12.4
23.5
28.8
22.3
18.1
15.9
14.7
10.2
9.4
11.4
21.5
25.9
Middle Atlantic
East North Central.- --
West North Central....
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central....
23.2
20.4
19.3
12.1
10.5
12.8
23.5
Pacific
30.3
1939
Region
January
April
July
October
Average 1939
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
United States
Cents
per
hour
15.0
Cents
per
hour
16.5
Cents
per
hour
14.9
Cents
per
hour
16.1
Cents
hour
13.9
Cents
per
hour
15.3
Cents
per
hour
14.3
Cents
hour
15.5
Cents
hour
14.3
22.8
17.9
15.9
14.6
10.2
9.5
2L6
28.4
Cents
hour
15.6
22.1
18.0
15.2
13.7
11.1
10.1
11.9
20.5
28.1
25.9
22.4
19.4
17.9
1L6
13.2
23.2
29.4
22.5
18.2
16.5
15.5
10.5
9.9
11.5
21.9
28.0
27.2
22.6
20.5
18.9
12.3
11.0
12.6
23.9
29.9
22.7
17.7
15.9
14.7
9.6
9.2
11.8
22.1
28.1
26.8
22.6
20.5
19.3
• 11.4
10.2
12.4
24.1
29.7
23.6
17.9
16.0
14.4
10.1
9.1
11.0
21.2
28.5
27.3
23.0
20.7
19.4
12.1
10.3
12.4
22.9
29.7
26.8
Middle Atlantic
East North Central....
West North Central....
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central.-..
22.7
20.3
19.0
12.2
10.6
12.6
23.5
Pacific ---
29.8
1940
Region
January
April
Per
month
Per
day
Per
month
Per
day
United States
Cents
hour
15.2
Cents
hour
16.7
Cents
per
hour
15.3
Cents
per
hour
16.3
22.8
17.8
15.2
13.7
11.1
10.3
12.0
21.6
29.6
25.8
22.6
19.7
18.2
13.3
11.6
13.2
23.8
30.3
22.6
18.5
16.7
13.6
10.9
10.1
11.6
22.1
29.2
25.8
Middle Atlantic -
22.9
20.4
18.9
South Atlantic --
12.7
East South Central
11.2
12.6
23.4
30.1
' Hourly equivalents computed from per month and per day wage data and average hours worked per day
released by the Department of -Agriculture. 25 working days per month used in convertmg the monthly
2 The wage rates are for workers who receive no part of their compensation in the form of board and lodging
although they may receive some other perquisites.
3394 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
From the farm-wage data presented, two tentative conclusions may be drawn.
The first is that the statutory minimum-wage rates required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act cannot be applied in their present foriTi (i. e., uniformly appli-
cable throughout the country) to agricultural workers without substantially
increasing costs to producers employing farm labor. However, a flexible
program of minimum-wage regulation carried on through industry committees
or other administrative wage boards would probably find it economically
possible to set minimum-wage levels by commodities, or types of agricultural
operations, wages varying from possibly 15 to 30 cents an hour. Commodity
differences in the wage minima would reflect both differences in the economic
conditions surrounding the production of the various commodities, as well as
the need for an adjustment period to eventual higher wages.
(c) Effect of minimum-wage regulation on agriculture costs of production:
It has been mentioned previously that the effects of the extension of minimum-
wage regulation on farm costs of production would depend upon the particular
wage level that is set and the relation of this level to the existing employ-
ment and wage structure. It would also depend upon the importance of
wage payments in agriculture in relation to all other items that enter into
agricultural costs of production, i. e., the ratio of labor costs to total costs
in the industry.
On the basis of Department of Agriculture unpublished data showing a
frequency distribution of farm-wage rates for a limited number of States,
a 15-cent minimum wage, for example, would appear to have hardly an ap-
preciable effect on the farm-wage bill (monthly or annual) in States where
average wage rates of more than 20 cents an hour prevailed. In States with
average wages of 15 to 20 cents an hour, the effect on the farm-wage bill of a
15-cent minimum also appears to be very small. It is only in those States
where average wages are appreciably below 15 cents an hour that the indicated
minimum wage would have a substantial effect on the farm-wage bill. In the
Northern, North Central, and Western States a 15-cent minimum wage would
have but a very small effect on the wage bills in these areas. In certain
southern agricultural areas, however, the same minimum wage might result
in a substantial increase in labor costs.
The cost burden placed on the agricultural industry by any minimum-wage
regulation must be viewed in terms of the effect on total costs rather than
on wage expenditures alone. Since wage costs are only a part of all pro-
duction costs the effect of any minimum wage on total costs of production
will be less than on the wage bill. The limited amount of information now
available indicates, for example, that a 15-cent minimum wage would prob-
ably have only a minute effect on total agricultural production costs in most
sections of the country. The same low minimum, however, might give rise to
a significant increase in production costs in certain southern agricultural areas.
This difference in cost effects likely to follow from the inauguration of minimiuu
wages for agricultural workers merely emphasizes the fact that serious con-
sideration would have to be given to commodity or type of farming differ-
ences in the determination of appropriate wage minima. Here, again, the
Industry Committee approach might prove to be highly useful.
3. Hours of work and md.rirmmi-hour rcgiilatioti in agriculture. — The number
of hours worked per day by hired farm workers, as determined in a survey
by the Department of Agriculture, together with estimated year-round aver-
ages, are summarized in table 5 for the 1939-40 period. While agricultural
work is dependent to a great extent on weather conditions, the figures on
length of the workday represent averages for large sections of the country,
so that abnormal weather conditions in particular localities may be expected
to have been offset by opposite conditions in other localities.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3395
Table 5. — Average number of hours worked per day by hired farm workers on
speeified dates, by geographic regions
Number of hours
Region
Sept. 1, 1939 >
Dec. 1, 1939 1
Mar. 1,
19401
Estimated
average '
United States
10.1
9.3
9.5
10.0
New England
9.9
10.2
10.5
10.9
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.4
9.9
9.8
10.0
9.7
9.0
8.9
9.0
9.0
8.9
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.3
9.3
9.4
9.3
8.9
10.0
Middle Atlantic
10.1
10.3
10.4
South Atlantic
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.1
1 As reported by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.
2 Weighted average for all seasons of the crop year. The volume of employment during the correspond-
ing seasons of 1939 vi'as used as weights. These averages were arrived at by first estimating the length of
the workday on or about June 1 and then averaging the four quarters. Examination of the data indicated
a fairly consistent relationship between the length of the workday for the periods reported and the volume
of employment during the parts of the season for which the reported dates may be taken.as representative.
The shortest workday was generally characteristic of the inactive winter months with a slightly longer
workday during the early spring months and a still longer day during the fall. Bases upon this general
relationship between the length of the workday and the volume of employment, as well as upon the con-
sideration that longer days of natural daylight are available during the summer months of June or July,
tentative estimates were made for the probable length of the workday on or about June 1, so as to provide
a picture of the length of the workday during all of the characteristic seasons of the year.
For the country as a whole, hired farm workers averaged a 9.3-hour workday
on December 1, 9.5 hours on March 1, and a 10.1-hour day on September 1. For
the year as a whole, the average length of the workday was estimated as 10
hours. The longest days were worked in the North Atlantic and North Central
States, where the average workday during the various seasons of the year
varied from approximately 10 to 11 hours per day. In the Southern, South
Central, and the Mountain States the typical workday during the various seasons
of the year was slightly shorter. In the Pacilic Coast States the typical farm
workday for hired laborers was shorter than in any other section of the
country, varying from 8.9 to 9.4 hours depending upon the season of the year.
The number of hours worked per week by agricultural laborers cannot be
estimated, except for those hired on a monthly basis. Monthly workers gen-
erally work 25 days during each month, or 5% days per week.^* For the
country as a whole the usual number of weekly hours worked by hired farm
laborers averages 58 throughout the year, and will vary from about 54 to 60
hours in the different seasons. In the various sections of the country the
length of the average workweek for the year as a whole runs from about 53
in the Pacific States to 60 in the West North Central States. In the other
sections of the country, a year-round average of 57 hours a week is roughly
representative, with somewhat longer or shorter hours in the different seasons
of the year.
For workers hired by the day, the weekly hours of work depend, of course,
on the number of days of work obtained by them. It is quite likely that the
returns from crop reporters of the Department of Agriculture reflect, as in
the case of the wage data, working conditions in the general crop and live-
stock-producing areas where workers are typically hired either by the month or
by the day. It is doubtful whether these working hours fully reflect the con-
ditions characteristic of migratory workers, a large proportion of whom are
piece workers. Workers paid piece rates generally work longer hours than
other farm workers in order to maximize their earnings through the performance
within the limited season, of as much work as possible."
'" The figure of 25 days has generally been used by the farm management experts of the
Department of Agriculture in various cost of production and other studies.
21 Sucrar-beet workers are typical in this respect. A study by the Children's Bureau of the
U. S. Dppartment of Labor states : "The working hours of beet laborers tend to be ex-
tremely long, reflecting toth the traditional 10-hour day for agriculture and the pressure
Q^gg INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Maximum hour regulation for agricultural workers presents many more diffi-
culties than hours regulation for industrial workers. The close dependence
of farm work upon natural and uncontrollable conditions, the unforeseeable
interruptions in the work that frequently occur, and the highly seasonal char-
acter of many agricultural operations which must be performed withm brief
periods of time to avoid serious economic losses, are examples of Pyf^ctical
considerations that render hours regulation for farm workers extremely difficult.
On the other hand, there can be no doubt but that many farm laborers
work unreasonably long hours which are not justified by the normal demands
for labor The working hours of some farm workers probably reflect, in part,
the same economic disadvantages and weaknesses in bargaining position as is
sometimes the case with industrial workers. , ^ ,, „
The question of hours limitation for farm workers should be viewed, how-
ever in the light of the practical achievement that a reasonable plan of hour
regulation could accomplish. It is obvious that the hour requirements of the
present act could not be applied to agriculture. Different hour standard.s woulu
have to be devised for farm workers, and thesea requirements would have to
be sufficiently flexible and provide adequate latitude in hours exemptions during
seasonal operations. The limited beneflts to be derived from reasonably flexible
hours standards may be more than outweighed by the administrative and other
difficulties that effective hours regulation would involve. There is even a
question as to whether the large body of hired farm workers, whose employ-
ment period during the year is so brief and whose earnings are much too
inadequate, would favor maximum-hours limitations.
It is quite possible that establishment of minimum wages would in itself
bring about some shortening of the workday. The necessity of paying the
worker for every hour that he works might well prove to be an incentive for
rationalization of the work, or the hiring of additional help. There has been
no compelling need in the past for farm employers to shorten hours of the
workers they hire on a per month, week, or day basis. Minimum hourly wages
should have a definite effect in that direction.
V. EXPERIENCE WITH IIAXIMUM-HOUR A^D MINIMtlM-WAGE LEGISLATION APPLIED TO
AGKICULTXIRAL LA] OB
In the absence of direct experience with wage-and-hour regulation for agri-
cultural labor, it appears worthwhile to review the experience of the agencies in
this country and that of other countries which have had some experience with
such legishition. The only pertinent experience in this country is the estab-
lishment of minimum wages for farm laborers under the Sugar Act of 1937.
Other countries, however, have had considerable experience in applying wage-
and-hour regulation to agricultural workers.
1. Agricultural wage regulation in the United States — Sugar Act of 1937. —
Provision in the Sugar Act for the establishment of minimum wages in
the production, cultivation, or harvesting of sugar beets or sugarcane was
founded on the belief, expressed in the President's message to Congress on
sugar legislation, that "if the domestic sugar industry is to obtain the ad-
vantage of a quota system it ought to be a good employer and to carry this out,
legislaticm should prevent chihl labor and assure reasonable wages." ^
In setting fair and reasonalile niiiuniuin wages the Secretary of Agriculture
uses as a guiding standard the insuring of a fair and equitable division among
producers and workers of the proceeds derived from the growing and market-
ing of the sugar crops. Minimum wage rates have been set since 1937 for
sugar-crop workers in Hawaii and Puerto Rico as well as in the continental
United States.
The regulation of wages for agricultural workers covered by the Sugar Act is
thus based on the well-founded recognition of the principle that farm workers
should share equitably in the benefits accruing to producers from the Federal
farm programs. The' Secretary of Agriculture expressed this principle else-
where as follows :
on the workers to perforin a maximum amount of work within a brief seasonal period. A
workday from sunup to sundown, or, as aptly phrased by one worker, 'from kin see to
cant see,' has not been uncommon among beet workers, even for the children. Welfare
of Families of Sugar-Beet Laborers, 1939, p. 31. ,, „ ^ ^ « . • ,i
32 Report of the chief of the Sugar Division, 1939, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3397
"In seeking to advance the interests of agriculture, this Department has in
view the welfare of all the people engaged in the industry, those who till the
soil for hire as well as those who cultivate it as tenants or owners." ''
As yet this principle has found statutory expression only in the case of
sugar crops, although the direct and indirect benefits of Federal farm legisla-
tion have been directed in lar^e measure to the producers of many other crops.
During each of the years VS.VA to l'.);!!) the national cash farm income has been
increased directly by cash-bcnclit payment from the Government in amounts
ranging from $131,000,000 in 1933 to $807,000,000 in 1939.=* In 1939 these
benefit payments represented an addition of 10.5 percent to the total income
from sales of farm products. Besides these direct benefits the incomes of
agricultural producers have been aided by such other Federal farm measures
as marketing agreements, crop loans, crop insurance, and Government purchases
of surplus commodities. The right of agricultural workers to share eipiitably
in these benefits has not, however, found legal protection for the mass of farm
workers.
It is pertinent to note that wage rates of sugar-beet workers are now at
92 percent of their 1929 level, while general farm wages are at 69 percent of
their 1929 level. This is due in large part to the protection afforded the wage
scale of sugar-beet workers by the Government. Without such protection the
wages of sugar-beet workers would in all likelihood liave been substantially
lower than the current level. This is illustrated by the changes in farm wage
}-ates that occurred in 1937 and 1938. General farm wages in 1937 rose 131/2
percent over 1936. Sugar-beet wages in 1937, prior to the Secretary's wage
finding, had increased by only 6 percent. As a result of this finding, which was
issued very late in the season, sugar-beet wages were increased with the
result that the 1937 wage rates as set by the Secretary were 12.5 percent higher
than in 1936. In 1938 general farm wages declined from 1937 while sugar-beet
wages in accordance with the minimum set by the Secretary were again
increased over the preceding year.
It is also of interest to note that the minimum wages for sugar-beet workers
in California in 1939 called for certain minimum piece rates, or for minimum
hourly rates of 35 to 45 cents, depending upon the particular operation. In
other sugar-beet States minimum piece-rate wages were set and these rates
for most areas did not differ greatly from the corresponding rates set for Cali-
fornia. Sugar beets thus are an example of a commodity for the production of
which minimum wages of even more than 30 cents an hour are apparently eco-
nomically feasible.
It is well known that a large proportion of the workers in sugar-beet fields
are of Mexican or other foreign extraction and that these workers have repre-
sented an important element in the migratory population. A bulletin pub-
lished by the Children's Bureau reports : ^''
"Forty-one percent (385) of all the families interviewed were migratory; that
is. they "lived at the beet farms only during the working season. These families
all lived in a different place while working beets in 1935 from that in which
they expected to live during the coming winter, or, if uncertain as to their win-
ter plans, from that in which they lived during the preceding winter."
2. Maximum-hour and minimum-wage legislation applicable to agricultural
labor in foreign countries. — During the period from 1920 to 1940 several types
of social legislation, including maximum-hour and minimum-wage legislation,
were made applicable to agricultural laborers in a number of foreign countries.
In some instances general legislation for commercial and industrial workers
was extended to include agricultural workers ; in other instances some modifi-
cation of general legislation was used ; and in still other instances special legis-
lation was enacted for the benefit of agricultural workers. In discussing the
reasons for each legislation a recent study of the British Wages Boards states: ^^
"In each of the three countries. Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia,
where national minimum-wage legislation has long obtained, inclusion of agri-
33 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1937.
** U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, mimeographed
farm-income report, January 30, 1940.
S5 Welfare of Families of Sugar-Beet Laborers, Bureau of Publications No. 247, Children's
Bureau. United States Department of Labor, 1939, p. 14.
3' British Wages Board, A Study in Industrial Democracy, by Dorothy Sells, the Brook-
ings Institution, Washington, D. C., April 1939, p. 140.
3398 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
cultural workers has closely followed enactment of minimum-wage laws cover-
ing industrial workers. That this has happened is largely due to the interac-
tion between industrial and agricultural wages. Failure to coordinate agri-
cultural and industrial wage rates tends to draw off the cream of the agricul-
tural-labor supply into the industrial field, as well as to accentuate business
crises. To a considerable extent agricultural workers are the potential pur-
chasers of the goods and services produced by those employed in industry. If
agricultural wages are low, the purchasing power of agricultural workers is
relatively low and so is the intake of manufacturing and other industrial under-
takings. The wage level of industrial workers even when protected by mini-
mum-wage legislation is thus threatened unless the wage level of agricultural
workers is similarly safeguarded. And conversely the prosperity of agricul-
ture and consequently the level of agricultural wages depends largely upon
the consuming capacity of the vast body of industrial employees."
The effects of the world-wide agricultural depression and the resulting ten-
dency on the part of various governments to institute measures to improve
the condition not only of farmers but also of agricultural workers are discussed
in a recent report of the International Labour Office.^' This report states that
the depression accentuated the labor problem in agriculture by greatly restrict-
ing the outlets to excess farm labor in other occupations or in emigration to
other countries, which hitherto had kept the discrepancy in living standards of
urban and rural workers within certain limits. Aid to agriculture by direct
subsidies to producers became current in many countries and naturally gave
rise to claims that wage-paid labor in agriculture should share proportionately
in such subsidies. Despite this governmental aid, the effects of the_ depression
have in many countries tended to spread the former discrepancies in economic
status of industrial and agricultural workers to much larger layers of the farm
population. The report notes the beginning of a new period of legislative
measures to improve social conditions among rural populations :
''New legislation on hours of work, minimum-wage regulation, holidays with
pay, subventions for rural housing, etc.. are to be noted in several countries.
In others again, attempts are now being made to solve the labour problem in
agriculture by changing radically the status of the salaried worker within agri-
cultural society."
(a) Hours of work : Regulation of hours of work in agricuiture had some very
rudimentary beginnings in such legislation as (he Hungarian Act of 18CS which
provided that the working day in agriculture should be from sunrise to sunset,
with 1-hour breaks for resting and eating in the winter and li/2-hour breaks
in the summer. Since that time regulation hours of work in agriculture
has developed materially and at the present time takes seveilal forms.^
The legislation varies from a definite detailed limitation on hours of work to
simple rules which restrict hours of work indirectly. In many countries regula-
tion is dependent upon collective bargaining, in some countries collective bar-
gaining and direct legislation supplement each other, and in others minimum
wage-fixing machinery is a factor in regulating hours of work. The history of
regulation of this kind indicates that the problem of placing some ceiling over
hours of work has usually been approached in a gradual way, allowing for con-
siderable flexibility according to practical needs.
In Czechoslovakia, Italy, Spain, and in two Argentine provinces general legis-
lation for the 8-hour day or 48-hour week was applied to agriculture, with devia-
tions from the established norm permitted either within a limited period of sev-
eral weeks or over the whole year. Where an averaging of hours over the whole
year to obtain the norm is permitted such regulation has little effect unless the
norm is set at a very low level.
In Sweden a maximum working day of 10 hours was established, with work
during three different periods of the year limited to 41, 46, and 54 hours a week,
respectively. In most countries longer hours have been permitted at certain
seasons of the year, such as during the harvest.
In Germany a maximum working day of 11 hours (except with overtime pay-
ments) was established for 4 specified months of the year. During another
^ Social Problems in Agriculture, Record of the Permanent Agricultural Committee of
the I. L. O. (7-15 February 1938), Studies and Reports Series K (Agriculture), No. 14,
International Labour Office, Geneva. 1938. pp. 18-19.
3' All of the discussion which follows is based on legislation in effect in February 1938.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3399
4 months of the year the working day was limited to 10 hours, and during the
remaining 4 mouths, to 8 hours.
In Austria, labor codes fixed a minimum night rest and a minimum length of
the daily breaks, thus indirectly regulating hours of work. This was combined
with the establishment of an average working day over the whole year of 10
hours, allowing the hours at any one time to be determined according to the needs
of the particular farm.
In England minimum wage-fixing machinery resulted in the establishment of
a normal workweek limited to 48 hours during the winter and 52 hours during
summer months. In Ireland the same procedure resulted in a week of 54 hours,
and in Australia and New Zealand 44 hours for the special categories of agri-
cultural workers covered. Where it was felt impracticable to regulate daily or
weekly hours in New Zealand, such as on dairy farms, compensation was pro-
vided by establishing long holidays with pay.
In many countries, including Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Ger-
many, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden, collective agreements
have regulated the hours of work in agriculture. Under such agreements the daily
maximum working day was fixed differently for various periods of the year, the
length of the periods varying from several months down to 10 days. In some
instances agreements fixed the length of the breaks and the time when work was
to begin and end, as well as the daily limitation on hours.
(h) Minimum wages: Wage regulation is left to collective bargaining in many
countries, but in no country have agricultural workers succeeded in obtaining
agreements for all regions or all groups of workers. In some countries, includ-
ing the Netherlands, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy, and Austria, the
workers received state assistance in establishing these collective agreements.
Where state assistance is given in establishing agreements, it amounts in effect
to state intervention in the regulation of wages.^"
While regulation of wages of agricultural workers in any form is of fairly
recent origin, in a considerable number of countries special legislation has been
adopted for direct state intervention in the establishment of minimum wages.
The simplest foi-m of wage regulation is the direct establishment of fixed-wage
minima. Such legislation was adopted in Uruguay in the province of San Juan,
Argentina, and for sugarcane cultivation in Cuba.
In other instances, special machinery was established for the fixing of minimum
wages. In Mexico the Federal Labor Act of 1931 required the fixing of minimum
wages by a local committee containing representatives of employers and workers,
the decisions of these committees being subject to review by a control council for
each State. In practice, lower rates were established for agricultural workers
than for other types of labor.
In Estonia minimum wage rates were fixed for agricultural workers by wages
committees. Agricultural employers and workers were to elect local boards which
appointed district committees. There was also a central conunittee elected by the
district committees, but neither the central committee nor the district committee
had any government representation.
In Hungary the Minister of Agriculture was empowered to appoint local com-
mittees, either at the request of workers or on his own initiative, and these
connnittees could fix minimum wages for agricultural workers.
In Germany state officials, known as labor trustees, were empowered to deter-
mine minimum conditions of employment for any particular group within their
area, such rules being legally binding acts of the state. In practice, some of the
old collective agreements were taken over and were replaced by these regulations.
England and Wales provide the outstanding example of minimum wage-fixing
machinery for agricultural workers. Wage committees, in which employers and
workers had equal representation, and outside representatives appointed by the
Minister of Agriculture, were set up in each county. These committees fixed
wage rates eitBer in the form of a flat minimum rate or with varying rates for
different groups of workers. A central agricultural wages board, whose main
duty was to see that the local committees carried out their duties, but which
had no power to influence the level of wages determined, was also established.
In Scotland an act was passed setting up regulatory authority, similar to the
English system.
■» In the discussion dealing with minimum wages, as in that on hours of work, all of the
material is based on legislation in effect In February 1938.
260.370— 41— pt. 8 21
3400
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
In Ireland a central agricultural wages board, consisting of a chairman, three
neutral members, four employers' representatives, and four workers' representa-
tives was established. Wage area committees were also established and the
central board fixed wage rates after consulting the area committees. The Irish
svstem differed from the English system in that it assumed that employers and
Workers were unorganized, and it was the central wages board rather than the
local committees which had the wage-fixing authority.
In New Zealand a third tvpe of State intervention was used. Definite minimum
wages were established by statute, with the provision that an order in council
might apply these wages with necessary modifications to particular groups of
agricultural workers. Since another act provided for the establishment of a
fixed price for agricultural products, the wages to be paid agricultural workers
were in principle linked to the prices of the products.
TESTIMONY OF L. W. CASADAY, LABOR ECONOMIST, MARITIME
LABOR BOARD
The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Casaday. Will yon give
the reporter your full name ?
Mr. Casaday. L. W. Casaday.
The Chairman. Where do you reside?
Mr. Casaday. In Washington.
The Chairman. In what capacity do you appear before the com-
mittee today ?
Mr. Casaday. I am a labor economist with the Maritime Labor
Board. I appear partly in my individual capacity as a student of
labor conditions and wages and with the knowledge of my agency.
The Chairman. Is that a Government board ?
Mr. Casaday. Yes; the Maritime Labor Board is a Government
organization.
The Chairman. It is now after 12 o'clock, and the committee will
give you permission to insert a full statement in the record.
We thank you very much for your appearance.
STATEMENT OF L. W. CASADAY, LABOR ECONOMIST, MARITIME:
LABOR BOARD
Labor in the Fisheries
It is difficult to generalize concerning labor and employment characteristics
in the fisheries. The industry covers the entire coast line of the United States
and Alaska as well as the GVeat Lakes and the Mississippi River system. More
than 150 species and groups of species of fish are represented in the annual
catch. As may be expected, there are tremendous variations from place to
place and among different branches of the fishery even in the same location
with respect to the physical conditions under which production is carried on :
the technique of production, processing, and marketing; the seasonality of em-
ployment ; the number and kinds of workers required ; the employment status of
the workers, including customary methods of hiring and remuneration. Of all
our national industries, fishing is probably comparable only to agriculture in
the variety of employment characteristics it exhibits.
In recent years, the fishing industry of the United States and Alaska has given
employment to 200,000 or more persons each season. In 1937, the latest year
for which data are available, estimated employment was approximately 220,-
000.^ The working force in the fisheries may be divided roughly into two gen-
1 See accompanying table. Figure based on data taken from R. H. Fiedler, Fishery
Industries of the United States, 1938, TJ. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries,
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
3401
eral categories ; Those engaged in primary production, i. e., fishermen and trans-
porters ; ^ and those engaged in the processing or wholesaling of the primary-
product. In 1937 the primary production group comprised approximately 134,C00
persons (129,5C0 fishermen and 4,500 transporters) and the processing and
wholesaling division approximately 86,000 persons.
Table I. — Number of fisheniien, fish transporters, and wage earners engaged in
fish processing and loholesaling establishments in the United States a/nd Alaska,
by principal regions, 1937 ^
Region
Fisher-
men 2
Trans-
porters
Whole-
sale and
manufac-
turing 3
Total
19, 624
7,720
16, 529
30,244
234
126
1,196
652
10, 988
5,608
10, 902
17, 277
30, 846
13, 454
Chesapeake
28, 627
48, 073
Total Atlantic and Gulf
74, 117
2,108
44, 775
121 000
6,418
15. 884
35
29
2,266
4,275
8,719
Mis.sissippi River and tributaries '
20 188
Total Great Lakes and Mississippi River and tributaries. _
22, 302
64
6,541
28, 907
Pacific coast States
21, 555
11,570
210
2,159
15, 261
16, 602
40 026
Alaska
30, 331
Total Pacific coast and Alaska
33, 125
2,369
34, 863
70 357
129, 544
4,541
86, 179
220, 264
> Compiled from data found in R. H. Fiedler, Fishery Industries of the United States, 1938, U. S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Administrative Report, No. 37, Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1940.
2 Excludes iiersons engaged in the .seed-oyster fisheries unless they also fish for market oysteis or other
fish. Of the 3,2.36 persons engaged in the seed-oyster fisheries (mostly in New Jersey and the Chesapeake
Bay area), 2,574 are also engaged in other branches of the fisheries and are represented on the table.
3 E.xcludes proprietors and salaried employees except in the case of Alaska, for which separate figures
representing these groups are not available. The relative number of proprietors and salaried employees
in the Alaska fisheries is believed to be extremely small.
* United States only.
' These data are for 1931. no later figures being available.
• Within a given region, duplication of employment as among the various branches of the fisheries and
as among various localities, has been allowed for, but the totals shown may include some duplication owing
to seasonal movements from one region to another. With the few exceptions indicated in the text, this
duplication is believed to be relatively small.
EMPLOYMENT IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION
Persons engaged in the fisheries proper are of several employment classes.
The distinction between fishermen and transporters indicated above may be
commented on briefiy and dismissed. The number of transporters is relatively
unimportant in most sections of the country as the fishermen themselves ordi-
narily bring their catch to shore. Of the 4,500 transporters employed in 1937,
2,159, or nearly half, were found in the fisheries of Alaska, while nearly 1,200
more operated in the Chesapeake Bay {jrea. Almost no transporters are used
on the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Other sections of the country in
1937 employed from 126 to approximately 550 persons in this work.^
Administrative Report No. 37, Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1940. Dupli-
cation of employment as among the various branches of the fisheries and as among the
different localities within a given region has been allowed for, but the total may include
some duplication owing to seasonal movements from one region to another. With few
exceptions, this duplication is believed to be relatively insignificant.
2 Transporters are persons employed on boats, vessels, barges, or scows engaged solely
in transporting the catch from the fishing grounds to the point on shore where processing
or wholesale marketing begins. In most sections of the country very few transporters
are used, the fishermen themselves bringing their catch to shore. Owing to their relativa
numerical unimportance, little will be said of these workers in the present discussion.
^ See accompanying table.
Q^Q2 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Practically all workers on transport vessels are paid on a weekly or monthly
wage basis, with meals and lodging furnished on board. Their season of employ-
ment varies considerably from one part of the country to another, but in the
areas where data are available the seasonal earnings of this group have been
found to be distinctly meager. On the Pacifi" coast, including Alaska, most
transporters appear to be of a casual type, moving into the fisheries during the
summer, and thence into agriculture, lumbering, and other industries during the
remainder of the year. A considerable number in this area are college students
who look for employment only in the summer season. It is said that compara-
tively few Alaska transporters return to the fisheries regularly year after year,
or consider themselves permanently attached to the industry.'*
Fishermen, who constitute the vast majority of those engaged in primary
production, exhibit many variations in employment status. In fact, the word
"employment" must be used with care in connection with fishermen, for most of
them are not "employees" in the conventional sense.
Approximately 61 percent of all fishermen are independent entrepreneurs,
operating their" own boats and gear, and selling their catch to processors or
dealers. This fact has had a strong influence upon the psychology of fishermen
as a class, making them essentially conservative and individualistic in out-
look.*
The relative proportion of independent and employee fishermen varies
markedly in the different localities and branches of the fisheries according to
the size of the investment required. In general, where relatively small boats
and inexpensive equipment can be utilized to good effect, the proportion of
entrepreneurs tends to be high, but the larger vessels with expensive equipment
usually are corporately owned, and operated by employee crews. In the nidns-
try as a whole, approximately 22 percent of fishermen work on vessels, and 60
percent on boats, while about 18 percent fish from shore.^
Among vessel fishermen only about 15 percent are entrepreneurs, whereas
among boat and shore fishermen almost 75 percent are in business for them-
Of the total number of entrepreneurs (61 percent of all fishermen) about one-
third are employees of others, the remainder operating their boats alone, or
with one or two helpers on a partnership basis.' The number of persons em-
ployed by an entrepreneur fisherman usually is small, with the owner himself
acting as skipper. Thousands of boats along the Pacific coast, for example,
carry a "crew" of only one or two in addition to the skipper-owner. The crews
of the larger vessels, including the skipper, usually consist entirely of employee
fishermen. .
In some sections, other factors than size of investment in boat and gear may
affect the proportion of employee and independent fishermen. For example, in
far western Alaska most fishermen are employees in spite of the fact that fi'-hing
is carried on from small boats operated by only two men each. The principal
reas-on here is that the fishermen themselves, the supplies necessary to carry en
operations, and the finished product must be transported over the 12 000 mi os of
water separating the fishing grounds from the larger population and marketing
centers on the Pacific coast. Naturally this necessitates an over-all investment
in the business beyond the reach of most fishermen.
More significantly, there seems to be some correlation in many areas between
I he p'oportion of entrepreneur fishermen and the degree of depletion of the fisher-
ies Where fi h are abundant and the return upon the investment in each fishing
bo.it is relati ely fubstantial and certain, the boats, regardless of size, are likely to
be owned bv large packers and processors and operated exclusively by employee
fishermen. Where fish are scarce, where exploitation of the waters is increasingly
♦For a summary of earnings and other data pertaming to transporters in the salmon
industry of Alaska, where more of them are employed than anywhere else m the counti-y,
s"e L W Casadav, Labor Unrest and the Labor Movement in the Salmon Industry ot the
Pacific Coast (typewritten), dissertation, Ph. D., University of Calitorma, Berlieley, 1937,
^^^Cplu^lin R. Arnold, The Fishery Industry and tlie Fishery Codes (mimeographed),
National Industrial Recovery Administration, Division of Review, Industry Studies Section,
Work Materials No. 31, January 1936, p. 46. , ^. , . t<- f k ^f f^„c,
a Ibid. "Vessel" is defined by the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries as any craft of 5 net tons
capacity or greater, and "boat" as any craft of less than 5 net tons capacity. (See R. H.
Fiedler, op cit., pp. 543-543.)
1 J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 46.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3403
intensive, and where, consequently, there is a diminishing return per boat and i^er
man, the boats and gear are liliely to be owned and operated by small entrepreneur
fishermen. In some places the change in ownership can be traced historically in
relation to the factor of depletion. Thus, in certain localities, at least, it appears
that there may be some tendency to shift the diminishing return and increasing
risk of a declining natural resource to groups not originally associated with the
industry in an entrepreneurial capacity."
For the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and the Great Lakes, the employment data
collected by the United States Bureau of Fisheries are segregated to show the
number of regular and "casual" fishermen, the latter being those who derive more
than half their annual incomes from occupations other than fishing. The segre-
gation applies only to boat and shore fishermen. In these areas taken together,
about one-third of all boat and shore fishermen fall in the casual class. The
proportion of casual fishermen is high in New England and the Middle Atlantic
States, exceeding 50 percent in 1937. In the Great Lakes and in the Chesapeake
Bay area, in the same year, the proportion of casuals was approximately one-third
and on the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts a little more than one-fifth." The
actual number of casual fishermen is larger in the South Atlantic and Gulf than
in the other areas mentioned but only because the number of boat and shore
fishermen is larger there than elsewhere. If all vessel fishermen in these areas
are assumed to be regular fishermen, the proportion of casuals to the total would
be somewhat smaller than those given above. No data are available concerning
th- numlK-r of regular and casual fishermen in the Pacific Coast S.ates and Alaska.
Unfortunately very little is known concerning the employment found by casual
fi.shermen < ml side the fishing industry. It has been said that many of those along
the Great Lukes and in the Southern States combine fishing with work as small
farmers and farm laborers. In the New England and iliddle Atlantic States,
the casual fishermen presumably find jolis in industry. In tliese areas the in'Oiwr-
tion of casual fishermen increased considerably during the depression, while in the
Southern States the proportion showed little change in the years following 1029.^*
Whether fishermen are classed as entrepreneurs or employees, whether they
work on vessel, boat, or shore, and whether they are regular or casual, their
remuneration is almost universally on some sort of "lay" or share basis. The
fisheries are said to constitute the only large industry using the share system
of payment." The share system exhibits many and complex variations'^ but
the principle is always the same. Typically, from the gross proceeds of the
catch, operating expenses 'are first deducted. The remainder is then divided
into a given number of shares with so many allotted to the boat and gear and
so many to each member of the crew, including the skipper-owner, if the boat
is operated by the entrepreneur. If the boat or vessel is operated entirely by
employee fi-;hernien, they are almost invari'ably paid a piece wage based on
the total catch, sharing the proceeds equally or according to some other pre-
determined plan. .
This system probably is a reflection first of the unpredictability ot income,
characteristic of fishing, and perhaps also of the fact that fishermen, reg'ardless
of rank or property ownership, are forced to share alike the hazards and hard-
ships of life at sea". The practice would seem to indicate that the entrepreneur
fisherman does not consider his boat and equipment as an income-bearing
Investment but rather as the tools of the trade.
These suggestions are further borne out by the fact that the relations between
active entrepreneur fishermen and their employee crew members r'arely resemble
the employer-employee relationship in "shore industries. There is little bar-
gaining in* the usual sense between the two groups over the terms of employ-
ment (except where the employer is not an active fisherman). Where fisher-
men's unions have been formed, they have usually embraced both active
entrepreneur fishermen and employee fishermen in the same locality or branch
of the fisheries, and 'are directed principally against fish buyers and processors,
rather than against any "employer." '^
• Cf . L. W. Casaday, op. cit., p. 330 ff.
» Compiled from A. H. Fiedler, op. cit.
M J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 47, and ibid, appendix, p. 40.
11 Ibid., appendix, p. 54 ff.
" Ibid., appendix, p. 54 ff.
w Cf. L. W. Casaday, op. cit., p. 29 ff.
3j^04 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The seasonality of fishing operations depends upon the locality and on the
species of fish. It has been estimated that regular vessel fishermen in the
industry at large average about 10 months' employment in a normal year,
while regular boat fishermen average from 6 to 8 months. No estimate
can be made of the average employment of "casual" fishermen but it is assumed
to be very much lower than that enjoyed by regular boat fishermen. During
the depression (1933) vessel fishermen are reported to have averaged only
7 to 8 months of employment with regular boat fishermen averaging from 4 to 5
months." It must be emphasized that these are broad generalizations. They
should not be allowed to obscure the fact that in many important sections of
the fisheries, the season is extremely short for all classes of workers. In
many parts of Alaska, for example, employment rarely extends beyond 3
months with actual fishing operations being confined to 30 days or less.
Following is an index of the seasonality of employment (number of persons
engaged) iu fishing operations proper for the United States and Alaska. It
was prepared about 1936 by the American Federation of Labor on the basis
of suggestions made by the Fisheries Unit of the National Industrial Recovery
Administration, Division of Review."
[12-month average = 100,
jVIouth: Iiidex number
January 71.0
February 76.0
March 76.5
April 86.5
May 111-5
June 120.0
Month— Continued. lu'iex number
July 110. 5
August 132.5
September 129.5
October 121.0
November 94. 5
December 70. 5
The working personnel of the fisheries proper is practically all male. Defini-
tive data are lacking on the subject of racial and national origins except in
Alaska,'" but certain generalizations seem legitimate. In New England, the
northern Atlantic States, and on the Great Lakes the fishermen are all white
and predominantly of long-settled Anglo-Saxon stock. In some parts of these
areas fishermen of Italian and Portuguese origins are found. Anglo-Saxon
stock also predominates in the South, although in some branches, particularly
the menhaden fisheries, there are are considerable numbers of Negroes. On the
Pacific coast the fisherman are predominantly of recently immigrant nation-
alities. Norwegians and Finns predominate in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska, although many native Indians and Eskimos are also employed. In
California there appear to be almost equal proportions of Italians, Portuguese,
Jugo-Slavs, and Japanese."
Data on the seasonal earnings of fishermen are inadequate. Examination
of the annual value of the catch in relation to the number of fishermen
engaged indicates, however, that the average gross output per man is such
as to put a low maximum limit on the earnings of the mass of the personnel.
In 1929 this grossi average output per man failed to reach $1,700 in any
part of the country. For the Great Lakes it was under $1,000; for the
Chesapeake area a little over $600; and for the South Atlantic and Gulf
about $.")50. In 1033 a gross average of $1,000 per man was slightly exceeded
in Alaska only with other areas falling as low as $250.'^
In 1937 average gross output per fisherman was approximately $1,300 on
the Pacific Coast and Alaska; approximately $1,000 in New England, the
Middle Atlantic States, and the Great Lakes; less than $500 on the South
Atlantic and Gulf; and less than $400 on the Chesapeake. The average gross
" J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 48.
M For which see Ward T. Bower, Alaska Fisher.v and Fur-Seal Industries in 1937, IT S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Administrative Report No. 31, Washington,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1938, p. 97. „„ ^
" J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 47 ; L. W. Casaday, op cit., eh. II, P- < < «• .^ ^ .. „.
"For earnings data on groups of salmon fishermen on the Pacific coast see ii. w.
Casaday, op. cit., pp. 263-321 ; Homer E. Gregory and Kathleen Barnes, Nortli I aciflc
Fisheries, American Council Institute of Pacific Relations, Studies of the Pacific No. S,
P- 201 ff. „^ „„
w J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 48, and ibid., appendix, pp. 35-ob.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3405
output per man for the country as a whole, including Alaska, was approximately
^777.-"
When account is taken of operating and overhead expenses and the losses
incident to fishing, it seems evident that the actual earnings of fishermen
are low in most sections of the country.-' In each area there are stories of
the high earnings that certain boats or men have obtained during the season.
A considerable number of men return from Alaska each season with earnings
up to $3,000 for 3 months' work. The attention received by these unusual
■cases often gives the impression that such earnings are general, an impression
which is contrary to fact. The following quotation from the Pacific Coast
News" admirably expresses the danger of viewing fishermen's earnings in
terms of the season's best performance :
"From the thousands of crafts engaged in the various lines of commercial
£shing along the Pacific coast there emerge at the end of the season a few
boats which, each representing a special line of the fishery, through a mixture
of luck, hard work, and ability on the crew's part have higher landings than
the rest of the fleet and are hailed as high boats.
"The fact is given due publicity and the press generously adjudge the boats
its medals of merit, a distinction most richly deserved.
"But the medals have a reverse; in the present case represented by the
fact that while the public is told readily of the highest, most, biggest, the
rest of the story, including the less exciting chapters of the lowest, least, and
smallest, is left untold.
"The public opinion of the fishing industry is more or less compressed in
an undetailed idea of good catches and high earnings. Consequently, when
fishermen's affairs come on for public discussion the public is benighted and
its general attitude accordingly.
"The limited season, the few months of fishing and the many months of
forced idleness, the losses of life, gears, and boats, the hundred obscurities
and human fates, the toils and struggles and hardships— these facts are hidden
by the big hull of the high boat in the luster of public searchlight.
"Move it, and the fleet, the hundreds, come into sight."
In spite of comparatively low average eanungs per man, fishermen as a class do
not migrate industrially to any great extent. The personnel of the fisheries is
■characterized by a high average age and low turn-over. Fishermen constitute an
essentially conservative and stable group, which in the words of Arnold -^ "sticks
to its own mode of living, to its own enterprises, and to its own social groups."
Even during the depression, according to available evidence, only an insignificant
proportion of fishermen sought employment in other industries. Indeed, the indi-
cations are that numbers of unemployed industrial workers, particularly in the
northeastern part of the country, sought temporary employment in the fisheries.
Concsequently, although average earnings fell, the total number of persons em-
ployed in the fisheries changed comparatively little during the years following
1929.'^ In sum, as Arnold has put it, "the industry has tended to select a type that
does not take kindly to interindustry migration." ^'
Several reasons may account for this curious stability of employment in the face
of nominal- or low-income levels in w^hat is, after all, a highly seasonal industry.
Fishing, like farming, is a way of life. Owing to the predominance of the entre-
preneur type of fisherman and the tenuousness of the employer-employee relation-
ship, even where it exists the work gives the illusion and perhaps the reality of
independence. Even the very danger of .the job has its appeal. More concretely,
many fishermen are tied to their calling by the fact of having a considerable invest-
ment in boats and gear. Much of the time in the off season is spent in repairing
and conditioning the equipment. In fact, many fishermen who themselves own
nothing, engage in this work between seasons, often for little other recompense
than board and lodging. A related consideration is that the work required of a
fisherman, both on the fishing grounds and in the repair and maintenance of the
2« Computed from data in R. H. Fiedler, op. cit, pp. 220-221.
21 See L. W. Casaday, op. cit., ch. V, for a discussion of the principal items of expense to
•which typical groups of salmon fishermen are subject.
-2 Vancouver, British Columbia, November 15, 1935.
^ Op. cit., p. 47.
2* Ibid.
2^ Ibid., appendix, p. 41.
OAQQ INTERSTATE MIGRATION
eauinment, is highly specialized and calls for skills not easily acquired nor readily
abandoned. It has also been suggested that the strenuousness of the work during
season breeds a desire for comparative rest and relaxation afterward. The coin-
cidence of the fishing season in many parts of the country with the most^ active
periods in industry and agriculture generally, may also account m part for the
comparative lack of industrial migration among fishermen.
Fishermen often do move about widely, in the geographical sense, during the
course of their employment but in most cases it is hardly accurate to (describe
this as "migration." It is estimated that on the Pacific coast as many as 1,(JOO
fishermen, mostly on purse-seine boats, fish in Alaskan waters in the summer and
then move into the fisheries of California during the winter."' Considerable num-
bers of resident Alaska fishermen, with or without boats, are known to migrate
within the Territory during the season in accordance with reports as to the abund-
ance of fish in the different localities.'^' A few boats from New England are said to
fish in southern Atlantic or Gulf waters during the winter. Movements of this
kind may approach what is meant by "migration" in agriculture. In a sense, these
fishermen for the most part equipped with the tools of their trade, are doing
something analogous to "following the crops" ; that is, they move from one section
to another as the seasons for the various kinds of fish come on. Yet almost in-
variably these men return regularly and for a substantial part of the year to their
"home ports." They are not footloose or casual in the sense that aprlies to large
numbers of agricultural workers. Except in a general way of speaking, they are
not truly "migratory." In any event, comparatively few fishermen, of the total
engaged' in the industry, range widely over the country in this fashion.
Still less does the term "migratory" apply to that comparatively large number
of fishermen who regularly journey long distances to particular fishing grounds
for the duration of the season and thereafter return to their homes. Probably
the majority of the seven or eight thousand fishermen engaged in the fisheries of
Alaska maintain their homes in the three Pacific Coast States and return to them
at the close of the season. In the same way, fishermen of the Grand Banks may
spend weeks away from home during the season. In these cases most of the
fishermen are employees and are commonly recruited, hired, and paid off in the
home port. This movement of labor, although extensive and of comparatively
long duration, is occasioned simply by the fact that the fishing grounds happen to
be located far from the source of labor supply. In principle, it makes no difference
whether the men have to travel a thousand miles or 10 miles to reach the fish.
In view of the foregoing, it may be concluded that fishermen, other than
"casuals," are not migratory in either the industrial or geographical sense. Their
employment is intermittent and may necessitate considerable geographic coverage
but tliey are not a rootless, casual, roving lot. There is, however, a group con-
stituting from one-fifth to one-half of the total in the various sections of the
country, and averaging one-third or less of the total fo-r the country as a whole,
that can be defined as "casual" in the sense that its members derive less than half
their annual incomes from fishing. Little is known about the employment experi-
ence of these men outside the fishing industry, but there is some evidence to the
effect that: (a) Although supplementing their earnings from fishing by other
work in the off season, most of them engage in fishing regularly each season;
(b) many of them confine their annual cycle of employment to a given locality or
region, wherein they maintain homes and have other civic roots.
The proportion of the total working force that cannot be described in any of
the above terms and is therefore truly casual and migratory in character, is im-
possible to estimate, but from available evidence it appears to be relatively small.
EMPLOYMENT IN FISH PROCESSING AND WHOLESALING
Reference to the table in the first part of this report indicates that in 1937
approximatelv 86,000 persons were engaged in fish processing, packing, and whole-
saling in the United States and Alaska. This figure may represent some duplica-
tion owing to interregional movements of these workers, especially on the Pacific
coast. For the country as a whole, the duplication probably is not large.
28 Cf. discussion in J. R. Arnold, op. cit., pp. 47-48.
2" TTnofRcial estimnto bv U. S. Bureau of Fisheries personnel.
"^ Cf. Gregory and Barnes, op. cit., ch. XII.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3407
The working force in the processing and wholesaling division of the industry
does not present the complex of employment relations that characterizes the
fishermen, although many different types of opei'ations are, of course, involved.
Processing includes canning, reduction for the purpose of obtaining oil, meal, and
fertilizer, and various forms of curing such as smoking, salting, pickling, and
freezing. The marketing of fish in fresh form involves cleaning and often filleting
and packing. In very general terms, and with some notable exceptions, canning
and reduction predominate on the Pacific coast while the bulk of Atlantic and Gulf
coast products is marketed in the fresh form. Fi-eezing and curing appear to be
carried on to a greater or less extent in all areas.
There is comparatively little information concerning the racial and nationality
characteristics of workers in the processing and wholesaling division of the
fisheries in the cc-antry as a whole. It has been observed that in sections where
processing and packing plants are located in fishing ports, the working force often
consists largely of the wives and relatives of local fishermen, and hence may be
assumed to be of similar racial and national extraction. As will be brought out
below, a different situation exists in many parts of the Pacific coast and Alaska.
The season of employment in processing and wholesaling conforms in general
to the season during which fishing proper is carried on. It is said that the average
level of employment for the year is approximately one-half the seasonal plateau,
and that in the country at large these workers receive approximately 6 months
of employment per year."" Again, the variations from place to place are so great
as to make generalization diificult. Employment in wholesaling establishments,
as well as in curing and freezing plants, is substantially less seasonal than in
canning and reducing plants. Large numbers of cannery workers in Alaska, for
example, receive 3 months or less of employment per year within the Territory.
No data are available as to annual earnings of fi.sh processors and handlers. In
1933 weekly earnings for the country as a whole for the season of 3 to 7 months
averaged approximately .$20.^" In the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwest
and Alaska up to about 1934, payment was usually made on a seasonal basis under
contract and ranged from .$140 to $161) for a 3-month season, board and lodging
included. In many cases even this was taken away from the workers under a
variety of pretexts and abuses made possible by the contract system of employ-
ment. Since that time wage rates in the salmon fisheries have been greatly
increased and most of the abuses stopi>ed, largely due to the advent of unionism
and collective bargaining among the cannery crews.
In fact, the story of cannery labor in the salmon fisheries of Alaska and parts
of the Pacific coast have constituted a peculiar chapter in the development of
the industry. Here a large part of the working force has been, and still is,
although to a diminishing extent, truly migratory and casual. The situation is a
complex one in which problems, not only of migration but of extreme seasonality,
racial origins, employment methods, and income levels are inextricably inter-
woven. Hence, with respect to this section of the fisheries, these questions can
best be considered together.
For regions outside the Pacific coast, information pertaining to migratory
movements and other employment characteristics among fish processors and han-
dlers is almost entirely lacking. It is believed that the problem does not compare
in seriousness or magnitude with that found in the West, but, owing to the scarcity
of material, these areas are not here discussed.
In the early days of the canning industry on the Pacific coast, fish canneries
were commonly located at considerable distances from the centers of population,
a fact which made it necessary to recruit laborers in the larger cities and towns
and transport them to the cannery sites. The isolation of the canneries, the short
season, particularly in salmon fishing, and the unpredictability of the run im-
pelled the packing companies, first, to obtain the necessary labor as cheaply as
possible, and, second, to guarantee that the labor force, once recruited, would be
available without fail throughout the season. The search for cheap labor led the
companies to specialize in recruiting immigrant groups, and the desire to guarantee
the availability of labor throughout the season led to the development of the
"Chinese contract system" of recruiting and hiring.''^
20 J. R. Arnold, op. cit., p. 51.
3° Ibid., Appendix, p. 69.
31 poj. a detailed account of this system and its abuses, see L. W. Casaday, op. cit., chs.
Ill and IV.
3408
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The result has been a veritable parade of low-paid racial groups through the
salmon and other canneries of the Pacific coast. The historical succession has
been almost identical with that observable in west-coast agriculture. First came
the Chinese, to be followed in turn by the Japanese, Mexicans, and Filipinos.
And today, again as in agriculture, there is a growing influx of native whites.""
It is believed, however, that comparatively few of the white workers in the
fish canneries are drawn from the migrant Dust Bowl families lately become
prominent in west-coast agriculture. The increasing proportion of white workers
in the canneries is due, in part, to the fact that many formerly isolated cannery
sites are now located in or near communities with a considerable resident white
population, a fact which facilitates the employment of local people. This is
especially true along the Sacramento River, the Columbia River, on Puget Sound,
and in southeastern Alaska, where a decade or two ago the canneries were rela-
tively isolated and operated largely by immigrant orientals or Latin Americans.
To the extent that local resident workers are employed, the proportion of migra-
tory labor is, of course, reduced. A second factor accounting for the recent influx
of white workers is that the unionization of the industry has abolished the
contract system, raised wages, and improved conditions sufficiently to make the
work reasonably attractive to many whites who formerly disdained it. Added
to these developments is the fact that the available supply of the alien groups
heretofore recruited, principally orientals and Mexicans, has been progressively
reduced through exclusion or repatriation.
In spite of these developments, a substantial proportion of the cannery labor
force on the Pacific coast, and particularly in Alaska, is still migratory in
character and composed largely of alien racial stock. Data showing racial dis-
tribution are available only for Alaska. In 1937 the salmon-cannery crews,
totaling 14,798, in the Territory were approximately 40 percent whites, 19 percent
native Alaskan Indian, 4 percent Chinese, 6 percent Japanese, 4 percent Mexican,
24 percent Filipino, and 3 percent miscellaneous.'" Practically all the Chinese,
Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos, and the miscellaneous group (a total of approxi-
mately 6,200 in 1937), as well as a considerable number of the whites, migrate to
the Alaska fisheries from the Pacific Coast States. Each season they gather in
the cities of San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle to be transported on company
vessels to the Alaska canneries. At the end of the 2- or 3-mouth season they
are debarked and paid off at the same ports, whence they disperse into other
industries and localities throughout the Pacific coast. Many go to the sardine
and tuna canneries of California. Others follow the fall, winter, and spring agri-
cultural crops. Still others find employment in hotels and restaurants, or as
chauffeurs and domestics. A considerable proportion return to the canneries year
after year. Many in this group are single men without family or community ties.
In the Pacific Coast States the proportion of alien races in the canneries and
reduction plants is smaller than in Alaska, although no figures are available.
Similarly, there seems to be a smaller proportion of migrants, whether alien or
citizen. In large part, the latter circumstance is due to the readier availability
of local resident labor. Many women, usually local residents, are found in these
plants. Even here, however, certain factors often encourage an influx of
migratory labor. In many small cannery communities, both in the Pacific Coast
States and in southeastern Alaska, the local labor supply is not adequate to the
peak demand of the season, making necessary the utilization of some outside
labor. The employer under these circumstances is inclined to give preference to
the outsiders, in order to hold them in the locality, and because he feels he can
always find workers on short notice among the resident population. This is
especiall.v true where the employer has paid the transportation costs of the
imported laborers or where he has made arrangements to provide them with food
and quarters. Thus the outside workers, who are likely to be migrants and often
of an alien race, are given the steady employment, while the local population is
relegated to the position of a labor reserve to be given only an occasional call as
needed. In many west coast towns this situation has produced great friction
between resident and migrant as well as between resident workers and the
employer.^^"
3= Ibid., ch. II.
33 Computed from data given by Ward T. Bower, op. cit., p. 107. The miscellaneous
;roup includes Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Negroes, Koreans, Chileans, and others.
S3» Cf. L. W. Casaday, op. cit., eh. II.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3409
In general, the problem of migratory labor in tlie fisheries of the Pacific coast
appears to be diminishing rather than increasing in importance. Largely this
is the resnlt of the spread of the population and the increasing availability of
local labin-. Nevertheless, friction is still acute in many sections. The develop-
ment of unions among both the fishermen and cannery workers has tended to
introduce an element of regularity into the employment process.'* In considerable
measure the problem is not peculiar to the fishing industry but is one which must
be solved on a regional basis.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock
this afternoon.
(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 p. m.)
An'ERNOON SESSION
The recess having expired, the committee reconvened at 2 p. m.,
Hon. Claude V. Parsons, presiding.
Mr. Parsons. The committee will please come to order.
The first witness this afternoon, in place of Mr. Philip Murray, is
Mr. Hetzel.
TESTIMONY OF EALPH HETZEL, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE UN-
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANI-
ZATIONS
Mr. Parsons. Mr. Hetzel, will you state what organization you
represent?
Mr Hetzel. I am the director of the unemployment division of the
c. 1. 6. . .
Mr. Parsons. Congressman Curtis will question the witness.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hetzel, what division of the C. I. O. did you say
you- represent?
Mr. Hetzel. The unemployment division.
Mr. Curtis. How long have you been with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations?
Mr. Hetzel. Since August 1937.
Mr. Curtis. What work were you in before that time?
Mr. Hetzel. I was secretary to' Governor Pinchot in Pennsylvania,
when he was the Governor, and studied labor problems in England
following that.
Mr. Curtis. You are appearing here in behalf of Mr. Murray, who
is the president of your organization ?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes, sir. Mr. Murray is tied up now with some indus-
trial problems. He wanted to present his apologies to the committee.
He wanted me to say he was profoundly sorry that he could not come,
that he has a deep personal interest in the work of the committee and
the facts that are being brought out, and that he was deeply soriy,
indeed, that he could not be here.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hetzel, your prepared statement is here and will be
made part of our record, but we want you, if you can, briefly to sum-
^ A fuU account of the union movement in the salmon fisheries of the Pacific coast up to
1937 may be found in L. W. Casaday, op. cit., chs. VI, VII, VIII, and IX. For a very brief
summary of the extent of unionization in the industry at large as of 1939, see Maritima
Labor Board, Report to the President and the Congress, 1940, pp., 81-83. See also Gregory
and Barnes, op. clt., p. 216 ff.
3410 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
marize the highlights of that statement, and then we will have some
questions to ask you. Your entire statement will be printed in the
record, so please confine yourself to those points that are stressed in
that paper.
Mr. Hetzel. I would like to make clear to the committee that this
is the statement prepared by Mr. Murray and is his statement. I am
only presenting it in his behalf.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP IMURRAY, PRESIDENT OF THE CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
I appi'eciate very deeply the courtesy of your committee in asking me to appear
before it as a witness in the matter of migration. I should like to express my
views on the problems before your committee not as an expert acquainted in
great detail with the facts of the migration. Your committee already has before
it the testimony of qualified experts. I should merely like to sketch in broad
outline labor's view of the problem of migration and to make some general obser-
vations on measures which might be taken to relieve the lot of the migrant
workers and to make of migration a beneficent mobility of labor rather than the
evil byproduct of extensive unemployment which it now is.
In the last few years migration of workers in this country has come to mean
the endless search of destitute and stranded workers and farmers for job oppor-
tunities that do not exist. In a period of large unemployment this migration
becomes a menace to labor standards and a nightmare to communities already
overburdened with unemployed workers.
In labor's view there is no need to regard the movement of workers from one
place to another as being necessarily undesirable. If working people can improve
their lot by moving from one place to another, if they can add to the labor supply
in areas where there are growing employment opportunities, then migration is
good and desirable, because it represents freedom of working people to better
their lot.
In the steel industry we have had considerable experience with the kind of
industrial change and unemployment which provides the raw material for the
hopeless migration of destitute workingmen. The introduction of new techno-
logical changes in the steel industry, especially the introduction of the automatic
strip mills, has been the means for creating enormous unemployment of steel
workers and leaving them stranded in ghost towns in which old mills have been
abandoned.
The effects of this process are described in some detail in testimony before
the Temporary National Economic Committee a few months ago. I should like
to take the liberty of quoting a few paragraphs of that testimony here because
it bears directly upon your subject :
"social effects of strip milis
"Such wholesale elimination of workers has been devastating. The strip mills
are displacing 84,770 workers, 38,470 of whom have already been disconnected
from the steel industry. On March 29 of this year in Massillon, Ohio, 500
workers in Republic's sheet mill there were given this notice:
" 'We regret to advise you that on account of the permanent discontinuance
of operations of the Massillon sheet mills your services are hereby terminated.
" 'Please find enclosed your copy of the "Termination notice to employment
office." This form should be presented to the paymaster to secure any earnings
which may be due you.
" 'Also find enclosed "Workers copy" of Form UC 406, "Separation report for
total unemployment," as provided under unemployment compensation.
" 'Yours very truly,
" 'Republic Steel Corporation.'
"This notice was given to these 500 workers on March 29, 1940 ; and within a
few weeks between 500 and 600 more received the same notice. In the Niles,
Ohio, plant of the same company 450 more workers are also out of employment,
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3411
as Republic Steel has discontinued its sheet mill there also. A public announce-
ment of the discontinuance of the mill in Niles was published in the newspapers
on March 28.
"These workers have not been disconnected from the industry, one by one.
They have been cast out, a thousand at a time — fifteen hundred. And in one
case 3,000 workers were told to go home and never to come back, as their mill
would not work again. Aside from the inhuman effect this wholesale abandon-
ing of mills has on the individual worker, look at what happens to entire com-
munities. Property becomes next to worthless, business drops to a fraction of
previous levels, families are kept in existence by Work Projects Administration
and relief, the social fabric of the town is torn in shreds, and the only means of
making a livelihood is taken away from workers, many of whom have never
known any other way of earning a living. All this happens because technology
has found a new method of production, in this case the automatic strip mill. The
financial cost of a strip mill is fifteen, twenty, or forty million dollars. But
the social cost of this automatic mill is far greater in terms of human misery,
personal tragedy, and wrecked mankind. Look at the worker immediately dis-
placed.
"A large percentage of these technologically displaced workers are skilled
men. They have spent years acquiring their skills, and now private industry
has no use for them. These men are no longer young in years, though .they are
not too old to work. But they are unemployed, discarded by the steel industry
because profits cannot be made from their skills any more. The?e men are
capable of many more years of good work, but private industry is no longer
interested in them because most of them have reached the ripe old age of 40 years.
"The tragic circumstances of these men who are victims of the strip mills
defy description. They are not being employed on one of the automatic strip
mills for a very definite reason. The vice president in charge of operations of a
large steel firm told me that he had hired a completely new force of men for his
strip mill, mostly very young men. lie explained : 'A hand-mill worker is used
to producing from 5 to 10 tons in 8 hours, and he can't get used to seeing ^a
thousand or more tons produced on a strip mill in the same time. We have to
break in new men on the strip mills who have never seen a hand mill operate.'
The comparatively few hand-mill workei-s who have been employed in automatic
strip mills — and remember, 37,000 of them are out completely — are working as
laborers or semiskilled workers, and are receiving wages one-half to one-third
of their former daily earnings. The social effects of the strip mills are doubly
devastating."
"ghost steel towns
"The strip mills have reduced entire conmiunities to ruin. Thriving steel towns
have been converted into ghost towns overnight. New Castle, Pa., a steel town
of 50,000 people, is a typical example. In the last 3 years 4,500 hand-mill work-
ers have been permanently displaced in this town. A few years earlier 1,200
Bessemer steel workers were displaced in New Castle, a total of 5,700 victims
of technology during the 1930's in a single steel town. As a consequence, private-
job opportunities have dried up. High-school graduates cannot find work and
are lucky to get an opportunity to go to a Civilian Conservation Corps camp.
Sixty-four percent of New Castle's population — 7,000 families — have been receiv-
ing some form of State or Federal assistance, or have been trying to get such aid.
The State and Federal Governments have been spending approximately three and
a luarter million dollars a year in New Castle. But even as the plight of the
town got worse, the Seventy-sixth Congress reduced Work Projects Admiiiistra-
tion wages $5 a month and cut the number of Work Projects Administration jobs
by more than 50 percent.
"Other steel towns have likewise been reduced to ruin, while still others are
on the verge of it. These towns are the victims of corporate irresponsibility.
Boards of directors sitting in the financial centers of the Nation pass economic
legislation, based exclusively on their proflt-and-loss statements. In one decision
they wipe out a complete mill and ruin an entire town, and they do it apparently
without any thought of responsibility for the social consequences of their decision.
"The record of the steel industry during the past decade in abandoning entire
plants, or large departments of plants, in one knockout blow reveals an ignorance
3412 INTERSTATE iMIGRATION
and discoiicern of social conditions that defy description. From 1929 to 1939
53 old-style, hand-plate, sheet, and tin-plate plants have been permanently aban-
doned. Some of these plants were departments of large integrated steel works,
but a large majority were separate plants. Thirty-eight thousand four hundred
and seventy workers were displaced in these abandoned plants. Exhibit No. 1 in
the back of this book shows a list of these plants and indicates the parent firms,
the location, products produced, and number of workers displaced in each plant
by years. More than 50 percent of the workers were displaced in 1937 and 1938,
with the result, as I shall point out later, that the effects of the strip mills on
the volume of wages and employment in the steel industry have not been !;-ub-
stantial until recently.
"The strip mills are not through with their killing. Fourteen plants or depart-
ments of integrated steel producers are on the industry's death list. These old-
style hand mills are scheduled to be abandoned permanently. Some of them
have worked irregularly in rece].«^ years, and some are completely idle at present.
Employed in these plants are 22,950 workers soon to be thrown into the streets,
to be made idle through no fault of their own, and no longer wanted by the steel
industry or by private industry generally. About the eventual abandonment of
these plants, there is no doubt. Several steel employers have already discussed
the abandonment of these plants with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee.
And with abandonment of these plants the number of prosperous steel towns will
decline, while the number of ghost steel towns will increase."
These ghost towns then become potential reservoirs of working men and
w^omen who, without resources, without hope of new jobs, either stay in their
communities and seek to live upon meager relief and Work Projects Administra-
tion or who take to the road in what is usually a futile attempt to iind work
elsewhere.
In passing, I might say that the growing demand for steel for national defense
lias again brought some hope to the stranded areas. The Congress of Industrial
Organizations, and more especially the Steel Workers Organizing Connnittee,
has asked the National Defense Commission to make every possible effort to put
whatever new industries the defense effort may create in such towns as these
ghost towns. I am happy to report that efforts are now being made in this
direction.
It seems clear that there will be no solution to the problem of the migration
of destitute people until our Nation's industry offers reasonably full-employment
opportunities. The Congress of Industrial Organizations has set forth on a num-
ber of occasions a program that it believes is designed to move the Nation toward
full employment, whilst preserving evei-y essential of our democratic system.
The first of these proposals is the convening of a national conference of the
responsible leaders of labor, industry, agriculture, and the Government. This
conference should be called by the President of the United States and brought
together round a table, there to be held in session until there can be reached
agreement upon fundamental measures to end the problem of unemployment.
There are other measures too, but they are set forth in the public documents
of the Congress of Industrial Organizations convention just adjourned. There-
fore, I will not burden your record with them.
It is believed in some quarters that the extensive expenditures on national
defense to be made during the next few years will end unemployment in our
Nation. Whether that be true or not, it is clear • that for some substantial
period of time to come unemployment is not going to be wiped out. In tlie steel
industry, for example, employment is some 35,000 below the all-high employment
peak set in 1939, with the steel industry at the same time producing the largest
tonnage of steel ingots ever turned out in its history.
Furthermore, following the boom now induced by national-defense expenditure,
there will undoubtedly be a period in which we will again have to consider those
normal measures which are necessary to end unemployment in the Nation.
EFFECT OF SOUND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
The establishment of industry-wide collective-bargaining agreements with indus-
trial unions in the basic industries of the country has provided an instrument
which has already been useful in mitigating the effects of migration due to unem-
ployment. I think that the industrial unions through such agreements have a
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3413
great potentiality for the futxire in this area. Already in the steel industry, and
in the textile industry among others, the unions have been responsible for guar-
anteeing jobs in new plants for those workers put out of work by the abandonment
of obsolete factories. They have also begun to provide some wage protection
by seeking to establish dismissal wages for those who may lose their jobs due
to technological changes.
I would therefore urge upon your committee the extension of sound collective-
bargaining agreements and the growth of industrial unions as a first step toward
the protection of those who might otherwise become destitute migrants.
In this connection it should be pointed out that the most publicized group of
migrants, and those whose conditions have been perhaps the worst, are the
agricultural workers. These workers are excluded from the rights of collective
bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act. Your committee has already
heard testimony as to the industrial character of most of the operations in which
these agricultural workers are engaged. Therefore, I need not repeat those facts.
Idr. Henry A. Wallace, when Secretary of Agriculture, made the following com-
ment upon collective bargaining rights for agricultural workers:
'•F(ir the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, however, special atten-
tion must be given to employee status. Most farms of America having no hired
workers, are not alfected. On those farms which have a man or two, regularly
or at certain seasons, relationships between employer and worker are much like
those of the handicraft stage of industry. Where workers are employed in con-
siderable numbers on a farm, regularly or seasonally, questions arise as to terms
and conditions of employment that cannot be distinguished in nature from those
that arise in factory, mill, or mine. Here, as in industry, arises the need for a
democratic means of redressing that inequality of economic power that is evident
when the single workman faces tlie employer of many. Insofar as workers desire
to call upon or organize unions for assistance, they have that clearly established
right in the exercise of which they are legally protected."
I v.oald urge upon you this view as a fair approach to the problem.
OTHER SOCIAI. LEGISLATION
One of the most important discriminations which operate against migratory
workers, either through exemption by law or through exemption by practice,
is the lack of adequate coverage by the social-sx-urity laws. Agricultural
workers and many other groups of migratory workers are excluded from old-
age pensions and' from unemployment compensation. In addition even those
workers in covered occupations who move from State to State or from covered
to uncovered occupations face serious difficulties in maintaining any benefits
under the unemployment compensation laws. You have expert testimony in
these matters and, therefoi-e, I will not seek to discuss them in detail^
Labor believes, however, that the coverage of the social-security laws should
be made much broader and should give protection from the hazards of old
age and unemployment to as large a group of workers as is possible. Migra-
tory Vi'orkers, both agricultural and other, are among those who need pro-
tection the most. The extension of such protection would do much to mitigate
the hardships which beset them.
A further extension of the wage-and-hour law ought also to be made to
protect the wage and living standards of many of these migrant workers.
Much of their hardship arises from the fact that they are often at the
mercy of employers and must accept^ in order to live, any wage that is
offered.
The need for extension of these national laws to migrant workers empha-
sizes the fact again that the problem of the migrant is a Federal problem
and can be handled effectively for the most part only on the Federal level.
By the very nature of the case it is impossible for the States effectively to
meet the problems of those workers who move about within the State or more
especially from State to State.
The most potent reminder of this fact is the discrimination against migrant
workers who seek relief or Work Projects Administration. All States liave
residence requirements for those who seek relief. In States where relief is
administered by the counties or localities these requirements are often for
residence within the specific locality. The requirements range from 1 year
3414
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
on up to 5 years of residence. The first effect of this requirement is to prevent
worliers who have moved out of their own State or locality from gettuig:
relief or from being certified by relief agencies as eligible for Work Projects
Administration. The substantial effect of such measures is to prevent migrant
workers from receiving any kind of relief or Work Projects Adnnnistration
aid no matter how serious their condition. A further effect is to freeze workers
in stranded communities where although there appears to be no probability
of a job, they decide to stay in order to be eligible for relief and Work Projects
Administration. It seems clear that some solution beginning with the estab-
lishment of uniform laws relating to residence needs to be set forth. There
must be further some provision for relief and assistance to those migrants
who are unable to establish proper residence requirements because they have
moved in search of work. A system of Federal grants-in-aid for such workers
has been suggested and it seems to me sound.
There is one situation I should like to call to the committees attention for
further examination. In a number of the agricultural areas in particular many
of the migrant workers are aliens and citizens of such countries as Mexico with
which this Nation is seeking to establish neighborly relations. Under the alien
registration law these workers are required to register a place of residence and
notify the authorities of every change therein. Since many of these workers
move from week to week following the harvests and cultivating seasons, it is
almost impossible for them to carry out this provision. On the other hand
failure to do so subjects them to severe criminal penalties. It seems to me this
situation works undue and unnecessary hardship upon honest working people of
fiee nations. I would urge your committee to examine this situation in order
that some reasonable remedy may be proposed.
In conclusion it seems to me the extension of those devices such as the f,ree
public employment ofl^ices which facilitate the shift of employed or unemployed
workers to new or more suitable jobs would be very helpful ; a sound system of
employment offices carefully safeguarded to prevent coercion upon workers to
shift their jobs ; a safeguard against unwise migration and a sound help to bene-
ficial shifts of labor.
TESTIMONY OF RALPH HETZEL, JR.— Resumed
Mr. Hetzel. I would like to summarize that statement briefly for
the committee.
Mr. Mtirray's view is that the heart of the question of migration and
its effect upon the country as a whole, as well as the individual com-
munities, depends in the main upon the nature of the employment
situation. If there is extensive unemployment — and that is the con-
dition under which the studies of migration undertaken by the com-
mittee have been made and the conditions under which the discussions
have been carried on recently — then migration becomes, as Mr. Murray
sees it, simply a movement in the main by workers from stranded areas,
or areas wdtere there are no jobs, in a search which usually turns out to
be hopeless throughout the country, for other jobs.
If there are employment opportunities, on the other hand, Mr.
Murray's view is that it is not to be regarded as a bad thing. If there
is a movement and a migration of labor it can be very beneficial. That
is, it can be the adjustment of the labor supply of the country to the
needs as they grow around the country, but that depends essentially
upon a condition of fairly near full employment and upon the opening
of jobs continuously in ne^v areas.
Mr. Murray has given a great deal of emphasis, and the C. I. O. has,,
on the necessity, in the solution of all these matters, for full employ-
ment.
Particularly in the steel industry we have made extensive studies
and those are available to the committee in the prepared statement
which he has made here.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3415
Mr. Curtis. Naturall3% the AYork of this committee takes on the form
of two different phases of the problem. One is the immediate care of
the people who are interstate migrants and who are destitnte. The
other one is the long'-term solution. Now, what Mr. Murray has pre-
pared deals primarily with which phase?
EECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Hetzel. With both. Congressman ; both phases. First, I wanted
to outline — and I think Mr. Murray did — what he regarded as the
fundamental problem, and then in the interim, as we have discussed it
in this paper, the other measures which can be taken to mitigate the
situation as it is now, before you undertake the fuller solution, or
while you do.
Mr. Murray has advocated time and again — and in this paper con-
tinues his advocacy — of the calling of a national conference on unem-
ployment, where the representatives of agTiculture, industry, of labor,
and the Government should sit together at the call of the President and
seek a solution of this problem of unemployment. They should sit
until they come to an agreement on fundamental principles by which
we jointly could seek the way to end unemployment.
There have been suggested in some quarters that the national-defense
expenditures will solve the problem of unemployment and, presum-
ably, some of the main evil features of migTation. It is our impression
that that will not happen, at least for some time to come.
There are a number of factors in the situation. In part, the inability
of industry at this stage to make the absorption of the unemployed,
which makes it clear to us that the national-defense program will not,
for some tune to come, absorb the unemployed.
It also presents, at the period wdien national -defense expenditures
must of necessity cease, the threat of unemployment, of stranded areas,
in particular those areas where only national-defense industries are
created, industries which have no future beyond that, a problem that
may exceed in magnitude any that we faced in the past decade.
And this makes essential the undertaking of measures to meet unem-
ployment, both in its broad aspect and in its relation to migratory
workers.
In the interim there are several measures which Mr. Murray has
advocated as being essential to meet the problem of migratory workers,
and I should like to take the liberty of reading just a couple of para-
graphs giving you Mr. Murray's view. He says :
The establishment of incUistry-wide cbllective-bargainiiig agreements with in-
dustrial miions in the basic industries of the country has provided an instrument
which has already been useful in mitigating the effects of migration due to unem-
ployment. I think that the industrial unions through such agreements have a
great potentiality for the future in this area. Already in the steel industry and
in the textile industry, among others, the unions have been responsible for guaran-
teeing jobs in new plants for those workers put out of work by the abandonment of
obsolete factories. They have also begun to provide some wage protection by
seeking to establish dismissal wages for those who may lose their jobs due to
technological changes.
I would therefore urge upon your committee the extension of sound collective-
bargaining agreements and the growth of industrial unions as a first step toward
the protection of those who might otherwise become destitute migrants.
In this connection it should be pointed out that the most publicized group of
migrants and those whose conditions have been perhaps the worst are the agri-
cultural workers. These workers are excluded from the rights of collective bar-
260370— 41— pt. 8 22
3416 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
gaining under the National Labor Relations Act. Your committee has already
heard testimony as to the industrial character of most of the operations in which
these agricultural workers are engaged. Therefore I need not repeat those facts.
Mr. Henry A. Wallace, when Secretary of Agriculture, maae the foLowing
comment upon collective-bargaining rights for agricultural workers — -
And this view seems to Mr. Murray the one that might be a criterion
for judging the areas in which collective bargaining could be immedi-
ately extended. Quoting Mr. Wallace :
For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, however, special atten-
tion must be given to employee status. Most farms of America, having uo hired
workers, are not affected. On those farms which have a man or two, regularly or
at certain seasons, relationships between employer and worker are much like
those of the handicraft stage of industry. Where workers are employed in con-
siderable numbers on a farm, reguiarly or seasonally, questions arise as lo terms
and conditions of employment that cannot be ilistinguLshtd in nature from those
that arise in factory, mill, or mine. Here, as in industry, arises the need for
a democratic means of redressing that inequality of economic power that is
evident when the single worknian faces the employer of many. Insofar as
workers desire to call upon or organize unions tor assistance, they have that
clearly established right in the exercise of which they are legally protected.
A further proposal which Mr. Murray makes is a discussion of the
lack of adequate coverage imder the social-security laws. You will
have, I understand, expert witnesses on this matter.
The position of the C I. O. and of Mr. Murray has been that, to these
workers whose insecurity is perhaps the greatest in the country, there
should be extended the benerits ot the social-security laws, 'ihat in-
volves certain technical problems, such as the question of coverage on
the part of the State unemployment compensation systems vdiicii arc,
after all, only State-wide. It involves certain dithculties as to the
transfer of benefits from State to State, or from covered to uncovered
occupations.
He also states further the position that —
A further extension of the wage-and-hour law ought also to be made to protect
the wage and living standards of many of these migrant workers. Much of
their hardship arises from the fact that they are often at the mercy of employers
and must accept, in order to live, any wage that is ottered.
He goes on further to say :
The need for extension of these national laws to migrant workers emphasizes
the fact again that the problem of the migrant is a Federal problem and can be
handled effectively for the most part only on the Federal level. By the very
nature of the case, it is impossible for the States elfectively to meet the problems
of those workers who move about within the State or more especially from Suite
to State.
Then he goes on to speak about the problem of relief and the W. P. A.
One of the most serious difficulties — and that is one in which I ha^'e
had considerable personal experience — whicli migratory workers have
is the fact that they do not have those residence requirements neces-
sary to get them either relief or W. P. A. when they are out of a job.
It seems to me that it is clearly a Federal problem to meet the needs
of those workers.
One suggestion which seems sound is for a system hrst of uniform
settlement laws. I understand the committee calls it uniform residence
requirements for relief.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3417
Mr. Parsons. Would you advance the theory that some have that
we ought to abandon settlement laws entirely, repeal them all?
Mr. Hetzel. I do not think so at this time, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Parsons. But you would prefer uniformity ?
Mr. Hetzel. Certainly there ought to be uniformity and if we do
not abandon them, then a system of Federal grants-in-aid which would
give the States funds to carry the responsibility which is, after all.
not their own. , ^t
Mr. Parsons. And that is the only way m which we, as the JNa-
tional Congress, could demand uniformity in the settlement laws.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes.
Mr. Parsons. I notice in Mr. Murray's statement that, although
there were 35,000 less men working in the steel industry today, the
output is greater than at any time in the history of the country.
Mr. Hetzel. That is right, Mr. Congressman.
labor displacements in steel industry
Mr. Parsons. What is the cause for the displacement of so many
men in that industry ? i i • i
Mr. Hetzel. It has been the introduction of new technological
changes, the most important of which is the introduction of the con-
tinuous automatic strip mill.
Mr. Curtis. Will you explain that just a little further ?
Mr. Hetzel. The old mills, for the production of steel strip, rolled
strip steel, were in fairly large part a hand process and hivolved a
large number of handlings of the steel from the furnaces into the
finished rolled strip, and the rolls moved slowly. In these new mills,
it goes direct from the ingot into the rollers, not touched by any
man's hand and automatically runs at the pace of 25 to 30 miles an
hour through these mills without the necessity of any handling by
any man. So that in an enormous mill which turns out the steel
previouslv manufactured by 16,000 to 18,000 men, they employ only
about 3,000 or 4,000.
Mr. Curtis. How long has that process been used i
Mr. Hetzel. The first mill was built and developed in 1926. It
began to be introduced commercially in 1929 and the effective produc-
tion of the mills began in about 1937. The full impact of those tech-
nological changes in the steel industry was begun to be felt about
that time.
Mr. Curtis. About what percentage of the men have been displaced
by that process?
Mr. Hetzel. The total employment in the steel industry runs about
half a million. It involves some complication, because those persons
are replaced by other new defense industries which would make the
total displacement due to the continuous-strip mills more than 30,000,
Our people have estimated about 80,000. But due to increases in em-
ployment in other parts of the industry, the total of 30,000 relates
to the full output of the basic steel industry.
Mr. Curtis. On the basis of 80,000 out of a total of half a million,
it would be somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of displacement.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes. That is only the strip mills. There are other
processes.
3418 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Curtis. Yes. The next question I was going to ask you was,
Have similar developments in other fields created a similar situation
with regard to labor demand ?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes. I have an abstract of some considerable testi-
mony, that about eight of our unions prepared, before the Temporary
National Economic Committee on just this question. All of them
from the major basic-production industries of the country testified
that there were changes occurring in production techniques of industry
which, were very rapidly decreasing the number of man-hours neces-
sary per unit of production.
Mr. Parsons. To what extent has the introduction of labor-dis-
placing machinery caused the present great unemployment?
Mr. Hetzel. As we have analyzed the number of unemployed,
which we estimated last month at about 9,115,000 — that is our own
C. I. O. estimate — we have estimated that perhaps three to three and
a half million of those were due to displacement by machines. The
rest of the approximately 9,000,000 were due to the increase in the
working population in the j^ast 10 years. We base that around 1929
when you had, roughly, full employment and full production.
Mr. Parsons. One-third, then, is clue to the introduction of labor-
displacing machinery and two-thirds due to an increase in the popu-
lation ?
Mr. Hetzel. I would say that would be roughly true.
Mr. Parsons. What is the final answer to this unemplovment prob-
lem?
Mr. Hetzel. I wish I knew, and could say it in a word, Mr, Con-
gressman.
Mr. Parsons. I want you to comment on it.
conference on unemployment
Mr. Hetzel. Our proposal has been a joint meeting of minds in
the country. We would, of course, have some suggestions to make to
such a conference, and they would be based on the thesis, by and large^
that the way to move closer to a stable economy, based on full em-
ployment, is to take those steps which will create an effective purchas-
ing power in the hands of the consuming public. And that means,
by and large, the working people, the working farmers, the industrial
workers will have a purchasing power of such a size and magnitude
as will enable them to buy the things that they produce.
There are a number of measures — we think collective bargaining is
the most important one — to increase the share of the national income
going to the working people. We think that farm programs which
give the farmer at least the cost of production are a part and parcel
of the program.
There are other measures to be taken by the Government to adjust
that flow of income in terms of taxation.
We have set forth at some length in Mr. Lewis' report to the C. I. O.
convention the adjustment of taxation, so that taxes, the $16,000,009,000
each year which the citizens pay out of the national income — so that
those are taken in not from the areas where they reduce the consum-
ing power of our people but from those areas, those economic areas by
and large which are not being used now in either consumption or
production.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3419
Similarly, adjustments need to be made in the social-security system
and in the rates of profit taxation. But they would revert to meas-
ures which bear out the thesis that by giving- the people in this coun-
try—the working people, the farmers— the income necessary to buy
what they produce, we can reach a point of full employment in a
stable economy without interrupting our democratic way of life or
seriously disrupting the operation of our normal market system.
DEFENSE PROGRAM
INIr, Curtis. Keferring to your paper, where you touch on national-
defense industries, there are perhaps two forces bidding for these new
industries. One is in areas that were formerly industrial areas, per-
haps ghost towns. And the other group is the one that says to move
them to the agricultural areas where there is much distress, where there
is an ample labor supply, and where there is a need for supplemental
income on the part of farmers who have been unable to make a go of it.
Those two groups naturally are working against each other. If
there is one factory to be installed, it cannot be in a ghost town, in an
industrial State, and at the same time be out in the Dust Bowl, to
help the people out there.
What comment would you care to make on the location of defense
industries as pertaining to a sound economy of the country?
Mr. Hetzel. Well, of course, we have, by the necessity of the kind
of organization we are, been most concerned with the rehabilitation
of the ghost towns; in part because w^e have memberships there; in
part because we think that from an economic point of view it would
be a terrible waste to let go to ruin all of those facilities that are built
up around the industry; that is, power plants, homes, stores— the
whole community that is created around an industry.
If you build in areas wdiere there has been no industry previously,
or no community, then the community as a whole, some way or another,
has to bear the cost of creating those facilities. If, however, you re-
place manufacturing operations in cities that are already built, which
already have available the plant, it is not so much of a cost to the
Nation as a whole, because you have and can use something already
available.
Of course, wdiat we would like to see is full employment, so there
would not have to be this competition between the various areas for a
small amount of employment.
Mr. Curtis. Have any of your studies led you to anticipate a disloca-
tion of the labor of the people when the defense program is over?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes ; very serious, particularly in terms, for example,
of the location of powder plants in rural areas ; where you build up an
entire community around a powder plant, say, of 5,000 people, and
where the employment ceases, and those people are simply stranded.
In the steel areas, for example, the basic steel-production areas are
different ones, by and large, from those where the specific fabrication
of munitions is being done. So that when the munitions fabrication is
finished, then there will be those areas in the same location as the basic
steel areas which will be abandoned. And I suppose that that kind of
situation could be repeated time and again.
I think the location of a number of these aircraft phints is such that
they are one-industry areas, and the result of a one-industry area is
3420
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
that when the industry goes down, if it is for national defense m par-
ticnhir, there is no other recourse but to stagnate or to migrate.
Mr. CuOTis. Has the Congress of Industrial Organizations made any
estimate or prediction as to the number of new jobs that are being
created or that will be created by the national-defense program?
Mr. Hetzel. We have gone into that at considerable length, Mr.
Chairman, and our best estimate is that there will not be more than an
average increase, or a decrease in unemployment, next year of more
than two and a half million. That includes the creation of an armed
force of almost over a million and the defense and other industries
stimulated by the defense program.
Mr. OsMEES. Do I understand you to mean that that would be a
million and a half in industry and a million in tlie armed forces? Is
that the way you arrive at your figure of two and a half million ?
Mr. Hetzel. The way it would work is this : Approximately 2,000,000
in industry, 1,000,000 in the armed forces, and then we will have an
increase, an average increase, in the w^orking population of half a
million. So we would subtract that from the 3,000,000, which gives us
a decrease of that number in unemployment.
Mr. Curtis. Where does that half a million increase come from?
Mr. Hetzel. Each year the working population has been increasing,
during the past 10 years, at an average of about half a million a year.
Mr. Curtis. Is that due to the birth rate exceeding the death rate
that much, or is there immigration, or is there a shift from agriculture
to labor, or how do you account for that ?
Mr. Hetzel. In the main, it is because of the two population reasons,
one being we still are having an increase in the population, and that
has its effect in the lower-age groups; and, too, we have a bulge in
our population in the age group which is now reaching working age.
Just after the World War we had a very high birth rate.
Mr. Curtis. Is the national-defense program revealing any serious
shortage of labor?
Mr. Hetzel. No. We have not been able to find any serious short-
age of labor.
Mr. Curtis. Is there any shortage in the skilled trades?
Mr. Hetzel. In certain areas it has been reported to us that nianu-
facturers have not been able to get workers of specific and limited
skills witli the facility that they wished. However, we do not know
of any Government "operations, or any national-defense operations,
which have been seriously impeded in their output by a shortage of
labor, and we do not anticipate that in the near future at all.
aIvIEns in labor
Mr. Parsons. Have you made any figures or studies to ascertain
about how many aliens there are in our industries at the present time
in this country?
Mr. Hetzel." Mr. Congressman, we cannot tell about our own mem-
bership because we do not ask them on their application cards. We
have in most of the industries, especially in the national-defense in-
dustries, urged our unions to take an active part in seeing that their
alien members will register and in seeing that they took steps to be-
come naturalized Americans if they were eligible. We have never
made any very thorough-going survey of it.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3421
Mr. Curtis. In connection with this registration, this interstate mi-
gration of both the destitute and the partially employed, whnt diffi-
culties are they meeting under the Registration of Aliens Act ?
Mr. Hetzel. There is a ])aragraph about that in the statement. In
the agiicultural areas where the workers follow the harvest north,
tliere is a very serious problem about aliens, particularly the Mexican
aliens, who move from State to State. According to the alien regis-
tration law, they are required to register their place of residence at
all times, and to notify the Alien Registration Division of any changes
in address, but as a matter of fact they do not have any address when
they are moving through those camps, as a usual thing. We under-
stand from our people who are trying to serve the interests of these
groups of mioratory workers that that is expected to work rather
serious hardship on a group of woikers that has been active in that
field.
Mr. Curtis. And from your statement, in your application card for
membershi]), you made no inquirj^ as to whether or not they were
alien or citizen?
UNIONIZATION AMONG AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Mr. Hetzel. No ; we have never made that distinction.
Mr. Curtis. Does it follow, then, that you seek the same achieve-
ments for the alien laborer as you do for the American laborer?
Mr. Hetzel. Mi'. Chairman, we have taken the position that the
choice of membership in our unions is not one made by us, but by the
employer, and all we seek to do is to organize to improve the condi-
tions of all workers employed by a given emplo^^er, and if the employer
has not discriminated in the matter of citizenship or noncitizenship,
we do not either.
Mr. Curtis. Now, in reference to your ventures in organizing agri-
cultural workers, would you care to comment on that with reference
to any s]Decial difficulties encountered — the attitude of the employers
and workers, public officials, and the public generally?
Mr. Hetzel. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any particular comment
to make on that.
Mr. Curtis. What group of agricultural laborers have you sought
to unionize?
Mr. Hetzel. My most recent information in that field is that the
organization has been concentrated in operations such as canning and
processing of agricultural goods, rather than in the specifically farm
operations. Our unions there, I know, realize the difficulty that the
individual farmer is up against, and they have no inclination to in-
crease that by any unreasonable operations at all.
Mr. Curtis. Have you extended the unionization to cotton picking?
Mr. Hetzel. As far as I know, there is no organization there.
Mr. Curtis. Were you here this morning during the discussion?
Mr. Hetzel. No; I am sorry I was not.
Mr. Curtis. The Secretary of Labor used the term "industrialized
agriculture." She defined it as referring to any farmer who employed
four or more people. Have you made any attempt to organize that
group of so-called industrialized agricultural workers, or not?
Mr, Hetzel. There have been some attempts, and in some areas that
has been carried out, where there are very large operations.
Mr. Curtis. What areas, particularly?
3422 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Hetzel. In the Southwest, in the sugar-beet harvesting, and
in some areas in California, where there are very large operations.
Mr. Curtis. Does the Congress of Industrial Organizations contem-
plate a program of extending their unionization to the general run
of farmers who employ just a few men part of the year, and maybe
one or two all the year ?
Mr. Hetzel. I think Mr. Murray regarded the statement of the
Secretary of Agriculture as being a sound distinction — the one which
I read to the committee — and being the one on which the basis of
pursuing collective bargaining might be established.
Mr. Curtis. Is it your opinion that the extension of the Wagner
Act to farm workers would make the organization into unions easier ?
Mr. Hetzel. Well, certainly that has been our experience in the
industrial field. I think I can say without any question that the
number of industrial disputes that might have arisen has been de-
creased greatly by the fact that there is in law the right of collective
bargaining, and it is not necessary to dispute that except in a peace-
ful manner, in the cases where the National Labor Relations Act is
in force. The question of extending the act to farm workers, I think,
should be made on the basis of the Secretary of Agriculture's distinc-
tion.
Mr. Curtis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
]Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to something
Mr. Hetzel mentioned before with respect to a. national conference
on the subject of unemployment, in which Mr. Murray is very much
interested. The Secretary of Labor this morning advocated that
some agency or bureau be established for the continuous handling
of the migrant problem. I believe that your suggestion was to have
a conference that would not be in permanent session.
Mr. Hetzel. No.
Mr. OsMEES. Did you, or did Mr. Murray, have any idea as to
a future program for that conference?
JNIr. Hetzel. As I understand INIr. ISIurray's view on the matter,
he feels that if such a conference were convened, and it included the
responsible leaders of these various groups of the population, they
would be in a position to determine whether or not measures upon
which they agreed were ones which would require some continuing
agency.
Mr. Osmers. I have always been very enthusiastic about this con-
ference idea ever since it was first proposed, and I cannot understand
why there has not been one almost in constant session until this
problem is on its way to solution.
The committee has been concerned with the situation in the coun-
Iry at the conclusion of the defense program and at the conclusion
of the war. No one knows how long the war is to go on, but we
know that it is to end some day. It is my own opinion that it will
start a great depression in the United States, and that it will start
]~)robably the greatest migration ever seen in the last half century.
Do you subscribe to. that?
Mr. Hetzel. I think that is so.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3423
Mr. OsMEKS. For example, you mentioned an excellent illustra-
tion—the construction of a poAvder plant employmg 5,000 people, in
not even an agricultural area; in a hilly, rocky area.
Mr. Heizel. Yes. . . , i i ,
Mr. OsMERs. And at the conclusion of hostilities there would be
5,000 families that would have to move somewhere else. Of course,
the Government might support them for a brief time.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. Has your organization made, or does it contemplate
making, any studies 'that would lead to a solution of that problem
when it happens?
Mr. Hetzel. We have proposed, in broad terms, just during this
last convention which adjourned a couple of weeks ago, a broad out-
line of a program that we think would at least move in that direc-
tion, and I would be very glad indeed to have sent to the committee
that statement, which is not too long, for your attention.
Mr. Osmers. I personally would like to have a copy.
The Chairman. That permission will be granted.
(The following extracts from the report of former president John
L. Lewis, of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, were later
submitted by Mr. Hetzel and accepted for the record :)
War Econom\^
In the past year the whole economy of the United States has been changed from
a peace eco-nomy to a war economy. No effective solution has been advanced by
the Government or industry to meet the unemployment, insecurity, and low living
standards which have afflicted the country. All that has been done has been to
divert our industrial resources and energies to the production of war materials
and to enlist large numbers of young men for compulsory military service.
While this transference of our economy to a war footing has had some effect in
reducing unemployment and raising wages in some cases, such beneficial results
are offset by rising living costs and by other econc-mic disturbances which will be
noted later in this report.
Furthermore a war economy is an unhealthy economy, tending politically to
promote foreign adventures inorder that its mc.mentum may be maintained, and
carrying in it the seeds of economic collapse when the war period comes to an end,
as witness the severe depression which followed the last war in this and all other
countries.
The Congress of Industrial Organizations therefore has every reason to push
more vigorously than ever for the adoption of its program for a more lasting solu-
tion of unemployment, insecurity, and the other economic ills that beset us. This
program calls for a progressive raising of real wages and purchasing power, for
absorption of all the unemployed through reduced working hours and expanded
production, and for legislation to insure security and opportunity for young and
old people, the unemployed, and all the needy who are not otherwise provided for.
The first essential to bring about these desirable results is union organization.
The chief and most basic service which the Congress of Industrial Organizations
has rendered to the country has been the organization of previously uno-rganized
millions of workers in modern industrial unions. For it must not be forgotten
that such legislative and political advances as have been made were won chiefly
through the organized efforts of the working people.
The Eco-Nomic Outlook
Last year your president in h,is report warned of the dangers inherent in basing
the prosperity of the Nation upon expenditures for armament.
3424
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
The United States has now embarked upon a war economy rapidly rising to full
flood. We are facing a period when increased employment and increased produc-
tion will be based solely on enormous expenditures for military purposes.
NATIONAL DEFENSE COSTS
National-defense expenditures totaling I6V2 billions of dollars have been appro-
priated OT authorized, in addition to money being spent for such purposes under
regular appropriations by such agencies as the Work Projects Administration. It
Jias been otticially estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury that some $5,000,-
OOO.OCO of this sum will bo spent in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941. In the last
quarter of the fiscal year it is expected that such expenditures will be at a rate of
approximately $8,000,000,0(!0 annually. It has been unofficially estimated that the
following fiscal year will see such expenditures totaling some $10,000,000,000.
All or nearly all of such funds will be obtained by increasing the debt of the
Federal Government.
This trend will be expected to be greatly augmented by very large exix>rts of
arms and arms materials to Great Britain. In the first 8 months of 1940, there
was an export surplus of $1,000,000,000, a large part of which was due to arms pur-
chases by Great Britain. This surplus acted as a further subsidy to American
arms industries.
The inevitable result of these expenditures will be to increase the national in-
come substantially. Goverimient economists have spoken of reaching by these
methods a national income of $100,000,000,000 or more in 1942.
NATIONAL-DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT
Such an increase in production will provide a substantial amount of increased
employment, at first in the arms industries and later on in other industries
stimulated by the subsidy. The estimates of increased employment which will
be caused by the national-defense program vary rather widely. It would seem
reasonable, however, to expect an increase in employment in 1941 above 1940 of
an average of 2,500,000 workers.
The additional withdrawal of about a million through the draft and the muster-
ing of the National Guard will further decrease the number of persons unem-
ployed. By taking into account the normal increase in working population and
the probability that some conscripted workers will not be replaced, it is possible to
foresee a decrease in unemployment approximating 3,000,000 in 1941. Unem-
ployment in 1940 has averaged about 10,000,000.
Some of the increased employment and production will arise indirectly in indus-
tries not innnediately connected with defense, but most of the increased employ-
ment and production will appear in armament occupations spi'cilically. 'i'his will
create an acute deformity o-f our economic structure, marked by gieat overexten-
sion in such industries as aircraft, shipbuilding, ordinance, and so on.
The major part of the early plant expansions for defense have been financed
by the Federal Government, either by Reconstruction Finance Corporation loans
or by direct grants.
THE WAR ECONOMY
It is clear that the Nation has shifted to a war economy, administered by the
representatives of corporate industry and finance. And the American people are
faced with all the hazards which arise therefrom.
If any nation comes to depend for its prosperity only on increased military
expenditures, it becomes chained to a Frankenstein which drags it inevitably
toward war. Unless substantial economic offsets are provided to prevent this
Nation from becoming wholly dependent upon the war expenditures, we will come
sooner or later to the dilemma which requires either war or depression.
When a nation's economy comes to be based on arms expenditures, the cessa-
tion of such a subsidy means depression, the kind of depression that rests most
heavily upon the wage earners and farmers.
The war economy is marked by diversion to essentially nonproductive work of a
large part of our national capacity and effort.
It means a substantial part of our labor and of our capital are dedicated to the
building of instruments of destruction. The "dust bowl" and its ruined fanners,
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3425
the abandoned coal mines, and the stranded miners stand as reminders of the
destructive character of a war boom 20 years ago.
Typical of the war economy is a rise in the cost of living such as to sweep away
the increase in pay rolls. Typical also are profits moving to astronomical figures ;
the creation of enormous reserves of workers in the Army and in arms industries,
beyond the capacity of industry to reabsorb ; the building of gi-eat plant capacity,
usable only for arms.
Under the shelter of the arms subsidy all the economic deformities which
cause unemployment and depression in more normal times become aggravated.
This phenomenon cannot but induce a skepticism on the part of the common people
of the Nation as to the purposes to which national-defense expenditures are being
turned.
It is not necessary for this Nation to fall victim to a war economy. If sound
economic measures are pursued, it is possible to provide for our national defense
without mortgaging our economic future. The means are the extension and
acceleration of the kind of program already set forth by labor.
GUNS AND BUTTER
European nations have by choice or by necessity withdrawn from consumers'
goods and incomes the necessary labor and resources with which to arm. As
long as this country has a reservoir of 10,000,000 unemployed, as long as it has a
vast unused capacity in its regular industries, we need not sacrifice butter for guna.
Indeed, unless production in the~ consumers' goods industries is substantially
expanded along with the national-defense production, the Nation will fail to absorb
its unemployed. It will take an income of at least $100,000,000,000 to wipe out
unemployment.
The rise of production to 1029' levels in December of 1939 revealed that such
an output could be reached with two and one-half to three million less workers
employed at an average of oS instead of 48 hours per week. The steel industry,
producing the same tonnage, employed 6S,0tX) fewer workers in the summer of
1940 than in the peak period of 1937. Similar figures can be cited for all the
major American industries. Under the pressure of national-defense production
this movement will be accelerated and the number of workers employed will fail
to rise in propoi'tiou to increased production.
It will be possible for the national income to reach one hundred or one hundred
and ten billions of dollars, with ten billions only of that income turned to arms.
There would be left ninety to one hundred billion dollars for the ordinary needs
of our people, an income high above any previous level.
Should, however, such a rise in the income be accompanied by the soaring
cost of living and the fantastic profits of the World War period, disaster or eco-
nomic collapse will follow. If. on the other hand, prices are held within bounds,
wages rise evenly, profits are only reasonable ; if the low incomes of the Nation
rise and the high incomes are lowered ; if the people are equipped with the money
to buy all those things which they need ; if unemployment is vigorously wiped
out ; then our people need not fall victims to a war economy.
Up to the present there has been little effort by responsible public officials to
institute measures which would offset the dislocations of the arms production.
Much more elfective and persistent adjustment is essential in the following
areas :
1. The proportion of all income which ^oes to wages must increase. The grow-
ing power of the Congress of Industrial Organizations added many millions of
dollars to the incomes of wage earners again in the last year. Nevertheless there
are large areas in American industry where the right of collective bargaining has
not been recognized and where low wage levels constitute a drag upon the well-
being of the other organized and unorganized workers.
The average weekly wage in manufacturing industries for 1939 was $24.50.
This is a substantial improvement over the wage earned at the inception of the
Congress of Industrial Organizations. If, as is rare, such a weekly wage were
earned for 52 weeks of the year, it would, however, constitute an income of
approximately $1,250 annually for the average wage earner's family.
Such an income is barely half of what has lieen calculated after careful study
as being a minimum standard for health and decency by a distinguished com-
mittee of scholars, the Heller committee, in California. It is clear that substan-
3426
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
tial improvement is required in the status of tlie American wage earner and that
such improvement must talce precedence in a i>eriod of growing national income.
From an economic point of view, therefore, the further extension of collective
bargaining is imperative.
2. The cost of living must be protected by the maintenance of a stable and rea-
sonable price structure. If the effect of increased money wages is wiped out by
increased cost of living, no useful purpose is served by such wage rises. For the
first 3 months of the national-defense program the price structure has remained
fairly stable. Rifts, however, have appeared and on certain commodities serious
price increases have already occurred.
The National Defense Commission has indicated its opposition to such price
rises but as yet no effective steps appear to have been taken to prevent them.
3. Profits must be kept at a reasonable and just level. The World War saw
profits soar, in spite of a strong excess-profits tax, to unprecedented levels. Since
the outbreak of the European war the profits of major American corporations have
moved rapidly upward, increasing for 200 leading corporations some 60 percent.
INEFFEX3TUAL TAX MEASURE
In spite of a clear commitment in policy to prevent excessive profit, the Federal
Government has in fact lifted the moderate restrictions previously in effect. The
so-called excess-profits tax bill was the vehicle for wiping out a profit limitation
of 7 and 8 percent on a large number of shipbuilding and aircraft contracts. It
further provided for a 5-year amortization plan of newly constructed national-
defense facilities, a plan which amounts, in many instances, to a gift of plant
facilities to private industry. The so-called excess-profits tax which accompanied
these measures is a highly complicated and almost completely ineffectual tax
measure which ill deserves the title.
4. The national tax structure needs a vigorous reversal in its now seriously
retrogressive character.
Each year some $16,000,000,000 is withdrawn in taxes from our national income
of which Federal taxes amount to $6,000,000,000, State taxes to $4,500,000,000
and local and municipal taxes to $5,-500,000,000.
Of the $6,C00,000,C00 withdrawn in Federal taxes some 55.6 percent in fiscal
year 1940 was of a retrogressive nature, that is, taxes on consumer products.
Only 44.4 percent was collected through inheritance, income, and similar taxes
based on ability to pay. This compares with 1930 when 31.8 percent of the
Federal taxes came from consumer taxes and 68.2 percent came from income and
corporation taxes.
Some 83 percent of the State taxes bear directly upon consumption products
in the form of sales and excise taxes. About 75 percent of the local and
municipal revenue is derived from real estate and property taxes which bear
most frequently upon wage earners and property owners.
Two new tax bills have been passed during the present session of Congress.
Both of these bills further aggravate the retrogressive character of our tax
structure.
The first revenue bill is to raise $1,000,000,000. Over 50 percent of this
amount will come from the imposition of additional consumer taxes and the
lowering of exemptions on individual incomes. The income-tax rate on income
levels above $4,000 was raised somewhat.
The second revenue act was designed to tax excess profits. The bill will
raise a little over $400,000,000 the first year, according to Treasury estimates.
Over one-half of this revenue will result from an increase of 3.1 percent on
normal corporation profits above $25,000. Only $185,000,000 will be derived
from excess-profits taxes. While the excess-profits tax rate is 25 to 50 percent
the effective rate, after the liberal deductions and allowances that are per-
mitted, will be about 8.5 percent.
In addition, the excess-profits tax bill repealed profit limitations on Govern-
ment shipbuilding and aircraft contracts of 7 and 8 percent on the cost of
production.
Under this act, most of the major high-profit corporations of the Nation will
escape paying any substantial excess-profits tax, even though their profits may
in some cases, be as high as 25 or 30 percent. The business most severely
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3427
penalized uiulor the tax will be those with ixior-profits records in the past or
those rapidly expanding.
The resnlt of both of these revenue acts has been to aggravate the tendency
of the Federal Government to draw its taxes from low-income groups. A
vigorous reversal of this policy is essential to a sound system of taxation.
PURCHASING POWER
5. A further expansion in purchasing power must be made available to
beneficiaries under the social-security program and to the unemployed. The
continued payment of small insurance benefits to the aged and to the unem-
ployed under" the social-security system w411 constitute a drag upon the con-
sumption capacity of these groups of the population. This condition continues
to be intensified"^ by the collection of taxes for such a system from the very
income classes who are presumed to be benefited. There continues to be such
collections on the whole far exceeding the amount of benefits paid out. Only
39 i>ercent of some $3,000,000,000 collected in unemployment compensation taxes
have been returned to beneficiaries. The effect is adverse. The institution of
a program, as suggested by the Congress of Industrial Organizations providing
for substantially "increased benefits and for tax income based rather on ability
to pay than upon wage taxes, would improve the economic situation.
The' analyses of probable increased employment under the national-defense
program make it dear that for some time to come there will be extensive nerd for
public work to care for the unemployed. The inadequacies of the present Work
Projects Administration program have already been pointed out. An extended pro-
gram in this sphere seems clearly necessary.
The adjustment of these factors to absorption of the increasing product of indus-
try requires more than the haphazard compulsions of the market. It requires
intelligent direction on behalf of the Nation as a whole. In the basic and major
industries the rate at which increases in production shall occur, the increases of
capital, the hours of work, the increase of wages, and the establishment of sound
economic prices are all matters of such import that they must be interrelated by
the most careful design.
Within each of these essential industries the problems of expansion to full pro-
duction should become the joint responsibility of the representatives of manage-
ment, labor, government, and the consumers. Within such responsibility would
be encompassed the details of production, wage, and price policies.
The financial and credit sources of the Nation must be similarly adjusted to
national needs and to the public interest.
The starting point for such deliberate designing of full production and full
employment could well lie in the calling of a conference of the responsible leaders
of labor, industry, agriculture, and the Government, as has been continuously pro-
posed by the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Such a conference could set
forth the machinery and the principles by which our capacity can be utilized not
only for national defense in a military sense, but for that national defense which
calls for the high morale and well-being of our citizenry.
In such terms as these, it is possible to create an economy moving immediately
to absorb our extensive unemployment, not only in the making of arms but also
in a greater production of goods needed by our people. Such measures also pro-
vide th? basis for an economy competent to absorb the shocks of the extensive
national-defense program. The nature of the economy should be such that it will
be a growing one when national-defense expenditures cease. Our economy must
be capable in the future of absorbing the workers previously employed in the
armed forces and in making arms. The alternative is disaster.
TESTIMONY OF RALPH HETZEL, JR.— Resumed
Mr. Curtis, There was one other thing that I was going to in-
quire about, and I did not get to it. I do not believe in the omnip-
otence of the Congress of the United States; but what advantage
would a conference, meeting in continuous session, made up more
or less of volunteers, possibly by invitation, have over the Congress,
representing its industrial areas, its labor districts, its agricultural
3428
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
districts, and so on ? I am not disputing your point, but I want you
to point out for the record what advantage this conference would
have.
Mr. Hetzel. Well, Mr. Congressman, included m the suggestion
of those who should be at the conference were representatives of the
Government, and they, of course, include the responsible congres-
sional leaders. The point of having the other groups in is that they
do represent very powerful elements in our community which are
partic: at interest, and which are not represented as such in the
Congress of the United States, and they are to agree upon a pro-
gram which presumably would be presented to the proper authori-
ties, being the Congress and the Executive, to be carried out in what-
ever measure was necessary.
Mr. Curtis. Why would a group of those men be more likely to
arrive at a solution?
Mr. OsMERs. I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to answer that
question. As one Member of Congress I feel that any group of men
concentrating on one topic will accomplish a great "deal more than
435 men concentrating on every topic. Now, we know that the
migrant problem is a problem for the 435 Members of the House,
but there are only 5 of us charged with the responsibility of handling
this particular problem, and too often in the history of our unem-
ployment in the last 10 years we have had the C. I. O. meet in con-
vention and make their settlement of their problem to their satis-
faction, and the A. F. of L. would have a convention and they
would agree to a conclusion satisfactory to themselves, and the
National Association of Manufacturers would do the same thing, and
the chamber of commerce, and Congress, all working from different
points of view. I think that we need this conference to tie the loose
ends together and bring the interested parties together.
Mr. Curtis. I think your suggestion of a conference has consider-
able merit, because there are individuals who could make great con-
tributions along these lines who have not interested themselves in the
field of government.
Mr. Hetzel. I think that is so.
SUPPLY OF SKILLED LABOR
Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Hetzel, I would like to question you just a little
further with respect to this shortage or lack of shortage of skilled
mechanics in the United States. There seem to be some widely diver-
gent views on that subject. Would you care to enlarge on that just
a bit? You, as I recall, said that you knew of no industry that was
seriously handicapped by the lack of skilled mechanics.
Mr. Hetzel. The reports that have come to me, not only from our
labor people but through, for example, such statements as that of
Eugene Grace, of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, in his most recent
report to the stockholders; of the General Motors Corporation; of
the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce. All have stated that they
anticipate no difficulty in the procurement of proper labor. Sidney
Hillman, wlio is Commissioner of the Labor Division of the Na-
tional Defense Commission, has made a similar statement. Our own
unions verify that continuously. For example, today, in the area
of tool and die making, which has been regarded as one of the difficult
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3429
problems, there are some ten to fifteen thousand of the most highly
skilled tool and die makers in the country idle in the automobile in-
dustry. They work seasonally, and when they are tooling; up for new
automobiles they woik for about 3 to 6 months. The rest of the year
they are not used, and their highly skilled capacities would be avail-
able.
Mr. OsMERS. Would you say, Mr. Hetzel, that Ave had a poor dis-
tribution of skilled labor, rather than a lack of it ?
Mr. Hetzel. We have not been able to trace down and prove any
statement to the etfect that there is a shortage of labor in any specific
operation or job or plant or locality, and as yet I have seen no satisfac-
tory proof that the distribution of labor has hindered the operation
of the defense program.
Mr. OsMERs. I know, of course, of several industries that have been
established in my own State of New Jersey, in the making of airplane
motors and instruments, particularly where the industries have
brought in with them — I do not know under what arrangement, but
they have moved in the skilled workers that they require from other
parts of the country. But apparently they are substantially equipped
for the work.
iVir. Hetzel. Yes.
Mr. OsMERS. Now, I do notice in the newspapers advertisements for
machine-tool workers and instrument makers at all times. Now,
whether that indicates that they need a few more or that they have a
shortage, I could not say.
Mr. Hetzel. Our experience has been that it is simply a relative
matter. That is, you can operate at a number of levels of skill. I do
not think there is any time in the country when we could not use
more skilled workers. It is simply a relative matter. We may have
to dilute somewhat, but that is not a i)rocess that is being brou'jrht on
only by defense production. Actually the introduction of produc-
tion techniques in the automobile industry and in the airplane indus-
try is really the most effective dilution that could be adopted. Wimt
happens is that if you attempt to do it all in a special operation, it
will take a long time, but if you break it up into several skilled or
semiskilled groups, it can be done in 6 weeks.
Mr. Osmers. Would you care to comment on the lack of vocational
training that is available in the United States? I might say. before
you answer the question, Mr. Hetzel, that in traveling througli the
country we have found that a great many of the migrants had no
definite skills or education along particular lines at all. and that that
had contributed considerably to their migration.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes; I understand that something like 80 percent of
the vocational educational facilities of the country are concentrated
in half a dozen States.
Mr. Osmers. I think that is a true statement.
Mr. Hetzel. And that most of the young peo])le outside the urban
areas just do not have a chance for vocational study.
In addition to that, my own feeling is — and this is mine personally —
that we do not have, and never have had, a secondary educational
system in this country adjusted to the kind of work that "young people-
are going to do after they get out.
3430 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr, OsMERS. That is my own opinion, and I am glad to hear you
state that.
One more question, Mr. Hetzel, and that is with respect to hours.
We had Colonel Fleming here this mornhig, and we were discussing
with him the question of maximum hours that men can be w^orked to
efficiency, particularly in view of the demand for increased production
in the defense program. Does your organization have any studies or
comments to make on that?
Mr. Hetzel. We have taken the view that hours should be continu-
ously decreased, at least in the present range, on two grounds : (1) That
it increases employment opportunities, and (2) that it increases effi-
ciency and improves the health of the people involved.
Now, in a national-defense period it seems to me there are only two
excuses for increasing your hours. One is that there is not any more
labor, and you have got to have more production; and the other,
related to that, is that there is not any more highly skilled labor. But
I do not see any other excuse, because it has been proved that workers
who are working at 40 or 36 hours a week have a much higher hourly
production than workers who are working longer hours. If you want
maximum production, therefore, you might work three shifts of 40
rather than w^orking two shifts and dividing the hours and making
them work long hours.
Mr. OsMERS. Colonel Fleming expressed a similar opinion, and
based his remarks on some experiences that they had had in England
during the last war and during the present war — that just increasing
the hours arbitrarily in an attempt to increase production had not in-
creased production at all.
Mr. Hetzel. That is true.
Mr. Osmers. That thev had reached the point w^here production
fell off.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. And that 45 hours as a general norm seemed to be
about as long as a man could w^ork at the peak of efficiency.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes. They tried it in England, of course, and had to
reduce the hours.
Mr. Osmers. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sp.^RKMAN. Mr. Hetzel, with reference to this question of a
shortage of skilled labor, you say there is not a shortage. I notice that
the Civil Service Commission is advertising continuously for these
skilled workers, and so are the navy yards and the various Army posts.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. My own impression has been — of course it is based
more or less upon what I see in the papers and those notices from the
Civil S3rvice Commission — that there is a shortage or anticipated
shortage of skilled labor. I wonder if your opinion is based upon
studies that you have actually made, or is it just a personal opinion ?
Mr. Hetzel. We have examined all the situations that have been
brought to our attention, and we have not found the ground for saying
that there was any shortage of labor. Now, it so happens that a num-
ber of Government establishments operate, as I understand it, some-
thing like this: If they have got 10.000 jobs on lathes or boring
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3431
machines, they ask for 10.000 machinists. What they need, however,
is about 9,000'machine operators and about 1,000 machinists. Now, if
you are going to put machinists to operating machines on a produc-
tion basis, then you will have a shortage of machinists ; but if you are
only going to use machinists for jobs that require full skill, then I do
not anticipate any serious difficulty.
I do want to say this : That it will undoubtedly be necessary, if we
are going to expand our programs, to have some training work car-
ried on, and that we support and encourage.
Mr. Sparkman. When we were out on the Avest coast, a representa-
tive of the aviation industry told us that they were constantly recruit-
ing skilled labor from all parts of the United States, and particularly
in the midw^estern States, and he at least gave us the impression that
it was a continuous job for them to recruit a sufficient amount of skilled
labor to carry along that w^ork.
Mr. Hetzel. One of the difficulties which the aviation industry has
is that they pay rates that are some 20 percent below the rates paid for
similar work iii, for example, the automobile industry, which is union-
ized; and so you can unclerstand that a machinist in the automobile
industry who had been previously employed would be reluctant to
leave automobile areas for employment at a 20-percent lower rate.
Mr. Sparkman. Yet, according' to his testimony, that is where they
get their labor.
Mr. Hetzel. Well, there has been such unemployment there that
they do get a marginal group.
Mr. Sparkman. That is all Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hetzel. Mr. Chairman, one of our affiliates has asked if they
may have the leave of the committee to file within 10 days a statement
on migration of shoe factories.
The Chairman. That will be permitted.
I want to state this to you, Mr. Hetzel : This investigation is a rather
new one in the United States. The ordinary idea of it is that just one
State is aifected, such as California. We started in New York, then
went to Alabama, Illinois, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and then California,
and we found that almost every State is aifected with it ; and you think
it is a national problem, do you not?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, interstate migration will probably
increase, will it not?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And the causes of it are so many — mechanization,
unemployment, worn-out soil, and different things. Now, the short-
term approach to it, of course, is. When they start out to go from
State to State, what are we going to do with them?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes; that is the question.
The Chairman. The long-term approach, of course, might be re-
settlement, keeping them at home on the farms with farm security,
and other things.
Mr. Hetzel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But what I w^as trying to get to you— and I think
you will agree with me — is that this investigation that w^e are making
260370— 41— pt. 8 23
3^32 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
is SO complicated and so vast as we unfold it that it ties in with everj
problem that we have in the United States. Is not that true?
Mr. Hetzel. Yes ; that is certainly so.
The Chairman. I want to say to you that, so far as I am personally
concerned, you have made a very intelligent and gentlemanly state-
ment, and I think it will be very valuable to us. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Hetzel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Call Mr. Macon Lewis.
TESTIMONY OF MACON LEWIS, WILSON, N. C.
Mr. OsMERS. Macon, will you give your name and address to the
reporter for the record ?
Mr. Lewis. Macon Lewis ; Sullivan Annex, Wilson, N. C.
Mr. Osmers. Where were you born ?
Mr. Lewis. I was born in Enfield, N. C.
Mr. Osmers. Did you go to school in Enfield ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. How far did you get in school ?
Mr. Lewis. I got to the second gi*ade. I had to miss 4 months of
school on account of infantile paralysis, and then we moved to Wilson,
and I went as far as the eighth grade there.
Mr. Osmers. How old were you when you commenced the eighth
grade ?
Mr. Lewis. Fourteen.
Mr. Osmers. How old are you now ?
Mr. Lewis. Going on 18.
Mr. Osmers. Wliy did you quit school ?
Mr. Lewis. My father was taken seriously ill and was not able to
work.
Mr. Osmers. Did you ever work in the fields ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. What did you do ?
Mr. Lewis. We stayed in Enfield and raised peanuts, and when we
lived around Wilson I worked in tobacco mostly. I didn't care much
about cotton.
Mr. Osmers. What was the first real job that you had ?
Mr. Lewis. The first job I ever had away from home was— of
course I was working on the farm, but the first job I had in town
was working at a Service Grocery.
Mr. Osmers. What wages did you receive on that job?
Mr. Lewis. 1 received a dollar a day on week days, and $2.50 on
Saturday.
Mr. Osmers. Did you stay in Wilson any length of time after you
started to work?
Mr. Lewis. I stayed in Wilson about 3 weeks, working at the
Service Grocery, and then I was transferred— I mean, I got a better
job at Lee's Grocery as a clerk, and I clerked there during the late
"fall, into this spring, and then started to work with the State high-
way on construction work.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3433
Mr. OsMEES. Did you ever go to Florida?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERs. And did they bother you when you crossed the border
at tlie Florida line?
Mr. Leavis. Yes — didn't hardly call it bother; they stopped the
man that I was with. I was traveling with my first cousin and
he told me that they required him to show proof that he had friends
in Florida and that he had to have so much money in his pocket
before he could enter.
Mr. (3sMERs. Do you know how much money he had to have to
cross the border?
Mr. Lewis. $5, I think.
Mr. OsMERS. $5?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. What did you do when you were in Florida; what
type of work ?
Mr. Lewis. Wlien I first got to Florida I went out to his brother,
I think it was, or brother-in-law, and stayed there about a week,
and then I went up to town one Saturday and got a job as a
ticket taker.
Mr. Osmers. How long did you work at that ?
Mr. Lewis. I worked at that about 2 or 3 weeks, and received word
that my father was seriously ill, and we returned to Wilson.
Mr. Osmers. Your father passed away at that time, did he not?
Mr. Lewis. Well, he did not just at that time. He died about 2
months later, but he was seriously ill then.
Mr. Osmers. How many brothers and sisters do you have ?
Mr. Lewis. I have three brothers and five sisters.
Mr. Osmers. Was your mother well at the time ?
Mr. Lewis. No ; she had been an invalid for 14 years, paralyzed on
the right side.
Mr. Osmers. Wlio took care of your mother ?
Mr. Lewis. Well, she moved to my aunt's, and when I got a job at
the Service Grocery I started paying her $5 a week for her board.
Mr. Osmers. Where have you been working since your father died ;
is that at Dunn, N. C. ?
JVIr. Lewis. I have been down to Dunn, N. C, picking cotton when
I got a job on the farm, and I did not like picking cotton much, but I
stuck it out until I came to Wilson when I got a job with the Service
Grocery, and worked there for 2 or 3 weeks until I got a job as a clerk
at Lee's Grocery.
Mr. Osmers. In other words, you worked as a clerk in a grocery
store ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. And you made deliveries, did you ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes; delivered groceries.
Mr. Osmers. What did they pay you ?
Mr. Lewis. When I was at Lee's Grocery, delivery boy, I got
around — generally averaged $7.50 a week, as I worked practically every
day, and at Lee's Grocery I received $12.50 a week as a clerk.
Mr. Osmers. How long did you work at Lee's Grocery ?
Q^34 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Lewis. I worked there all last fall and this spring up until I
started working for the State highway commission.
Mr. OsMEEs. What are you doing with the State highway com-
mission ?
Mr. Lewis. I was a "broom" employee ; I was on the center line for a
while, and was transferred and put on a broom operation; that is
a large broom machine that sweeps the dirt and dust oS. the road before
they shoot the asphalt on it — re-cover it.
Mr. OsMERS. How long did you stay with the highway work ?
Mr. Lewis. I was there all spring, "latter part of the spring and all
summer, and most of the fall.
Mr. OsMEKS. Did you go back to the grocery store job ?
Mr. Lewis. No. I got a part-time job with the N. Y. A. learning the
trade of carpenter. That pays $8 a week, but you only work 2 weeks
to the month.
Mr. OsMERs. Is there anything to do in Wilson at this time ?
Mr. Lewis. No; not at this time; because they had a bad tobacco
crop this year due to a lot of bad rains and some of the farmers lost as
much as a third of their crop and some lost more.
Mr. OsMERS. And what effect did that have on the business of the
town ?
Mr. Lewis. Well, Wilson is mostly dependent for its business on the
tobacco market, and due to the farmers losing so much tobacco, there
was not much tobacco going into Wilson this year. And that, of
course, meant that there was not much work going on, and a good
many people in Wilson went over to Fort Bragg, or to Norfolk, and
different places, looking for work.
Mr. OsMERS. How about the lawyers and doctors; did they have good
business ?
Mr. Lewis. Well, business decreased so much that everyone was hit,
and the lawyers and doctors were hit pretty badly too.
Mr. OsMERs. Did your aunt lose any money as a result of the failure
of the tobacco crop ?
Mr. Lewis. She did not have a crop, but she lost money, in a sense
of the word, because there was not as much work to do, and she was
not steadily employed like she was planning to be, but the same thing
hit her.
Mr. OsMERs. Are there any people on relief or W. P. A. in Wilson ?
Mr. Lewis. There are quite a few.
Mr. OsMERS. Are there enough relief jobs and W. P. A. jobs to go
around ?
Mr. Lewis. No, sir.
Mr. Osmers. Have you tried to get work elsewhere ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir ; I tried for work in Virginia and at Fort Bragg,
and several places.
Mr. Osmers. How did you get to Washington ?
Mr. Lewis. I had my transportation furnished ; I came by bus.
Mr. Osmers. Where did you start from; from what place did you
come to Washington ?
Mr. Lewis. Wilson, N. C.
Mr. Osmers. Would you be willing to go anywhere to get a job you
could make a living at?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3435
Mr. Lewis. Yes ; provided it was enough. I have to look after my-
self and my mother, too, and it is a pretty hard job because of child
labor laws.
Mr. OsMERS. You would not be willing to take a chance unless you
could take care of your motlier, and it is pretty hard to find work in
Wilson.
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. OsMERS. That is all I have.
The Chairman. Mr. Sparkman.
Mr. Sparkman. Why did you leave the work with the State highway
commission ?
Mr. Lewis. The State highway work does not continue through the
fall and winter montlis ; it has to shut down because of the cold spells ;
they cannot construct roads because the asphalt has to be a certain
degree of heat before it can be shot and it does not take much cold to
freeze, you might call it, because it gets stiff and will not shoot out
of the spray like it should.
Mr. Sparkman. You are really dressing the roads up for winter;
is that it?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. What about the N. Y. A. ; you said you were there
for a while.
Mr. Lewis. I am still working with the N. Y. A., but it only lasts
2 weeks to the month.
Mr. Sparkman. In other words, you get $16 a month ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Sparkman. That is your sole income now ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. When will you be 18?
Mr. Lewis. This coming April 21.
Mr. Sparkman. You are not prepared in any trade; you have not
had an opportunity to learn a trade yourself?
Mr. Lewis. I am learning a trade now.
Mr. Sparkman. That of carpenter?
Mr. Lewis. Carpenter, yes ; that is what the N. Y. A. is for ; I am
learning a trade there.
Mr. Sparkman. How long will you have to stay there before you
will be qualified as a carpenter's helper?
Mr. Lewis. Well, my foreman says that I could get a job now as
a carpenter's helper.
Mr. Sparkman. How long will jou have to be there before you can
be a carpenter?
Mr. Lewis. It depends upon how long it takes you to learn it.
Mr. Sparkman. You have been making pretty fair progress.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir,
Mr. Sparkman. You can use a hammer and saw pretty well, can
you ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes; I can use a hammer and saw pretty well; I can
read blueprints well enough — well, I have to look at the books to read
some of the marks sometimes.
The Chairman. Where is your mother living now ?
3436
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Lewis. My mother stays with my aunt in Ehn City, close to
Wilson ; 2 miles this side.
The Chairman. Does she have anj money ?
Mr. Lewis. No, sir; she was working for a while and I told her I
would pay her as much a week as she got, which was a dollar a day,
working on the farm, so I told her if she would look after my mother
I would give her the same amount she got at work on the farm.
The Chairman. Are your brothers and sisters contributing to your
mother's support?
Mr. Lewis. One of them is ; the rest can hardly contribute to them-
selves.
The Chairman. In other words, they have a hard time taking care
of themselves?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
The Chairman. Now, if you were employed at Wilson, taking care
of your mother, would you be satisfied down there ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
The Chairman. There is a school of thought that believes people
who migrate from one State to another do it for no reason whatever,
but your preference would be to stay at home if you could make a
living for yourself and your mother?
Mr. Lewis. Well, I like to go on trips, and I have been on several
hunting trips. But I always like to go back home.
The Chairman. You want to get back home ?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
The Chairman. How old is your mother?
Mr. Lewis. She is 48.
The Chairman. In good health ?
Mr. Lewis. No, sir; she is an invalid, paralyzed on the right side
and cannot work nor talk.
The Chairman. Well, you are a pretty fine boy.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
The Chairman. And this committer wishes you every possible luck,
and I know you will get it.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Sparkman. Are your brothers and sisters older than you ?
Mr. Lewis. My sisters and one brother are older. I have a brother
who is a sergeant in the Army. I have two brothers younger than I.
Mr. Spakkman. Have you thought about getting into the C. C. C.
camp when you become 18 ; I believe it would be 18, or could you at 17 ?
Mr. Lewis. Eighteen. I tried to get in that, at least I went there
and inquired about it — I never tried to get in — but Mrs. Grainger said
I would have to be 18. She is head of the welfare department down
there.
Mr. Sparkman. Have you tried to join the Navy ; I believe they take
them now at 17.
Mr. Lewis. Yes ; I would like to get into the Navy where I could
learn a trade, but I think they have to have a certain amount of
education. I do not know how it is now but I know that used to be
a requirement.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3437
Mr. Sparkman. I suggest that you might look into that as it offers
an opportunity to learn a skilled trade also.
Mr. Lewis. Well, that is the thought I had in mind, but you have
to have a high-school education ; that is the thought I had about it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF BEN K. ALTER, SHAMOKIN, PA.
The Chairman. Mr. Alter, will you please give your full name and
address to the reporter ?
Mr. Alter. Ben K. Alter, 520 Bear Valley Avenue, Shamokin, Pa.
The Chairman. How old are you ?
Mr. Alter. Thirty-six.
The Chairman. Are you married ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Have you any children?
Mr. Alter. Yes ; two.
The Chairman. How old are they ?
Mr. Alter. Eleven and 6; an 11-year-old boy and a 6-year-old
girl.
The Chairman. Where were you born?
Mr. Alter. Metal, Pa.
The Chairman. On a farm there?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. How long have you been living in Shamokin ?
Mr. Alter. Since 1922.
The Chairman. And what is your trade?
Mr. Alter. I operate mine machinery, repair and maintain ma-
chinery for a coal mine — engines and pmnps.
The Chairman. In what part of Pennsylvania is Shamokin ?
Mr. Alter. Shamokin is 55 miles directly north of Harrisburg, in
the hard-coal region.
The Chairman. That is commonly known as the bootleg coal-min-
ing region ?
Mr. Alter. Yes ; it is referred to as the bootleg area.
The Chairman. I wish you would state for the purpose of the
record just what is meant by the bootleg mining area.
Mr. Alter. The bootleg coal-mining industry was born during the
depression, and started on a very small scale, and as the conditions
throughout the region — unemployment conditions — became aggra-
vated ^ the bootleg industry increased in proportion.
About 1930 the coal mines started to shut down, and the unemployed
men would go out to the mountains and dig a hole and mine coal for
their own personal use. Later on they found that they could put in a
basket or two and sell a basket or two to their neighbors. At that
time there was no direct relief, no Government agency to provide any-
tliing for the unemployed. There was no P. W. A. or anything of that
kind, so they gradually started mining the coal and selling outside
the region.
3438 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
As collieries shut down more men were thrown out of work, and
more men went to the mountains to dig, bootleg, and prepare coal^
which was hauled to the city in trucks.
The Chairman. Mr. Alter, what was the cause of the closing down
of the mines ?
Mr. Alter. The mines closed down because the operators said there
was no sale for the coal.
The Chairman. They could not be profitably operated ; is that the
reason ?
Mr. Alter. That was what they said.
The Chairman. And at the time they closed down how many coal
mines were involved ?
Mr. Alter. Well, I can s]^eak for my particular area around
Shamokin. There were, I think, 13 collieries operating in normal
times, and there is only one now.
Tlie Chairman. Thirteen what?
Mr. Alter. Thirteen collieries. That means developing the mine,
including breaking and preparing the coal.
The Chairman. And how many men were turned out of employ-
ment ?
Mr. Alter. Well, in normal times they employ between six and
seven hundred men at each colliery.
The Chairman. At each one?
Mr. Alter. That is on the average ; some of them are larger.
The Chairman. And there were how many collieries, did you say?
Mr. Alter. Thirteen in the Shamokin area ; but the entire bootleg
area includes quite a large territory.
The Chairman. Doubles the area of Shamokin ?
Mr. Alter. Four times as big as the area, including Northumber-
land and Schuylkill Counties.
The Chairman. Then, as I get it, the bootlegging of coal started
originally by people going out to help themselves to coal for their
own personal use?
Mr. Alter. That is right.
The Chairman. And then developed into coal digging and taking
a sack here and there and selling it ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. So they could exist ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Were there any prosecutions for taking coal out
of the mines?
Mr. Alter. Oh, yes; right from the very beginning the company
police arrested you for going on the mountains.
The Chairman. Were there any convictions?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Many of them?
Mr. Alter. All of them ; everybody that was arrested for tres-
passing that I Imew of, was convicted ; yes. The practice became so
general after the industry had gotten under way, where everybody
rather than make a fight of it would plead guilty ; it was much simpler.
The Chairman. What was the ordinary fine?
Mr. Alter. $10 or 10 days.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3439
The Chairman. If they did not pay the $10 they took the 10 days?
Mr. Altee. Took the 1*0 days.
The Chairman. Are those prosecutions still being continued by the
•companies ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Well, does the bootlegging of the coal still exist?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. And how many people would you say in Shamokin
:are still there engaged in this bootlegging, approximately?
JNIr. Alter. Well, I would say seven or eight thousand people in
Shamokin and around there.
The Chairman. Seven or eight thousand ?
;Mr. Alter. Yes ; in that region ; there are at least 20,000 people en-
gage in the business in the entire region, and that includes the 2 coun-
ties of Northumberland and Schuylkill.
The Chairman. And are they able to make a living at it?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They must be or they would not be there.
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Have they any trouble finding a market for this
•coal ?
Mr. Alter. No, sir.
The Chairman. Now, you say that there are 20,000 people engaged
in that bootlegging of coal. What would they do if they did not do
that particular kind of work?
Mr. Alter. They would have nothing to do but go on relief or the
W. P. A., or else move out of the region.
The Chairman. It is not an agricultural area ?
Mr. Alter. No ; nor industrial. There may be a shirt factory here
or there.
The Chairman. Are there many of those people on relief ?
Mr. Alter. Well, back when the relief first started there were quite
a few, and there are some yet. I do not mean by that that the people
are all actively engaged in that business, but they possibly have some
employment.
The Chairman. But, in reducing the appropriation for W. P. A.
work it is true, is it not, that they cannot get any relief?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. So that they can either get on relief, if they can, or
move out of the country ; is that not true ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Or starve.
Mr. Alter. Or stay in business; they will not starve.
The Chairman. Not that kind of people.
Mr. Alter. No.
The Chairman. "Wlien did you leave there ?
Mr. Alter. I still live there.
The Chairman. And what are you doing now ?
Mr. Alter. I am engaged in the so-called bootlegging of coal ; I haul
€oal off the mountain to the preparation plant.
The Chairman. You are still in that work ?
3440 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Alter. Yes. I had worked in the coal mines until they shut
down in 1932. I was working in a coal hole up until about 5 months
ago, when I got a truck. Since then I have been hauling coal from
the bootleg hole to the preparation plant.
The Chairman. And who pays your wages ?
Mr. Alter. I buy the coal myself from the miner on the mountain ;
sell it to the man who prepares it, and thereby I make a profit on haul-
ing it, of so much a load ; and he in turn trucks it out to the city.
The Chairman. Now, do the owners of the coal mines make any
objection at all?
Mr. Alter. Oh, yes; they have objected quite strenuously in the last
10 years; proposed legislation, and that sort of thing.
The Chairman. And what I cannot understand is how you were able
to operate as you have operated, after having been arrested; could
you still keep on in the bootlegging of coal ?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They do not have you arrested for bootlegging, but
for trespassing?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. And they charge trespassing on more than one oc-
casion, do they not ?
Mr. Alter. Many.
The Chairman. Have you ever been charged ?
Mr. Alter. Quite a few times.
The Chairman. In the past how many years, would you say ?
Mr. Alter. In the past 10 years ; 8 years at least.
The Chairman. Did you ever have a jury trial, or just tried by the
judge?
Mr. Alter. For trespass you cannot get a jury trial ; you go before
a magistrate and he finds you guilty, but you can appeal your case to
the court, and then it is up to the judge whether he will sustain the
magistrate or not.
The Chairman. I see. How many years has this bootlegging been
taking place?
Mr. Alter. Ten years ; yes.
The Chairman. And you were fined more than once during those
years, were you ?
Mr. Alter. More than once — I got $10 or 10 days.
The Chairman. And you took the $10 ?
Mr. Alter. No ; I took the 10 days.
The Chairman. Well, of course, there have been numerous arrests
for bootlegging and I suppose your neighbors do not think it very
much of a disgrace.
Mr. Alter. Not at all.
The Chairman. They rather sympathize with you ?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you think there is any likelihood that the mines
will open up again ?
Mr. Alter. No ; the mines around Shamokin now have been closed
down until they are filled up with water, and it would be practically
impossible to open them up without the expenditure of many millions
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3441
of dollars. But it is possible to recover coal in the mountains— the coal
that lies above the water level — that is, where the water will drain out
into the creek channels. There is quite a bit of coal left and that
would provide employment for quite a number of men for a number
of years.
Mr. Parsons. From what you might call the slope mines?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
Mr. Parsons. The bootleg coal is taken out of the slope mines?
Mr. AxTER. Yes.
The Chairman. Evidently, from your statement, you are able to
mine some of the coal profitably, are you ?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Why cannot the coal owners mine it themselves?
Mr. Alter. I do not know.
The Chairman. You do not know, but it is not done.
Mr. Alter. No ; it is not done.
The Chairman. Maybe because they want to operate on a large
scale?
Mr. Alter. That may be true.
The Chairman. Now, if that bootlegging was to stop at this time,
how many people would it affect ?
Mr. Alter. I would say 50,000.
The Chairman. And those people have been up there for many
years and raised their families there ; is that true ?
Mr. Alter. That is true ; practically all of them.
The Chairman. Well, are there any legitimate mine operations
around there ?
Mr. Alter. There is one operating in Shamokin.
The Chairman. And how many does it employ ?
Mr. Alter. Seven hundred, approximately.
The Chairman. Now, you worked in the mines for a number of
years preceding the starting of bootlegging operations, did you not,
Mr. Alter?
Mr. Alter. Yes.
The Chairman. How does the amount earned by the bootleg mining
operations compare with what was earned by the workers under
legitimate operations ?
Mr. Alter. Well, working conditions in the legitimate mining op-
erations are much better than they are in bootlegging as far as the
wages are concerned ; it is pretty hard to earn wages, because in the
legitimate mining operation there is no standard wage, everything is
contract work, and if a man has a job he may make as much as $15 a
day, and if he does not have a good job he may be down to as much as $3
or $4 a day. The same thing is true with bootlegging, but I would
say offhand that bootlegging is around $4 or $5 a day while a man is
working. But then he has short periods of employment. He is out
while they are developing a new hole to mine the bootleg coal. The
hole will usually last 6 or 7 months, and then they have to look for
another.
The Chairman. Wliat do you do about safeguards, such as accident
insurance ?
3442
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Alter. There is no accident insurance, or compensation, or any-
thing like that.
The Chairman. In other words, you people are willing to run the
risk in order to make a living?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Have you ever been on relief?
Mr. Alter. Yes, sir. Off and on, I have been on relief, while de-
veloping a new hole, for short periods of time.
The Chairman. The committee realizes that the situation you have
been telling us of is one which has greatly concerned the State of
Pennsylvania. Will you describe the probable future of that industry
around Shamokin ?
Mr. Alter. As I see it, in the last couple of years there has been a
tendency for local men, with money to invest, to take over this aban-
doned coal land and to lease it, pay a royalty on the ground, and in
that way they will gradually legitimatize the industry. I would say
that in a year, in my opinion, in another year, why, the bootlegging will
be all absorbed in this type of legitimate industry.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Alter.
TESTIMONY OF PERCY B. TOMLINSON, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Parsons. Mr. Tomlinson, take the chair and give your name and
present address to the reporter, please.
Mr. Tomlinson. My present address?
Mr. Parsons. Yes.
Mr. Tomlinson. My name is Percy Buxton Tomlinson, temporarily
residing at the Veterans' Home at Ninth and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Parsons. How old are you, Mr. Tomlinson?
Mr. Tomlinson. Forty-two.
Mr. Parsons. Are you married?
Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Parsons. How much of a family do you have ?
Mr. Tomlinson. I have two children, one 19 and one 20 — girls.
Mr. Parsons. Where were you born ?
Mr. Tomlinson. Manville, K. I.
Mr. Parsons. Your home is at Valley Falls, R. I., where you worked
in the textile mills ?
Mr. Tomlinson. My home is in Central Falls, about a mile fi'om
Valley, where I was working.
Mr, Parsons. How long have you been here at the Veterans' Home ?
Mr. Tomlinson. A week.
Mr. Parsons. For what reason did you come to Washington ?
Mr. Tomlinson. I had an idea of going into one of the national
homes; but, since I have arrived here, I think I will stay awhile and
see if I cannot secure some sort of employment.
Mr. Parsons. Tell the committee something about your experience,
your training as a child, how much education you received, and your
experience and work in the textile industry?
Mr. Tomlinson. Well, I left grammar school in the eighth grade.
I went into the textile mill as a schoolboy and there I learned to twist —
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3443
what they called "hand twisting." Then I started as a skilled laborer.
I worked awhile before the war came, until I was 19. I went to work
at the age of about 15, 1 guess, and when the war came along I enlisted.
Mr. Parsons. Were you overseas ?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. Yes, sir. And after the war was over, I came
back home and I went back to my own work— warp twisting. I
was earning a fairly good wage. I got married there and I settled
in Central Falls, R. I. I worked for a large manufacturing concern
out there for approximately 15 years— in fact, up until the time it
went out of business.
Mr. Parsons. Why did they go out of business?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. They went out of business, I imagine, because the
southern competition was too keen and, of course, with the higher rate
of wages paid in New England, they could not compete. That is the
way I understand the story, although I do not know. I was not an
official.
Mr. Parsons. About what was your weekly wage in New England ?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. Well, for my special line of work, on a 40-hour
basis, about $45 to $50. That I was able to earn all along. But
since then there has been a machine developed that takes our place
and my reason for migrating from Central Falls — I went to Paterson,
N. J.— is that I was under the impression there was a lot of small
plants there and that is about the only place I could get iu now —
in a small place where they do not have enough looms in operation
to operate a machine.
Mr. Parsons. About how many men's labor did one of those ma-
chines displace?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. Well, that machine does the work of about — let us
see ; I am considered a pretty fair twister and I actually twist about
2,500 per hour. Those machines, when they are operating, might do
up to eight and nine thousand skeins per hour. And they are operated
by girls — it is a simple operation — and they operate on the minimum
wage, which I think is about $15 a week, or something.
Mr. Parsons. And that eliminates a lot of male labor?
Mr. ToMLiNSON, A hand twister, especially, is out. They never
hire one now unless, as I say, it is a small plant where they do not
have enough work to have a machine.
Mr. Parsons. Did you come down here for the purpose of going
into the veterans' home, or looking for a job here? What is the
reason for your migrating to Washington ?
Mr. ToMLiNsoN. My reason for migrating here, as I said before,
my initial idea was to enter a home; but, since I have been here, I
have changed my mind because I think there is a possibility of my
getting in somewhere here.
Mr. Parsons. You think you might find some employment here?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. Some sort of employment here. That is what I
would like.
Mr. Parsons. What particular job are you looking for? We have
no manufacturing or mills here.
Mr. ToMLiNSON. I know there are no mills here; but, nevertheless,
as I said before, I have two children. Their mother works, and one
3444
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
of my daughters works — I loafed around all summer— and the other
one has ambitions to become a nurse, and she is finishing school this
year.
Mr. Paksons. Are they with you?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. They are not, no, sir; they are still home, main-
taining their home in Central Falls. So, if I can get something
here and contribute a little toward their support, I think that per-
haps my daughter will realize her ambition. There is nothing over
there for me.
Mr. Parsons. Were you disabled in the service?
Mr. ToMLiNsoN. No, sir.
Mr. Parsons. You have never drawn any compensation?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. I have drawn compensation, post-war compen-
sation. That was taken away in 1923.
Mr. Parsons. So that your present plan is to remain in Wash-
ington if you find a job in Washington?
Mr. ToMLiNsoN. For a short time, and see if I can be placed.
Mr. Parsons. If not, you will probably return to Rhode Island?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. I think so.
Mr. Parsons. You say your wife and daughter are working now?
Mr. ToMLiNsoN. They are; yes, sir.
Mr. Parsons. And you have all your domiciliary care?
Mr. ToMLiNSON. I have.
Mr. Parsons. So that you can live very cheaply in Washington?
Mr. ToMLiNsoN. That is true.
Mr. Parsons. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF MIKE B. THOMAS AND MRS. RUBY THOMAS,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. OsMERS. Mr. Thomas, will you give your names and addresses
to the reporter?
Mr. Thomas. My name is Mike B. Thomas; address, Washington.
Mr. OsMERS. Whaf is your first name, Mrs. Thomas?
Mrs. Thomas. Ruby Thomas.
Mr. Osmers. Where were you born, Mr. Thomas?
Mr. Thomas. Altavista, Va.
Mr. OsMERS. And what was the date of your birth ?
Mr. Thomas. September 6, 1915.
Mr. OsMERs. Mrs. Thomas, where and when were you born?
Mrs. Thomas. I was born in Claudville, in 1918.
Mr. Osmers. And when were you married?
Mr. Thomas. The 6th of February.
Mr, Osmers. In what year?
Mrs. Thomas. 1937.
Mr. Osmers. Is this your only child that you have with you?
Mrs. Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. Mr. Thomas, how far did you get in school?
Mr. Thomas. Fourth grade.
Mr. Osmers. And you, Mrs. Thomas?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3445
Mrs. Thomas. Sixth grade.
Mr. OsMERS. Do you have a trade?
Mr. Thomas. Laborer.
Mr. OsMERS. Unskilled laborer?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. And where have you been employed mostly during
your life — in construction work?
Mr. Thomas. Through Virginia as a laborer on construction.
Mr. OsMERs. Now, Altavista is a mill town, is it not ?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. Did you ever work in the mills?
Mr. Thomas. No, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. Why not?
Mr. Thomas. Well, my father was a mill hand for about 20 or 25
years and his health went bad and he had bronchitis, and he had to
quit on account of ill health. He advised me not to go to work there
on account of being closed in.
Mr. OsMERS. As a result, you never learned a trade?
Mr. Thomas. That is right ; yes, sir.
Mr. OsMERS. When did you come to Washington?
Mr. Thomas. I came in September, the latter part of September.
Mr. Osmers. And how did you happen to come to Washington ?
Mr. Thomas. Well, a friend of mine was working at the Potomac
Electric Power Co. and he said a job was open and he came through
and told me about the job, and I came to Washington.
Mr. Osmers. Did you write to the Potomac Electric Power Co.
before you came ?
Mr. Thomas. No, sir.
Mr. Osmers. Did not you feel there was some risk involved in not
writing first?
Mr. Thomas. Well, I was so sure of a job that I came straight on up.
Mr. Osmers. Now, when you applied for this job at the Potomac
Electric Power Co., what did they tell you ?
Mr. Thomas. Well, the answer was they had quite a few on the list
and they would get to me just as soon as they possibly could.
Mr. Osmers. How were you fixed for money when you arrived in
Washington?
Mr. Thomas. I was without funds.
Mr. Osmers. And how did you get the money to pay for your
transportation here ?
Mr. Thomas. I borrowed money.
Mr. OsaiERS. Now, when you did not get this job with the Potomac
Electric Power Co., what did you do ?
Mr. Thomas. Well, I went around and tried to get a room for my
wdfe, child, and self, on the prospect of this job, until I went to work.
I could not do anything that way ; so, after that, I came to the Travelers
Aid Society.
Mr. Osmers. And did they give you some help?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Osmers. Now, did you give any consideration to returning to
Altavista?
3446
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
Mr. Thomas. Well, the consideration was that there was not any-
thing there for me except just 2 or 3 months at a time on labor con-
struction, as I said, and probably the most of that was during the
summer months.
Mr. OsMERS. How long did you stay in Washington before you had
a job, and what kind of a job was it?
Mr. Thomas. Well, it was about 3 weeks, working on repairing^
bodies and fenders, and simonizing — work such as that.
Mr. OsMERS. What did it pay you ?
Mr. Thomas. $12 a week.
Mr. Osmers. Did you have any experience at that work ?
Mr. Thomas. No, sir.
Mr. Osmers. How long did that job last?
Mr. Thomas. A week.
Mr. Osmers. What was your next move ?
Mr. Thomas. My next job was with the Union Fuel Oil Co. That
is where I am working now.
Mr. Osmers. What are you doing for the Union Fuel Oil Co. ?
Mr. Thomas. I am a helper on a fuel truck.
Mr. Osmers. And what do they pay ?
Mr. Thomas. $12 a week.
Mr. Osmers. Now, are the three of you making out on that money
all right?
Mr. Thomas. Well, scarcely, that is all ; it is pretty hard.
Mr. Osmers. Now, do you think you will be better off in Washington
than you would be if you were in Altavista ?
Mr. Thomas. Well, if there is something permanent, I think that it
would suit me here.
Mr. Osmers. 'Mrs. Thomas, how do you feel about that; do you
think the three of you ought to stay in Washington, or should go back
to Virginia?
Mrs. Thomas. Well, I guess we are better off up here than we would
be there.
Mr. Osmers. I did not quite hear you ; I am sorry.
Mrs. Thomas. I say we are better off up here than there, I guess,
because we could not get anything down there except just a few months
at a time.
Mr. Osmers. And you feel you are better off in Washington, too ?
Mrs. Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Osmers. Those are the only questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mrs. Thomas, if you could make the same money or
more money at Altavista, you would rather be there, would you not ?
Mrs. Thomas. No ; I guess not.
The Chairman. You would rather be here ?
Mrs. Thomas. Yes.
The Chairman. Why?
Mrs. Thomas. I do not know; I would just rather be here.
Tlie Chairman. It is a little bit more interesting here in Wash-
ington ?
Mrs. Thomas. Oh, yes.
The Chairman. How old is the baby ?
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3447
Mrs. Thomas. Three.
The Chairman. Where are jou living now ?
Airs. Thomas. "We are living now over on Eye Street.
The Chairman. In what sort of a house ?
Mrs. Thomas. One room ; light honsekeepnig.
The Chairman. One room ?
Mrs. Thomas. Jiist light housekeeping.
The Chairman. What does it cost you a month ?
Mrs. Thomas. $6.
Mr. Thomas. You mean a week.
Mrs. Thomas. $6 a week.
The Chairman. And how much are your wages, Mr. Thomas ?
Mr. Thomas. I am making $12 a week, pay $6 room rent and am
living on the other when we get caught up. We are so far behind
that we really make out on around $3.
The Chairman. You must be a pretty good bookkeeper at that, to
make out on that.
Mr. Thomas. Well, we don't eat anything fancy, or anything like
that ; we just live from hand to mouth, that is all.
The Chairman. Do you think you would be more contented back
home at Altavista?
Mr. Thomas. Sure, that would be all right, if I had regular work
and could get a good job, or something like that.
The Chairman. Say if you got $12 a week, you would rather be
back there, or here ?
Mr. Thomas. Well, it does not make any difference to me, so long as
I can make a living. That is what I am looking forward to — a job
at something I can live on.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas.
Now, Dr. Lamb, did you want to be heard ?
Dr. Lamb. Yes. I should like to offer for the record a paper pre-
pared at the suggestion of the committee by Arthur M. Ross, Newton-
Booth Fellow in Economics at the University of California, on the
economic effect of minimum wages in agriculture. I should like that
entered at this point.
The Chairman. It will be entered at this point in the record.
(The paper submitted is as follows:)
Economic Effects op Minimum Wages in Agricxtltuke by Artxtur M. Ross,
Newton Booth Fellow in Economics, University of California
For several years the national attention has been focused on the plight of
migratory agricultural workers, and rec'ently there has been increasing concern
with the situation of agricultural wage workers in general.
Traditionally the landless agricultural laborer has been symbolized by the
expression "hired hand," with all of the bucolic and comfortable connotations
of the term. If these connotations accurately described the typical agricultural
laborer today, it could not be said that a rural proletariat had developed as a
separate interest group in the population, or that farm workers constituted a
problem except as a part of the general farm problem.
It is still appropriate, however, to characterize the body of farm workers
in America as "hired hands." The peculiar characteristics which in the past
have made hired hands merely junior members of the farming population are
(1 ) a personal relationship withi the employer and his family, and consequently
a kind of home-made social security; (2) a rough equality of bargaining power
260370— 41— pt. S 24
3448
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
provided by the fact that only one or two workers were associated with an
employer- and (3) an apprenticeship status because of the real opportunity to
become a farm operator once the necessary skills had been acquired. These
are the criteria which distinguish a legitimate "hired hand" from an agricultural
proletarian. Are they still typical? . . , ^n ^ ^ a
They can hardly be said to pertain for the approximately 40 ijercent employed
on farms with 3 or more workers; for the 30 percent who do not even live
on farms; for any farm workers in the stratified rural society of the South;
for 350 000 or more migratory workers ; for between 100,000 and 200,000 workers
in the production of sugar beets and sugar cane ; for the unknown but large
number of temporary workers who take short harvesting jobs ; or for the many
field workers employed by cooperatives, canneries, packing houses, labor con-
tractors, and other agencies who have relieved the farmer of the labor-manage-
ment function. These categories overlap considerably ; but they indicate that
only a minority of agricultural workers are appropriately classified as "hired
hands." , , , i ,
The fact that a laboring class substantially without access to the land has
been precipitated in the evolution of commercial agriculture in America raises
the question of whether it is desirable and feasible for the Government to im-
plement the economic interests of this class through regularizatiou and regu-
lation of the agricultural labor market. That the principle of minimum wages
should be extended to wage workers in agriculture has been suggested many
times in the past 2 or 3 years. This memorandum will consider the probable
economic eftects of such a policy upon agricultural costs of production, com-
modity prices, the competitive relations of large and small producers, the struc-
ture of the agricultural labor market, and total agricultui-al employment.
I. ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF LEGISLATION
The consequences of establishing wage protection for agricultural workers
will depend upon the kind of legislation which is adopted. This protection might
be established, of course, merely by removing the agricultural exemption from
the Fair Labor Standards Act and extending its coverage to farm workers, but
several alternative courses of action have been proposed in the discussion of
legislative solutions for the agricultural labor problems. Some of the proposals
are as follows :
(1) The minimum wages might be set by any one of three methods.
(a) A statutory minimum, such as that in the Fair Labor Standards Act,
might be established by Congress. This minimum might run indefinitely or
might be graduated upward with the passage of time. It might be set at the
level which industries covered by the present Fair Labor Standards Act are
required to pay (30 cents an hour until 1944, and 40 cents an hour there-
after), or a lower rate might be speeifipd.
(&) Flexible minima which varied according to region, to crop, and to type of
farm might be set by the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture after pub-
lic hearings. The variations would be designed to reflect regional differences in
the cost of living, differences in the ability of crops to pay adequate wages, and
regional differences in the present agricultural wage level. This method is used
for determining minimum wages under the Sugar Act. .
(e) Variable minima might also be set by wage-board procedure with represen-
tatives of agricultural employers, agricultural workers, and the Government
empowered to fix minimum wages.
(2) The law might be designed to cover all farm workers or only the employees
of large-scale and industrialized establishments.
Experience has shown that the practice of covering part of an industry and
exempting the rest is often unsatisfactory. It creates administrative difficulties
1 .<* * * Machines for having labor and performing processes which could not be
done bv hand have invaded many parts of the field that was called agriculture and gradu-
ally removed from the open country many processes which formerly were performed in
farm buildings by farm workers and were thus classed as part of agriculture. Such
processing today goes on in more or less remote packing plants, canneries, mills, cream-
eries, or other factory-organized enterprises * * *." Agricultural Engineering, Jan-
uary 1929, p. 14 — Economic Issues of Large-Scale Farming, by E. G. Nourse, chief, agri-
cultural division, Institute of Economics, Washington.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3449
of interpreting the exemption and uncertainty in the minds of employers and
employees with regard to their status under the law ; it sets up problems of equity
between competing producers ; and it invites political campaigns to broaden the
exemption through legislative, administrative, and judicial action.
On the other hand, there are strong arguments for limiting coverage to large-
scale farms. Covering a small percentage of farms would include a much greater
percentage of farm workers, because of the concentration of workers on the larger
farms. Moreover, a predominant share of agricultural production in which large-
scale methods and impersonal employment relationships prevail would be regu-
lated. The author has estimated, for instance, that in 1929 the largest 30 percent
of fruit farms produced 74 percent of the aggregate value product of all fruit
farms ; the largest 30 percent of truck farms produced 72.5 percent of the value
product ; the largest 30 percent of crop specialty farms produced 67 percent of the
value product. The restriction of coverage to farms which systematically employ
several workers and habitually keep records would reduce the difficulty of inspect-
ing and enforcing compliance.
The rationale of the suggested limitation assumes that the more or less perma-
nent hired hand on the traditional family farm is less legitimately the object of
social legislation than the employee of a large agricultural establishment, whose
employment relationship is more impersonal, whose insecurity is greater, and
whose opportunity for occupational advancement is smaller. There is also an
assumption that the larger employers are better able to pay adequate wages. Leg-
islative differentiation between the family farm and the industrialized farm has
been implied by the President's Committee on Farm Tenancy, Secretary of Labor
Perkins, former Secretary of Agriculture Wallace, Governor Olson, of California,
and other authorities who have discussed the necessity of regulating the condi-
tions of agricultural employment.
If only large farms were covered, a measure of size would be necessary. Ap-
plication of the law might be limited to farms with a minimum value of product
during the previous year, with a minimum-wage bill, or with a minimum num-
ber of employees. A minimum-employee criterion might relate to employment
at the seasonal peak, at the seasonal trough, or as an average for the whole
year; or conceivably employers might be covered only during periods in which
they hired the minimum number of workers.
The advantages of these alternative dividing lines require careful study. A
criterion relating to operations during the previous year would illogically
exempt large employers who were either not in business or else only small em-
ployers at that time, and would increase the difficulty of enforcing compliance by
making it impossible to ascertain coverage through inspection of the current
situation. The use of a minimum-wage bill would create an incentive to pay
low wages in order to stay under the limit. The alternative which would cover
many employers part of the year and exempt them the rest of the year is ad-
ministratively unwise for a good many reasons.
It must be recognized that the i;se of any practicable measure of size would
not prevent the coverage of some "hired hands" nor the exclusion of some
agricultural workers who are not hired hands. Moreover, even if small
working farmers were exempt, we cannot assume that their wage rates would
be unaffected by regulation of the rates paid by large employers who draw
workers from the same general labor market.
In this discussion it will be assumed that a statute requiring a flat minimum
wage is ajaplied to all farm operators who, according to some criterion, are
substantial employers of labor. The question of covering workers employed
by packing, processing, and marketing establishments will not be analyzed,
nor the question of maximum hours for agriculture. Arguments relating to
the desirability of minimum wages in general or in principle, either from the
standpoint of the industry concerned, or of the economy as a whole, will not
be taken up. Collective bargaining as a wage-raising* measure will not be
considered here, but it should be pointed out that the economic effects would
be similar to those of legal minimum wages. Certain judgments on the eco-
nomic effects of minimum wages for agriculture must be quite tentative be-
cause of gaps in the available statistical data, others must be rough and
intuitive because of their very nature.
g^^Q INTERSTATE MIGRATION
II. COVERAGE
An extremely small percentage of American farms woiald be covered by a
minimum-wage law applied only to substantial employees of labor. In 1929
almost 60 percent of American farms reported no expenditure whatever ou
wage labor. No labor was employed on 40.9 percent of the farms in New
England, 44.6 percent in the Middle Atlantic States, 53.5 percent in the East
North Central States, 45.7 percent in the West North Central States, 65.3 per-
cent in the South Atlantic States, 76.5 percent in the East South Central
States, 64.2 percent in the West South Central States, 45.2 percent in the
Mountain States, and 37.7 percent in the Pacific States (Census of Agriculture,
1930). During most of the year the percentage of farms employing no wage
labor is much greater. In 1935 the monthly average number American employ-
ing farms was only about 18 percent of all farms, and even in the Pacific
States, the most industrialized agricultural region in the country, only 87
percent of the farms were employing labor on the average during that year
(J. T. Wendzel, Distribution of Agricultural Employment: Regional Differences,
Agricultural Situation, March 1, 1938).
The majority of employing farms would apparently be exempted under a
minimum-wage law with a size limitation such as a $500 wage bill, two labor-
ers in January, four laborers in July, or an average of three laborers through-
out the year. In 1929 the average wage bill of employing farms was less than
$500 in 33 States (Cen.«us of Agriculture, 1930). At the present time this is
probably true of considerably more States, because the annual American agri-
cultural wage bill is running about 33 percent lower than in 1929 (Income
Parity for Agriculture, pt. II, sec. 1, U. S. D. A., April 1939). About 25 percent
of the employing farms in the United States had more than one laborer in
January 1935. TTie regional variation was from 37 percent in the Pacific
division to 15 percent in the west north central division. About 11 percent of
employing farms in the United States, 20 percent in the Pacific division, and
5 percent in the north central divisions had more than two laborers (testimony
of William T. Ham, hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee
on Education and Labor, May 9, 1940, exhibit 48). In July 1935, more than
three laborers were employed on an estimated 7 percent of employing farms in
the United States, 12 percent in the Pacific division, and 2.4 percent in the
west north central division (J. T. Wendzel, Distribution of Hired Farm Labor-
ers in the United States, Monthly Labor Review, September 1937). The
monthly average proportion of employing farms hiring more than two workers
during 1935 was about 8.6 percent for the United States, 10 percent for the
Pacific division, and less than 1 percent for the west north central division
(Wendzel, Distribution of Agricultural Employment, etc.).
A rather substantial proportion of agricultural laborers, on the other hand,
is employed on the farms which would be covered under such minimum-wage
laws ; 1,482,697 were employed in January 1935 ; 56.1 percent in the United
States worked on farms with two or more laborers, 74.5 percent in the Pacific
division, and 32.4 percent in the west north central division (testimony of
William T. Ham, op. cit. ). Total employment was naturally much higher in
July 1935, having risen to an estimated 2,679,340 ; 34.8 percent in the United
States worked in groups of at least four, 64.8 percent in the Pacific division,
and about 12 percent in the west north central division (Wendzel, "Distribu-
tion of Hired Laborers, etc."). On the average during 1935 an estimated
42 percent of American agricultural laborers were on farms employing at least
three. This average varied from about 71 percent in the Pacific division to
about 17 percent in the east north central division (Wendzel, "Distribution of
Agricultural Employment, etc.").
A minimum-wage law applied to farms employing considerable labor would
have the virtue of covering larger proportions of the workers in regions and
types of farming where industrialized agriculture and impersonal employment
relationships are most fully developed. The average wage bill of all employing
farms in the United States was $363 in 1929 ; but it was $1,198 in New Jersey ;
$634 in Florida ; $1,687 in Arizona ; $711 in Washington, and $1,438 in California.
These are States where agriculture is dominated by the intensive and highly
seasonal production of fruits and vegetables, where agricultural concentration
is most advanced, and where migratory labor is most important. In two other
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3451
large farming areas the average wage bill was over $1,000— Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut in the eastern dairy area, and Nevada and
Wyoming in the range area (Census of Agriculture, 1930).
Moreover, apparently the great majority of manager-operated employing
farms would be covered. These farms spent an average of $2,985 for wage
labor in 1929; their regional average varied from $1,664 in the west north
central States to $4,867 in the Pacific States. Manager operated employing
farms were only 0.6 percent of all American farms in 1929, but accounted for
over 12 percent of the total wage bill (Census of Agriculture 1930).
III. EFFECT UPON COSTS OF PRODUCTION
The effect of minimum wages upon costs of production will depend upon
(1) the level of the minimum and (2) the importance of labor cost as a
constituent of total cost. Various fragmentary data indicate that the relative
importance of labor cost varies considerably by type of farm, but that on
the whole it is distinctly small. (Census statistics on wage payments by type
of farm relate to cash wages only, which average about 75 percent of the total
■of cash and perquisites.)
The total agricultural cash wage bill in the United States was about 8.7
percent of the value of all farm production in 1929. This proportion of cash
labor cost to total value product was 4.8 percent for poultry farms ; 5.6 percent
for general farms ; 6.1 percent for animal specialty farms ; 8.3 percent for cash
;grain farms; 8.6 percent for dairy farms; 9.9 percent for stock ranches; 10.3
percent for crop specialty farms; 22.0 percent for truck farms; and 23.7
percent for fruit farms. These proportions are probably considerably lower
at present for two reasons: (1) Labor requirements have declined since 1929
(see W. P. A. National Research Project, Changes in Technology and Labor
Requirements in Crop Production) ; and (2) farm wages have declined more
than farm prices.
To show the probable magnitude of the effect of minimum wages, it is
necessary to construct hypothetical examples. There are no comprehensive
statistics of wage rates by commodity or by type of farm ; but time rates and
the hourly equivalent of piece rates do vary considerably, even within an area,
according' to the product upon which the laborer is working. There are no
statistics whatever showing the distribution of actual wage rates in a region
around the crop reporters' average. Similarly, statistics of the average cost of
production or the average importance of labor cost conceal similar" variations
around the average variations by regions of commodity, and by size of farm.
However, it is not difficult to formulate examples which will serve the purpose.
In the following examples estimates of the importance of labor cost and the effect
of minimum wages are probably overgenerous. They are based on the proportion
wage bill to farm income in 1929 and do not take into account the declining impor-
tance of labor cost since that year. Neither do they reflect the probability that
after the imposition of minimum wages the employers would concentrate employ-
ment among the more productive workers, would demand a higher standard of
performance, and would increase the application of capital in their enterprises,
(1) Assume that a farm Avorker in North Dakota is paid $35 a month, that a
month consists of twenty-five 10-hour working days, and that labor cost is 8 per-
cent of the total cost of producing wheat. A 20-cent hourly minimum would in-
crease his monthly wage to $50. Labor cost would be increased by about 43
percent and total cost about 3.5 percent. A 25-cent hourly minimum would bring
Ms monthly wage up to $62.50; it would increase labor cost by about 78 percent
and total cost by about 6 percent. A 30-cent hourly minimum would make his
monthly wage $75 ; it would increase labor cost by about 114 percent and total
cost about 9 percent.
(2) Assume that workers on apple farms are paid 25 cents an hour in the
Yakima Valley of Washington, 20 cents an hour in western New York, and 15
cents an hour in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and that the labor cost in
these three areas is 30 percent, 25 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, of the
total cost of producing apples. A 20-cent hourly minimum would presumably not
affect the first two areas ; in Virginia it would increase labor cost by 33 percent
and total cost by about 7 percent. A 25-cent minimum would increase labor cost
3452 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
by 25 percent in New York and 67 percent in Virginia ; it would increase total
cost by about 6 percent in New York and about 13 percent in Virginia. A SO^cent
minimum would increase labor cost by 20 percent in Washington, 50 percent in
New York, and 100 i)ercent in Virginia ; it would increase total cost by 6 percent
in Washington, 12.5 percent in New York, and 20 percent in Virginia.
(3) Assume that in Ohio agricultural day laborers are paid $2 for a 10-hour day
without board, and monthly hands are paid $40 without board. Assume that for
onions, using day labor, the labor cost is 20 percent of total cost ; and that for
animal specialty farms, using monthly labor, labor cost is 6 percent of total cost.
A 20-cent minimum would not affect the onion farms, but would increase the labor
cost of the corn-hog farms by 25 percent and the total cost by 1.5 percent. Under
a 25-cent minimum, the labor cost of the onion farms would be increased by 25 per-
cent and the total cost by 5 percent ; the total cost of the corn-hog farms would be
increased by about 56 percent and the total cost by about 3.5 percent. A 30-cent
minimum would increase labor cost by 50 percent on the onion farms and by 87.5
percent on the corn-hog farms ; it would increase total cost by 10 percent on the
onion farms and by 5.25 percent on the corn-hog farms.
To generalize, the effect of minimum wages upon the total cost of production
would be greatest in the case of low-wage areas which produce commodities that
are heavily labor using, and least in the case of high-wage areas which produce
commodities for which labor is not an important factor of production. Thus, the
cost of production on general farms in Massachusetts would be virtually un-
affected, but the cost of producing oranges or spinach in Texas would be sharply
increased. Products raised in high-wage areas and using considerable labor, and
products raised in low-wage areas and using little labor, would be moderately
affected.
IV. EFFECT UPON COMMODITY PBICES
Would the additional cost of minimum agricultural wages be absorbed by the
farmer or passed on to the consumer? And if they were passed on to the con-
sumer, to what extent would commodity prices be affected? The second question
will be answered first.
Considerably less than half of the consumer's food dollar, in most cases, is
returned to the farmer for raising the products. The rest is absorbed on the long
route from the farm to the retail store — by packing and pi'ocessing establishments,
by transportation agencies, and by the complicated hierarchy of middlemen. It
has already been shown that the percentage of increase in the farmer's total cost
of production would be much smaller than the increase in labor cost. This
increase in total cost, in turn, would be considerably diluted by the time the
consumer paid for the finished commodity on the retail counter. Gross proceeds
to the farmer as a percentage of the consumer's dollar were investigated by the
Federal Trade Commission in 1937 ; 29.4 percent of fresh-fruit prices at chain
stores, it was found, represented the gross return to the grower. The farmer
received 34.78 percent of fresh-vegetable prices, 35 percent of wheat-flour prices,
40 percent of beef prices, 45 percent of veal prices, 40 percent of pork prices, and
50 percent of milk prices. The farmer's share of the prices of manufactured
products was naturally smaller— 13 percent of the price of bread, for instance,
and 12 percent of the price of tobacco.
Let us return to some of the examples in section 3, and assume that all of the
additional cost is passed on to the consumer. A wheat farmer who paid his
labor $35 a month without board might find that his total cost of production was
increased 3.5 percent by a 20-cent hourly minimum, 6 percent by a 25-cent mini-
mum, and 9 percent by a 30-cent minimum. If returns to the farmer ai-e about
35 percent of retail flour prices, then a 20-cent minimum wage would increase
the retail price by about 1.2 percent, a 25-cent minimum by about 2.1 percent, and
a 30-cent minimum by about 3.1 percent. If the farmer gets 13 percent of the
consumer's bread dollar, then a 20-cent minimum wage would increase the price
of bread by about 0.5 percent, a 25-cent minimum by about 0.8 percent, and
a 30-cent minimum by about 1.2 percent.
It was suggested that an Iowa corn-hog farmer might flnd his total cost of
production increased 1.5 percent by a 20-cent minimum wage, 3.5 percent by a
25-cent minimum, and 5.25 percent by a 30-cent minimum. If this farmer received
40 percent of the consumer's pork dollar, then retail pork prices would be increased
0.6, 1.4, and 2.1 percent, respectively, by the three hypothetical minimum wages.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3453
The effect upon the consumer would naturally be the most pronounced in the
case of a commodity which is produced in a low-wage area, for which farm labor
is an important factor of production, and in the retail price of which the returns
to the grower are an important constituent. As a sort of limiting case, let us
return to the example of Shenandoah Valley apples. We assumed that farm
workers were paid 15 cents an hour and that labor cost was 20 percent of the total
cost of production. A 2()-cent minimum wage, it was estimated, would increase
the cost of production by 7 percent, a 25-cent wage by 13 percent, and a 30-cent
wage by 20 percent. If 30 percent of the consumer's dollar is returned to the
grower, then a 20-cent wage would increase the retail price by 2.1 percent, a
25-cent wage by 3.9 percent, and a 30-cent wage by 6 percent.
If the additional cost of minimum wages were passed on to the consumer, it
appears that the effect upon commodity prices would not be very great. In very
few cases would it be more than 2 or 3 percent, and in many cases less than
1 percent.
Such an increase in commodity prices, if it were necessary, would not seem
unjustified. It is desirable that the consumers of a product pay a sufficient price
to support the workers who contribute to its production. Any benefit which the
consumers receive from the low prices of a parasitic industry is paid for many
times in other ways. Society is not benefited, for instance, when cheap clothing
is made available because of the exploitation of sweatshop labor. There seems
to be no valid reason why the consumers of agricultural products should not pay
enough so that farm workers may receive a wage which is considered the minimum
that anyone should be asked to work for. In this case, at any rate, an increase
of 1 or 2 or 3 percent does not seem excessive if it permits the establishment of
adequate wage standards for agricultural workers.
If it were demonstrated, on the other hand, that a considerable proportion of
the additional cost would be absorbed by agricultural employers, this would not
mean that it would have to come out of the dirt farmer's already empty pocket.
In the contemporary political context the emptiness of the dirt farmer's pocket
is the most powerful symbolic inhibition against social legislation for agricultural
workers, but actually it is neither a serious issue nor an especially relevant
consideration in this connection. Most small farmers either hii'e no labor or else
hire very little, and many become agricultural wage worker's during part of the
year. That minimum wages would create a competitive advantage for the small
farmer as against the large operator will be indicated in the next section of this
paper.
It is ordinarily assumed by economists that any increase in the cost of produc-
tion— a processing tax, for instance, or the imposition of a tariff on an imported
raw material — will be passed on to the consumer. There are valid reasons for
doubting that the cost of minimum wages would be entirely passed on in this case.
The strongest of these reasons is that the increase would be so small. How, for
instance, can the price of a 10-cent poimd loaf of bread be increased by 1 percent?
How can the price of a 6-cent pound of onions be increased by even 5 percent?
Many agricultural products are bought in such small units that insignificant
changes in price are impossible under vnv present monetary system.
Another reason is that economic theory in predicting that the consumer meets
any increase in cost assumes tbat appropriate changes in supply will bring about
this result, but the adjustment of agricultural supply to a change in conditions
is not made quickly. The importance of fixed costs in agriculture, the sociological
nature of the producing unit, and the fluctuations of farm prices from year to
year all prevent a speedy adjustment. It comes slowly as farmers gradually
substitute one crop for another and the pattern of territorial specialization in
agriculture is altered.
To the extent that the increase in cost is not passed on to the consumer it must
be divided between tlie grower and the various middlemen — packers, processors,
manufacturers, wholesalers, etc. Tlie nature of this division is an institutional
question whose answer depends on the relative bargaining position of the parties
concerned. The lack of competitive prices in transportation, the extent of inte-
gration and monopolistic control in the food-manufacturing and tobacco industries,
and the fact that in many areas a few handlers and shippers are the only cus-
tomers of a large nimiher of growers indicate that the margins of the middlemen
would not easily be reduced.
3454
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
V. EFFECT ON LAEGEl AND SMALL PRODUCEBS
Would minimum wages for agriculture increase the competitive disadvantage
of small farmers, or would they instead allow them to compete more effectively
with large operators? .
Representatives of large-scale and commercialized producers contmually invoke
the poverty of the little farmer as an argument against legislative protection for
agricultural workers (as well as workers in packing, processing, and marketing
establishments). The redefinition of agricultural labor contained in the social-
security amendments of 1939, for instance, was sponsored by the agricultural
producers' labor committee and supported by a theory that coverage of fruit-
packing workers constituted a discrimination against the small grower. Minimum
wages are similarly opposed on the ground that, although the large farmer might
be in a position to pay them, the little dirt farmer could never afford to do so
and would be driven off the land. The prominence of this argument makes it
especially necessary that the differential effect of minimum wages upon large
and small farmers be analyzed.
(1) The majority of American farms, it was mentioned above, employ no labor
at all during the year. They are manned entirely by the operator and his family.
To the extent that their production is for commercial purposes, as distinguished
from family living, they compete with large farms on the commodity market.
Obviously the competitive position of these nonemploying farmers would be
improved by the introduction of a minimum wage for agriculture. Their money
cost of production would be unaffected, but the money cost of their larger com-
petitors would be increased.
To the uncertain extent that commodity prices rose (see sec. 4 of this paper)
there would be a direct financial benefit, as well as an improvement of competitive
position. The possibility of this financial benefit is evidence of a rather funda-
mental relationship — the family labor of working farmers competes on the com-
modity market with the hired labor of agricultural employers. Here is the
meaning of the familiar proposition that the economic status of the working
farmer is not much higher than that of the agricultural wage laborer, and here
is an economic motive for the small growers in the Grapes of Wrath who would
have preferred to pay higher wages than those enforced by large growers in the
community.
M'any small farmers, of course, hire out as agricultural laborers during part
of the year. In 1934 over 70,000,000 man-days of agricultural labor were per-
formed by American farm operators working on other farms. (Census of Agri-
culture, 193.5.) It is well known also that unpaid members of farm families con-
stitute another important source of seasonal wage labor. The effect of mini-
mum wages upon this part of the farm population would obviously be beneficial.
(2) Another aspect relates to the exempted employing farmer, who employs
too little labor to be covered by the law. If a wage differential were established
between exempted and covered employers, a competitive advantage for the
former would be apparent. But we cannot assume that the exempted employers
would find their wages entirely unaffected when others in the same community
were required to pay more. It might even be argued that they would be unable
to secure labor for less than the legal minimum, and that therefore the exemption
would be of no benefit.
The possibility of a wage differential would depend upon (o) the degree of
oversupply of farm labor and (b) the extent to which covered employers were
incidental or predominant in the agriculture of the community. Under present
circumstances, in the opinion of the author, the wages paid by the small em-
ployers would rise somewhat but remain below the minimum.
(o) If there were a shortage of labor— if the agricultural labor market were a
seller's market — the exempted employers would probably have to pay a wage
close to the legal minimum. Even if there were not a shortage, the bargaining
position of the wage workers would be improved through the fact that some of
the employers were forbidden by law to hire them for less than the minimum.
If there were a large oversupply of labor, however, the bargaining position
of any individual worker would not be materially improved, becaxise the pressure
of mieniploynient upon the labor market would not be materially lessened. The
disparity between the wages of covered and exempted farmers would thus be
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3455
greater where and when a large oversupply of labor existed. It would be likely
to rise and fall in a seasonal cycle, reflecting seasonal changes in the number ot
unemployed farm workers. The seasonal swings of average agricultural wages,
which are rather small at present, would perhaps be accentuated.
This analysis in terms of the supply of labor should be modified by other con-
siderations. In the first place, many workers would be in and out of the larger
farms, would become accustomed to the higher wages, and would be less satis-
fied to return to work on the smaller farms for lower pay. In the second place,
the nature of the informal influence exerted by large employers would be
altered. At present the large grower has a greater economic interest in low
wages than the small grower, and many observers have testified that wage
rates in their communities are dictated by the more influential and substantial
farmers. But were a minimum wage applied to these employers, their economic
interest would lie in the direction of having their exempted competitors pay as
much as possible, and their influence would be exerted to that end. In the
third place, small and exempted employers might discover that they were getting
a poor selection of workers and, therefore, might find it necessary to raise their
wages in order to get satisfactory help. . .^ » 4.r,
( ft ) In a region where almost none of the employers ^nd only a minority of the
workers were covered the upward pull upon the wage rates of the exempted em-
ployers might not be significant. The better workers would gravitate to the
covered employers, but they would constitute a small aristocracy of labor, and
their prosperity would not be diffused to their brethren on the exempted farms.
But were many of the employers and almost all of the workers were covered, it
would be considerably more 'difficult for small employers to pay less than the
legal minimum.
If a minimum wage were applied at the present time the wages of exempted
employers would be raised to some extent but probably not to the level of the
legal minimum. The oversupply of farm workers overshadows any factor tend-
ing to prevent a differential ; observers state that there are three workers for
every job in some areas, and the high degree of unemployment in the agricultural
labor market in general is accepted as a fact by everyone.
(3) A minimum-wage law which raised the labor cost of large and small
employers in the same proportion would nevertheless create a competitive ad-
advantage if wage labor were typically a more important factor of production for
one group than for the other group. If labor cost, in other words, were a less
significant constituent of total cost on small farms, then a minimum-wage law
would benefit a small employer, even if he were covered, as against a • large
employer. , . ^
If we compare a very small employing farm unit a very large employing farm,
we can conclude without danger of contradiction that wage cost is a larger part
of total cost on the latter ; the small farm produces almost entirely with family
labor, the large farm almost entirely with wage labor. For intermediate cases
we cannot be so sure. The larger farms will probably have a higher proportion
of hired workers to total workers than the smaller farms, but this is not th&
same thing as a higher proportion of wage cost to total cost. If laborers on
the larger farms were more efficient and had more and better equipment to
work with, their higher productivity might decrease the wage cost per unit
until it was lower than that of the smaller farms. Unfortunately, we do not
have the necessary data to make any prediction with regard to these interme-
diate cases.
VI. EFFECT ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AGEICUT.TTJRAI. LABOR MARKET
It is dangerous to generalize about the agricultural labor market because
employment relationships are so heterogeneous. Many types of workers do
farm labor — hired hands, resident seasonal labor, seasonal labor from nearby
towns and cities, migratory workers, contract workers, etc. But one generaliza-
tion can be made which "is not likely to be disputed: The agricultural labor
market is the most casual, disorganized, and overpopulated in the United States.
Chance hiring is the hallmark of a casual market— first come, first engaged ;
frequent termination and resumption of employment; everyone having some
chance of a job and, therefore, no one being sure of it. In agriculture the
individual jobs are relatively short, the employment relationship is not con-
3456
INTERSTATE MIGRATION
tinuous, and it is often immaterial to the employer whom he hires. Access to the
agricultural labor market is easy ; almost anyone has an opportunity to get
some work and to dilute the employment of other workers. In a period when
the high birth rate of the rural population is not compensated by expanding urban
industries, when farmers and their families are driven out of their holdings,
and when permanently employed agricultural wage workers are displaced by
mechanical improvements, there are many indeed who must take advantage of
this opportunity. The dilution of employment is limited only by the necessity
that the wage income plus any available public relief be sufficient to keep one
alive and able to work. Thus, although few are unemployed all of the time,
there is a tremendous oversupply of labor.
Another way of explaining why so many people are able to get some work and
so few are able to get enough work is to indicate the several aspects or com-
ponents of the labor reserve in agriculture: (a) One component of the labor
reserve is made necessary by the seasonality of labor requirements ; the employ-
ment of agricultural wage workers doubles between January and July, (h)
Another results from friction and immobility. Different crops and different areas
have their own seasonal peaks of labor demand, and to some extent each has its
own labor reserve. This immobility is partially spatial ; the peak labor demand
in Florida comes during the dead season in North Dakota. It is partly occupa-
tional ; different crops and operations require different skills and physical attain-
ments. It is partly due to the fact that some agricultural jobs are held in lower
social esteem than others, (c) A third component results from uncertainty with
regard to the exact extent or timing of labor demand ; in a particular area, for
instance, harvesting may proceed quickly or slowly, depending upon the condition
of the weather and the commodity market. Therefore agricultural employers are
likely to attach a very specialized meaning to the conception of "an adequate
labor supply." To them the term may connote a supply large enough so that every
grower could harvest simultaneously without having to worry about a lack of
workers. For this reason the employers frequently complain of an inadequate
labor supply at the same time as the workers are seriously underemployed, (d)
An integral factor in the dilution of employment and the maintenance of a large
labor reserve is the unproductive loss of time which is the consequence of un-
directed job seeking and labor recruiting; 71.4 percent of all the agricultural
laborers interviewed in a national survey by Vasey and Folsom stated that they
secured employment through their own efforts or the help of their friends, while
75.1 percent of the employers said that they found it necessary to engage in a
personal search for workers.
Another characteristic of the agricultural labor market is the employment of
nonprofessionals — workers who are only temporarily in the market. W. S. Woy-
tinski has estimated that from 30 to 35 percent of farm workers are engaged In
agricultural labor only as a seasonal occupation and retire when the harvest is
over. There are many other workers who have only seasonal employment, of
course, but they are distinguished by the fact that they would prefer year-round
employment; they are continuously in the labor market. There are several
categories of nonprofessional farm workers. Small farmers take employment on
other farms ; farm wives and children take seasonal jobs ; people from cities and
towns go into the country for the summer, etc. The consequent position of the
professional farm laborer is analogous to that of a longshoreman who has to
compete with hoboes and college boys or a newspaperman who has to compete
with young people who are "willing to work for the experience." The accessi-
bility of a labor market to nonprofessionals is a well-established wage-cutting
influence, and the decasualization of a trade usually necessitates closing the door
to them. . ,
How does labor migration fit into this picture? Migration m its best aspect
represents the dovetailing of regional peaks in labor demand; it is a method of
adjusting to the seasonality of labor requirements that permits a lengthening of
the annual working period. But migration has other aspects. It is often dupli-
cating; thus, many families move into Colorado while other families are moving
out of the State, and the same is true of Texas. It is sometimes the overt expres-
sion of desperation, without knowledge or even expectation of employment oppor-
tunities at the destination. Much migration, moreover, is apparently a function
of the wage rate ; when the wage is so low that local residents refuse to take the
jobs, workers from other areas whose situation is more desperate or whose
standards are lower must be brought in.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3457
Miuimum wages would be a rationalizing influence in several respects, although
it is hardly likely that they would completely decasualize the agricultural labor
market. , . ^^
(1) At the present time the efficiency of agricultural workers is often not a
serious consideration to their employers. Many workers are paid by the piece ;
and even under time wages labor is cheap and does not have to be particularly
economized. When a crop is being harvested, of course, it is desirable to have the
job done quickly ; but a low level of efficiency can be compensated by the employ-
ment of more people, and there is often no immediate hurry in the consummation
of nonharvesting jobs. Therefore the efficient workers are not sharply distin-
guished from the inefficient on the labor market.
A minimum hourly wage would tend to establish such a distinction. To a
greater extent than they do now, employers would prefer one laborer to another.
They would find it profitable to cultivate continuous relations with the satis-
factory laborers. In this way the practice of chance hiring, under which the
odds of getting a job are about equal for all workers and employment is distributed
according to the normal curve of error, would be of diminishing importance.
(2) The higher standards of performance would have further consequences.
Many of the women, children, and old people who are now able to secure work
would be eliminated. To the extent that the nonprofessional or temporary
workers are less efficient than the year-round workers, there would be a tendency
to eliminate them also. ( Because of the extreme seasonality of agricultural labor
requirements, however, it is questionable that the nonprofessional would ever
be entirely eliminated.) The vacation character of agricultural work would
probably disappear for those workers for whom it is now a vacation.
(3) Minimum wages would probably encourage unions. Agricultural laborers
would find that compliance on the part of the employers coukl be best insured by
the provision of articulate representatives ; and once admitted to citizenship under
one of the Federal statutes, they would be encouraged to organize for further
gains. Some of the present barriers to unionism would be eliminated. Higher
earnings would make it possible to support an organization, whereas at present
agricultural unions can be kept alive only by continual subsidies from various
sources. Nonprofessional temporary laborers are among the most unorganizable ;
to the extent that they were eliminated, organization would become more feasible.
Any regularization of employment relations would ameliorate the situation under
which a union has to organize fresh workers every season. It is impossible to
say just how important the encouragement to unionism would be; certainly many
of the well-known difficulties of organizing agricultural workers would remain,
and resistance on the part of agricultural employers would continue to be strong.
But if unionism were successful, its inevitable tendency would be to attempt to
regularize and decasualize the labor market, as the longshoremen's union has
done in San Francisco.
(4) Minimum wages might increase migration in one way and decrease it in
others. To the extent that workers became differentiated according to relative
efficiency, and to the extent that inefficient, substandard, and nonprofessional
workers were eliminated, there would be more opportunity for productive migra-
tory laborers to move from one peak of labor demand to another and fill most
of the year with employment. On the other hand, any excessive recruiting of
migrants on the part of labor bureaus and employers' organizations which is now
motivated solely by a desire to maintain low wages would lose its point, since
minimum wages would be established by law. The migration which arises out
of pure desperation would be lessened. Migration of low-standard or economically
distressed workers into areas where local labor is sufficient to do the work, but
does not consider it worth while at the wage, would be reduced or eliminated.
VII. EFFECT UPON ACRICITLTURAL EMPLOYMENT
Reasoning about the effect of minimum wages upon the volume of agricultural
employment must be extremely speculative. One can mention some of the possi-
bilities, however.
(1) Any substantial decasualization of the agricultural labor market, although
it would not reduce the number of jobs, would reduce the number of people filling
these jobs. The chance hiring, the lack of direction, and the consequent dilution
of employment and unproductive loss of time in seeking it would be lessened. If
the average worker were employed a greater share of the time, there would obvi-
ously be opportunity for fewer people to be employed part of the time. A labor
3458 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
market which adequately supports a smaller number of laborers seems preferable
to one which spreads the work so thin that the income of the majority is miserably
low, that human vitality is sapped, and that the widespread assistance of partial
public relief is necessary.
(2) The system of using family labor in various crops might be affected.
Family labor is at present always paid by the piece or the share. Employers find
that wages can be lower if all the family works ; it is immaterial if the wives
and children are not so efficient as they might be, so long as they are paid by the
piece ; and the head of the family finds that the labor of the other members is
necessary to supplement his income. If it were necessary to pay every worker a
certain wage for every hour, the employer would want only those members of
the family who could do a full job. The incentive to use such a system — that
piece rates can be lower if several members of a family can pool their earnings —
would be eliminated. Adequate earnings for the chief breadwinner might elimi-
nate the necessity he now feels to utilize the earning capacity of his dependents.
(3) Many cotton planters have the option of producing "wage cotton" or "share
cotton." The advantage of producing under one system or the other is deter-
mined by the relationship between cotton prices and the wages of cotton laborers.
Recently the advantage has been on the side of wage cotton, and this has been
one reason for the expulsion of sharecroppers and the utilization of wage labor.
Minimum wages for agricultural workers might restore the advantage of share
cotton and revive the cropping system in areas where it has been on the decline.
This might be offset, of course, by the other advantages of wage cotton (mechani-
zation, in particular), and would depend on whether any provision were made for
sharecroppers in a system of wage protection. It might become profitable to
introduce sharecropping in certain crops, such as sugarcane, which are now
produced with wage labor. Minimum wage legislation might be accompanied by
safeguards intended to prevent these inspired shifts in tenure status.
(4) The effect of minimum wages upon employment would also depend upon
the extent to which mechanization of agricultural operations was stimulated.
The unmechanized operator in a partially mechanized crop, such as wheat or
corn, would certainly feel a competitive disadvantage. Minimum wages would
probably accelerate the use of agricultural machinery which is already practical
and is either in partial use or has been discouraged by the availability of cheap
wage labor. One of the reasons why mechaniciil cotton pickers are not used
commercially at present is that mechanically picked cotton commands a lower
price on the market. But if wage costs rise, it might be profitable to pick by
machine and take the lower price. There would also be a greater incentive to
mechanize some of the heavily labor using operations if labor should become a
more expensive factor of production. Some of these operations, however, are
probably unmechanizable, and others would be mechanized anyhow if practical
machinery were at hand.
(5) Other effects upon employment might be caused by a shift to less labor
using crops. Nothing definite can be said about such a shift; it would depend
upon the proportion in which the additional cost of minimum wages was divided
among consumers, middlemen, and farmers, and the degree of substitutability of
farm products on the commodity market. The extent to which crops like grain,
which use little labor, can be substituted in the consumer's budget for crops like
sugar and fruit, which use much labor, is probably small.
(The following recommendations were submitted subsequent to the
hearing and accepted for the record:)
Recommendations of the Intekstate Conference on Migratory Labor (Mary-
land, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia), Baltimore, Md., February 12
AND 13, 1&40
The conference recommends—
That an up-to-date survey of the migratory labor problem, including the actual
needs for migratory labor, be made in each of the four States by the appropriate
agency, or agencies, assisted where necessary by Federal agencies.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3459
That ways and means be devised, through cooperation with farm groups and
individual farmers, to eliminate the use of migratory labor as much as possible
by the employment of local labor.
That the same opportunities and services for education, school attendance,
health, relief, housing, and sanitation be made available for migratory labor
families as are available to the residents of the communities in which they work.
That these be the responsibility of the community and the State, with Federal
aid to assure equal opportunities and services for migrants (as well as for resi-
dents) where State and community resources are insufficient, provided that Fed-
eral aid be made available on condition that the States and communities receiving
aid agree not to discriminate between residents and migrants.
That housing and sanitary regulations be adopted, or made applicable to, the
shelter of migratory and seasonal labor, similar to those existing in the more
progressive States for tourist camps ; and that adequate appropriations and per-
sonnel be made available to the appropriate State agency to enforce these regu-
lations.
That each State study the administration of existing laws as applied to mi-
grants, with a view to removing inconsistencies, overlapping jurisdictions, and
filling in the gaps.
That relief workers who accept temporary jobs be assured that they will im-
mediately be restored to the relief rolls when their jobs are over.
That laws regulating private employment agencies be amended so as to apply
1o contractors for agricultural labor and to make the control effective.
That the State employment services develop machinery for estimating needs
and for recruiting and routing labor.
The conference recognizes that the conditions surrounding employment of
children in industrialized agriculture, in which most migratory child labor is
found, are vastly different from those of children working on their parents'
farms. It therefoi-e recommends a 14-year minimum age for employment in in-
dustrialized forms of agriculture, with adequate certification of age, for the protec-
tion of the employer and the child. (This does not include the work of children
for their parents on their i>arents' farms.)
The conference further recommends —
That State conferences on migratoi-y labor be called by the labor commission-
ers to develop means of putting agreed-upon standards into effect.
That the sponsors of the Interstate Conference on Migratory Labor constitute
themselves a committee, with added membership from the conference, to follow
up its recommendations and to reconvene the conference from time to time.
Seventh National Conference on Labor Legislation, Washington, D. C,
December 9, 10, and 11, 1940
report of the c»mmitteb on migratory labor
In response to the seasonal labor requirements of agriculture, industry, and
some service trades in many different sections of the country, large-scale migra-
tions of workers, often with their entire families, have been set in motion. Many
communities have had, in consequence, to face acute problems of housing, health,
and sanitation ; many migrant families have gone without school facilities, medi-
cal care, and other badly needed type» of assistance. Wages have been de-
pressed by the influx of migrants to the detriment of local labor, as well as of
the migrants. The problem has been intensified by the drift of farm families off
the exhausted and overcrowded farm lands at a faster rate than they could be
absorbed in other employments during recent years. The lure of jobs on the
national-defense program is a new magnet for both seasonal migratory workers
and "removal" migi'ants.
No single agency or program can cope with all the types of problems involved.
This committee recommends that the following items receive special emphasis
in dealing with these problems :
1. Employment service.— It is important to establish a system of interstate
clearances and referrals for labor, both agricultural and nonagricultural, through
the State employment services, and the Federal Bureau of Employment Security
with which they are affiliated, in anticipation of the requirements of the nationail-
3460 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
defense program and of labor shortages arising therefrom. Such a system,
when well developed, will benefit migratory labor, local labor, employers, as well
as the community at large by regiilarizing the labor market.
In order to secure as much local labor as possible, machinery needs to be
perfected for the quick release of Work Projects Administration workers and
persons on relief rolls with suitable experience and qualifications for available
temporary or seasonal jobs under reasonable conditions and an equally prompt
restoration to Work Projects Administration or relief status when these jobs are
over.
2. Regnlation of labor contractors. — Effective control of labor contractors and
employment agencies must be established as to both interstate and intrastate
placements. States are urged to strengthen existing laws or to enact new legisla-
tion in line with the suggested language for a State bill to regulate private
employment agencies, as recently revised by the Secretary's committee. The
committee approves the principles of regulation of interstate placement opera-
tions as embodied in the draft bill prepared for the interdepartmental commit-
tee, with the proviso that interested State agencies have access to the informa-
tion registered by the contractor, employment, or recruiting agent with the
Federal enforcing agency.
3. Extension of labor laws. — Labor and social security legislation embodying
standards endorsed by these national conferences on labor legislation should
be extended to cover all workers, including those in canning and processing
Industries (now often exempted) and in industrialized agriculture. This will
raise the standards of many residents as well as migratory workers.
The committee recommends that minors under 16 years of age, resident and
migratory, be required to attend school, and that school facilities be provided with
State or Federal aid if needed. This committee endorses the recommendations
of the child labor committee of this conference with respect to industrialized
agriculture.
4. State conferences. — The committee recommends the leadership of those
labor commissioners who have undertaken to sponsor interstate conferences on
migratory labor and hopes that others will follow, bringing the interested State
agencies together with the regional and State offices of Federal agencies, in par-
ticular the departments of health, education, agriculture, public welfare, Work
Projects Administration, labor, and the employment service. These conferences
can be useful in arousing public interest, and in establishing continuing contacts
between the State agencies for the carrying on of State programs.
5. Federal agencies. — The committee believes that some coordination of the
activities involving migrants of the various Federal agencies is desirable.
It particularly asks that these Federal agencies cooperate with the State de-
partments, keeping them fully informed concerning studies and programs under-
taken in the respective States. Federal-State cooperation is essential in dealing
with so complex a problem.
The Army, the Navy, and the Defense Commissions, both Federal and State,
are urged to give serious consideration to the typical migrant problems that are
bound to arise when large masses of workers are attrattcd to sites of defense
projects that are unprepared to receive them. State authorities should watch
for and signalize these developments, so that there may be advance planning to
take care of housing, sanitation, health, and relief needs.
6. Housing. — Wherever seasonal labor is temporarily housed, acute problems of
shelter and sanitation will arise. State and local sanitary codes should apply
to camps of all sorts housing migrants. The inspection of labor camps belongs in
the State department of labor.
The Farm Security Administration camps have provided very necessary emer-
gency housing for agricultural labor, and while further housing of this sort is
needed, it is no substitute for a diversified housing program in which States and
localities as.^ume their share of responsibility.
There is immediate need for housing programs for nonagricultural workers,
which is especially acute in connection with defense projects, and which will
require prompt cooperative action by State, Federal, and local authorities if
great hardship and suffering are to be avoided.
7. Rehabilitation.— Programs in areas from which migrants come are welcome
as a means of adjustitng the tide of migration to the possibilities of absorption
elsewhere.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 34(31
To insure the success of programs for solving the problems connected with
migratory labor, the committee believes that it is important to obtain the under-
standing and cooperation of employers of migratory labor, as well as of other
groups in the community.
John J. Toohey, Jr., Chairman, New Jersey.
E. C. BuKRis, Montana.
Ben T. Huiet, Georgia.
Joseph E. Killough, Alabama.
C. Geokge Keueger, New Jersey.
J. Newton Maxett, Virginia.
Leon H. Ryan, Delaware.
Recommendations of Interstate Confeeence; on Migratory Labor (Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), Atlanta, Ga.,
December 17 and 18, 1940
Sponsored by the labor commissioners of the five States, the conference brought
together about 200 representatives of the State departments of labor, education,
health, public welfare, and agriculture; representatives from corresponding Fed-
eral agencies; and officials of labor, farm, and civic organizations.
The conference adopted the following recommendations :
employment and recruiting op labor in defense INDUSTTtlES AND IN AGRICULTURE
AND OTHER SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT
Migration of workers with their families in search of jobs that fail to mate
rialize, or the arrival of larger numbers than can be put to work or housed at
the site of jobs, are responsible for many of the acute problems which this con-
ference was called to consider. Any steps tending to regularize the migratory-
labor market will help to reduce the problems of health, housing, and sanitation
and will improve the annual incomes of those who- are dependent upon these jobs.
The conference therefore recommends —
(1) That information on job possibilities be compiled and kept up to date in
the regional offices of the Bureau of Employment Security, in order to provide
the State employment offices with advance information on employment oppor-
tunities. This information should include full detailed data relative to defense
projects and contracts of the Army, Navy, and other agencies and advance job
inventories on prospective employment opportunities. Information developed
in the regional office should be submitted to local oflaces as soon as possible after
the projects have been allotted.
Such a service, developed nationally by public employment offices and applying
to all seasonal or fluctuating employments, as well as defense industries, would
Ijermit the local employment offices to give definite informational service to
applicants, and so advise against and reduce the "blind migration" which is
wasteful and costly to our communities and to our economy.
Information made available by the various State agencies should emphasize
the undesirability of workers moving out in search of jobs until a definite job
order is at hand.
This program should be undertaken in full working cooperation and consulta-
tion with organized labor and industry.
The conference strongly recommends that additional funds be made available
in order adequately to carry out the above recommendation.
(2) That there should be Federal licensing of all private employment agents,
agencies, and labor contractors operating across State lines, as well as regulation
of interstate job advertising, for the purpose of preventing fraudulent misrepre-
sentation of job opportunities, exorbitant fees, and all other illicit and siiecula-
tive traffic in human labor ;
That tlie bill drafted for the Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health
and Welfare Activities for the regulation of interstate operation or private em-
ployment agencies and labor contractors be passed by Congress;
That uniform laws be passed by the States to license and control intrastate
operation of private employment agencies.
3462 INTERSTATE MIGRATION
EXTKNDING COVERAGE OF LABOR AND SOCIAL-SEOUBITY LAWS
The conference recommends that the coverage of labor and social-security laws,
both State and Federal, be extended to all workers now excluded, including
workers in industrialized agriculture and in processing and packing of agri-
cultural products.
Specifically, this means giving these workers the needed protection of such
laws as workmen's compensation, child labor, wage-and-hour laws, wage-pay-
ment and wage-collection laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, legislation for
collective bargaining, unemployment compensation, old-age and survivors' in-
surance.
It also means that, in order to realize the benefits intended by the laws, the
States should make adequate appropriations and employ suitable personnel for
the administration of all laws for the protection of migratory workers.
HEALTH, SANITATION, AND HOUSING
Among the most important problems created by the large-scale migration of
workers are those of health, sanitation, medical care, hospitalization, and hous-
ing. The development of the Military Establishment and defense industries has
attracted many thousands of workers and their families without adequate pro-
vision being m'ade for housing and health protection. The conference believes
that the migration of workers is not a problem concerning one State alone but
is interstate in character, and hence a national responsibility.
It recommends —
(1) That in every area in which there is a defense project there be provided
adequate health care through establishment of a full-time accredited local health
department, adequitely staffed and equipped, or through augmentation of existing
full-time health departments, suflicient to meet demands made by the emergency,
and that adequate medical care be provided for the migrant workers and their
families.
(2) That an immediate and realistic program be inaugui'ated to house the
workers attracted to Federal-defense projects.
(3) That wherever there is a congregation of migrants in agriculture or indus-
try, full-time health service and medical care be provided, and adequate housing
facilities be made available, and that Federal funds be made available to State
health departments through title V (maternal and child health) and title VI
(public-health work) of the Social Security Act.
(4) That additional funds be appropriated to provide decent housing for low-
income farm families and farm laborers ; that the migratory-labor housing program
of the Farm Security Administration be continued and expanded to meet urgent
needs; that funds be provided for the purpose of rehabilitating and resettling
farm families, when needed in order to stabilize them at reasonable income levels
and thus serve to reduce future migrations.
(5) That housing and sanitary regidations be adopted for, or made applicable
to, the shelter of migratory and seasonal help, similar to the best type of State
regulation for tourist camps. Adequate appropriations and personnel should be
made available to the appropriate State agency for enforcement.
PUBLIC WELFARE AND ASSISTANCE PEOGRAMS
The location of defense projects in the southeastern States, the clearing of
large areas for cantonments and air bases, as well as the continuing agricultural
migration mean that these States will witness large-scale migration in the immedi-
ate future and that there will be considerable need of assistance for needy migrants
and migrant families.
The present programs of assistance fall far short of meeting the situation that
exists now, and will be increasingly inadequate as various stages of the defense
program are completed, and workers are thrown out of jobs. A survey of the
five States in this region shows that even such programs as do offer any help to
migrants are inadequate to take care of more than a small fraction of present
needs; that voluntary agencies are totally unable to cope with the situation; and
that there is no general relief at all for employables.
The conference recommends —
(1) That existing local. State, and Federal agencies with appropriate programs
be more adequately financed, in order to furnish Increased aid to migratory
workers, to meet present emergencies.
(2) That the States receive Federal grants-in-aid, along lines similar to the
INTERSTATE MIGRATION 3463
public assistance grants under tlie soccial-security program, for general relief.
For migrants who have not yet acquired residence in a State to which they have
come, the Federal Government should meet the full cost of assistance.
(3) The conference urges greater uniformity and liberalization of our settle-
ment laws which now bar needy migrants from various forms of public assistance.
(4) The conference urges that both Federal and State Governments devise
methods and plans to avoid having people stranded as sections of the defense
program taper off; and
(5) That State, local, and Federal programs be more closely coordinated for
more effective health, education, and recreation services, without discrimination
on grounds of residence.
CHILD LABOR AND EDUCATION
• I. In connection mth migration to national-defense projects. — The maintenance
of adequate educational opportunities for all children of the Nation is basic in
our program of national defense. The conference calls attention to the fact that
the defense program is resulting in the migration of many families to areas and
communities not equipped to meet the increased demands for educational oppor-
tunities. The conference urges that immediate consideration be given by the
appropriate State and local authorities to this need.
The needs created by the defense program are a responsibility of the Federal
Government as well as of the States. Tlie Conference, therefore, recommends that
Federal aid be made available so that the States and local educational authorities
may adequately meet the cducalioiial needs of the children.
II. In connection with (njricuJtiiral migration. —There are special problems in-
volving the welfare of children of migratory agricultural families, arising from
both child labor and deprivation of educational opportunity.
Conditions surrounding employment of children in industrialized agriculture, in
which, most migratory child labor is found, are vastly different from those of
children at home on their parents' farms. The conference therefore recommends
a 14-year-minimum age for employment in industrialized forms of agriculture,
and a 16-year minimum for employment during school hours.
The conference further recommends that the same opportunities and services
for education and school attendance be made available for children of migratory
labor families as are available to the residents of the communities in which they
work. It urges that school services for all children in rural areas to be strength-
ened and that Federal aid be made available where necessary to equalize educa-
tional opportunities for the children of the Nation.
CARRYING OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
While the conference has adopted comprehensive and constructive recommenda-
tions for dealing with many ph^ises of the migratory labor problem in this region,
it yet remains to formulate methods of bringing these recommendations to the
attention of people in legislative and administrative positions who can make them
effective.
This conference therefore asks the United S'tates Department of Labor to make
available to the five State connnissioners of labor sufficient copies of the recom-
mendations to be sent by each coinniissioner to the congressional delegation from
his State, to the Governor of his State, and to the members of the State assembly.
It further asks that copies of the recommendations and proceedings be trans-
mitted by the United States Department of Labor in the name of the conference
to the President of the United States; and that copies Ite mailed to each person
invited to, or attending, the conference.
The conference urges that future conferences be called, ot the five States here
represented and of interested agencies within e'ach of the States, to consider how
to put these recommendations into effect and to consult further upon developments
in the migratory problem.
The Chairman. Were there any other witnesses?
Dr. Lamb. Not for today; no.
(The committee thereupon adjourned until Thursday, Dec. 5, 1940,
at 10 a. m.)
260370 — 11— pt. 8-
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05706 1366
SEP
9 m\
*
mm
Miiiiii
9L
I.
^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11