« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is quite clear that in previous sessions, in other Congresses, before this committee, the validity or integrity of the 1920 census was attacked on two grounds; one was that the season of the year was inappropriate -I think it was taken in January Mr. OLSEN. That was taken in January
The CHAIRMAN. That the season of the year was inappropriate; and the other reason was that the enumerators were not paid sufficiently to get the best service from them. That was brought out before the committee in the hearings on the reapportionment bills, which have been held in several sessions of Congress.
Mr. MOORMAN. I am in favor of correcting both, changing the date to April 1 and paying the enumerators more.,
The CHAIRMAN. I think those things can be adjusted by the committee; but those were the two reasons advanced. That was the general reason, but they were advanced by those who attacked the integrity of the 1920 census. Now, is there anything further before the committee? I want to thank everybody who has come here, and particularly these gentlemen of the Census Bureau and the Department of Agriculture and others who have come, for their attendance here; and also the members of the committee who have listened so attentively to the hearings. The hearings will be printed and distributed to each member of the committee so that they can study them. Of course, we who have been here all along will not have to read them quite as intensively as the other members who were not able to be here; but at any rate, the committee will be furnished with full data in regard to these hearings, and when we have an executive session on this bill we will be able to arrive at an intelligent conclusion on it. With that, I will close the hearings, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Moorman, and you, Mr. De Rouen
Mr. DE ROUEN. I think you have somewhat of a gentleman's agreement with Mr. Rankin that this will not be the close of the hearings.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; we may probably put in something else later.
Mr. DE ROUEN. I merely make that statement so that Mr. Rankin will understand it. Mr. MOORMAN. Yes; I think he understands.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, gentlemen. We will adjourn until half past 10 o'clock Tuesday morning, when we will take up the reapportionment bills.
(Thereupon at 11.20 o'clock a. m. the committee adjourned until Tuesday, February 14, 1928, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
(The letter submitted by Mr. Thurston is as follows:)
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Washington, D. C., February 8, 1928. Hon. LLOYD THURSTON, M. C.,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THURSTON: Pursuant to our telephone conversation last night, I am writing to outline to you several matters which seem to us to be quite important concerning H. R. 393 providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses.
On January 19 I appeared before the committee and urged the following amendments to the bill:
1. That section 4, page 4, be amended by specifying the general lines of inquiry which shall be included in the agricultural census. I suggested that the wording of the act authorizing the decennial census as it relates to this matter might well be used with the addition of the following flexible clause which would make possible the inclusion of unforeseen inquiries: “And such other items as the Director of the Census shall determine, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce."
2. That the date for beginning the census of agriculture authorized in section 6, page 5, be changed from November 1 to December 1.
3. That the census of population also be taken at the same time, i. e., November 1.
4. That section 16, page 12, be amended by adding the following clause after the word “country” at the end of the first sentence: “And such other items as the Director of the Census shall determine with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce.”
5. That section 16, page 12, be amended by authorizing the census of agriculture to be taken as of December 1 instead of November 1.
As you will note, there are two outstanding matters involved in these amendments. First, the protection of the adequacy of the agricultural census and, second, the selection of a date which will promote accuracy of information.
I regard it as of great importance that the act authorizing the decennial census as well as the intermediate census of agriculture shall specify the general lines of inquiry in such censuses together with a flexible provision to take care of unforseen needs. This act authorizes not only the fifteenth census but subsequent censuses and if the precedent should be established of leaving the whole matter to the Director of the Census, agriculture might not receive the adequate treatment which is necessary in the event a director should be appointed who is interested primarily in the population census and who considers agriculture of little importance or of secondary importance. The present wording of H. R. 393 constitutes a radical departure in this regard from the policy established in the authorizations for the 1900, 1910, and 1920 censuses, all of which specified the general lines of inquiries for the agricultural census.
The date for gathering the data for the decennial census of agriculture and the intermediate census of agriculture is likewise very important. I belieye it would be a great mistake to take the agricultural census on the 1st of April as has been suggested. There are many reasons for this, one of the most important being that it is a rather general practice for tenants and share croppers to move around January 1 and if the agricultural census is taken in April, such tenants will have ceased their operations on one farm three months previous and will have been engaged in operations on another farm for three months, thus making it increasingly difficult to secure detailed statistical information particularly from men who do not keep books. Another reason is that the month of December is a less busy season with a great many farmers than is the month of April. One of the most important reasons, however, is that the Department of Agriculture has built up a statistical system based on either the calendar year or the fiscal year and it would be very helpful and in fact virtually essential for the accuracy of their estimates that the census data provide a comparable base by which their estimates can be adjusted and revised from time to time. Consequently, the taking of the agricultural census in December rather than April would more nearly conform to the crop year and to the calendar year used by the Department of Agriculture.
Rumors have come to us that one of the reasons for urging the gathering of the agricultural data for the census during the month of April is that it is believed that the population on the farms is greater at that season than at other times of the year. I presented charts to the committee showing that the amount of farm population on the farm about December 1 is virtually the same as it is on April 1. The peak of the farm population, of course, is reached during the summer months but is not representative because of the influx of temporary seasonal labor.
I hope I have not overburdened you with this rather lengthy statement and I appreciate very much your interest in this matter. Very sincerely,
W. R. OGG, Assistant to the Director, Legislative Department.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, April 17, 1928. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Chairman Fenn presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. If the committee will come to order, I think we can proceed. Doctor Steuart is here, and he has a matter, embodied in this letter which I have in my hand, which he would like to bring before you. With your permission, I will read the letter to you.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
Washington, March 30, 1928. Hon. E. HART FENN,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. FENN: My attention has just been called to the fact that hy some clerical error or misunderstanding the word “mines” has been omitted from the draft of the bill providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses, now being considered by your committee. The only change that will be necessary will be the insertion of the word “mines” in sections 1 and 4 of the bill. I inclose a copy of the bill with these corrections.
Secretary Hoover is very anxious that the census of mines be included in the Fifteenth Decennial Census, as it has been included in all preceding censuses; and of course it would be impossible for us to make a complete inventory of our resources unless this important industry is included.
The law for the Fourteenth Census also included a provision for a census of quarries. “Quarries” will be included under the general term of “mines," and it does not seem to us necessary to specify “quarries" in the law.
It was my understanding that irrigation and drainage could be included in the census of agriculture without any special reference being made to it in the law; but there is some doubt about this, and, therefore, I have made the necessary additions to the inclosed copy of the law. Very truly yours,
W. M. STEUART, Director. The proposition is this. In line 3, page 1, of the billMr. Johnson. What is the number of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. No. 393. After the comma, after the word “agriculture,” insert the words "irrigation, drainage,” strike out the word “and,” leave in the word “distribution,” and add the words "and mines," so that the line will read “* * * a census of agriculture, irrigation, drainage, distribution, and mines shall be taken, etc.
And on page 4, line 17, after the word "population," in line 17, insert a semicolon
Mr. LOZIER. What page is that?
The CHAIRMAN. Page 4, line 17, after the word "population," strike out the period and insert a semicolon; after the word “agriculture" insert "irrigation and drainage," and a semicolon. In line 18 strike out the word “and” and insert after the word “distribution" in the same line the words "and to mines.”
Mr. JOHNSON. Why do you want a semicolon after the word "population”?
The CHAIRMAN. I didn't put that in there. I don't know.
Mr. JOHNSON. A comma is all that is necessary. It wants to be identical, practically, with the original.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; insert a comma. Strike out the semicolon and put in a comma.
Mr. Johnson. It will want to conform with the original.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, those are all the changes in the bill as suggested in this letter.
Mr. JOHNSON. Now, let us see what we are doing. It is simple enough, perhaps. But this section is a limitation that the 1930 and subsequent censuses shall be restricted to inquiries relating to population, agriculture, drainage, distribution, and to mining?
The CHAIRMAN. Irrigation and drainage, distribution and to mines. Mr. JOHNSON. Now, that is your limit under your 10-year census. Your manufacturers come in under another paragraph or another law?
The CHAIRMAN. That is right; manufactories to a five-year census.
The CHAIRMAN. Then we have it that a census of population, agriculture, etc., shall be taken in the year 1930 and every 10 years thereafter?
Mr. STEUART. There is provision in the law providing for any intervening census.
Mr. Johnson. Is that in another provision of this law?
Mr. MOORMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman what the objection would be to having a census of agriculture every two years.
The CHAIRMAN. You could never get one completed. Mr. STEUART. There are six and a half million farms, and to make a complete census of theni every second year would be almost physically impossible, unless there were a very large appropriation, and an army of men employed as enumerators, and even then I doubt if it could be done.
Mr. Johnson. Couldn't you have a not so extensive a census, but one that would be beneficial?
Mr. STEUART. Well, we try to get that for the fifth year census, but it is an awful struggle to reduce the number of inquiries to a simplified scale. The agricultural interests, very properly, want to have everything covered that can be covered.
Mr. LOZIER. Must we not necessarily rely on statistics from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce for production from year to year of agriculture? Mr. STEUART. That is the theory on which we go.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it will hasten matters if the doctor will explain for the instruction of the committee, his letter, and then all questions which will arise from his statement, I am sure he will be very happy to respond to and answer. STATEMENT OF W. M. STEUART, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF THE
I want to be certain that irrigation, drainage, and mines are included in the census.
The CHAIRMAN. You look upon those as having been omitted inadvertently, but was there a reason for their omission?
Mr. STEUART. There was a reason. The law was originally drafted to simplify, if possible, this census. It is a very large undertaking and we have thought that by omitting mines, it omitted one of the least important, if any choice could be made of the inquiries, and not specifying irrigation and drainage made it possible to simplify the inquiries on that subject, but that did not seem to meet with the desires of the people who are specially interested in mines and irrigation, so the secretary thought it would be more satisfactory if we mentioned those subjects in the law.
Mr. MOORMAN. Does irrigation and drainage contemplate the covering of dams or power projects or anything of that sort?
Mr. STEUART. Not just power projects. Those are covered in the census of electrical industries that is taken every fifth year under another law.
Mr. MOORMAN. Is it contemplated in your suggestion, and in the inclusion of these two items or features, to consider the power proposition at all? Is that what you mean by it?
Mr. STEUART. No; it is irrigation projects. Power projects are covered under another law.
Mr. MOORMAN. But what you suggest could be stretched so as to cover estimates as to these power projects and things of that sort, could it not?
Mr. STEUART. Not if the law is carried out as it now stands. It is irrigation, projects for irrigation purposes. Power would be only incidental, and if it is inquired about at all it would be a subsidiary inquiry of the irrigating project.
Mr. LOZIER. Would not this be the situation, Doctor. Some dams in the West serve a dual purpose, that of generating hydroelectric energy and also irrigating. Under the strict letter of this statute your duty would be to deal with the subject from the standpoint of irrigation and later on, I presume, under public utilities and electric energy, etc., the other phase of the project might be considered. Is that right?
Mr. STEUART. Well, we are taking a census right now—
Mr. STEUART. Of electric power, hydroelectric plants, all of them being covered in the census we are now taking, and that census, under another law, is taken every fifth year.
Mr. LOZIER. The words “drainage and irrigation" as used in this statute would have a well defined technical meaning? Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.
Mr. LOZIER. And would not be extended so as to include power projects?
Mr. STEUART. Power projects that are constructed strictly for power purposes would be omitted.
Mr. Johnson. As a matter of fact, drainage and irrigation would be, in a way, side lines to agricultural developments?
Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir. They have always been considered as a part of the census of agriculture.
Mr. Johnson. Reclamation also. I would like to ask one question while this is pending. In the matter of population—I am a new man on the committee and not any too well informed-how does the Director of the Census, you and your staff, decide how far you will go into the population statistics of all kinds ?
Mr. STEUART. You mean the inquiries as to each individual?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. - Mr. STEUART. We have received, during the past two or three years, some hundreds of suggestions for the inclusion of inquiries on