Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is anyone able to give me approximately the probable cost of constructing the all-American canal? Is there any estimate on that?

Mr. Buck. I think there has been. I think it is somewhere between $25,000,000 and $30,000,000. That was an estimate made during the war time, when there was a high cost of labor and material. I think that could now be reduced.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do your people feel that with a cost of $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, the new lands that could be brought under cultivation could bear such a charge as that?

Mr. BUCK. Our land that is under cultivation would share that charge, too, as I understand it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I take it, Mr. Buck, from what you have stated, that you are a landowner, a farm owner, in the Imperial Valley irrigation district?

Mr. BUCK. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What are your O. and M. charges at the present time per acre?

Mr. Buck. Operating and maintenance charges, do you mean by that?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. BUCK. Now, just what would that cover-the irrigation and taxes, and water tolls, and taking care of the silt on my land, and such as that?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I suppose it would include everything except the original cost of the water; that is the annual cost in the way of assessments that you have to keep up to have your water service.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not intend to include general expenses in taking care of that 40 acres, do you?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not mean the general land tax; I mean the water tax that you pay to your company annually?

Mr. BUCK. Well, owing to the fact that we have to maintain such a long canal system in Mexico, it is very heavy. We are taxed this year $5 an acre to start with; that is a direct tax from the irrigation district. We have our water tolls in addition to that, as to which I have not the figures with me, but I think it will run on my 40 acres, close to $5 more.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would be safe in assuming, then, that the fixed charges, the annual expenses, are somewhat between $9 and $10 per acre?

Mr. Buck I think I would be safe in making that assertion. I am not positive; but I believe that is very close to the figures. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I understand; that is just an estimate. Mr. Buck. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, in addition to that, every landowner pays to the county what we call annual taxes?

Mr. BUCK. State and county.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. About what dose that run per acre of land such as you cultivate?

Mr. BUCK. My State and county taxes this year, I think, were about $160. That covers my land and my personal property. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is, on a 40-acre tract?

Mr. Buck. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Something like $4 per acre?
Mr. BUCK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is rather low for a property tax, is it not? Mr. BUCK. I am not prepared to say, further than as to farm taxes. I think my land is taxed by the State and county about the same as other land in that section.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Do you say that is low, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. That is low according to the rates in our State. Mr. HUDSPETH. We pay $1.25.

Mr. SWING. That is for what, Mr. Buck?

Mr. BUCK. Personal property and land tax, about $160, I think, is the total State and county tax.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Just one more question. Is there any other charge which we could include in the annual overhead which you farmers have to meet? You have given us the general taxation and the operation and the maintenance charges. Are there any other maintenance charges?

Mr. BUCK. No, I do not think of any. Of course, there are those other expenses which we incur on account of the silt on our land after the water leaves the company ditches.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. How do you account for the fact that your 0. and M. charges are so heavy per acre-between $9 and $10?

Mr. BUCK. Well, I think I have covered that in telling of the heavy expenses that we have of operating a canal in a foreign country, and without supervision of that canal-any proper supervision or control of it.

Mr. LITTLE. Taking care of Harry Chandler's land.

Mr. BUCK. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. That includes your levees, and the cost of the canals and everything in Mexico?

Mr. BUCK. I suppose it does; yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. How large a working force do you have, approximately, if you know, in the employ of the Imperial Valley irrigation district?

Mr. Buck. I should say between 1,200 and 1,400 employees.

There is another point that I want to cover that works to the disadvantage of the farmer owing to that condition there. Most of you men on this committee, I believe, have for your constituency some agricultural sections of the country; and you know that the conditions that the farmers have been laboring under for several years are unprecedented: and we in the Imperial Valley have had to meet that condition. And in addition, we have had to meet this condition: That we are not able to get any Government money. The Federal Farm Loan Bureau has refused to come into our val ley and make loans, owing to the fact that our water goes through a foreign country, and that we are menaced with that flood every

year.

Mr. LITTLE. Do you know whether the Chandler influence mitigated against your getting that money?

Mr. BUCK. I understand that it did. I understand that he came out very strongly and said that it was not time for us to get that, or something like that. But I do not want to make any very definite statement; but that is our understanding, that that was one of the reasons we did not get the money.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, it has been in the record before; so you need not be afraid of speaking out.

Mr. BUCK. But we were not able to get that money; and we pay a very high rate of interest when we do get money on our land; from 8 to 9 per cent we have to pay on what I call short time loans for real estate loans-that is, five years. I do not think there is anyone lending money in that valley that would want to lend it for a longer period than five years.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Buck, may I ask you a question at this point? Mr. BUCK. Yes: certainly.

Mr. LITTLE. Referring to those 200,000 acres of land that could be irrigated under the all-American canal, was that the land that the plan figured on preparing for soldiers to settle on?

Mr. Buck. Yes, sir. And I have heard the assertion since I have been here, by people who are opposed to this bill, especially the allAmerican Canal feature of it, that he did not think giving the soldier boys preferential rights carried any weight. He said that his experience with the soldier boys was that their experience in war had unfitted them to make good farmers.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I did not catch your statement. Whom are you quoting now, Mr. Buck?

Mr. Buck. Well, I did not say whom I was quoting.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I beg your pardon. I thought you said some one said that.

Mr. Buck. No. I said I had heard that opinion from somebody here since I have been here in talking with them, that they did not think that the soldier boys, owing to their service, were fitted to make good farmers.

Mr. LITTLE. Did he think that unfitted them from making good citizens?

Mr. BUCK. Good farmers, he said.

Mr. LITTLE. Let us go a step further: If they would not be good farmers, what would they be good for?

Mr. BUCK. I asked that question, but it was not answered. But I will say that I am personally acquainted with a good many of those boys who went to war overseas

Mr. LITTLE (interposing). Well, do you think they make good citizens? I would like to know what you think about that.

Mr. Buck. I do think they would: those that I know would make just as good farmers, and just as large a proportion of them, as any other class in our country.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. They are all good citizens, are they not?

Mr. BUCK. They certainly are, or they would never have gone

across.

Mr. LITTLE. But the question is, how they turn out when they come back. Does that unfit them for farm work?

Mr. BUCK. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you were not sharing in those aspersions on the soldier boys?

Mr. BUCK. No, sir; I resent it.

Mr. SINNOTT. Your reference was to Mr. Chandler?

Mr. BUCK. No, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. Did you tell him he was a liar?

Mr. Buck. No, sir; I did not. He was a younger man than I am, with a considerably longer reach.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Some of those soldiers went from the farm when they went into the war.

Mr. BUCK. They did, and those are the ones that I was acquainted with.

Mr. HUDSPETH. They could hardly forget their farming experience in two years overseas.

Mr. Buck. They did not. The idea that he had in speaking of them in that way, was, I think, that they had become unfit and demoralized or something, to such an extent that they could not settle down and make good, steady citizens on the farm.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you any reasons to believe that the individual, whoever he was, who made that statement, was interested in the welfare of the private power concerns?

Mr. Buck. I did have, yes, sir; but unless forced to do so, I would rather not name the source of my information.

Mr. SINNOTT. How was he on the bonus?

Mr. BUCK. I did not question him on that. I did not have time. I thought he was against the bonus. I think the boys ought to have this other relief if you can get it for them, in any way that they can; they ought to have a preferential right to enter land that had not been entered, for the purpose of making homes. I want to refer to the land question just briefly. The census shows that between 1910 and 1920 the increase of farm lands in the United States has been $26,000,000,000-in farm values-and that the increase in farms or the number of farmers, is about 6,000,000.

The increase of farm units-of farms-is very small. The percentage was not given. The increases in acreage was only 9 per cent. Our Imperial Valley lands, owing to the conditions I have been speaking of, have not increased any in that length of time. They have practically stood still. I paid $133 an acre for my land in the Imperial Valley in 1912, and I doubt whether, if I forced it on the market at this time, I could get that much for it. One of my neighbors offered his land not a great while ago for $100 an acre, and it was on the market for several months and had no takers.

Land producing as this land does, with the advantages it has, if we had a fair show with other like projects, ought to be worth more than that and ought to have appreciated in that time.

The

Mr. HUDSPETH. You have a wonderful production there. fact that your land has not increased in value is due to what? Mr. Buck. It is due to our having no physical control of our water, and to our not being able to get cheap money. Mr. SINNOTT. What is your rate of interest when you borrow money?

Mr. Buck. On our lands?

Mr. SINNOTT. On your lands; yes.

Mr. BUCK. Eight to nine per cent. I do not know anybody lending money for less than 8 per cent.

Mr. LITTLE. If there were no rich Americans owning great tracts of land in Mexico, would you have any trouble with the Mexicans about water?

Mr. Buck. I think not. I think if the Mexicans were the owners, they would be easier to get along with. It is those men who have money and power and knowledge who frustrate our plans.

Mr. LITTLE. They are all American, are they not, those men in Mexico?

Mr. Buck. I think so. There is no doubt of that.

Mr. LITTLE. And in California, you think?

Mr. BUCK. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. SINNOTT. Áll Americans, but not " all-American”?
Mr. LITTLE. Yes.

Mr. Buck. It was stated here by a very eminent lawyer not a great while ago that a great many of the States objected to this project on account of overproduction. Now, I have every respect for the legal profession, but I sometimes think they have spent so long a time delving into dry legal papers, looking up precedents and other legal matters, that they have forgotten to be human to a certain extent. I say this with all seriousness, because I have known some of them.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You might send the same message from Colonel Little to him as he sent a while ago to that other fellow. Mr. SWING. The majority of the members of this committee are lawyers. Say what you please.

Mr. Buck. Present company is always excepted, and if I have stepped on anybody's toes, I apologize.

Mr. HUDSPETH. I assure you that you have not stepped on mine, although I am a lawyer by one of my professions.

Mr. BUCK. I refer to the statement made by this lawyer, saying that he was opposed to our bringing in any more land because it would create overproduction. I do not think that is likely. I have been closely in touch with farmers' organizations for some time, and I do not think it is overproduction. I think it is only the standardization and proper disposition of our products

Mr. LITTLE. Is it not a fact that what you produce down there does not come into conflict with the products of my State at all? Mr. Buck. I was coming to that.

Mr. LITTLE. There was a gentleman here last year before the committee, an official of the Northern Pacific Railroad, who made a statement along that line that I think is unwarrantable from lawyers or anybody else, saying that there is no complication between the irrigated areas of the West and the Mississippi Valley.

Mr. Buck. I thank you. To show that the farmers are not objecting to this, I was a delegate to the National Farm Bureau Federation at Berkeley, sent there by our people to get this thing done, and I would like to insert in the record, with the permission of the Committee, a copy of the resolution passed at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection and that will be included in the record.

(The resolutions referred to are here printed in the record as follows:)

IMPERIAL COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
El Centro, Calif.

Whereas Imperial Valley comprising over 450,000 acres of very fertile soil, located in southern California, raising yearly over $50,000,000 worth of diversified crops; and

Whereas the chief crops consisting of vegetables and fruits are marketed at a season when said products are not produced in any other part of the country; and

Whereas Imperial Valley is inhabited by 50,000 people whose permanent residence has been and is continually jeopardized by flood menace of the