Chapter VIII: Part I: A Stake in the Land (4)

The act "provides for the issuance of licenses to two classes of
persons--the broker himself, who, in addition to taking out a
license, is required to put up a bond running to the state of
California, and the salesman, who is defined as one in the employ
of a licensed broker and ... is not required to put up a bond." The
act is administered by a Real Estate Commissioner appointed by the
Governor. Upon petition to the Real Estate Commissioner appointed
by those aggrieved in their dealings with brokers or salesmen, a
hearing is provided before the commissioner, and upon proper
showing the petitioner may be granted the privilege of suing the
broker on his bond.... There is also a provision for the filing of
complaints against brokers and salesmen concerning their conduct
and, upon investigation, if found guilty, the commissioner is
empowered to revoke their licenses. The law provides a heavy
penalty for a broker--a fine of $2,000 or a prison sentence of two
years--and in the case of corporations, a maximum fine of $5,000.
The fees for licenses are, for brokers, $10 per annum, and for
salesmen, $2 per annum.

The operation of the law appears to have been extremely successful and to have been heartily indorsed by the public generally and by all the reliable real-estate dealers and salesmen in the state. The Real Estate Commissioner gives the following picture of the results of the law during the eight months it was in force:

1. It gave the realtors faith in each other, each being under bond
and licensed by the commissioner with power of revocation in case
of violation of the law.

2. It increased the confidence of the public generally in the
realty business, for the law afforded the public a ready and
inexpensive means of redress in case of wrongdoing.

3. During the eight months, some sixty complaints were filed with
the commissioner, and all were adjusted without even a formal
hearing up to the time the law was thrown out, March, 1918. Some
twenty-five hundred dollars was returned to defrauded purchasers
through appeals to the commissioner.

4. The deterrent effect of the law on wrongdoers will never be
known, but must have been far-reaching.

5. So satisfactory was the law that the public, the bankers, and
especially the realtors, are preparing again to present to the
legislature during the winter of 1918-19 a more carefully worded
law governing the realty business.

One of the services rendered by the Department of the Real Estate Commissioner was the issue of a directory of licensed real-estate brokers and salesmen in the state. The first copy was published October 1, 1917, and contained about four thousand names, as well as other material such as maps, laws, and legal opinions, designed to be of practical value to all realtors. It was intended that this directory be issued quarterly and be distributed to licensed brokers, with a subscription price to others of one dollar a year. The commissioner regarded this directory bulletin which bound together in fraternalism the real-estate men of the state, as only one of the many possibilities of extending valuable aids through his department to the real-estate profession, and so indirectly to the agricultural industry.

Although there have been attempts in other states to secure legislation, so far they have been unsuccessful. In essentials they have resembled the California law, although differing in details, such as amounts of bonds, fees, and penalties. In Minnesota, several years ago, the State Immigration Commission was instrumental in introducing a land-regulation bill which was killed by the efforts of the land dealers.

In 1914 the Executive Committee of the Real Estate Association of New York submitted for the consideration of the association a bill for the licensing of real-estate brokers and the creation of a real-estate commission. In 1916 a bill similar to this one was introduced in the legislature of the state of New York, but failed of passage. In Texas a bill was approved by the Texas Realty Association, but was not enacted into law. In addition to efforts for legislation in the states there have been national recommendations.

The Committee on State Legislation of the National Association of Real Estate Exchanges in 1913 reported on a bill for the regulation of the real-estate business. The main provisions are as follows:

A State Board on Real Estate Licenses shall be established, consisting of five members, all real-estate men, appointed by the Governor, and having its headquarters in the state capitol. Every person engaged in the real-estate business shall apply for a license to the board. The applicant shall present proof that his standing is above reproach and that his record for honesty and fair dealing is clear. The applicant shall file a satisfactory bond in the amount of $1,000, conditioned on the faithful performance of any undertaking as a real-estate broker, the bond to be renewed with each renewal of the annual license. The fee for the license shall be $10 for each dealer, firm, or corporation, and $2.50 for each salesman, the fees to be, respectively, $5 and $1 after the first year. Licenses shall expire each year. The board shall have power to revoke at any time any license where the holder thereof is guilty of gross misrepresentation in making sales, etc., or of any other conduct which, in the opinion of the board, is opposed to good business morals. The board shall investigate all complaints; it shall have power to subpoena witnesses. Any person violating the act shall be fined not less than the compensation or profit received or agreed to, and not more than four times that amount, or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

The Legislative Committee of the Interstate Realty Association of the Pacific Northwest has proposed a real-estate license law for the state of Washington, the main provisions of which are similar to the others already quoted.

Although there has been no successful state-wide provision, in Portland, Oregon, an ordinance licensing real-estate brokers was approved in 1912, including the salient features of the proposed state laws. Application is made to the city auditors, with proof of the applicant's good standing and square dealing. The Council Committee on licenses has power to revoke or withhold, and penalties are provided for.

As an example of the occupational tax law applying to the real-estate business, the law of the District of Columbia may be mentioned. The District of Columbia (1914) has a law imposing a license tax of $50 per annum on real-estate brokers or agents. The assessor of the District said that the fee was not large enough to restrict character of trade, and that the payment of the fee was the only qualification for a license.

A PUBLIC LAND EXCHANGE

In addition to the need for honest dealing there is everywhere felt the need of bringing farm sellers and buyers together through a public agency. Certain states, in co-operation with the Federal Department of Agriculture, have made provision for doing this. For this purpose an office is created similar to a public employment office. It aims to provide the farm sellers and buyers with more or less reliable information without cost to either side.

In the state of Maryland the Extension Service of the state college, in co-operation with the Federal Department of Agriculture, has worked out a farm-description blank for farm sellers. The blank contains questions in regard to the location of the farm, its size, distance from communication lines, and inhabited places of various sizes and market facilities, its soil, its fences, buildings, water supply, ownership, price, and other points intended to show the condition and value of the farm for sale. The office distributes these blanks among the county agents, from whom the farm sellers secure the blanks. The county agents forward the completed forms to the main state office, which periodically publishes the collected information for farm buyers.

This information is available to farm buyers for the mere asking. Anyone can see, in the state office or in the published volume, the blanks describing in detail the farms for sale. In this way they can be directly connected with the seller of the selected farm, without agents or advertising cost to either side. Thus misrepresentation can be avoided to a certain degree. The Extension Service, however, does not enter into any financial arrangement or give any guaranties. Aside from the information contained in the filled forms, it gives information of a general character concerning the agricultural possibilities of the state and of various sections and localities in it. At present the Service is particularly interested in locating the returned soldiers.

As such a public agency system is of comparatively recent origin and has not had time to develop, it is impossible to judge with certainty its future possibilities. In theory the operation of the system seems to be an easy matter, but in practice it is complicated. The farmers who intend to sell their holdings have to be informed of the work of the office, and equally the farm buyers have to be acquainted with the plan. This involves education of the farmers by an extensive advertising campaign, which requires time and expenditure of public money. However, there is a real need for such a public agency and the results of the attempts to establish and develop it have been encouraging.

It would be desirable that the states which have already established or will establish such public agencies should co-operate with one another through the Federal Department of Agriculture and, with the assistance of the latter, should organize a central office as a clearing house. Nation-wide advertisement should be made by the central office for all the states in co-operation. In this way the farm advertisements would be made more effective--unnecessary repetitions, and the expenses connected with these, would be avoided. Through interchange of experiences a uniform system might be established. Such a central office, in co-operation with the Immigration Bureau, Department of Labor, should inform immigrants who desire to establish rural homes of the various farm opportunities.

RECLAMATION A SEPARATE FUNCTION

Up to this time both public and private efforts have been applied to the reclaiming of unused lands, rendering valuable service to the progress of the country. There ought, however, to be no question whether reclamation work should be a public or a private enterprise. If a number, and even a large number, of the private land-development companies have hitherto mined in the pockets of their land buyers instead of in the land itself, this has been largely because of the lack of any public regulation of private land-improvement companies. However, a number, perhaps a majority, of the companies have improved their land and have secured settlers who have made a success in the cultivation of the improved land. Therefore it would be a grave mistake to abandon or even to repress private enterprise in land-development work. It should be encouraged by the extension of public credit through the land companies and by putting their business under public supervision.

Where considerable areas have to be reclaimed, involving large expenditures and a long period of waiting for returns, public reclamation is preferable.

Although reclamation and colonization work are closely connected and dependent upon each other, still there is a marked difference. It is one thing to plan and irrigate a desert area and quite a different thing successfully to populate the irrigated land. The first is mainly a technical enterprise, while the other deals mainly with human beings. The people who direct and prosecute reclamation works--civil engineers and other technical experts--might not be good colonizers. The duties of the latter consist in selecting suitable settlers, directing their land-cultivation work, and organizing and directing the community life of the settlers. On the other hand, colonizers, trained agriculturists, and community workers might not be able successfully to conduct reclamation works. Therefore these two fields ought to be recognized as distinct and provided for separately.

Almost all the proposed plans of land settlement fail to make such a distinction. They propose that the same public agency should acquire land, improve it, and colonize it. The same is true in regard to most of the private land-improvement and colonization projects. They plan to improve land and at the same time colonize it, which too often consists merely in securing land buyers and leaving the latter, after they have made their initial payment, entirely to their own fate.

Private land-improvement companies doing business in two or more states should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reclamation Service. They should be licensed, their projects approved, and their general methods of business regulated. Private companies doing business within state or city limits should be regulated by state irrigation or drainage district authorities, with whom the Federal Reclamation Service should co-operate in every possible way.

In order that the Federal Reclamation Service may be extended and expanded to meet the growing demands, further legislation must be passed by Congress. Liberal appropriations are needed both for the acquisition and reclamation of unused lands of different classes, as well as for the increase of the staff and working forces of the Service. The bills under consideration were discussed in Chapter VI. The bill introduced by Representative Mondell of Wyoming effectively provides for this service.

A COLONIZATION BOARD

The word "colonization" suggests the following: populating a given unused area of land suitable for cultivation, according to a plan covering the selection of people, the cultivation of the land, providing credit and markets, instruction in land cultivation, planning, organizing, and directing of community life in its numerous branches, such as co-operation for various purposes, education, recreation. Colonization work in the modern sense is a new, delicate, and complex field, for it affects all sides of human life.

There is a wide difference of opinion the country over as to whether colonization should be a public affair or be left to private initiative and effort. Those who favor private colonization claim that public colonization is wasteful, uneconomical, that it puts a new burden on the taxpayers, and savors of Socialism. Those who favor public colonization maintain that private colonization companies in the very nature of their endeavors work for their own profit, considering the settlers' interests and public welfare of secondary importance. Colonization results must not be counted only in the terms of money, but also in the terms of social value to the community and to the country.

Again the writer has to call attention to the fact that both public and private colonization is going on side by side all over the world. In certain foreign countries public colonization is predominant, while in this country the reverse is true. Only the state of California has undertaken public colonization as an experiment on a small scale, and so far with success.

It would be advisable that both public and private colonization go on, one competing with the other and learning from the other's experience. Private companies must be regulated and licensed by public authorities, and public credit should be extended to them. All this requires that the colonization work be organized on a nation-wide scale.

To meet the national need there should be established an interdepartmental Federal colonization board with the following duties:

(1) To make community plans. This would involve the location of settlements, their roads and building sites; plans for division of land into farms; plans for erection of farm buildings; plans for town sites and buildings as colony centers, parks as playgrounds, etc., all to be surveyed and put in working shape by the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior.

(2) To select suitable people for settlement on the lands acquired and improved by the Reclamation Service, with the preference to be given to former soldiers.

(3) To distribute the selected immigrant settlers of non-English mother tongue, including soldiers, having in mind the need of mixing different races with the native settlers so as to facilitate the process of incorporating all into American life.

(4) To plan and organize the economic life of the colonies. This means the introduction of, and instruction in, farming and methods of cultivation suitable to the land, climate, and other conditions surrounding the colony, the organization of buying and selling co-operation in the colonies, provision of markets, etc.

(5) To plan and organize the educational, recreational, and general community life of the colonies--schools, libraries, lectures, games, etc.

(6) To regulate and license or charter private colonization companies.

Among the policies of the Colonization Board a very prominent one should be a proper distribution of the immigrant settlers. Owing to the lack of any public plan or measures for the distribution of the immigrants in the country in the past the results have been astonishing. The Little Polands, Italies, ghettos, Germanies, and others in our great industrial centers are well known, though the word "Little" is not applicable in every case. It is especially inapplicable where the compact immigrant settlements exceed in numbers the largest cities of their home countries. For instance, according to the last census figures, there were in the city of New York more Italians (including their children) than the population of Rome, more Germans than in Cologne, about as many Irish as the population of Dublin and Belfast together, and about three times as many Jews as there were in the British Empire.

All this is already known to the public at large. What is not popularly known is the fact that there are foreign provinces in the agricultural sections of the country. There whole counties and even a number of neighboring counties are populated by immigrants of the same race and nationality. Such provinces have become self-sufficient; they have their own towns, their own schools, churches, industries, stores, select local public officials of their own nationality, speak their own tongue, and live according to the traditions and spirit of their home country. These traditions and this spirit are kept alive by their schools, churches, and libraries, and by the absence of any direct contact with American customs and traditions. From such localities came a considerable number of the American-born drafted men who could not speak, write, or even understand English.

Such foreign provinces in the rural sections of the country are principally found in the North Middle Western states and Western states. When the writer, during his field investigation, arrived in such localities--for instance, in the southwestern part of North Dakota--he found that the townspeople, business men, and public officials, as a rule, understood English, but spoke German or Scandinavian among themselves. In talking with any man in the street the writer had to resort to the man's mother tongue, while the farmers back in the country, as a rule, did not speak English at all. Yet many of them were born in this country.

On the whole, the impression of the writer was that the larger the rural immigrant colony, the less it showed evidences of American influences. This was quite apparent in regard to the Slavic and especially the Polish colonies visited by the writer in a number of states.

The immigrants already settled in large colonies of one nationality cannot be redistributed, but they can be reached by other means, one of which is an efficient public-school system, which is dealt with in later chapters.

Measures should be undertaken for the distribution of the new immigrant settlers so as to avoid their congregation in large colonies of only one nationality. The experience of private land dealers and colonization companies shows that it is not wise to settle a single immigrant family among native settlers or the settlers of another nationality. Such a family becomes lonesome and sooner or later leaves the settlement. Therefore the immigrants must be settled in groups according to their nationalities.

The question is, how large such national groups must be in order to keep the settlers in the colony and at the same time to avoid their becoming clannish and remaining untouched by American influences for a generation or a number of generations. The observation of the writer and his interviews on this question with the people engaged in colonization have led him to the conclusion that such groups ought to be of from five to fifteen families each, settled in the same neighborhood among either groups of other nationalities or native settlers.

Such distribution of the immigrant settlers in smaller groups is favored by the immigrants themselves. As a rule, they are eager to learn American ways as soon as possible, and usually accede with alacrity to distribution, provided no violent compulsion is used and they are directed to land where they are able to make a success by their investment and toil, without being cheated or exploited. The writer discussed the size of a rural immigrant group of the same nationality in a number of the immigrant colonies. The settlers, even the Russian sectarian peasants, believed that if there were not less than five families in one group no loneliness would be experienced. If there were no more than ten or fifteen families there would be no danger of their becoming clannish and self-sufficient, for they would of necessity have to deal with other groups and intermingle with them for both business and social purposes.

A rigid selection of settlers on the basis of their ability to farm and to stay on the farm is of prime importance. Among the applicants for farms in new colonies there are three main classes of people, each distinct from the others: (1) those who have experience, knowledge, and otherwise ability for land cultivation and the capacity for sticking to a job. These should be selected and will contribute to the success of the colony, which ultimately depends upon the settlers themselves; (2) those who are hunters for easy pickings in the way of a piece of property or for an opportunity for safe investment or for speculation. These should be avoided as the plague; and (3) those who are not suited for rural life and heavy toil on the land, mostly city people who dream of changing their life for improvement of their health in the country, for an independent life, or for an easy-going life, of fresh air, sunshine, flowers, and birds. Such people are not able to make a success of farming and should be avoided. These classes of applicants are found among immigrants as well as among natives, soldiers, and civilians.

How important the selection of settlers is for the success of colonization and settlement on land is shown by the close scrutiny of prospective settlers made by the agents of modern private colonization companies and also by certain state immigration officials. They ask an applicant about his supply of money or credit, about his experience, about his past in detail, his habits, his inclinations, and his aspirations. They judge him by his appearance, his physique, and his health. He is also questioned about his family life; special attention is given to the attitude of his wife toward rural life, her past experience, the probability of her being satisfied and able to stay permanently on the farm and carry the heavy burdens of a farmer's wife. Finally, the prospective settler is warned of the existing conditions in the colony, of the heavy toil and the difficulties, and of the long period of waiting which must elapse before he can enjoy the results of his investment and labors. Selection made in this way will guarantee the success of a colonization enterprise, be it public or private.

EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CREDIT

A last measure which is extremely important and must not be overlooked in any planning for land settlement is the extension of public credit to settlers through the Federal Farm Loan Board. This, of course, applies not only to the settlers in the colonies established by the Federal Colonization Board, but also to those of private colonization companies regulated and chartered by the Colonization Board, and to individual settlers. There must be certain safeguards against loss. To accomplish this there could be established a settlers' credit division in the Federal Farm Loan Bureau, with a special land colonization credit fund. A similar plan was proposed in the bill introduced by Representative Knutson, May 27, 1919.[19]

Some such provision is indispensable in any comprehensive land policy, and should secure a place in legislative enactment.

CO-OPERATION INDISPENSABLE

No amount of legislation or smooth-running administrative machinery can provide, however, for one of the most fundamental factors in modern small-farm production.

Every colony of small farmers nowadays needs to provide for co-operation among its members. There is no other way for them to enjoy the technical advantages of large-scale farming in the buying of seeds, stock, fertilizers, tools, machinery, and other necessities at wholesale prices, in the selling of farm products at the best prices; in the establishment of creameries, etc. The buying of necessary costly machines, such as stumping machines, tractors, threshers, headers, is beyond the financial power of an individual settler. Even should he be able to acquire them, he cannot use such machines to their full capacity on his small piece of land. But in co-operation settlers are able to buy the heavy machinery and to use it to its fullest capacity. Mutual insurance and credit established through co-operation are another substantial assistance to the success of the settlers.

The co-operative buying and selling organization of a Finnish farming colony in upper Michigan which the writer investigated in detail proved to be a great money saver to the settlers. The enterprise has grown from a small undertaking into the largest business organization in the town, with its great warehouse overshadowing the railroad station. In the beginning the surrounding native farmers and townspeople were hostile toward it. They both feared the competition as well as the broader results of an undertaking of "foreigners," led by their "demagogic leaders." Its former opponents have radically changed their attitude, and many are joining the organization. They find that co-operation means voluntary, concerted, and co-ordinated action for the common advantage, and that it is not contrary to the American spirit.

One of the leaders of the Finnish co-operative association explained that the defects of the local private stores served as the first inducement for the settlers to establish a co-operative store.

The private stores usually set arbitrary and high prices on the
goods, which are often of poor quality and limited variety. As a
result, a co-operative store among our settlers was established. We
found that the association, in its meetings and activities, served
as a school for the development of mutual understanding and
fellow-feeling among its members. In the direction of
Americanization our co-operative movement has done much good
already. Its success has made the native farmers respect us. A
number of them have already joined our association. Should our
enterprise grow wider it may be expected to unite the farmers of
different nationalities, immigrants and natives, into one community.

The interviews of the writer with the native farmers fully substantiated these statements of the Finns. One of them said that when the Finnish settlers came the native-born people did not expect much good from them. They were looked upon as strange intruders, entirely ignorant in farming. But as time went on they made good not only as farmers, but also as business men in their co-operative buying and selling association. They were found to be good, sober, and industrious people.

The co-operative movement was apparent in northern Wisconsin, where numerous co-operative creameries have been organized among the settlers of various nationalities. The carrying of milk to the creamery results in the regular meeting of settlers every day; business meetings and other activities of the association afford opportunities for the settlers to get together and work together. In addition to this the immigrant settler, as a member of the co-operative association, comes face to face with the wider business world--banks, railways, commission merchants, manufacturers, market conditions, price fluctuations, etc. As an individual producer he comes to know the larger problems involved in marketing his product and his vision and understanding broaden.

Almost all immigrant settlers interviewed on the subject of co-operation were in favor of it. "Co-operation helps us!" were words often used in answer to the question why they favor co-operation. This "help" should not be understood in the material sense only. Co-operative action, though it begins in economics, extends to and ends in the creation of ideal, socio-psychological values. The co-operator works and fights in the spirit of solidarity. He satisfies his wants through concerted action. His psychology is more complex and his aims become higher than those of a private individual.

Co-operation is a child of necessity. It cannot be created by outside suggestion or mere preaching. When there is a need and conditions are favorable the co-operative movement comes into being. Unquestionably the need for co-operation is greater in the rural districts than in the cities, and yet the rural conditions in many respects make the development of co-operation more difficult. The main obstacles, according to the rural co-operators themselves, consist in the lack of business connections and markets, in the absence of knowledge of efficient business methods, and in credit difficulties. It is hard to find an able and trustworthy business manager for a co-operative store in a village.

Notwithstanding all difficulties, the co-operative movement among farmers and especially among immigrant settlers has lately begun to grow with extreme rapidity. For instance, in 1917 in the state of Wisconsin there were agricultural co-operative associations in the following numbers: 380 creameries, 718 cheese factories, 98 feed and produce associations, and 124 live-stock concerns.[20]

One of the first difficulties in the way of establishing a co-operative association is its incorporation proceeding. Most of the states up to this time have had no special laws covering co-operative associations. In such cases they have to be incorporated under the laws relating to private companies or those covering charity and public-welfare associations.

A number of states have enacted laws for the promotion and protection of co-operation among farmers. The Wisconsin law, Chapter 368, Laws of 1911, makes provision for the establishment of organizations conducting business on the co-operative plan. No member is allowed to own shares of a greater par value than one thousand dollars. No member is entitled to more than one vote. Dividends on the paid-up shares are allowed to be no more than 6 per cent per annum; 10 per cent on the net profits has to be set aside as a reserve fund. When this has accumulated up to 30 per cent of the paid-up shares, 5 per cent goes to the educational fund to be used for teaching co-operation. One half of the remainder of the profits has to be paid as a uniform dividend upon the amount of purchases of shareholders and upon the wages and salaries of the employees, while the other half has to be paid to the nonshareholders on the amount of their purchases.

In case of productive associations, such as co-operative creameries, or elevators, dividends have to be paid on raw materials delivered. In case an association is both a selling and productive enterprise, the dividends may be divided on both goods purchased and material delivered. All concerns which do not comply with the provisions of the above law are prohibited to use the term "co-operative" as a part of their corporate name or the designation of their business.

According to the Nebraska law, Senate File No. 88,

the words "co-operative company, corporation, or association" are
defined to mean a company, corporation, or association which
authorizes the distribution of its earnings in part or wholly on
the basis of, or in proportion to, the amount of property bought
from or sold to members, or of labor performed, or other service
rendered to the corporation. A co-operative concern has the power
"to regulate and limit the right of stockholders to transfer their
stock, and to make by-laws for the management of its affairs, and
to provide thereon the term and limitation of stock ownership, and
for the distribution of its earnings."

The California law, Civil Code, Secs. 653M to 653S, provides for organization of agricultural, viticultural, and horticultural co-operative associations which shall not have a capital stock and shall not be working for profit. Each such association shall determine by its by-laws the amount of membership fee, the number and qualifications of members, conditions of voting, the methods of business, and the division of earnings.

There is no question that every state must have special legislation for co-operative associations quite distinct from that relating to private business concerns. A co-operative association must have the legal power to regulate and limit the right of shareholders to transfer their shares, to make by-laws for the management of business, to limit the share ownership, to decide on the proportion and method of distribution of its surplus earnings. It must limit dividends on shares to the prevailing rate of interest and provide a certain percentage for a reserve fund until the latter has accumulated up to a certain proportion of the capital invested. A part of the remainder should be retained for educational and other social-welfare purposes, the rest proportioned to the amounts of goods purchased, products contributed, or services rendered. The co-operative law should provide for one-member-one-vote. Irrespective of the number of shares owned, or the goods purchased, or the products contributed, or the services rendered, only one vote should be granted to each member.

Aside from such legislation, each state, as in New York, should have a special office with adequate forces for the advice and direction of farmers and settlers who desire to organize a co-operative association, as well as for those who have already established such an association and are meeting with difficulties.

[17] _Reclamation Record_, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., July, 1918, p. 306.

[18] Wisconsin Statutes, Chap. 656, Laws of 1919, Sect. 1636-225.

[19] See chap. vi.

[20] _Bulletin No. 182_, May, 1917, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin.