offer that will refute the arguments that have been put forth on the question and can put that in form to convince somebody, I would like to have it. I would like to ask you, as a representative of the Department of Agriculture, this question. It is proposed by this same bill not only to have a census of agriculture but to add to that a census of distribution. Do you know, as a representative of the Department of Agriculture, that that proposed additional expense to the people of this country is to be in the interest of trade and not of agriculture? Now, if you do not represent agriculture and your department does not represent agriculture, and does not desire to lend its support to getting the best picture of agriculture that can be made, who is going to do it, and to whom may we look as representatives of agriculture to get justice and get what is coming to us?

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am here because the Department of Agriculture is interested in getting a document which is complete and as accurate as possible for agriculture, not only on the production side, but in so far as a census of distribution can be taken for agriculture, which is going to give us valuable data, we are thoroughly in sympathy with the idea. I assumed that the committee wanted to get the viewpoint of the department on the points that are involved here when they invited representatives to be present. I appreciate very well that the committee has views on this proposition, and as in all questions, in all matters, there are differences of opinion; and what we have tried to do is to present the facts upon which we base our position. Now, we will be very glad to present a statement setting forth our position. Our only point is this, that it seems to me it would be desirable from our point of view, as long as I have been permitted to present certain basic data, that I have sufficient time to draw conclusions therefrom.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I submit we can draw the conclusions from that data, and I am willing to give every interested man, every interested department, and every interested organization or element, a reasonable time to present the facts to us.

The CHAIRMAN. We have already been a month with this thing, a month to-morrow, because we began hearings on January 11, and we have devoted a month of close attention to this measure, and I think we have received a great deal of valuable information in regard to it.

Mr. MOORMAN. There is one thing I would like to say in that connection. I would not want to do anything at all that might have the effect of preventing us from getting any valuable suggestions that we might get from the gentleman, and I think the proper thing to do would be to let him make his conclusion now, as long as he has gone this far.

Mr. RANKIN. Let us see how much time he is going to take.

Mr. MOORMAN. In other words, if he has got any conclusions that are convincing, I want to hear them, and I certainly do not want to deny him the right to say anything he can that may be helpful to the committee.

Mr. RANKIN. How much time do you want?

Mr. OLSEN. It is a little hard for me to estimate that now.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can begin right now.

I think we will

close the hearings on this bill to-day, and on Tuesday we will take up the reapportionment bills.

Mr. RANKIN. I would rather not say that we would close the hearings definitely to-day. Suppose we leave that open until Tuesday.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman will call the committee together on Tuesday for consideration of the reapportionment bills, the reason being that we have devoted a good deal of time to this hearing and the record will take some little time to get out, and the members who have not been able to attend for good and sufficient reasons will have to read the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Suppose we say that these hearings can be printed, but I would rather not close the hearings at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; at a subsequent time, of course, you may have something further.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; we might want to offer something else.

The CHAIRMAN. With that understanding, Mr. Olsen, if you will proceed, we will be very glad to hear you, and then if you will condense it you may file what the attorneys call a brief. I am not a member of the bar, but I presume that is what the lawyers call a brief, something in that nature, as to the desires and wishes of the Department of Agriculture in regard to this bill.

Mr. MOORMAN. Oh, yes; I am sure that the Census Committee and the Census Bureau will want to be in accord with the Department of Agriculture in the matter of taking the census.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, sure; but the coordination will have to be done in the bill.

Mr. MOORMAN. Sure, but we would like to have their views.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; of course.

Mr. OLSEN. May I inquire in that connection whether you desire to hear from me or from Doctor Gray at this time? You expressed a desire to hear Doctor Gray.

The CHAIRMAN. I did express that desire, but other circumstances have arisen to make it necessary to get to work on another matter. There will be an opportunity for Doctor Gray, if we open the hearings up again, which we may do. I do not know exactly what Doctor Gray could amplify in the statement that you have so well made yourself here.

Mr. OLSEN. I think Doctor Gray has had considerable experience in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have delayed the matter for some time, and this is a legislative congressional committee, and Congress is waiting for the work of this committee, as they are waiting for the work of other committees. It is rather incumbent on the committee to get to work and finish this matter as far as it can. It is the middle of February now, practically, and Congress is not going to run into July or August, I do not expect. There are certain very valid reasons which I presume will cause an adjournment around the middle of June or the 1st of July, because some of us may go to Houston and some may go to Kansas City.

Mr. OLSEN. I wanted to present a point that seemed vital to us, in connection with the movement of the population from farm to farm between the fall and April 1.

The CHAIRMAN. Just let me interrupt you there. As I gather from what you so well testified in advance before the committee, the Department of Agriculture thinks that the date of December 1

in the year preceding, in the latter part of the year 1929, would be better for the taking of the agricultural census than

Mr. OLSEN. April 1.

The CHAIRMAN. Than a later date in the winter, or an earlier date in 1930?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You think April 1 would be a bad date?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, sir. We think December 1 is probably best, but possibly January 1 might be accepted.

The CHAIRMAN. Have we not gone into that rather thoroughly in the hearings?

Mr. OLSEN. The point was this, I think this has a bearing on the date

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, sure.

Mr. OLSEN. But the conclusion has not been developed.

The CHAIRMAN. But is it not rather cumulative in support of the evidence that you have submitted for making the date December 1? Mr. OLSEN. Well, but not fully.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will just submit your views in the matter, we will hear you.

Mr. OLSEN. As I was saying a bit ago

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Kahn, will you conduct the affairs of the committee for a few moments?

Mr. OLSEN. As I was saying, the census has in the past taken the enumeration of data for farms actually occupied by farmers, whether tenants or owners. I think the census people will agree with us that that is probably the only practical basis for getting data on individual farms, taking the census by farms, so that you are assured of getting all the farms in the area which the enumerator is handling. I think the committee would find it valuable to have an expression of opinion from the census people on the difficulties that would arise if you were to undertake to ask farmers to report on farms which they occupied last year, and which might be considerably removed in distance from the farms which they occupy this year. In connection with that point it has been suggested that the data could be had from landlords' records. I had a table prepared to show the number of tenants that are cash tenants in the United States as a whole, and the figure is 16 per cent of all tenants are cash tenants. Now, the landlords could not report the data that is required in the schedule for cash tenants; 70 per cent of tenants are share tenants. Some of those tenants might be able to give a reasonably adequate figure, but so far as I know the share tenants' contracts provide for the division of the grain and certain other crops, and very frequently does not provide for the division of the livestock, and the landowner would not be in a position to report the amount of livestock which was raised on the tenant's farm. So far as other records are concerned, I think the testimony that has been developed so far indicates that many kinds of other records, whether bank records, elevator records, or incometax records do not supply the data, and you would have to fall back upon the ability of the farmer to recall on the 1st of April, at the time you take this census, what he had in the way of acres and yield of livestock the preceding year, and we maintain that a great deal of error would show up in that connection. If the committee had the time, I think that a statement from Mr. Becker, of our division of crop and livestock estimates, would be exceedingly illuminating, because we

have actually made tests to show how farmers will deviate in their reporting of a certain type or class of data six months from the time when the data applies, or a year from the time when the data applies. You would be surprised at the variation which shows up in the farmers' reports.

Mrs. KAHN. If there is no objection, the evidence of Mr. Becker may be submitted for the record.

Mr. OLSEN. We will be very glad to have that done. Then in addition to the difficulty of getting an accurate statement_of_the production of the farms that are occupied by new tenants, I think you would encounter a great deal of difficulty in getting the data tabulated by townships and counties. It would certainly be a real job for the Census Bureau to avoid getting schedules placed in the wrong townships or wrong counties, and if a township tabulation was to be made, it would be exceedingly difficult from the standpoint of accuracy and adequacy of the township data. Then there is a considerable movement away from the farm, sometimes from one farm to another, and from the farm to the city. It will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to locate the individuals in those cities that may have moved off the farms to the cities, to get a report on the farms which they occupied last year. In that connection I would like to cite the changes in the number of farms that have taken place between 1920 and 1925. There is a decrease of 76,703 farms between those two census dates. Putting that on an annual basis, you get an average decrease of 15,341 farms. Now, what has happened to those farmers? Many of them, probably most of them, have gone to the cities. How are you going to get to them? On the other hand, you have a movement from the city to the farm. The people who have moved from the city to occupy farms are not going to be in a position to give you a report for 1929. That, in general, illustrates the feeling that we have in connection with this item of the movement of population from farm to farm. We believe the work of enumeration is going to encounter real difficulties in getting adequate data.

Now, I would like to take up another point. The census bill, on page 4, section 4, states:

That the fifteenth and subsequent censuses shall be restricted to inquiries relating to population, to agriculture, and to distribution. The number, form, and subdivision of the inquiries in the schedules used to take the census shall be determined by the Director of the Census with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce.

Now, on page 12, section 16, of the bill providing for the next decennial census reference is made to the quinquennial census that it is contemplated to take at that time, and the wording is as follows:

That there shall be in the year 1934, and once every 10 years thereafter, a census of agriculture and livestock, which shall show the acreage of farm land, the acreage of the principal crops, and the number and value of domestic animals on the farms and ranges of the country.

Now, if you will compare that with the bill providing for the 1920 census, section 8, you find a contrast in the wording. Section 8, the second paragraph, reads as follows

Mr. DE ROUEN. We have gone over that, and this is going to be amended.

Mr. OLSEN. To include the wording somewhat similar to this? Mr. DE ROUEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. What I was going to do was to raise the question of what it is intended to include in the coming census.

Mrs. KAHN. That rests with the Census Bureau.

Mr. DE ROUEN. I think the amendment was to strike out from 21 to 24 and insert-anyhow, it has been changed.

Mr. MOORMAN. I would like to hear the gentleman's suggestion. Mr. DE ROUEN. Yes; go ahead.

Mr. OLSEN. I wanted to raise the question as to why they changed the wording, because I presumed that it was the intention to conduct the census on very much the same basis as the 1920 census was conducted, and I thought that the committee probably would want to consider the description of that census, or what should be contained in it similar to what was contained in the 1920 bill. In other words, the question naturally arose in our minds, was it planned to conduct the census as the 1920 census was conducted, or was it contemplated to change it and exclude, for example, some of the items. Now, the wording for the 1930 census in the bill that is before us enumerates crops and livestock, and it makes no reference to tenure or land values, and a lot of the other data that has been included in the other earlier censuses. Then there is no reference to a census of irrigation, as far as I can see, and forestry, so far as it applies to farm wood lots, as in the previous bill. We raise the question as to whether it was intended to omit that census or whether it was to be conducted on the same basis as the earlier censuses were conducted, feeling that it would be very important that they be continued.

Mrs. KAHN. Would not that rest with the Census Bureau?

Mr. GOSNELL. What is the section of the 1920 bill? He did not read it.

Mr. OLSEN. Section 8 of the 1920 bill reads, in part, as follows:

The schedules relating to agriculture shall include the name, color, sex, and country of birth of occupant of each farm, tenure, acreage of farm, acreage of woodland, value of farm and improvements, and the encumbrance thereon, value of farm implements, number of livestock on farms, ranges, and elsewhere, and the acreage of crops and the quantities of crops and other farm products for the year ending December 31 next preceding the enumeration. Inquiries shall be made as to the quantity of land reclaimed by irrigation and drainage and the crops produced; also as to the location and character of irrigation and drainage enterprises, and the capital invested in such enterprises.

It is a more complete wording and enumerates many items that are not included in the present bill.

Mr. MOORMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman, as a representative of the Agriculture Department, if there is no suggestion that he has to make in any wise affecting agriculture that can be accomplished by this census, that was not in the last census. In other words, have you no beneficial suggestion; have you no suggestion that would be beneficial to agriculture, as a result of your 10 years' study from the last census?

Mr. OLSEN. I think that all census schedules are worked out in conference between individuals who are interested in the matter, and it would not be to the point, probably, for me to suggest specific additional data, to submit what we should like to have and what we would regard as very valuable.

Mr. MOORMAN. Has the gentleman any conclusion as a result of the last 10 years' study of the Agricultural Department with reference to the census of distribution, that would be beneficial to agriculture and agricultural communities?