Chapter VII: Part I: A Stake in the Land (3)

Text size

While the houses are of the American type, the interior arrangement of the living rooms remains that of the European Slavic peasantry--the bedcover is often fancy handiwork, the walls are profusely covered with family photographs, pictures of Polish heroes, and magazine illustrations. However, an honored place is given to the picture of the President and the American flag. Furniture is placed against the wall around the room. The premises are kept comparatively clean and in order.

Diet is rather mixed, though the Polish meals and the Polish ways of cooking predominate. The settlers claim that their housewives are more frugal than the American housewives in their neighborhood.

There are very few intermarriages; nationality alone is considered a drawback for intermarriage between a Pole and non-Pole. In cases where the two people are of different faith, the Church is another drawback.

Family discipline, in respect to the authority of the husband as the family head, is less strict than in the old country. The settlers believe that this is due to the American influence. Here the husband has to consult his wife in every important question and the children are not so often punished.

The relations between the colonists and the national groups in the neighborhood are generally friendly and help is given mutually in cases of need. But there is very little social visiting between the groups, the difference in nationality being a bar.

The settlers secure agricultural advice from two sources--the company's adviser and the county agent. They raise wheat, rye, oats, potatoes, grasses--clover and timothy--while their main income is derived from milk production.

The products are sold to the local agents; there is no discrimination in prices. Necessities are bought in the near-by towns, prices being too high and goods not always suited to the needs of the settlers.

Money is loaned by the local banks at 7 to 8 per cent. This rate, the company stated, was on short-time, unsecured paper. The settlers, it maintained, have always been able to secure money on farm mortgages at 6 and 7 per cent.

Economically stronger families compel their children to do chores and work in the field outside of school time, while poorer and weaker families, especially those of more recent settlers, often let their children work even during school time.

The settlers are satisfied with their conditions and they all desire to remain permanently in America. The only thing they want is an increase in the number of settlers and further development of their locality.

The second colony[8] visited by the writer was started by the company the year before (1917). There are now about sixty Polish families in the colony. Half of the adult male population were deserters from the compulsory military service in Russia, Germany, and Austria. "Why should we have served in the armies by which Poland was oppressed!" exclaimed a settler when asked as to their justification for desertion.

Before settling on the land they all had worked in steel mills, factories, mines, etc., some five to six years, some longer, but their experience in Europe had been on farms. While in America they had learned of the land from the company's advertisements in the Polish papers. In regard to the settlers' previous farming experience the company's head said that

our company will not sell land to any settler who has not had some
farm experience. We advise them first to work on a farm
somewhere--either rent it or hire out--until they have gained the
necessary experience to make them successful on their farms. These
people here are not factory workers, but are primarily farmers,
land hungry, who came to this country for the purpose of owning a
home, and only temporarily worked in steel mills, factories, and
mines, in order to secure sufficient money to get the start that
they so much desire.

About ten settlers had gone, at the time of the writer's visit, to work in Duluth and Chicago. Their families and other settlers were busily engaged in land clearing. The smallest clearing was 6 acres, the largest 20 acres, and the average clearing for each farm was 10 acres--that is, about one sixth of the land was already cleared, but most of the cleared land was not yet turned. The size of the largest farm was 120 acres, that of the smallest 40 acres, and of the average 60 acres. In May the company organized a land-clearing contest among the settlers of its colonies, providing rewards for the winners. "This was a big event in our colony--the men pushed the brush for all they were worth," said the company's agent.

The settlers estimated that all of the adult males understand English, and that about 70 per cent can also speak English, though not well, while not one can intelligibly write English. Most of the adult women do not even understand English.

There is no Polish church. Once in two or three weeks a Polish priest comes. The majority of the settlers do not care about having a Polish church and school. They claim that their religious sentiment is weaker in America than it was in Europe.

Their diet is almost entirely Polish. Some families keep their homes clean and in order; some continue to live in dirt as in Europe.

Relations between the Polish and non-Polish settlers are good, though no social visiting takes place. Still, they meet and see one another at the community hall, about which the settlers seemed to be enthusiastic.

In clearing land the settlers have so far applied hand labor almost exclusively, but in the coming year horse power will be needed. Near the houses small potato patches and vegetable gardens have been planted. Field crops have been started, in a small and primitive way, and among these oats and feed grasses predominate. The sale of milk is the most important item of income of the settlers. Dairy farming is the company's aim in the development of the colony.

In regard to the clearing of land the company emphasized the point that the land does not all have to be cleared in order to produce.

Cattle are immediately turned into the brushland, and can pasture
upon the brush, the native grasses, and the clover which grows
throughout the entire region. Land which is cleared is used for
winter food products. Summer feed for the cattle, hogs, and horses
comes almost exclusively from the uncleared land. By following
dairying and live-stock raising, the entire land becomes productive
at once, while grain or vegetable farming would mean that only the
land under cultivation would be producing.

The men of the colony seemed to be rather cheerful and hopeful, while their wives impressed the writer as being somewhat downcast and self-centered. Several of them said that they have to work much harder in the colony than in the cities or even in the old country.

[7] H. R. 3274, 66th Congress, 1st Session.

[8] Only those field notes are here quoted which vary from the description of the first colony.

PUBLIC LAND COLONIZATION

California is the first, and so far the only state in the Union to undertake the public colonization of land. Its first experiment is very recent and on a comparatively small scale. Its leaders are ably utilizing their knowledge of the experiences in public land colonization in foreign countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the Scandinavian states, and Great Britain. Although it is impossible to foresee the outcome, the writer is inclined to believe that the public land colonization in California will continue to be a success, giving impetus to similar projects in other states.

THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT

The California experiment and its history may be outlined briefly as follows: A report of the California Commission on Land Colonization and Rural Credits made in 1916 revealed the fact that few settlers were coming to California and that many who had come were leaving because of hardships created by high prices of land, high interest rates, and short terms of payment given in colonization contracts. As a result, the California legislature passed the Land Settlement Act, approved June 1, 1917,[9] for the purpose of

promoting closer agricultural settlement, assisting deserving and
qualified persons to acquire small improved farms, providing homes
for farm laborers, increasing opportunities under the Federal Farm
Loan Act, and demonstrating the value of adequate capital and
organized direction in sub-dividing and preparing agricultural land
for settlement.

The act appropriated $250,000 for a demonstration in state land colonization, fixing 10,000 acres as the limit which should be bought. The land might be situated in one or two localities, but not profitably in more, because of the increase in overhead expenses. To carry out the provisions of the act a state Land Settlement Board was appointed of which Prof. Elwood Mead was chairman. The board was organized at the end of August, 1917, and immediately began the search for a suitable tract of land. With the advice of technical experts of the University of California and of other authorities upon soil, irrigation, health, and various conditions which would affect the success of the colony, final selection was made of a tract at Durham, Butte County, California.

On May 7, 1918, the land was finally transferred to the state. Prior to this, however, the land had been subdivided and had been prepared for farming, a large acreage having even been seeded. On May 15th, 3,421 acres were offered to settlers, consisting of 53 farms, ranging in size from 3-1/2 acres to 160 acres, and of 21 two-acre farm laborers allotments. The prices of the farms varied from $875 (above which the next price was $3,646) to $14,942. The price of the farm laborers' allotments was $400. The law provided that the value of the former, without improvements, should not exceed $15,000, and that of the latter, without improvements, should not exceed $400. The terms of sale were as follows:

Settlers were to pay 5 per cent of the cost of the land and 40 per cent of the cost of the improvements at the time of purchase, the remainder of the purchase price to be paid over a period of twenty years with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. Payments of principal and interest were to be made semiannually in accord with the amortization table of the Federal Farm Loan Board.

All applicants for land were carefully considered as to their character and their fitness for farming. The minimum amount of capital a settler was required to have was fixed at $1,500 or a working equipment of equal value. A farm laborer was not required to have any capital, but had only to pay the initial deposit of $20 and semiannual payments of about $15.

The board reserved the right of supervision of the methods of cultivation of each settler, of the state of repair of buildings, of fire-insurance policies, and of other details.

Plans of houses and barns were prepared and the board offered to build these, or others, for the settler, on payment of 40 per cent of the cost. An engineer was employed to supervise the erection of buildings and to help settlers plan the grouping of buildings, orchard, garden, and field. The board bought material at wholesale and let contracts in groups and in this way each family was saved much money and valuable farming time.

The board kept the following objects in view:

1. That the settlement become widely and favorably known as the home of one breed of dairy cattle, one breed of beef cattle, one breed of hogs, and one or two breeds of sheep.

2. The co-operation of the settlers in buying and selling.

3. The establishment at Durham, or on the settlement, of a training school in agriculture.

4. The erection in the near future of a social hall owned and paid for by settlers.

Co-operative action among the farmers and farm laborers was particularly desired and encouraged. A co-operative stock breeders' association was formed. Twenty-two acres were reserved for community use, and here it is hoped that community buildings will be erected.

When the farms were offered for sale there were from ten to fourteen applicants for each of the improved farms. Four of the unimproved farms were not applied for and these will be seeded and offered to settlers later at the opening of the next tract. Every one of the farm laborers' allotments was applied for. The settlement was made self-sustaining and productive within sixty days from the date the land was purchased.

As to the racial composition of this colony and the way in which the method of colonization would affect the incorporation of the different racial elements in the life of the settlement, the superintendent, Mr. George C. Kreutzer, made the following statement:

Five of the settlers on the colony are of German origin, two of
Danish origin, two Italian, one French, and all the others are of
either English, Irish, or Scotch origin.

No policy of mixing nationalities was followed. These farmers put
in either a first, second, or third choice for the allotments they
desired, and the board then selected the man best suited
agriculturally for the particular block he was allotted.

Under our system of allotting blocks here the farmers are
particularly concerned in making a success of their farms
financially, rather than socially. We were never confronted with
the problem of having too many of one nationality in the community,
and as we have only fifty-three farms to offer for settlers, it is
not large enough to involve the problem at all. Further than this,
I do not think the problem will come up under this system of
allotting blocks, for the reason first stated above.

It will Americanize immigrants through co-operation and social
intercourse, through the various settlers' organizations necessary
to their social and financial welfare. We have a Stock Breeders'
Association which meets at regular times to discuss live-stock
problems at intervals during the year. They are all on equal terms,
each one buying the land for himself, thus breaking down class
distinction. There will not be the distinction between lessees and
freeholders that we find in the Middle States. Their children will
go to the same school.

This undertaking of California is the only one in the field of public land colonization anywhere in the country, except for projects involving soldier settlements which some states have lately begun to undertake.

STATE PROVISION FOR SOLDIER SETTLEMENTS

With the close of the War there began to appear on the calendars of state legislatures the subject of land settlement provision for returning soldiers. Up to the time this report was written, twenty-three states had passed some legislation relative to this need. The following table indicates in a general way the extent and nature of this provision.

TABLE II

STATE LEGISLATION TO PROMOTE LAND SETTLEMENT FOR SOLDIERS UP TO JUNE,
1919[11]
---------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Amount of
State | Bill Number| Date Approved |Appropriation
--------------+------------+---------------------+-------------+
Arizona | Senate 89|March 26, 1919[10]|$ 100,000
| | |
California |{Senate 246|April, 1919 | 10,000,000
|{Senate 221|April, 1919[10]| 1,000,000
Colorado | Senate 262|April 9, 1919[10]|
Delaware | House 182|April 2, 1919 | 25,000
Florida | Senate 21|December 7, 1918[10]|
Idaho | House 100|March 7, 1919[10]| 100,000
Maine | Chapter 89|April 4, 1919[10]|
| | |
Missouri |{Senate 355|April, 1919[10]| 10,000
|{Senate 15|April, 1919[10]| 1,000,000
Montana |{House 130|March 11, 1919[10]| 50,000
|{House 170|March 4, 1919[10]| 200,000
Nevada | House 219|March 28, 1919 | 1,000,000
New Jersey | Senate 5|March 26, 1919 |
New Mexico | House 204|March, 1919[10]| 30,000
North Carolina| Chapter 266|March 10, 1919[10]|
North Dakota | House 128|March 6, 1919 |
| | |
Oklahoma | Number 249|March 28, 1919 | 250,000
Oregon | Senate 147|March 4, 1919[10]| 50,000
South Dakota | Senate 255|March, 1919[10]| 100,000
| | | 1,000,000
Tennessee | House 447|April 16, 1919[10]|
Texas | |May 24, 1919 |
Utah |{Senate 79|March 17, 1919[10]| 25,000
|{Senate 80|March 17, 1919[10]| 1,000,000
Vermont | Number 15|March 26, 1919 |
Washington |{House 200|March 18, 1919 | 1,050,000
|{Senate 184|March 20, 1919[10]| 160,000
Wisconsin | Senate 8|February 23, 1919[10]|
Wyoming | Senate 70|February 28, 1919[10]| 5,000
| | | 200,000
---------------------------------------------------------------+

TABLE II--Continued

In more than half the states the laws refer to Federal legislation, in a few cases specifying that the appropriation shall be contingent upon a national appropriation. Several states signify their approval of co-operation with Federal provision, but make no appropriation for the work. The largest appropriation in the form of a bond issue for popular approval of $10,000,000 was passed by the California legislature. Similar provision was made by Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah to the amount of $1,000,000. Nevada arranged for the borrowing of $1,000,000 for "reclamation, improvement, and equipment of lands ... for soldiers, sailors, marines, and other loyal citizens." Washington appropriated a revolving fund beginning with $1,050,000 and eventually reaching $3,000,000 to create a state Reclamation Service.

In spite of this evidence of awakened interest in soldier settlements, many such projects have died before any real attempt could be made to put them into practical operation. This is to be explained as follows. The projects in a number of cases were products rather of sentiment than of logic based upon experience. War-time patriotism created a desire to give some sort of reward to men fighting for the country's cause. "Let us give to each returning soldier a farm--a ready-made farm!" was heard throughout the country. Whether we had enough land, or economically available land, for millions of farms was not always asked. Many of the project-makers turned to our swamps, deserts, and cut-over lands filled with stumps and debris.

The easy-flowing imagination of these people, especially of the city type, made out of these lands new farms, flourishing gardens, meadows and fields burdened with crops waving in the winds. How much it would cost, whence would come the money and energy to create such a miracle, and how much time the prosecution of the plan would require was not asked. Would not our returned soldiers, who already are matured men, be in their graves before their desert and swamp farms gave a living to their cultivators? Still more strange was the common notion that all soldiers, even the crippled, were eager to settle on land--that all wanted land and all were fit to be farmers!

As the product of mere fancy, such sweeping soldiers' settlement projects were bound to die a natural death. And yet they have not been without value. They created lively discussion, and called attention to our land problems, especially to the reclamation and colonization of unused lands by the people who want land and are fit to be farmers and to do hard land-pioneering work, be they returned soldiers, native farmers, or newly arrived immigrants.

THE RECLAMATION ACT

The Federal Reclamation Service was established by an act of June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat., 388.[12] This act provides that the moneys received from the sale of public lands in the Western states, with the exception of the 5 per centum reserved by law for educational and other purposes, shall be set aside in the Treasury as a _reclamation fund_ to be used for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the purpose of reclaiming arid and semiarid lands in these states.

Authority to conduct the reclamation work is placed in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He is given authority to withdraw from public entry the lands required for irrigation works and to restore the withdrawn lands to public entry when their use for such purpose is over. Under the authority conferred upon him by the act (Section 4, and Opinion Assistant Attorney General, April 16, 1906, 34 L. D., 567) he may enter into contracts for the construction of irrigation works or construct such works by labor employed and operated under the superintendence and direction of government officials.

The Secretary is authorized to give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project, and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the reclaimed lands; and of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the entries, and upon lands in private ownership which may be irrigated by the waters of the irrigation works. The charges shall be determined with a view to returning to the reclamation fund the cost of construction and shall be apportioned equitably.

It is provided that in all construction work eight hours shall constitute a day's work and no Mongolian labor shall be employed (32 Stat., 389). No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding 160 acres to any one landowner. It is provided that the reclamation fund shall be used for the operation and maintenance of irrigation works and that when the payments required by the act are made for the major portion of the lands irrigated the management of these works shall pass to the landowners.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire any rights or property for reclamation purposes by purchase or by condemnation under judicial process, and to pay from the reclamation fund sums needed for that purpose. Within thirty days, upon application of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General of the United States shall institute condemnation proceedings. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make rules and regulations for carrying the provisions of the act into full force and effect.

In the seventeen years since the passage of the Reclamation Act the surveys, examinations, and construction authorized by it have proceeded, and to-day, according to the report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1919,[13]

the service is in a position to deliver water to about 1,600,000
acres of irrigable land, covered by crop census, of which about
1,120,000 acres are now being irrigated. Besides this storage water
is delivered from permanent reservoirs under special contracts to
about 950,000 acres more. The projects that have been undertaken
have been planned to provide for an area of about 3,200,000 acres.

A number of bills have been proposed for enlarging and extending this work.

PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION

The Department of the Interior has prepared a draft of a bill providing rural homes for returning soldiers. Copies of the bill were sent to the Governors for consideration by various state legislatures.

The bill is based on the principle of co-operation, according to which (1) the state provides land, acquiring it by purchase or by agreement with the present landowners whereby the latter turn their holdings over to the state for a reasonable price gradually paid to them out of the returns from the settlers, and (2) the Federal government advances money for reclamation through irrigation, drainage, and clearing, and for preparation of the land for immediate farming through the providing of buildings, implements, seeds, live stock, etc. The total cost of the land and improvements, with interest at 4 per cent on capital invested, will be repaid by the settlers during the course of, approximately, forty years by an annual payment of 5 per cent of the total cost.

A bill was introduced in Congress by Senator Myers (S. 4947, 65th Congress, 2d Session) in October, 1918, and backed by the Department of the Interior, which provided for a survey and classification by this department of all unentered public lands and all privately owned unused lands for the purpose of finding out what lands can be reclaimed and put to productive use by returning soldiers who would like to settle on land and engage in agriculture. After such an investigation the Secretary of the Interior was required to report to Congress and to propose a plan for the settlement and cultivation of such lands.

There were two bills (S. 5397 and H. 15672) introduced by Senator W. S. Kenyon of Iowa and Representative M. Clyde Kelly of Pennsylvania, respectively, which, among other features, made possible development of rural districts. Although differing in details, the bills both appropriated $100,000,000 to be expended in providing employment primarily for returning soldiers. This was to be done through the authorized public construction work, or through the organization and extension of useful public works, in the development of natural resources. Only in localities where the Secretary of Labor reports extraordinary unemployment to exist shall public works be carried on from this fund.

The House bill provided for the building of new post roads; for the transfer of war material no longer needed by the army, the same to be used for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of the post roads; for supplementing the public school equipment where public school buildings are or shall be designated as postal stations, for the use of the construction service; and for other purposes. The bill provides for the establishment of motor transport and postal routes; for the organization of a system of marketing facilities for the collection and delivery, through the postal service and public school buildings, of farm products from producer to consumer; and for the construction of any authorized public work.

In addition to these more indirect ways of opening up the country the bill carried specific provision for promoting and conducting land-settlement colonies, as well as provision for logging or milling operations, contingent upon a continuous yield of timber, so that the forest communities would be permanent. The provisions of the bill were to be carried out by an interdepartmental National Board of Public Construction, which would organize a body of workers, known as the United States Construction Service.

Since the bill carried the reclamation and technical land-improvement work, the only question might be, is there any need for this to be carried on by a special Construction Service? Would it not be a duplication of the work of the already existing Reclamation Service of the Department of the Interior? Would it not be economical and otherwise proper to increase the staff and other working forces of the Reclamation Service to the extent of the proposed reclamation duties of the Construction Service?

Representative E. T. Taylor of Colorado introduced in the House, February 15, 1919, a bill (H. R. 15993) providing for employment and the securing of rural homes for returned soldiers and for the promotion of the reclamation of land for cultivation under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Short-term loans to settlers were provided for. This bill contains a good land-development plan, except that the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, ought not to be burdened with colonization work and with loans to settlers. Colonization work ought to be the duty of a separate body, and the extension of credit to settlers naturally belongs to the Farm Loan Board, Department of the Treasury.

Representative Mondell of Wyoming introduced in the House, May 19, 1919, a bill (H. R. 487) providing employment and rural homes for returned soldiers through the reclamation of lands under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who may, for this purpose, acquire by gift, purchase, deed in trust, or otherwise, the necessary lands for soldier settlement projects and, for the same purpose, may withdraw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed suitable public lands. An appropriation of $500,000 is proposed.

The plan in this bill for the acquisition and reclamation of unused land is a strong one. Equally commendable is the provision for safeguarding the settlers' holdings against speculation, for the selling, leasing, or mortgaging of the land by settlers requires the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The bill requires that the Interior Department, through its Reclamation Service, acquire and improve lands, colonize them, and make loans to settlers. It would seem a more efficient plan to make a division of these various duties. The Reclamation Service should acquire and improve lands for settlement, while the colonization work and the extension of loans to settlers would be made the duties of other public authorities, as pointed out below.

House Bill No. 3274, introduced by Representative Knutson, May 27, 1919, proposes to create, in the Treasury Department, a National Colonization Board with local colonization commissions, for the purpose of providing capital for the development by land colonization of the agricultural resources of the nation, affording certain privileges to soldier settlers. The commissions approve and charter private colonization companies and recommend applications for loans after seeing all the provisions of the act have been complied with. The commissions are to include the directors of the district land bank.

The main aim of the bill is to standardize private land colonization companies to a certain degree, to facilitate the extension of credit to them, and to make loans to soldier settlers. The Knutson bill in meeting these needs is a comprehensive one. It deserves the closest attention of Congress. Would it not be advisable, however, to attach the administrative machinery for credit extension outlined in the bill to a division to be created in the Farm Loan Board, with separate colonization credit funds, and to leave the regulation and licensing of the private colonization companies to a separate body as outlined below?

Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana introduced in the Senate, August 20, 1917, a bill (S. 2812) which was passed by both Houses and reported from conference for passage in February, 1919. The bill provides for the sale or lease of coal, oil, and other mineral lands on the public domain. The leasing clause of the bill is weakened by the provision, "unless previously entered under Section 2 of this act." The public coal lands would be "entered," sold into private ownership, which means the loss of public control over these lands and the methods of their exploitation. However, the bill if passed would be a step forward in the sense that it would increase opportunities for investment of capital and employment of labor, which would result in the increase of the coal output so much needed.

The only step so far undertaken by Congress in the direction of land colonization is the appropriation of $200,000 for an investigation by the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, of lands outside of the existing reclamation projects. The measures needed are waiting for action.

In regard to the available land for acquisition, reclamation, and colonization, several projects are proposed by the above-quoted bills and by various Federal departments. The principal projects are as follows:

1. Agricultural:

a. Logged-off lands in the North Middle Western
and Northwestern states.

b. Irrigation of desert lands in the Southwestern
states.

c. Drainage of swamp lands in the Southern states.

2. Forestry projects; permanent colonies for logging,
milling, and reforestation of logged-off lands in the
Northwestern states.

3. Colonization projects for an intensive cultivation of
lands around smaller growing towns.

4. Colonization projects in Alaska for developing various
extractive industries.

Action of some sort is eminently desirable in this country, especially in view of the fact that other countries have already taken steps to these ends.

PROVISION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

The settlement of soldiers on land has been a problem much considered in all of the warring nations. Although the plans are just only being tried out for the first time in many cases, they are suggestive of the trend that land-settlement laws are taking.

In 1918 a law was enacted in France "providing for the acquisition of small rural properties by soldier and civilian victims of the war. It provides in part for 'individual mortgage loans to facilitate acquisition, parceling out, transformation, and reconstitution of small rural properties of which the value does not exceed 10,000 francs.' The loans are to be made from the agricultural lending societies at a rate of 1 per cent, with a term of twenty-five years. Advances for improvements are provided for and a special commission is appointed to administer the law."[14]

In the United Kingdom, as well as in the majority of its dominions and states, acts providing for land settlement for ex-soldiers have been passed or formulated. Large sums of money have already been appropriated for the purchase, improvement, and development of land. In some cases the crown lands are to be used and in other private lands are to be bought. Table III indicates some of the general provisions of the legislation.

Over $133,000,000 has been appropriated and in two Australian states alone 2,060,000 acres have been set aside. The size of the individual holdings varies from 10 to 160 acres.

In some cases the land is given outright, in others the settler must help bear the cost of surveys and improvement. The third plan is that of a lease, usually with an option to buy, varying in different states. Whatever the terms of settlement are, in most cases the ex-soldier can meet his obligations because of the easy terms by which he can borrow money from the government. Although the maximum amount is limited, the rate of interest is low in most cases and the term of years, with one exception, twenty years or more. Although some farming experience is required, in almost every law, there is provision for a demonstration farm. Here the prospective farmers can learn scientific farming, usually getting paid for their work in the interval.

TABLE III

TABLE III--Continued

TABLE III--Continued

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT PLANS FOR UNITED KINGDOM AND PROVINCES[15]
------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Acres Assigned |
| |---------------------------------+
| | | |
| | |Individual|
Country | Appropriation | Total | Holdings |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Dominion of Canada[16]| $2,910,000 |Certain dominion lands| 160 |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Ontario | $5,000,000 | | 100 |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
British Columbia | $500,000 | | |
| annually | | 160 |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
New Brunswick | | 20,000 | 10-100 |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Australia | $100,000,000 | | |
----------------------|---------------+----------------------+----------+
New South Wales | | 1,500,000 | |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Victoria | $11,250,000 |500,000 wheat-growing | |
| | plus irrigated lands | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Queensland | $50,000 | 560,000 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
South Australia | $220,000 | 10,000 | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
New Zealand | $3,000,000 | 270,000 | |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Tasmania | $750,000 | | 100 |
| | | |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
United Kingdom | $10,000,000 | | |
| asked for | 60,000 | |
----------------------+---------------+----------------------+----------+
Union of South | [C] |Lands purchased not to| |
Africa | |exceed $7,500 for each| |
| | settler who provides | |
| | one fifth of price | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------+

TABLE III--Continued

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT PLANS FOR UNITED KINGDOM AND PROVINCES[15]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Demonstration|
| |Training| Farm |Capital
Country | Tenure | Needed | Provided |Desirable
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Dominion of Canada[16]| Free grant | Yes | Yes | Yes
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------|---------
Ontario | Patent given in | Yes | Yes | Yes
| 5 years | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
British Columbia | Free grant | No | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
New Brunswick | Free grant | | Yes | Yes
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Australia | | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
New South Wales | Perpetual lease | Yes | Yes | Yes
| | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Victoria | Purchase in | Yes | | Yes
| 31-1/2 Years | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Queensland | Perpetual lease | | Yes | Yes
| only | | |
| | | |
| | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
South Australia | Perpetual lease | | Yes | Yes
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
New Zealand | Lease 66 years, | | Yes | Yes
| or freehold | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Tasmania | 99-year lease; | Yes | Yes |
| or purchase | Yes | Yes |
| after 10 years | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
United Kingdom | Lease | Yes | Yes |
| | | |
----------------------+-----------------+--------+-------------+---------
Union of South | Lease for 5 | | Yes |
Africa |years and option | | |
| of purchase, | | |
| with 20 years | | |
| to pay | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[9] Senate Bill No. 584, chap. 755.

[10] In co-operation with the Federal government.

[11] Compiled from manuscript given to the author by the Department of the Interior.

[12] Federal Reclamation Laws of the United States. House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, 66th Congress, 2d Session, Washington, D. C., 1920; chap. v, pp. 13-50.

[13] Reports of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1920; vol. 1, p. 96.

[14] _Work and Homes for Our Fighting Men_, U. S. Reclamation Service, 1919 (pamphlet).

[15] Tabulated from table compiled by United States Reclamation Service, Work and Homes for Our Fighting Men, 1919, p. 20-21 (pamphlet).

[16] From Canada comes the news that at the end of January, 1921, 20,000 soldiers have taken farms, and that 42,000 of 59,000 applicants for land grants have been declared qualified and will soon get the land. Although the men have 25 years to pay off their land debt, several hundred have already paid in full. The Canadian soldiers have received 2,000,000 acres of farming land in government soldiers grants.

[A] Security required.

[B] In addition to Dominion advance.

[C] Amount not specified.

[D] Sufficient for clearing.

VII

A LAND POLICY

Most of the land-reform programs, beginning with those of the extreme conservatives, _laissez-faire_ theorists of various schools, and ending with those of the extreme radicals, anarchists, and socialists of various leanings, are primarily concerned with the question of land ownership.

WIDE RANGE IN PROGRAMS

These programs might be, in the main, classified as follows:

I. Private land ownership:

A. Large-scale ownership, subject to no public interference.

B. Small-scale ownership, limited and regulated by
public authority.

II. Public land ownership:

A. Secured by

1. Confiscation, by revolutionary action.

2. Purchase, by land bond issues.

3. Taxation, by the single tax.

B. Forms of public ownership:

1. Nationalization; national ownership. In the
United States it would be Federal ownership.

2. Provincial ownership. In the United States it would be
state ownership, and in Switzerland canton ownership.

3. Municipalization or communalization; land
owned by cities and communities in the rural districts.

4. Nobody's ownership; free to all, except that the
public takes the ground value (irrespective of
improvements) through the single tax, from the land users,
which practically means a disguised form of public
ownership, or at least a condition very near it.

C. Methods of use:

1. Parceling the public land into homesteads of
one-family size, and reselling these to the
cultivators on the basis of individual fee simple.

2. Giving the homesteads to cultivators on the
basis of perpetual leasehold.

3. Public cultivation, either direct or through
communes or co-operative associations.

Comparing these programs one with another and with the existing conditions, one reaches the following conclusions: All the programs tend to treat the land problem merely as a question of ownership. Each favors a specific form of ownership almost as an all-inclusive remedy for defects in social relations so far as they depend upon land cultivation and land use. The argument is based upon reasoning, a mere logical calculation, and on what the authors of the program desire. The existing conditions and tendencies are much more varied and complex than they seem to appear to the land reformers.

First, there is nothing new or untried in these programs, for almost all the advocated forms of land ownership are already existing side by side. It seems that no one single form is able to remedy the defects in the land situation. We have in this country national (Federal), provincial (state), and municipal or communal ownership, with small-scale private ownership predominating. We also have special land taxation, as, for instance, in certain cities that tax unimproved land higher than improved land. These existing forms of land ownership are competing with one another. The forms which allow more efficient cultivation, result in greater social stability, and are based on social justice will be the winners in the march of the economic and social progress of the country.

The bold claim of Marxian or German Socialism that large private land ownership, erroneously identified with cultivation on a large scale, is going to prevail through absorption of small private land ownership is rapidly losing ground. The small landowners are able to enjoy, through co-operation, all the technical advantages of large-scale cultivation, retaining as well the advantages resulting from individual initiative and efficiency. There is a marked movement toward co-operation among the small farmers the world over. In Denmark it has developed to the highest degree.

Second, mere land ownership is only a part, though a vital part, of the problem. Many other important things have to be considered.

If a man has land, but lacks capital or credit, he is unable to make economic use of his land. If he has both land and capital, or credit, or in other terms purchasing power, but lacks access to sources of supply in which to buy seeds, breeding stock, and implements, he still is unable to make use of his land. If he has at hand all the needed implements, seeds, and stock, but lacks knowledge and experience in farming, he might entirely fail in his enterprise. Even if he possesses the necessary knowledge and produces grain, milk, beef, and other agricultural products, he must have a market for his products, be it a domestic or an international market. This involves transportation facilities, trade organization and regulation, tariff, and other forms of organized international relationships, economic and political.

Moreover, land cultivation requires social stability, security, and order, for an investment in land improvements must wait long for its returns. If a man does not know who is going to harvest his fields, or who is going to get the product of his toil, he will be disinclined to sow anything. A striking illustration of such a state is the case of the western provinces of the Russian Empire, where the battle lines for several years were surging back and forth. First the Russian monarchy collected the farm products, then came the Germans, then came the civil warfare. When there is no security for a land cultivator, neither for his products nor his very life itself, there can be no production. There is land enough and there are cultivators enough, but the population starves because of unsettled political and international conditions.

PLENTY OF LAND

In considering the land situation as it exists, it is true that the ownership of land or, rather, the access to land, is of primary importance. The question arises, Is there enough land in the United States for all citizens who desire to become cultivators?

The Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane, states[17] that more than 15,000,000 acres of irrigable lands remain in the hands of the United States government. There are between 70,000,000 and 80,000,000 acres of swamp and overflowed lands in the United States of which about 60,000,000 acres can be reclaimed for agricultural purposes, and there are about 200,000,000 acres of cut-over or logged-off lands which are suitable for agricultural development.

Although it might be questioned how much of these unused lands are economically available under normal conditions--for no rigid investigation has been made--still the fact remains that unused lands--swamps and deserts, cut-over and burned-over lands--are being continually improved and taken under cultivation by private and public effort. Not one land improvement and colonization company visited by the writer complained of lack of land. All the companies seemed to want more settlers and more credit. This fact indicates that there is economically available land in our country, and probably plenty of it, for a normal process of reclamation and colonization.

PUBLIC REGULATION OF LAND DEALING

In the field investigation, the main questions of immigrants desiring to settle on land seemed to be where to find land of the "right kind," and how, in acquiring it, to avoid being cheated by private land sellers. The questions as to whether there was land available and what its price was were of minor importance. In many cases the immigrants had been employed in war industries and had saved money enough to buy a farm, but they were unable to decide where to settle and what kind of land to buy because they feared land sellers. Their experience with these agents had awakened an almost universal fear of private land dealers.

To facilitate the access to land, the private land-dealing trade must be put upon a higher level. There must be Federal legislation regulating land dealers doing business in two or more states, state legislation for dealers doing business within one state only, and municipal legislation for the land dealers doing business within the city limits only. Through co-operation of these governments uniformity of such legislation can be secured and maintained so far as various local conditions and peculiarities allow.

Such regulative legislation should aim at doing away with misrepresentation and frauds in land dealing. As an effective assistance in the enforcement of the laws all private land dealers should be licensed, interstate dealers by the Federal, state dealers by the state, and city dealers by the city governments. By refusing or recalling licenses a considerable number of land sharks--get-rich-quick charlatans in the real-estate business--can be sifted out of the trade and the necessary confidence on the part of land seekers can be secured.

According to a report made in 1916 by the Committee on State Legislation of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, a sentiment was then growing in most parts of the country favoring the enactment of laws for the regulation of real-estate brokerages under state authority. This sentiment is still growing, and the secretary of the association says that realtors in several states continue to introduce bills in their legislatures with the belief that it will be possible to pass them.

In only one state has such a law passed. The state of Wisconsin enacted a law in 1919[18] which provides for the establishment of a state real-estate brokers' board consisting of three members, at least two of whom are real-estate brokers in the state, appointed by the Governor. The Director of Immigration, Department of Agriculture, acts as secretary to the board. The latter issues licenses to the real-estate brokers and salesmen doing business in the state. An annual license fee of ten dollars from a broker and five dollars from a salesman is required. License may be refused or revoked by the board for misstatement in application, for fraud or fraudulent practices, for untrustworthiness or incompetence in real-estate business.

The board receives complaints against any real-estate broker or salesman. It may conduct hearings and investigations, subpoena and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents, books and papers. The board shall, from time to time, publish the names of licensed real-estate brokers and salesmen, with information as to when each license expires. The publication shall include the names of those real-estate brokers and salesmen whose licenses have been revoked at any time within one year prior to the time of the issue of publication.

This Wisconsin Real Estate Licensing law has been in operation a year. Mr. B. G. Packer, Director of Immigration, and secretary to the Real Estate Brokers' Board, gave to the writer the following information in regard to the results of the operation of the law so far.

This law requires registration of all real-estate brokers and salesmen doing business in the state. In the past there was no way to tell who they were or where located. The license is good for one year, and thereupon a new application must be made. This gives the board a check on the dealer's operations the preceding year. The board requires him to cite all legal actions arising out of his real-estate business whether he was plaintiff or defendant.

It is a common practice with some dealers to take a judgment note for commission which can be entered up without process and execution levied against the property of the defendants. The defendant can open up the judgment and put in a defense if he can show misrepresentation and fraud. This year, when several applicants applied for new licenses, the board found this condition and the licenses were refused.

The applicant for license must show affirmatively that he is trustworthy and competent. In the past the state took no pains to find this out. The licensing board operates as a poor man's court of redress in transactions arising out of the land business. In the past the purchaser's remedy was a more or less satisfactory suit at law.

The licensing board can make investigations and hold hearings on its own motion. In the past the initiative had to be taken by the party claiming deception.

Last year the board granted licenses to 4,600 brokers and salesmen, denied 20 applications, revoked 2 licenses, and has at present 60 hearings pending on applications for licenses in 1921.

The Wisconsin license law does not reach the owner who has worthless land to unload upon an unsophisticated purchaser. Besides this, the law has other limitations. But nevertheless it is a step ahead.

Pennsylvania, the Southern states, and cities in many parts of the country have required a license fee or an occupation tax from real-estate men, but such laws do not regulate, because, as the above-mentioned report states, "no matter how high the fee, the usual run of licensing or prosecuting official will not use his authority to establish moral standards." Furthermore, "in New York and most Northern and Western states, even the slight check of the occupation tax is absent and there is no formality to be observed in entering our profession by any person, no matter how unreliable, irresponsible, or incapable, and whatever his record."

After agitation covering a period of twelve years, the real-estate brokers of California succeeded in 1917 in having enacted a law for the regulation of real-estate brokerage. In 1918 this law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, on the ground that insurance men were exempted by the wording of the act and that such exemption made the law discriminatory.

The Real Estate Commissioner of the state gives the following synopsis of the law:

Previous Next

Comments

A Stake in the LandChapter VII: Part I: A Stake in the Land (3)

0%36 min left in chapter