they are paid in part by the Federal Government; in part by the State, and in part by the county?

Mr. LOOMIS. I am perfectly familiar with that.

Mr. LOZIER. Now, what right has the Federal Government to take a joint agent of three departments of our Government, the Federal Government, the State government, and the county government, and say, "You must give 30 days of your time to this work"? Now, what I say that we should do is to give the bureau authority and sufficient funds to get that information through the use of Federal agents exclusively.

Mr. LOOMIS. Let me go to my next point, and that is that there should be in the next census a summary by townships, supplementing a summary by counties.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Before you pass on to that point, may I ask a question concerning this other point. Everybody has thought, though it is not written into the law, that the Federal Government could use the county agent, and you are asking that that should be done?

Mr. LOOMIS. Yes.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Isn't it clear that at least we ought to get the benefit of their experience?

Mr. LOOMIS. Oh, absolutely.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Through conference and cooperation and so on? Mr. LOOMIS. I assume that is what section 15 in intended to cover, and my only suggestion was to strengthen section 15. Dr. HILL. Just how would that amendment read?

Mr. LOOMIS. Well, I don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you read section 15, Mr. Jacobstein?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN (reading):

That the Secretary of Commerce, whenever he may deem it advisable, on request of the Director of Census, is hereby authorized to call upon any other department or office of the Government for information pertinent to the work herein provided for.

Now, could he call upon an agent that receives only part pay from the Federal Government, whether the Census Bureau does or does not? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jacobstein, if he can not call upon him, how in the world can you by an act compel him to call upon him or compel the county agent to answer?

Mr. JOHNSON. Just carry it out, Mr. Chairman, to the next step. Suppose that it would be suggested here that the census department would have the right to call on the post-office people to take the population census?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it is a good deal that way.

Mr. JOHNSON. You could extend it until the census department had lost the actual power and control over the work.

Mr. LOZIER. Of course, that would be more reason than the suggestion of Mr. Loomis, for this reason, that the postmasters are exclusively Federal appointees. But it would not be practical.

Mr. JOHNSON. It would make a division of departmental authority. It could be done but it would change the entire census scheme. Mr. RANKIN. But, on the other hand, during the war the Federal Government appointed the sheriffs and the clerks of the circuit court or county court in practically every county in the United States on

the draft boards. Now, I am just wondering-I am asking this for information-I am just wondering whether or not we would have the authority to direct this Bureau of the Census to appoint these men to assist in the taking of this agricultural census-these agents. The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't you have a justification for that, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. RANKIN. I don't know. I am just trying to find out exactly "where we are at" on this proposition.

Mr. LOOMIS. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that Congress has ample authority, and my only object in making this suggestion is accuracy. Now, may I go back to cover something that I forgot? I also want to call attention briefly to section 16. Section 16 provides for the five-year agricultural census. I would suggest that, beginning with the word "which," in line 21, to and including the word " country," in line 23, be stricken out, on the general proposition that legislation is interpreted strictly, and if an enumeration of work is made, it limits the act to that which is enumerated.

Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, you don't want the details in the bill as to agriculture more specific than they are, for instance, as to population?

Mr. LOOMIS. Exactly. There are many things that agriculture wants in the 1935 census over and above that enumeration, and it is just a matter of taking out those details.

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe there is something to that.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to give them a free hand?
Mr. LOOMIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to take care of that in the appropriation bill authorization and other things when the time comes. Mr. RANKIN. In that connection let me ask you a question, going back to the proposition of distribution. Would you have the census of agricultural distribution taken in those five-year periods also, say 1934?

Mr. LOOMIS. I can not answer that question. I am still studying the question of a census of distribution. If we get a good start on the census of distribution in 1930 and it works out and proves to be of value, I would say yes; but I would like to see the results in 1930 before committing myself at all. I lack a lot of being a census expert. I don't know much about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Your amendment there that you suggested, Mr. Loomis, was to strike out after the word "stock" all of the section to the word "the" after country?

Mr. LOOMIS. Yes; line 23.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, strike out all limitations there. Mr. LOOMIS. Yes; that is what I had in mind.

Now, the question of collection by townships. There are very many counties in the United States in which a county summary fails very greatly of telling the story. My home is in western New York, upon the Lake Erie shore, where for two or three miles back from the lake it is all grape; then two or three miles back of that is all dairy.

The CHAIRMAN. What county is that?

Mr. LOOMIS. Chautauqua County. There is a place where a county summary just inextricably mixes up horticulture and dairy figures until nobody can separate them and find out what the situation

is. The same is true in large measure in every fertile agricultural valley in the United States.

You take the Connecticut Valley, for instance, township summaries localize and give you your definite local information. I am told that the experts in the Department of Agriculture have gone into this quite thoroughly, have discussed it with the Census Bureau, and that there will be an expense of not over $150,000 additional required to get township summaries supplementing county summaries. I would like to have you consider that very seriously.

The CHAIRMAN. You would continue county summaries and add to it townships?

Mr. LOOMIS. Yes; township summaries.

Now, that covers everything I had in mind.

Mr. JOHNSON. Just let me ask you one question on that. Take some of the Western States, they have very large counties.

Mr. LOOMIS. I think there might be some question as to whether it was needed there.

Mr. JOHNSON. The county I live in, I think is about 70 miles long and 50 miles wide.

Mr. LOOMIS. I don't even know how it is divided up into townships, so it may be it would not work there at all.

Rather than take the time of the committee with the rest of the matter I have here, I wanted to submit a form of question-I assume this is not a matter of very much interest to the committee, but I wanted to submit a form of questions which we think will cover the contro versy about how to get at livestock figures and a set of questions which covers what we think is the best way to get at livestock products on farms, and if the committee would like me to I will read them here.

The CHAIRMAN. You might read them.

Mr. LOOMIS. Then in a preliminary way I would say that in the last census, the last two I believe, they tried to separate beef cattle and dairy cattle. They have a separate schedule for beef cattle and a separate schedule for dairy cattle. Now, that involves the determination by the farmer of whom the question is asked as to whether this animal is a beef or dairy animal, and opinions will differ at least they did differ so much that the dairy figures in the 1925-the dairy-cattle figures in the 1925 census and the dairy-cattle figures of the 1920 census-we are having all kinds of trouble trying to correlate them, to get any sense out of them, and consequently after long study, this form of questions has been made up and suggested, coming originally from the bureau of crop estimates, worked over by the bureau of dairy industry, the other experts in the bureau of agricultural economics, and finally submitted to the dairy federation and worked over by our committee.

I

1. Cows and heifers, 2 years old and over. Kept for milk. don't see how there can be any question about that wording "kept for milk." Last year maybe this cow was a beef cow, but this year she is kept for milk, and they will enumerate her this year as "kept for milk.'

2. Heifers, 1 year old and under 2, being kept for milk cows. 3. Heifer calves, under 1 year old, being kept for milk cows. 4. Cows, 2 years old and over, not kept for milk.

Mr. MOORMAN. Your trouble comes from the dual purpose cattle like shorthorns and Durhams.

Mr. LOOMIS. Or cattle in an area in which beef prices are good one year and not good the next year.

5. Heifers, 1 year old and under 2 years, not kept for milk.

Questions 4 and 5, you see, cover foundation requirements for the beef industry.

6. Total number of calves under 1 year of age. Having the calves kept for milk cows in another question, then the difference between the two gives the calves which are kept for beef or for purposes other than milk.

7. All steers, 1 year old and under 2, on the assumption that all steers go into beef.

8. All steers 2 years old and over.

9. All bulls 1 year old and over.

10. We consider 10 the most important question on the schedule. Number of cows milked on this farm during all or any part of the year 1929. And explanatory in connection with that question; "Include both dairy cows and beef cows which were milked."

If we can get that question answered it will give us for the first time the total number of cows milked in the United States.

11. Number of heifers kept for milk, freshening for the first time during 1929.

The purpose of that is to give the accretions to the dairy herds of the country from heifers. In another place in the census, which we are not taking up here at all, there is a record of sales and purchases, which is the other item to make up the total of accretions to dairy herds.

12. Number of calves born during the year from cows kept for milk. I don't know whether to go into an explanation of that question or not. Question No. 10 asks for all the cows kept for milk; question No. 12 asks for the number of calves born from cows kept for milk, and it involves this whole question of total number of calves, the ravages of some diseases, contagious abortion and other things. In other words, it is an item of information which we are very desirous of getting.

No. 12 completes the enumeration of livestock and makes a considerably shorter enumeration than is covered in the previous census schedules.

Mr. MOORMAN. Did you ever discuss those suggested questions with any breeders of the standard breeds of beef cattle?

Mr. LOOMIS. Five of the member organizations of the American Dairy Federation are the five purebred cattle organizations, and their representatives were present while we discussed these questions. But we have not discussed them with the beef breeders.

Mr. MOORMAN. That is my question; have you discussed it with any leading beef breeders?

Mr. LOOMIS. No; only with the dairy breeders.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you want that inserted in the bill?

Mr. LOOMIS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are suggestions to the bureau?

Mr. LOOMIS. Suggestions to the bureau, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood.

Mr. RANKIN. Let me ask you a question. Does your proposed schedule, the schedule that is used by the Census Bureau, contain an item of registration showing the number of registered cows?

Mr. LOOMIS. Yes, we have assumed that there was no controversy over that at all and that that would be as in the previous census. The CHAIRMAN. Aren't those registered figures in the possession of the various cattle associations?

Mr. LOOMIS. Only the registered ones. The CHAIRMAN. I say the registered ones. cured from the grade cattle associations.

Those could be pro

Mr. RANKIN. I understand they can be, but if you go to secure them from these associations you have to take it up with all of them. The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is only one place of registry. That is in the association.

Mr. RANKIN. The thing I wanted to know was whether or not that information was in the possession of the Census Bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. A man might say he had a registered cow to the enumerator. He might say "My herd is all registered," and it might not be so, or it might be, but his association, to which those cattle belonged and to which he belonged, would have the figures registered there, the same as the American Kennel Club has all the registered dogs in the country.

Mr. RANKIN. This don't say "registered"; this says "purebred. Mr. LOOMIS. A good many purebred animals in the United States are not registered.

Mr. RANKIN. And a great many that are alleged to be purebred are never registered and never will be.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have to get those figures as near as practical.

Mr. LOOMIS. Now as to the products of the farm, and then I am through. After a lot of discussion we have decided to request the Census Bureau to leave in the question "total amount of milk produced," although asking a farmer one day in the year, and that way along at the end of the year, how much milk he has produced for the whole 12 months is likely to get more guess than fact. However, it is the best there is, and it is a question which has been asked in previous censuses, and we would like to have the figures with the same explanation that appears in the 1924 census.

The next question is as to disposition of milk. As to that, we like the form back in the schedule for the 1920 census and have decided to recommend it complete, with the exception of question No. 6. There is not enough cheese made on the farms of the United States to warrant taking that space on the schedule, in our judgment. The questions are:

1. Milk sold in 1929.

2. Cream sold in 1929.

3. Butterfat sold in 1929.

4. Butter made on the farm in 1929.

5. Butter sold in 1929.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you give that milk in pounds or gallons?

Mr. LOOMIS. It has been taken by gallons in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. That is most readily understood, is it not, by the general public?