the status of proletarian agricultural workers. No surer preparation for state capitalism was ever devised than this progressive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

In reiterating the genuine Catholic viewpoint on this grave social question, the conference draws attention to the statement of Pope Pius XII, September 1944, on the subject of widespread ownership:

When the distribution of property is an obstacle to this end (the genuine productivity of social life and the normal returns of national economy) the state may, in the public interest, intervene by regulating its use or even, if it cannot equitably meet the situation in any other way, by decreeing the expropriation of property, giving a suitable indemnity. For the same purpose, small and medium holdings in agriculture should be guaranteed and promoted.

The conference considers the acreage restrictions of the reclamation acts to be in full accord with this teaching.

It is noteworthy that the repeal of acreage limitation in the Central Valley and in other projects would benefit special-interest groups and damage familytype farmers; that it would mean diversion of federally appropriated funds to speculative commercial enterprises and corporation farms; that it would appreciably increase the number of migrant agricultural workers, who with their families are required for large-scale farm operations; that it would encourage the exploitation of these workers; that it would exclude from landownership veterans wishing to set up moderately sized farms of their own on acres made productive through public irrigation; that by aggravating the trend to largescale landholdings and attaching speculative values to land which individuals or families wish to purchase, it would militate against the best interest of the people in other parts of the country. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, accordingly, asks that our National Legislature take into consideration these facts as well as the pleas of the special-interest groups who stand to benefit by repeal.

Most Rev. W. T. MULLOY, President,

Rt. Rev. L. G. LIGUTTI, Executive Secretary.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CALVIN B. HOOVER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Colonel Palmer, chairman of the Committee of the South, has referred your letter of December 20 to him to me for comment. I have previously received the report of your Subcommittee on Low-Income Families and found it profoundly important. The subject is one in which I have been deeply interested throughout my life.

As you know, Dr. B. U. Ratchford and I made a study for the Committee of the South on the "Impact of Federal Policies on the Economy of the South." The Committee of the South undertook this study at the request of the Council of Economic Advisers. The Council of Economic Advisers transmitted the report to the Joint Committee on the Economic Report of which you are a member. I believe there is a good deal in the report which would be of significance to the work of your Subcommittee on Low-Income Families.

One comment I would like to make which may be of some direct relevancy to the work of your committee. In proposing various programs for foreign aid it is often argued that the market for the products of American agriculture and industry would be immensely expanded if the low incomes of the people of, say, India, or China could be increased. This is quite true but it is often overlooked that the same result would follow from raising the incomes of the lower level income receivers in the United States. This is particularly true of the South where per capita income is only some two-thirds as high as that for the rest of the country.

A billion dollars made available in free grants to backward countries for the purpose of building railways, power dams, irrigation works and the like would create a demand for American goods. There might, indeed, be circumstances

under which our national interest would be served by such action. It should not be overlooked, however, that a similar expenditure of Federal funds for hospitals, roads. school buildings, social security and the like in the United States would likewise create a demand for the products of American industry while the results of such expenditures would go to benefit our own citizens.

There are difficulties and limitations on a policy of free Federal grants either to our own citizens or to those of foreign countries. Only under conditions of threatened economic depression would the Federal Government be justified in making such grants for the purpose of stimulating demand for the products of our industry.

However, there is every reason to explore the possibilities of increasing the earning power of low-income groups in the South with a view to improving their capacity to absorb the generally high productivity of the American economy. Among the millions of relatively low-income families in the South a really great market opportunity exists. No constructive means for building up this market should be overlooked.

What is needed, on the one hand, is a constantly larger volume of capital investment in industry in the South, as well as the development of industries with a greater value of product per worker. On the other hand, similar developments in agriculture are essential. The continuance and acceleration of the trend toward greater diversification in agriculture, the development of dairy and livestock production, the further application of mechanical power on efficientsized farms and related developments, all tend toward a greater value product per worker which would contribute greatly toward the expansion of this great potential market.

Something can be done also through minimum-wage legislation and through minimum-price supports or compensatory payments in agriculture. In both cases, however, it is immensely important that these minima should not be so high as to put either industry or agriculture in a strait-jacket. With best wishes, I am, Respectfully yours,

CALVIN B. HOOVER,

Director of Research, Committee of the South.

TEXT OF NATIONAL GRANGE RESOLUTION ON EXTENSION OF OASI COVERAGE TO AGRICULTURE ADOPTED AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION, SACRAMENTO, CALIF., NOVEMBER 16-26, 1949

We have considered the report of the interim committee on social security appointed pursuant to resolution adopted at the Eighty-second session and endorse that section of the national Master's address "Social Security for Farmers" and recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas (1) the old-age assistance program is a heavy financial burden in many States and will become increasingly so, and (2) the old-age and survivors insurance program is a plan whereby each worker during his working years must help to pay for the survivorship and retirement benefits, and

Whereas (1) the old-age and survivors' insurance program has not been extended to farm people, and (2) many difficult problems will be encountered in its extension to farm people; therefore be it

Resolved, (1) That we favor extension of coverage to farm people on a trial basis working toward the perfection of a practical plan; (2) that coverage be extended to farm people in those States adopting appropriate legislation (3) that the executive committee be authorized to advocate the Grange and favoring general coverage of farm people if it is satisfied that the plan proposed is workable.

TEXT OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION RESOLUTION ON EXTENSION OF OASI COVERAGE TO AGRICULTURE ADOPTED AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION, CHICAGO, ILI, DECEMBER 15, 1949

The Federal old-age and survivors insurance program under the Social Security Act provides a type of assistance which has become accepted as an inte gral part of our economic system. However, the total of direct payments by Federal and State governments to needy aged persons is constantly increasing. This trend must be changed by extending old-age insurance coverage and by establishing insurance benefits on at least a minimum subsistence level. Employees of general agricultural organizations should be covered. Farm labor should also be covered. If the extension is provided by law to include self-employed other than farmers, and is proved feasible and administratively practical, then careful consideration should be given by State and county farm bureaus to the question of the coverage of farm operators under the old-age and survivors insurance program.

X

19