Navy Yard and the conditions under which they labor and get paid and the living conditions are quite different. Now, how are we going to at least minimize the discrimination, or what can we do?

Secretary PATTERSON. I believe that the measure would be operated fairly and with a minimum of discrimination. The measure is directed only to the problem of controlling labor supply and not to other incidents or relations that have to do with the employment of labor. Mr. JOHNSON. What I am thinking of is this: There is the local board, say, in the town and they have a pool of say 60 men and maybe 60 women, and then they have a demand to place those in different types of work. Now, if they placed some of them on the farm where they would work 10 and 12 hours a day under very poor sanitary conditions, naturally they would not like that, whereas others might be going to, say, Vallejo, where they would sleep in warm houses and work 8 hours a day and have amusements and other things.

Secretary PATTERSON. That is true; yet it seems to me that the problem which faces the local board would be no harder than the problem it faces in taking men under the Selective Service Act for the armed forces.

Mr. JOHNSON. You think more or less the administration would wrinkle out all these discriminatory features?

Secretary PATTERSON. I do. Think of the responsibility of the local boards in selective service where they have to take the man and are charged with the responsibility of taking the man and on their choice may rest whether the man goes to North Africa and gets killed or whether he stays at home and continues on in his ordinary peacetime employment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I realize that.

Secretary PATTERSON. These other things, whether a man gets 10 cents more a day is one place then he gets in another place, are insignificant to that.

Mr. JOHNSON. One other question, Judge. From your experience up to today with reference to this productive aspect of the war effort, there will be a continual unbalance, you might say, of manpower, so you have to shift these men around to get the most use out of them; is that so?

Secretary PATTERSON. I think it is uncontrolled today, to a

extent.

large

Mr. JOHNSON. Aren't there going to be great groups of men idle in parts of the country and a big demand in other parts? Secretary PATTERSON. There will be.

Mr. JOHNSON. And it will continually shift all the time?

Secretary PATTERSON. I think so.

Mr. JOHNSON. You think this law will correct that?
Secretary PATTERSON. It will help to regulate it.

Mr. MARTIN. Judge Patterson, your comment a moment ago in response to Mr. Elston's question about agriculture leads me to ask whether or not you expect a further taking away of essential agricultural workers as we go further into total war.

Secretary PATTERSON. That will depend on the course of the war, I suppose, to a great degree. I remember in 1918 in France the farms there were manned and the food was raised by men beyond military age and by women and by children. You saw no man of military age on the farms. The French could not raise an army if

they were to exempt them. That is where the rank and file of their armed forces came from. And yet they raised big crops.

Mr. MARTIN. France was not engaged in a lease-lend program.
Secretary PATTERSON. No.

Mr. MARTIN. And we are undertaking a serious responsibility. Secretary PATTERSON. I am not minimizing the manpower needs on the farm.

Mr. MARTIN. Speaking of the 2,000,000 marginal farms

Secretary PATTERSON. But a great amount can be done if you are right put to it the way they were then.

Mr. MARTIN. Now, with reference to the 2,000,000 American marginal farms you spoke of, that raised such a small percentage of the food supply, I gather from your comment you justify taking those farmers in and putting them into the Army or transferring them into other farming areas?

Secretary PATTERSON. It is not an effective use of manpower under today's conditions, I think you will agree. Their contribution is a very, very small one.

Mr. MARTIN. Your comment about the 2,000,000 marginal farms does not carry with it any suggestion that you will cut deeper into the manpower in the really productive agricultural areas?

Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir; and it may well be that these men can be more effectively used in farming in other places than anywhere else.

Mr. MARTIN. There is nothing in this bill that would lead the farmers in productive areas to expect cutting deeply into their present labor supply which has been found to be rather closely figured; is that right?

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not see that this bill would affect that one way or the other. If it developed that the need was greater somewhere else they might be. But on the other hand if it developed that they were undermanned it would be the measure of getting them more help.

Mr. MARTIN. Now, one more question about the provisions of the bill, referring to section 3 (b), gives the President the power-this is in the Wadsworth bill H. R. 1742-to transfer workers from one field to another. But I wonder whether there is any prospect of the President transferring men in the armed forces back to agricultural regions if found necessary.

Secretary PATTERSON. Well, I would hate to see that done. You cannot fight a war with a dissolving and dwindling army. You have to build it up rather than weaken it.

Mr. MARTIN. There are a great many expert farmers in the armed forces now who could do more work individually if sent back to the farm, not in large numbers, but by the findings of the selective-service board, for instance, as to their actual bona fide need at home. But I have run into this situation: I understand the War Department policy favors assigning soldiers, if any are assigned, back to the farm, assigning them back by organization rather than by individuals. Secretary PATTERSON. That is true, except as to men over 38. Mr. MARTIN. Is there any prospect of a modification of that policy in the interchange of soldiers with an essential occupation such as farming?

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not think so. assigning of them as units as a routine matter.

We do not contemplate

We would do it only

in cases of the utmost urgency, something comparable to a fire or a flood. We already, and have for years, assigned military units to help out in case of some major disaster and where no one else could do it. We will send a military unit in and we will do that in the case of agriculture, too, where in some restricted area a crop might be lost unless you did it. But those cases will be very rare.

Mr. MARTIN. You do not believe that situation can be better handled by individual furloughs?

Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir. We would absolutely lose the man then, and your armies would waste away on you.

Mr. MARTIN. Do you think that the military organization as an organization could move into a farming district and do the job more efficiently and better than by the individual furlough method?

Secretary PATTERSON. We are not going to do it to any real extent by either method.

Mr. MARTIN. Could you do it to any extent if you have units of a military organization. Have you ever witnessed a military organization undertaking to do farm labor?

Secretary PATTERSON. We would not do it well if we engaged in it regularly, I know that very well. I was trying to point out the very rare instances where it would be done by units by referring to what had been done in the case of calamities and fires and flood, and so forth.

Mr. MARTIN. From the farmers' approach for food production in the emergency the assignment of military units as units to operate in a farm region seems to me very inefficient and very far-fetched and not at all practical.

Secretary PATTERSON. I don't think it is, either, unless it is limited to those few cases.

Mr. MARTIN. With reference to the interchange of soldiers under this, if it were used to assign soldiers by individual furlough for the emergency back to their home regions for the emergency, if it was severe enough?

Secretary PATTERSON. Well, we can qualify everything by saying, "If the emergency was severe enough.' But I don't think the war can be successfully prosecuted if we are going to have soldiers home that we have drilled and trained and disciplined and who may be overseas and on far-off posts finding their way home to do something else. You cannot fight a war that way, sir.

Mr. MARTIN. I agree with you that this should not be any large transfer between the armed forces and agriculture, but I want to make this one point insofar as any transfer is needed the practical approach to that is to assign men individually by furlough rather than by military organizations.

Secretary PATTERSON. I think if you are counting on getting agricultural work done

Mr. MARTIN (interposing). That is what we are interested in. Secretary PATTERSON. From the Army on a large scale that probably you would be right, but I do not agree with you on what you want to do.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I am not advocating a large transfer of any military forces back to the farm, but only to the extent needed to get the job done, and only for the purpose of building up the food production in accordance with our needs.

Secretary PATTERSON. You know Hitler would like to see us dissolve our armies and send them back to what they were doing before they got in the Army. He would like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. MARTIN. Except this: I hope we do not accommodate Mr. Hitler.

Secretary PATTERSON. So do I.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Judge, with reference to all the conversation that has taken place here of those people moving back to the farm, don't you believe the importance of that has been overemphasized, and there is not such a movement as some of the press reports would indicate?

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not know. We have had some accounts from some of our industrial establishments that there is quite a movement out and when they asked them why they say they are going back; they think they are going to be liable for military service where they are and do not think they will be on the farm.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Don't you think there may have been a misunderstanding of the law? I would like right here to read that into the record.

Secretary PATTERSON. I think there may have been but I think all of the publicity that has been given about it has created in the minds of people the idea that if they go back to the farm surely they won't go in the armed forces.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I think they should keep this law in mind. I would like to read it into the record right here.

Secretary PATTERSON. The Tydings amendment?

Mr. SPARKAMN. Yes. It says

Every registrant found by the selective service local board subject to appeal in accordance with section 10 of subsection 2 to be necessary and to be regularly engaged in an agricultural occupation or endeavor essential to the war effort shall be deferred from training and service in the land and naval forces so long as he remains so engaged and until such time as satisfactory replacement can be obtained. That is the essence of it. And it seems to me if there is any wholesale movement of people who have not heretofore been connected with farming or if they are going back just to be living on the farms, somebody has misunderstood the law.

Secretary PATTERSON. I agree with you.

Mr. SPARKMAN. They must be essential and actively engaged or continually engaged in essential farming.

Secretary PATTERSON. And when you say "essential to the war effort," those are the controlling words. I think that amendment is capable of perfectly good interpretation and application.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In other words, we are all interested in keeping on the farms people necessary to produce the war crops?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Because food is just as important as ammunition in the winning of the war.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; that is true. And it says there, "until replacement can be found."

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.

Secretary PATTERSON. I have no objection to the text of that law. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Just one other question.

Judge, I have seen a statement made that we must have in productive effort by the end of 1943 as many as 65,000,000 people. That includes the armed services, industry, agriculture, and all essential services. I have also seen if we do have that number we will have a greater percentage of our adult population, that is, from 18 to 65, than England has, although she found it necessary nearly 3 years ago to enact service legislation. Don't you think we might draw a lesson from that?

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not see how the job can be done without it.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, I want to ask one question, connected in a way with an observation. To begin with I have heard every witness that has appeared on this witness stand from the beginning of this testimony to the end for the last two and a half weeks and the picture I get of the situation is that due to low wages on the farm and higher wages in the industries, and any other motive that may have prompted it, there has been a migration from the farms to private industry, but whatever the motive was, now due to the newspaper publicity and other statements that have been made and maybe some directives downtown, there is a migration starting back to the farm, regardless of what motive prompts that, and with the situation as it is and with the rapidly and greatly expanding army and the fluctuation and movement of labor from place to place the only thing that this legislation is designed to do is to stabilize the situation and put controls on it through the operation of proper administration of a law similar to this or this law itself.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the whole picture?
Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think the law is necessary for those reasons in view of the military situation and we realize, of course, if there is any emergency the worst emergency is over across the water.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Did you have a question, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to remark with reference to what the gentleman said about the Tydings amendment as I read that that is nothing but the old definition of the original rules about a necessary That has been so since the beginning.

man.

Secretary PATTERSON. That is pretty much true.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is merely a repetition of it in a little different form. Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. It simply pointed out definitely the law should apply to agriculture as well as to industry.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Secretary PATTERSON. I think that is so. When the Tydings amendment was first passed I do not think anything startling happened for some time. It was only when interpretations began to be pretty broad that the idea arose that there was some favored position there.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gathings.

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not think there was meant to be any the amendment itself.

in