exists between the family and the vocation of agriculture. The farm is the native habitat of the family. The family's welfare must therefore have the first consideration in economic and social planning. Throughout the history of the United States these fundamental principles have been worked out through National and State legislation, and they have been upheld by court decisions and popular acclaim. Land use and human welfare Efficiency in land use is not to be judged merely by material production but by a balanced consideration of the spiritual, social, and material values that redound therefrom to person, family, and society. The land is not to be a source of benefit to a favored few and a means of servile labor to the many. Second only to making land available to the family is the responsibility of society to encourage and to educate the land stewards in the proper and most efficient use of the land and in such techniques as will make them masters of their own economic destiny. The tiller's rights and duties The worker on the land and his family possess the first right to the fruits of their toil for a decent standard of living. Second to such right come the rights of any nonoperating owner and of the State. Rural people have the right to receive directly their just share of the economic, social, and religious benefits in organized society. The stewards of the land owe sacred duties and obligations to God, the community, and humanity. A faithful and honest fulfillment of their responsibilities goes hand in hand with their rights and privileges. Suggested methods for the practical application of the declared principles on land policy 1. Make use of the land an integral part of socioeconomic planning and thinking. 2. Insist that education for land stewardship and the productive home be outstanding features of rural education. 3. Emphasize a special program of enlistment and training in secondary, liberal arts, technical, and professional schools for professional service to the rural community. 4. Make the family-type farm operated by the owner a major objective of legislation and planning. 5. Reform the system of taxing land and improvements so as to facilitate access to natural resources, security of tenure, and proper land use. 6. Revise land sale and rental contracts, mortgage obligations, and other debt instruments so that no loss of ownership or insecurity of tenure be possible except through negligence or injustice on the part of the farmer-operator. 7. Discourage large land holdings as undemocratic and unsocial. 8. Where large-scale production is necessary and advisable, encourage the use of cooperative techniques with local ownership and management. 9. At all times encourage cooperatives as a means of intellectual, moral and material advancement. 10. Where and when large-scale industrialized farming exists and requires employment of seasonal or year-round labor, demand for such labor group a living family wage, decent housing conditions, and collective bargaining. 11. Urge that wages and housing for the laborer on the small farms be decent and just. (Low wages and poor housing for the farm laborer tend to lower the reward and standands of living of the family-type farmer, bringing his own family labor into competition with the poorly paid hired hand.) 12. Extend social-security provisions, particularly health, old-age and survivors insurance, to farm people and other rural dwellers. 13. Develop locally owned and controlled business and industry in rural communities. 14. Encourage development of the "one foot on soil and one foot in the city" type of living as greatly advantageous to the family when adequate cash income is secured from work in industry or commerce. 15. Make land settlement possible for returned soldiers and displaced war workers through proper financial and educational planning, provided qualified people so desire and sound arrangements can be made, ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SIGNATORIES The Roman Catholics signing: Rev. A. J. Adams, S.J., Campion High School Dr. Thomas J. Arceneaux, South Western Louisiana Institute Frank Bruce, publisher, Milwaukee Mrs. Albert Eisele, farm homemaker-rural columnist, Blue Earth, Minn. Most Rev. William A. Griffin, D.D., bishop of Trenton Rev. George C. Higgins, National Catholic Welfare Conference Prof. Emerson Hynes, St. John's University Rev. John LaFarge, S.J., editor, America Very Rev. Hubert Lerschen, regional director of Rural Life, Rayne, La. Rt. Rev. Donald A. McLean, professor, Catholic University of America Most Rev. William T. Mulloy, DD., bishop of Covington Rt. Rev. Msgr. John O'Grady, National Conference of Catholic Charities Rev. Charles Phillips, St. Mary's Church, Oakland, Calif. Rev. Patrick T. Quinlan, regional director of Rural Life, Brookfield Center, Conn. Rev. John C. Rawe, S.J., author and teacher, Ridge, Md. Martin L. Salm, dairy farmer, Chilton, Wis. Rev. Martin E. Schirber, O.S.B., dean, St. John's University, Collegeville, Minn. Edward Skillin, Jr., editor, Commonweal Joseph J. Trainer, sales manager, Roller Bearing Co. of America Rev. Jospeh V. Urbain, pastor, Millville, Ohio Dr. Lydwine van Kersbergen, Grail Workers, Loveland, Ohio Rev. Leo R. Ward, C.S.C., Notre Dame University Most Rev. Charles D. White, D.D., bishop of Spokane Dorothy Willmann, the Queen's Work, St. Louis The Protestants signing: Joseph Ackerman, Farm Foundation Rev. O. O. Arnold, United Brethren in Christ Rev. Edwin L. Becker, Disciples of Christ J. Burt Bouwman, Michigan Council of Churches and Christian Education E. R. Bowen, Cooperative League of the U. S. A. Rev. Leonard M. Braam, Reformed Church in America Dr. Mark A. Dawber, Home Missions Council of North America Dr. William V. Dennis, Pennsylvania State College Rev. Francis A. Drake, Friends of the Soil Rev. Shirley E. Greene, Merom Institute Stanley Hamilton, Rural Life Association Rev. Hilda L. Ives, N. E. Town and Country Church Commission Dr. Kathleen MacArthur, National Board, YWCA Dr. Henry W. McLaughlin, Presbyterian Church in the United States Dr. Hermann N. Morse, Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. Rev. Donald F. Pielstick, Home Missions Council of North America Dr. Henry S. Randolph, Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. John H. Reisner, Christian Rural Fellowship Dr. Mark Rich, American Baptist Home Mission Society Rev. Clifford L. Samuelson, Protestant Episcopal Church Dr. Martin Schroeder, Midwest Synod, United Lutheran Church in America Dr. Rockwell C. Smith, Garrett Biblical Institute Rev. Claude J. Snyder, Evangelical and Reformed Church Rev. William H. Stauffer, Mennonite Church Dr. F. P. Stocker, American Moravian Church Dr. Thomas Alfred Tripp, Congregational-Christian Churches ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SIGNATORIES-continued The Protestants signing-Continued Dr. A. J. Walton, superintendent, Department Town and Country Work, Rev. Ralph L. Williamson, New York State Council of Churches Rev. O. L. Willits, Town and Country Department, Ohio Council of Churches Rev. Ralph L. Woodward, Yale Divinity School The Jews signing: Dr. Gabriel Davidson, Jewish Agricultural Society Rabbi Maurice N. Eisendrath, Union of American Hebrew Congregations Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Theological Seminary of America Richard S. Goldman, Jewish Agricultural Society Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, Synagogue Council of America Rabbi Ferdinand M. Isserman, Commission on Justice and Peace, Central Conference of American Rabbis Maurice Jacobs, Jewish Publication Society of America Dr. Isaac Landman, editor, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Dr. Solomon Liptzin, College of the City of New York Dr. Julian Morgenstern, Hebrew Union College Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Jewish Institute of Religion Dr. Joseph Zeitlin, Rabbi Temple Ansche Chesed, New York STATEMENT ON ACREAGE LIMITATION ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE AT A MEETING IN DES MOINES, IOWA, APRIL 16, 1947 Land-tenure policy and trends in landownership are closely connected with the welfare of the family and the distribution of private property. Even when brought about under the guise of economic efficiency, the concentration of land in the hands of a few is a practice destructive at once of wholesome family living and of widespread private ownership. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference stands unalterably opposed to such concentration of landownership, even in cases in which charitable or religious enterprises, or both, are made partial beneficiaries of the profits from such holdings. The conference strongly advocates the framing of public land policy in such a way as to protect family-type farmers and to safeguard them from the inroads of land monopolists, whether the monopolists be individuals or corporations. One of the objectives of the conference is to encourage residence upon the land by families who operate their own productive and efficiently managed agricultural holdings. In accordance with sound American principles and established Christian teaching, the conference wishes to see as many families as possible enjoy the light, the space, the air, and experience the wholesome and encouraging sense of enterprise and ownership fostered by productive rural living. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference intends to resist to the extent of its powers the dangerous collectivistic tendency of the large landholders who would repeal the acreage limitations wisely attached for over 40 years to federally sponsored reclamation and irrigation projects. It recalls that outstanding men of both major political parties have favored the inclusion of such restrictions in the bills authorizing appropriations for reclamation projects. The conference does not wish to see this tradition departed from in the case of the Central Valley project of California or in any other projects which have been or will be authorized. If, at times, minor modifications are necessary in certain areas in order to rectify errors in judgment as to what constitutes an efficient unit, these modifications should always be made in the interest of the family-type farmer and not for the benefit of a privileged few who own many hundreds or even thousands of acres of land. The efforts of large landholders to fasten the term "socialistic" or "communistic" upon the restrictive provisions adopted by our Congress for the purpose of widely distributing private property are repudiated by the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. The conference, in fact, is convinced that no more dangerous collectivistic tendency exists short of communism than the present concentration of productive property. The practices of land monopolists destroy the spirit of private enterprise and reduce our rural population to 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, 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. |