Mr. STEUART. Part of it.

Mr. MOORMAN. And if you started April 1, you would have the good spring weather. On what do you base your conclusion that it is better?

Mr. STEUART. I have been through April 15 and January 1

The CHAIRMAN. The last was January 1, was it not, Doctor?

Mr. STEUART. Yes, and honestly I think the fall of the year is the best time to do it. I may be wrong about that. You know the conditions as well as I do, but it is all a matter of first selecting the people who are willing to work as enumerators, and the second thing is to get them to do it after they have taken the job, because it isn't a very remunerative job at the best. My whole object in doing this is to get people who will enumerate the population and take the census of agriculture.

Mr. LOZIER. I don't want Doctor Steuart or anyone to think that my attitude is dictated by any hostility toward him or any member of the Census Bureau. I have said, and the members of the committee will bear me out, that here is one department of the Government that I have implicit confidence in, and the men at the head of it; and I have taken the position when it came to the building up of your personnel that I was willing to give you everything I was willing to give you a free hand, give you all the personnel that you wanted, pay them adequate salaries, and then say to you, "Doctor, go on and give us an accurate census."

That is my attitude. I have a profound respect for Doctor Steuart and Doctor Hill in the Census Department, and I don't want what I said a moment ago to be construed as a criticism of that department, but I will say to Doctor Steuart that when the representatives of the Agricultural Department were before this committee, the members of the committee took up one commodity after another, tobacco, cotton, oranges, lemons, citrus fruits, wheat, corn, the marketing of pork, beef, etc., and as to all those commodities the question of date was considered and it was lamentable that some of the men representing the Agricultural Department, the lack of information as to the marketing conditions of tobacco and cotton, and as to wheat and as to pork, etc., and, as Mr. Moorman said, the principal argument that they urged in favor of fall enumeration of the census was for the purpose of comparison.

Mr. STEUART. Well, now, we will depend upon the Department of Agriculture for advice about that. We are trying to work in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture. They study agricultural conditions and their experts know a great deal more about it than we do, and we must take their advice. We try to do that, and so any lack of harmony as to the dates must be settled by the Department of Agriculture. I can't explain their attitude about that at all.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee takes this view, that thorough consideration should be given to the testimony adduced before the committee, and the committee will determine the date without animadversion upon anybody.

Mr. THURSTON. It seems to me the unfortunate situation about this matter was brought about by the gentlemen sent over here by the Department of Agriculture who advanced certain ideas and alleged facts about the marketing of farm products, and when they dealt specially with those of the Mississippi Valley. with which I am

entirely familiar, they displayed that they did not know anything about it, when corn was gathered and cribbed, when the slaughtering took place and when the different livestock was processed, and when we concluded our hearings I think the committee agreed that these gentlemen proved that they didn't know anything about the subject matter, and that was the reason that we led up to April 1, so that when the agricultural census was taken, that it would not only deal with the grain harvested the year before, but the grain fed into the animals and the animals marketed during the winter period-that that was essential information that was required in this census, and so the committee finally reached its conclusion as to April 1, because it was manifest this information could not be had at November 1.

Mr. MOORMAN. Doctor, one of the gentlemen testified that he could not, for instance, rely upon the statement or recollection or intelligence of the tenant, and still I made him admit that the chart that he produced before the committee was made up of information that he received from the very people he said you could not trust or believe, or who did not have sense enough to give the proper impression of a situation.

Mr. STEUART. Well, the enumerator must go to the tenant to get the information. That is the source.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the committee has had no executive sessions on this matter, but I know that when we are in executive session the testimony will be given the utmost consideration in the determination made by the committee.

Mr. THURSTON. I agree with Mr. Lozier in the inquiry that was made, that if there are any facts that have been brought out that would lead the bureau to believe that November 1st would be the better date, that we should have those facts.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. May I make a statement at this point? I came in a little late. New York is a great agricultural State. We have a great department of agriculture at the Cornell University. I have received several communications which I would like to place in the record from the department of agriculture in the Cornell University expressing regret that the agricultural census was not to be taken in the fall. Professor Warren, I think, is recognized all over the country as one of the leading experts, and he stated very positively that it is a mistake not to take the agricultural census in the fall. He said nothing about the population census. I have had other communications from agriculturists indicating that we ought to reconsider the date.

A letter from New York State Farm Bureau Federation reads as follows:

NEW YORK STATE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Ithaca, N. Y., February 28, 1928.

MEYER JACOBSTEIN,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. JACOBSTEIN: We understand there has been some thought given to the possibility of taking the fifteenth and subsequent decennial agricultural censuses in the month of April. This matter was discussed with Prof. G. F. Warren, agricultural economist at the College of Agriculture, Ithaca, and he has the following to say in regard to this point:

"It is very important that the census of agriculture not be taken in April. November 1, December 1, or January 1, are all good dates. If it is necessary to have the population census taken in April, the agricultural census ought to be taken in the fall or winter.

"On April 1, many of the farms are in the hands of persons who did not operate them in the previous year, also the livestock statistics are badly confused because it is in the middle of the breeding season.

We feel that the objections to an agricultural census taken in April as suggested by Professor Warren are very important and should be given very careful consideration when determination for dates is finally made.

Very truly yours,

E. VICTOR UNDERWOOD,
General Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not determined on a date yet. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. At least the date tentatively given out through the press. I think the committee ought to have in mind that the confusion came also as the result of the fact that we were interested primarily in a population census for reapportionment purposes. The CHAIRMAN. That is most important of all.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. That is the most important thing in taking the census, and we want it every 10 years as our chairman said, and the agricultural census, even though it might be a little better in the fallI am not saying it would be-ought to come at the same time as the population census for economy purposes. I remember that argument was made. At any rate, I would like to have the record clear that I have had brought to my attention from agricultural experts, men who are practical men, that they believe that the fall is the best time of the year for the taking of an agricultural census.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you consider, while giving the highest weight to the best agricultural census that might be taken, did you consider that that is the highest element in the census bill? In other words, what is the best time to take a population census? Of course, we have the highest respect for these agricultural people and we want to do everything we can for them. Congress is so disposed. But it seems to me if the taking of the agricultural census at a certain time or a certain date is going to interfere with the integrity of the taking of the population census, something should be done. What are the views of these gentlemen?

Mr. THURSTON. Separate the two.

The CHAIRMAN. Then look at the cost.

Mr. STEUART. That is the law as drafted. Now all this lack of agreement was considered when the law was prepared. We thought it best to take the population in the even year, and so the law says, and all these interests, agriculture and all, were considered, and they put the agriculture in the fall of the year.

The CHAIRMAN. We could take two censuses, of course.

Mr. STEUART. That is up to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made an estimate, Doctor, of the cost that would be involved of taking the agricultural census in the fall and the population census in the spring, the added cost?

Mr. STEUART. It adds, I think they estimate, about $2,000,000. Mr. MOORMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Jacobstein a question. Who was the gentleman in New York-the agriculturist-you spoke of, the professor?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes. Prof. G. F. Warren.

Mr. MOORMAN. Now, Doctor Warren, is a statistician also, he?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes; but primarily an agricultural economist. Mr. MOORMAN. Then for purposes of comparison, it swings back to the same proposition. You can take any statistician or any professor that wants a census taken for the purposes of comparison and he favors one thing, and that is what he had in mind and is what dominated his conclusion.

Mr. STEUART. The fall of the year. I consulted Doctor Warren. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. What does he favor?

Mr. STEUART. The fall of the year.

The CHAIRMAN. Might I interrupt just a moment? Mr. Kreutzer, representing the Department of Reclamation, wants about five minutes, if Doctor Steuart will give way for a moment.

Mr. STEUART. Certainly.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. KREUTZER, DIRECTOR, RECLAMATION ECONOMICS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Mr. KREUTZER. Doctor Mead, the Commission on Reclamation, was to appear before you this morning, but was not feeling very well and sent me along as his substitute, and it was in regard to the inclusion of irrigation and drainage in the census. The Bureau of Reclamation has charge of all of the Federal reclamation in the United States, and in the reports that we submit to Congress, in the reports that we make to the departmental agencies of the States in the West, and in the reports that private engineers and economists must make in the economic and engineering analyses of both irrigation and drainage, it is necessary for them to make frequent reference to the census, as to the extent of both irrigation and drainage in the various States and the trend of it in development. The important features in it, Mr. Fenn, are that we would know the area

The CHAIRMAN. This was carried in the previous census bill and, as I understand, was omitted by an oversight?

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes; we have always had information of the area reclaimed, both by irrigation and drainage in this country, the area that was cropped, and the area that was not cropped, showing the drainage and the development and the cost of this enterprise. We would very much like to see that carried on.

The CHAIRMAN. This doesn't add anything to the other bill?
Mr. KREUTZER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered here would be to insert irrigation, drainage, and mines.

Mr. KREUTZER. That would be entirely satisfactory to our bureau. The CHAIRMAN. And you desire to have that in?

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes; we have received a great number of letters from State engineers in the Western States and from some of the Southern States to the effect that they were alarmed that this would be left out.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say that the chairman has had requests from members of the Senate in regard to this matter, having noticed this omission. I have no doubt they noticed the omission and wanted to make the same statement that this gentleman and Doctor Steuart have made in regard to it.

Mr. LOZIER. I have had numerous inquiries from reclamation engineers, and I told them that I understood from the Census Bureau that it was contemplated under the blanket authority of the bill as originally promulgated, but I think it wise to cover it specifically in this bill.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF W. M. STEUART

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Doctor Steuart will resume.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask one question. I am sorry I haven't had time to read the law for the last census

The CHAIRMAN. You will find it in the record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; but I will save time by asking questions. the last bill, did the Congress provide the pay of enumerators? Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. That was in the law?

Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This doesn't.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not in the law this time?

Mr. STEUART. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a statement as to what the general cost of the census will be, and when the bill goes through the allocation of the money, or the appropriation of the money will have to go to the Committee on Appropriations, and they will doubtless take into consideration and have figures from the Census Bureau, to show exactly what amount is necessary to pay these enumerators, and what they are going to pay them, and this, that, and the other.

Mr. JOHNSON. My information is that the last census faced some difficulty on account of shortage of funds.

The CHAIRMAN. They didn't pay them enough.

Mr. LozIER. They couldn't keep them at work.

Mr. STEUART. Don't say "some difficulty," Mr. Johnson. It was terrible.

Mr. JOHNSON. I don't doubt it. Now, I want to ask this question of the director in regard to these dates. Is it easier to get competent men to be enumerators in November than it would be in April?

Mr. STEUART. Well, that was, our opinion.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are more men out of work at that time?
Mr. STEUART. That was our opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you ever have trouble in getting them, Doctor? I have been solicited already for jobs.

Mr. STEUART. Oh, yes. Every man that wants to be appointed is not the man who should be appointed.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't doubt you there.

Mr. STEUART. In fact, these men who want to be appointed are very generally the men who should not be appointed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, then, this has got to be a very big country, and in 10 years' time conditions have greatly changed. I think the showing of the next census in the cities will stagger the people. I think the conditions you will find in Porto Rico as to unemployment and malnutrition will startle the people. I don't see why, if this committee has had time to mull it over and think about it, that we