320 acres, with as much as 1,610 acres in Montana; but in only the 9 remaining States of the 48 could loans be made for the purchase of from 160 to 320 acres the size generally recognized as proper for a 1-family general farm.

While there must be restrictions to prevent extravagant loans, or loans that would permit the purchase of so much land as to create more landlords looking for more tenants, instead of more farms owned and operated by independent and contented families; any law would fail that does not provide opportunity for farmers of proven character and ability to become the owners of family size farms large enough for general farming with a proper balance of crops and livestock.

Farms should be limited to the family size best adapted to the class of farming to be undertaken by the beneficiaries. While as few as 50 or even less acres may be sufficient for a family engaged in trucking or other intensive types of farming, the family engaged in general farming requires at least 160 acres, with a possible maximum of 320 acres, to afford a proper balance of crops and livestock. Now, as I stated before, this discussion refers more to the Bankhead bill. H. R. 8 has gone a little further toward straightening out this one undesirable feature, in my opinion. Mr. Gee in his brief statement will have something to say along that line.

Mr. COFFEE. I would like to ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Coffee.

Mr. COFFEE. Have you figured out what would be the average cost of a farm, or have you considered that?

Mr. JACKSON. No; and I do not think that is possible.

Mr. COFFEE. For sale to tenant farmers.

Mr. JACKSON. That is going to depend upon the location, kind of soil, and so forth.

Mr. FULMER. Did I understand you to say that you are not an actual farmer?

Mr. JACKSON. Myself?

Mr. FULMER. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. No.

Mr. FULMER. You have no interest in any farm at this time?
Mr. JACKSON. No.

Mr. FULMER. You stated awhile ago, I believe, that you were in favor of giving tenants an opportunity to become landowners? Mr. JACKSON. That is what I think should be done.

Mr. FULMER. I would like to ask you what assurance you can give this committee that a tenant would be able to buy a farm when at this time, under the present program, the best farmers you have in Georgia, many of them, have lost money and have lost their farms under the present program?

Mr. JACKSON. As I stated to the committee a while ago, Mr. Fulmer, I think there are many successful farmers.

Mr. FULMER. There are very few, and I would like to have this information placed in the record. Many farmers who own land, who are struggling to pay the mortgage, interest, and taxes, many of them have been unable, during the past few years, to do that and meet other demands. It is my belief that before we should

have this type of legislation we should give to the farmers some assurance, under a definite program, thta they would have some assurance next fall that cotton would bring a reasonable price or that tobacco will bring a reasonable price.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Fulmer, that is a question that I would not like to get into at this time.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I feel that you have touched upon a very important thing when you speak of the class of men who are to get the benefits of such an act. That is probably the most important thing. What is your idea as to how these men should be chosen?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I only briefly touched on that suggestion. I think they should have certain qualifications, and I think that the administrators of the act can certainly determine that. I believe that the act can be so administered and should be so administered as to determine who shall get the benefits, and that any local committee should be very carefully selected. We believe that the act can be so administered as to give it a chance to work out.

Mr. GILCHRIST. The present bill, that is, H. R. 8, provides that a committee consisting of a farmer, a businessman, and a credit man should make the selection.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Gilchrist, I believe Mr. Gee will have something to say along that line.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Very well.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor Pierce.

Mr. PIERCE. During the last 5 years has not the tenant been better off than the landlord?

Mr. JACKSON. I have heard that.

Mr. PIERCE. Is not that generally true the country over; haven't you heard those suggestions generally?

Mr. JACKSON. I rather think so. I do not know how true it is. There are so many ways to take that. That is a pretty general statement. You can find many cases where the landlord is losing and where the tenant has the best of it.

Mr. PIERCE. Now, is it not a question rather of what price the farmer can get for his product, than a question of tenancy, that confronts us?

Mr. JACKSON. I would like to avoid getting into that discussion, Governor Pierce, if I can.

Mr. PIERCE. We are interested in that phase of it.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you withhold that question, Governor Pierce, for the present?

Mr. PIERCE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. We desire to thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Dr. Gee.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILSON GEE, PROFESSOR OF RURAL ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, REPRESENTING COMMITTEE FOR INCREASED FARM OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Dr. GEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Jackson has just presented the formal report of the Committee an Increased Farm Ownership of the Association of Southern Agricultural Workers. In this connection he has pointed out that the report of the committee was prepared before the Farmers' Home Act, designated as H. R. 8, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, was available. Since going over that act, certain modifications have occurred to us as desirable, and these will be brought before our committee for action at the Nashville meeting of the association early next month. However, it may be worth while to present these additional suggestions at this time.

Before advancing briefly three or four suggestions in connection with the Farmers' Home Act, please allow us to express our genuine satisfaction with the measure in general, and especially at the prospect that steps will be taken during the present session of the Congress to make its objectives effective. The past few years have witnessed marked progress throughout the Nation, in the development of an enlightened attitude toward the farm-tenancy problem, and perhaps the largest stimulating factor in bringing this encouraging situation about has been the discussion focusing about the similar measure introduced into the Seventy-fourth Congress and the present bills before the Senate and the House, respectively. This important farm-tenancy problem has already been too long neglected, and, now having grappled with it, the determination must exist to pursue the difficult and delicate task to a practical solution.

Section 2, division (a), of the bill under consideration provides for the establishment of an independent governmental agency to be known as the Farmers' Home Corporation, the management of which "shall be vested in a board of directors consisting of three officers or employees of the United States, designated by the President of the United States, one of whom shall be from the Treasury Department, one from the Department of Agriculture, and one from the Farm Credit Administration." Also, section 9 of the bill authorizes the Corporation "to exercise and perform all the powers, functions, and duties conferred or imposed upon the Resettlement Administration" by certain Executive orders.

We would respectfully suggest in this connection that the Farmers' Home Corporation be created as an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture, with the responsibility for its effective operation residing in the Secretary of Agriculture, much after the fashion of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Resettlement Administration.

It is also our judgment that the Corporation, at the outset, should be established within the United States Department of Agriculture, independently of the Resettlement Administration. It seems to us that while there is considerable similarity in the objectives of the proposed corporation and the Resettlement Administration, the emphasis in the two organizations are quite dissimilar in many respects.

No one, we believe, cherishes the illusion that we shall ever be able to transform all of our tenant farmers into independent owner-operators. The primary concern of the Farmers' Home Corporation would be with those at the top of the tenant pile, while that of the Resettlement Administration is with those at the bottom, providing the help which is hoped ultimately will enable many of those near the bottom to develop into good risks for extension of Government credit to translate them into owners.

With both of these agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, any desirable cooperation between the two could easily be effectuated. Moreover, it seems to us that the Farmers' Home Corporation, should in entering upon its significant task, be allowed to do so with a clean slate, responsible only for its own errors-which doubtless will be many-and certainly unencumbered by the sins of omission and commission of the Resettlement Administration. It is our judgment that this is only just and sensible.

Another suggestion relates to section 3, division (e) of the bill. This portion of the bill reads in part, as follows:

The board of directors shall appoint in each county in which the activities of the Corporation are carried on a committee of three persons, one of whom must be a farmer, one a business man, and one an experienced credit man, all of whom shall have been bona-fide residents of the county for at least one year immediately prior to the date of their appointment.

It is respectfully submitted that this provision omits the county farm demonstration agent, who would seem to be the person in the county best equipped to serve on such a committee. Also, it is not inconceivable that the "business man" specified might in some instances be a real-estate dealer with speculative interests in the real property transactions involved. It would perhaps be better to phrase this section so that the determination of the personnel of these necessary and important county committees be left to the directors of the Corporation as one of their policy-making functions.

And finally in connection with section 4, division (b), and subdivision (2) of the bill, we would direct your attention to the provision that

no farm real property shall be sold which is not limited in area to the approximate size, as determined by the preceding Federal census, of an average farm in the same locality.

This requirement seems to be based upon the false assumption that the sizes of farming units existing in the different localities of the United States at a preceding census period are always those which should characterize the agriculture of the area. It suggested that less rigidity be written into the act in this regard, and that the clause be made to read somewhat as follows:

And no farm real property shall be sold which is not limited in area to the approximate size representing an efficient farm management unit for the average family-size farm as determined by the type of farming which should prevail in the same locality.

The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the committee, Dr. Gee, I want to thank you for your study of the provisions of the bill and your suggestions. In that connection, I want to say that in one of the committee prints which we have before us there is language which pro

vides that the management of the corporation shall be vested in a board of directors consisting of three officers or employees of the United States, to be appointed by the president of the United States, one of whom shall be from the Department of Agriculture, one from the Treasury Department and one from the Farm Credit Administration. Another member of this committee, during discussions, and also I believe someone from the outside, suggested that it should be handled by one of the other departments. Now on the question of the local committee: You agree with the idea that there should be a local committee?

Dr. GEE. I do not see, Mr. Chairman, how this act could effectively function without the advice of people who are on the ground and who know these individuals. It seems to me that the success of this whole measure depends upon the care that is shown in the selection of the beneficiaries. Moreover, I think that at the outset in the administration of this measure the question of its too great cumbersomeness of machinery must be dealt with, and you have got to deal clearly with that issue. And certainly in the initial stages you must deal soundly and realistically with the situations that arise if you are to secure good results. If this measure is made a broad one for alleviating poverty in the rural areas and it does undoubtedly deal to some extent with that question-it can become so cumbersome and idealistic and visionary that it would break of its own weight.

We have got to start in with those individuals who have demonstrated good sound principles of farm business management by the test of the people who know them in the community in which they reside.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to ask a question at that point. You talk like a man who knows something about what you are talking about, and I think you have referred to those at the top of this tenancy list. Now, I would like to ask you if you know what percentage are at the top?

Dr. GEE. There are no such figures available.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I know there are not. But do you have any idea? Dr. GEE. I would be afraid to express an opinion as to percentages without a factual basis therefor.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But can you give us some idea?

Dr. GEE. I know there are a great many good tenants. For example, I have an excellent tenant on a cotton farm which I own, and from a selfish standpoint, as a landlord, this would hurt me, because this tenant would be immediately eligible to be translated into an owner and I would have to look for another tenant, who perhaps, would be one not so good as the one I would lose.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am a farmer and a landlord and I know something about getting a good farmer.

Dr. GEE. Yes; there are a great number of such tenants, and the situation, as I see it, would largely at least at the outset, revolve about the class of tenants in different communities who are considered good tenants and good risks.

There is a very significant movement, I think, taking place in the South today. I myself am a native of South Carolina, although I am a citizen of the State of Virginia and have been connected with the University of Virginia for the last 14 years. Sumter County,