The CHAIRMAN. The House has appropriated $96,700, and that was the estimate. The estimate reads:

To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and report upon the drainage of swamp and other wet lands and to prepare plans for the removal of surplus waters by drainage and for the preparation and illustration of reports and bulletins on drainage, including the employment of labor in the city of Washington and elsewhere, rent outside of the District of Columbia, and all necessary expenses, ninety-six thousand seven hundred dollars.

Senator WARREN. That is the estimate, and this language is the same that they have put in.

The CHAIRMAN. No; the bill differs from the estimate.

Senator WARREN. What have they left out in the change?
The CHAIRMAN. The bill reads:

To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and report upon the drainage of swamp and other wet lands which may be made available for agricultural purposes, and to prepare plans for the removal of surplus waters by drainage from such lands, and for the preparation and illustration of reports and bulletins on drainage, including the employment of labor in the city of Washington, and all necessary expenses, ninetysix thousand seven hundred dollars.

Senator WARREN. By inserting new language I thought there must be something, and it might explain why they cut it down $4,000.

Senator PERCY. I know the demand upon the department for work of this character has increased during the 12 months very much rather than diminished. In the House hearings I notice the following:

Dr. TRUE. In "Drainage" we make, in the first place, preliminary examinations of tracts of land in different States with reference to the feasibility of draining them. If the reports of our agents are favorable, and the enterprise seems a desirable one to undertake, we then make a definite drainage survey to determine what needs to be done to drain the tract; and draw up, on the basis of that survey, a definite plan for a drainage system.

Mr. HAWLEY. That is, when some farmer makes application to you for a system of drainage on his farm; or under what circumstances do you undertake the work?

Dr. TRUE. We have different classes of enterprises. Most of our work relates to large tracts of land which can be drained only by community effort. In a few cases we have prepared drainage plans for smaller tracts, where we consider that these might be used as examples of what could be done in a special region, in order to encourage a community to undertake drainage.

Senator PAGE. Do your communities, outside of the owners of the land, contribute to this land?

Senator PERCY. Not at all. They form a drainage district composed of land supposed to be benefited and then issue bonds to do the work, and the Government survey is most helpful, not only because the surveyors associated with the department are experts, but because there are also a number of contested questions as to the benefits experienced by various parts of the drainage district, and the statement of the Government engineer, known to be uninfluenced by any local consideration, is very persuasive in settling those differences.

Senator WARREN. I think Dr. True touches upon that matter. I read from the House committee hearings:

Mr. LEVER. Do you find that your plans are frequently carried out by the community, or do you do a great deal of work which is never followed up by the communities?

Dr. TRUE. Quite a number of plans which we have prepared have been already utilized. Upward of 50 of our projects have been formed into drainage districts, and the construction work has been or is now being carried out or is about to be under

taken. It should, however, be understood that this problem of draining large areas of our swamp lands is a complicated one, and will necessarily take a considerable time to get the people of many of these areas to understand fully what requires to be done, and to be willing to undertake the work in the proper way. So that a considerable part of our work thus far has been to lay the basis for future development. After we are through, if we think that the people have a reasonable plan for a good drainage system, it is then up to them to raise the money and take the necessary community action to put this into effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Your inquiry as to the difference between the bill and what was proposed seems to be this: It limits the investigation to land that may be made available for agriculturel purposes. Senator PERCY. I think that is a very good limitation.

Senator WARREN. That limit is all right. It ought not to be necessary, I thought.

Senator PERCY. If the committee would see its way to give a $50,000 increase, it would be satisfactory and I know the department would handle to advantage the increase.

Senator Percy was thereupon excused.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE T. OLIVER, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Senator OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I have offered a couple of amendments [Calendar No. 69] asking very small increases for some of the work of the Department of Agriculture. I confess that I am not thoroughly familiar with the object of them. I offered them at the request of Congressman Rothermel, one of my Democratic colleagues from Pennsylvania, whom I am very anxious to accommodate. They amount to, I think, only $3,000 or $4,000 altogether, and I would be very glad if the committee would give them favorable con sideration.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. They contemplate the establishment of a bureau or station at Reading.

Senator OLIVER. Yes.

Senator WARREN. Your amendment does not state that in terms. Senator OLIVER. No; it is a kind of gentleman's agreement.

Senator WARREN. You probably have some encouragement from the department that they think it ought to go there.

Senator OLIVER. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give the amendment due consideration. Senator Oliver was thereupon excused.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. GORE, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

Senator GORE. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced an amendment that I would like to say just a few words about. The CHAIRMAN. It is Calendar No. 79. On page 21, after the word "conditions" insert the words "eighty thousand dollars," so as to read as follows:

For the investigation and improvement of methods of crop production under semiarid or dry-land conditions, eighty thousand dollars.

Senator GORE. It increases the appropriation for dry-farming investigation from seventy to eighty thousand dollars-an increase of $10,000.

Senator WARREN. The idea is to establish something of a new place?

Senator GORE. Yes, sir; it is a new station in my State. Here is the situation: Oklahoma has contributed $6,000,000 to the irrigation fund. We have had $68,000 expended in surveys. The reports have all been adverse-some, the lack of sufficient and constant supply of water; others, that the plan would cost more than the land could afford to bear. That is in the northwest. In the southwest the water was saline and would not do for irrigation purposes. The law has been repealed under which half the money had to be expended in the State, and it has occasioned considerable uproar in that State. Of course the 100th meridian runs through Oklahoma, and that is supposed to be the dividing line between the arid and semiarid regions. We have no dry-farming station in Oklahoma. We have had several dry seasons and the people are very much agitated about irrigation and droughts. In Kansas, farther east than this section of Oklahoma, they have tried the dry farming and it has averaged 27 bushels of wheat to the acre.

Senator WARREN. I have an amendment for just a little different purpose. I do not want it to clash with the Senator's amendment. Senator GORE. This provides an increase of $10,000. The department said it would take about $10,000 to handle it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else that you care to say with regard to the amendment?

Senator GORE. No, sir; I want the committee to remember that we put up $6,000,000 and we have not got anything out of this, and we are suffering from drought.

Senator PAGE. How did you put that amount up, Senator Gore? Senator GORE. The proceeds of the sale of land. Oklahoma put up $6,000,000. The law originally promised that half of the money should be spent in the State where it originated. That has been repealed, so we have only got 1 per cent back.

We have had three severe droughts in succession, and as I said there are no dry-farm stations in Oklahoma, and as it runs through the 100th meridian, which is supposed to be the dividing line, it seems that in common justice where we can not get this money we should at least get it in some other way.

The CHAIRMAN. What you desire is to increase it by $10,000? Senator GORE. That is what I desire; yes, sir. It would take that much, they tell me, to equip and prepare for it.

The CHAIRMAN. And that, apparently, is a new item?

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. No; it just increases the present appropriation from $70,000 to $80,000.

Senator GORE. That is the way I intended it.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. Without specifying anything.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean that that $70,000 is the way it comes to us in the House bill.

Senator GORE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have there been previous appropriations for the same purpose?

Senator GORE. Yes, sir; they have it in 11 States, I think, but none in Oklahoma, and the department tells me they would rather fix it that way than designate any particular State or place.

Senator Gore was thereupon excused.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELLISON D. SMITH, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

WEATHER BUREAU.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman. I have not looked over the bill in order to find out just where this item should be inserted, but I made a request, and I understand that the department has agreed to it, with regard to the matter that I propose.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. It refers to soil?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. This is with regard to the Weather Bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. That has all been taken care of.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. That is all right, then.

I have been requested by Senator Culberson to lay before the committee the following letter:

I herewith hand you two letters, one from Mr. W. P. H. McFadden, of Beaumont, and another from Mr. J. E. Broussard, of Beaumont, relating to a matter of an additional appropriation of $7,000 under the head of "Grain standardization," Office of the Bureau. of Plant Industry, having particular reference to rice experiments. As you are a member of the Committee on Agriculture, which has this appropriation under its consideration, and understand the rice question thoroughly, I will thank you to consider these letters and see what you think can be done before the committee along the lines suggested.

Very truly, yours,

C. A. CULBERSon.

I will leave these letters with the committee without taking up further time with regard to them, as they speak for themselves, together with the letter of Senator Culberson. This has reference largely to rice experiments. We have been experimenting with it down in our State, where the disease has very nearly emasculated the rice industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any specific appropriation on that subject?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I think so; we have Government men down with us.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of the disease?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I have forgotten; it is a peculiar kind of blight. It is a fungous growth.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. It would probably take a new clause. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Here is a letter dated March 27, 1912, under the caption "Beaumont Rice Mills," in which it is stated:

Last year, at the request of several prominent rice growers and the growers and millers' organization, the United States Department of Agriculture, through its office of grain standardization, placed a man in the rice belt of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas to study the conditions affecting the growing, harvesting, handling, and grading of the rice crop in these States. For this work an appropriation of approximately $2,000 was made.

So it seems there was an appropriation made. This is different. from what I suspected it was, not having read it carefully. He says further:

The study so far reveals the fact that several very important problems could be worked out in a practical and scientific way, which, when completed, would result in a better quality of rice and consequently a higher-price crop. The points to be investigated in the future are the seeding, cutting, shocking, threshing, storing, and grading of rice. It is the purpose of the Agricultural Department to establish stated grades of rice and to ascertain the effect of poorly handled and harvested rice on the food and milling value of the same and to suggest a scientific remedy.

Then he goes into the matter fully.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that something you wish to go into the record? Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I do not know that it is necessary for that to go in.

I am also requested by Senator Culberson to ask for an additional appropriation for experiments in sugar, and I will leave with the committee these letters.

The CHAIRMAN. That is Calendar No. 63. Page 21, line 12, strike out the word "thirty" and insert the word "forty." It reads in the bill:

For the investigation and improvement of sugar-producing plants, including their utilization and culture, thirty thousand seven hundred and ninety-five dollars.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. He wants to make it that forty. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that their experiments have increased largely the yield of sugar per acre by crossing a breed of a new variety of cane; not the droop leaf, but those that are semiaquatic in their shape. They get better results from that. Even when there are droughts they catch the dew, which supports the growth, and the Government has assisted that.

The CHAIRMAN. The estimate was $30,795. The act of last year was $32,000. The bill grants the estimate, $30,795. Now, as I understand it, Senator Culberson desires that to be $40,795?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that discussed in the House hearings? Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I suspect not, because he intimated to me that it was an oversight in some way.

He received these

letters and was very anxious to have it incorporated.

Senator PAGE. Where is this investigation to be made?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Right there on the ground; right on the cane fields. The proposition is to send down the experts of the Plant Industry as they have been doing heretofore; just increase the area. There is a vast sugar area, extending from Shreveport, La., to Corpus Christi, Tex.

Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions, I desire to say that I am not as familiar with that cane culture as I am with rice. I do not think we have any industry, especially on the Gulf coast, that is of as much importance from an agricultural and commercial standpoint as the development of that sugar industry.

I will state that I suspect one reason why this request is made at this time is because the boll weevil in that section has practically put the cotton out of existence, and they are substituting cane for it right on the ground.

Senator PAGE. Did I not see in the record that you were raising more cotton this year than ever before?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. That has reference to climatic conditions. This year, on account of ideal conditions existing from about the 20th of July to the 1st of November, we just made another crop on top of it. That may not happen again in 20 years. Senator PAGE. Two crops in a year?

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Yes; we just planted two crops.
Senator PAGE. You have not the boll weevil?
Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Not in our section.

In Louisi

ana, where she made 1,000,000 bales last year, she made only