what there may be is insignificant. There are very few in comparison with the total number that might be used, commonly in use to-day.

Senator SIMMONS. Why is that; because of the excessive cost of the machines?

It

Secretary LAMONT. No; they have not been perfected long enough to enable them to be generally sold to farmers. Those things do not come in, are not spread all over the country, in a year or two. takes a long time to get them generally in use. They come into use gradually.

Now, if we know, if we have a base to work on, we can, of course, keep track of the increased number of tractors and the increased number of combines and the increasing number of other machines, and with some basis to work on, we can get from time to time a better idea of what is going on. I think it is a good thing that the farmers are able to get along with less men, that they can get their crops in in a shorter time with these machines, and I think it is a good thing, if a smaller number of men can provide the labor that is necessary in this country to raise the same volume of crops as was raised 20 years ago, say with four or five million men more than are now needed to raise that volume.

For one thing-a very important thing-it reduces the weather hazard. If a man plows 1 acre a day, it takes him a long time to get his crop in; and it is the same way with the harvesting. With the old methods it took weeks to harvest a crop. That increased the weather hazard. If a man gets a few days now in the spring, he can get his crop in quickly. If he gets a few goods days in the fall, he can harvest it quickly. In other words, it cuts down the weather hazard, which is one of the difficulties that the farmer has to contend with outside of his other difficulties.

Senator GOULD. How many men would it take to take the place of a mowing machine in the hay field, with the old-fashioned scythe? Secretary LAMONT. I could not tell you, offhand.

Senator GOULD. A good many, would it not?

Secretary LAMONT. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Would it be contemplated in these statistics to show the equivalent efficiency of the machine as compared with former methods of hand labor?

Secretary LAMONT. That would not be shown in the census itself; no. A compilation of figures could be made. Once we have the facts, they can be rearranged, and different facts and different conclusions can be drawn from those conclusions that would grow out of the census.

Senator BURTON. Expert men could figure it out.

Secretary LAMONT. Yes.

Senator HARRIS. Oh, I think it is better to do that and make your figures, than to try to draw your conclusions and base your figures on them.

Secretary LAMONT. The census is simply the base.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, this is to be an actual enumeration of those who are unemployed?

Secretary LAMONT. Yes; but you must determine beforehand; you must get a pretty definite definition of what "unemployed" means. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand that.

Senator HARRIS. A man who is out of work is unemployed. A man who is at work is not unemployed.

Secretary LAMONT. The question is also whether he himself is able to work.

Senator HARRIS. If he is ill, of course he is not.

Senator TYSON. Would you make a separate list of all those who could not work, all those who are unemployed, and all those who are employed? It seems to me if you started out to find who were unemployed, and then to define those who are out of work a week or so, there would be no end to it.

Senator GOULD. Suppose a man lives in Washington and has a family in Baltimore and that family is sick and he has plenty to do here, but he is called home for a month on account of that sickness? Secretary LAMONT. He is not unemployed.

Senator GOULD. He is not unemployed; that is the idea. It has been regarded so, sometimes.

Secretary LAMONT. Those are the things that must be guarded against, and an effort will be made to do that. In other words, we want the figures, when we get them, to mean something, and we want to know what they mean.

Senator TYSON. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Things like that would be guarded against by the administrative officer.

Secretary LAMONT. Yes; some judgment would have to be used by the enumerator, but the thing would have to be pretty definitely stated.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. But it seems to me if you are going about over the country trying to find the men who are not at work, and then gathering up information to show why they are not at work, you will add greatly to the cost and the time of taking the census.

Secretary LAMONT. That is true.

Senator SIMMONS. And that involves a great many collateral investigations.

Secretary LAMONT. That will have to be guarded against.
Senator SIMMONS. As to men, and especially as to women.

Secretary LAMONT. Yes; that will have to be guarded against. We can not undertake to get too much information. It will take too long a time, as you say, and cost too much money; but there is certain information that will be valuable, and if you allow us to get the information we want, we think we can get that within a reasonable time and within a reasonable cost.

I think Mr. Steuart has made some estimate as to what a census of the kind we have in mind would cost. I think it is not an unreasonable figure, for the value of the information we would get out of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any additional suggestions, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary LAMONT. I have nothing more, Mr. Chairman, unless someone has questions.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing more, we will excuse the Secretary.

Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to file with the committee a series of letters bearing on the question of the census date. The Secretary has referred to the fact that many agricultural organizations favor the November date. It is not necessary to print these letters, but I think they should be in our files, and I think the record should indicate that the November date is favored by the Agricultural Farm Bureau Federation, by the National Grange, by the National Cooperative Market Producers' Federation, by the American Statistical Association, by the Agricultural Research Committee of the California Research Council, and by various agricultural colleges and by the American Cotton Growers' Exchange and by a series of individuals who are well recognized as experts in this field.

Senator SIMMONS. There are quite a number of them.

Senator VANDENBERG. I think it is unanimous among the agricultural communities.

The CHAIRMAN. There was quite a series in the hearings before the House committee, of which we can get copies, regarding the date, whether it should be in November or some other date.

Congressman Johnson of Washington, is here, and he has to get away very soon, and I would like to present him to the committee, and if there is no objection we will let the Congressman come in now. STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Representative JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I thank you for the privilege of appearing ahead of others who perhaps could give more information on the whole scope of the census. I desired to appear for the purpose of offering a short amendment, which, I think, might go on page 5 at the end of line 9

The CHAIRMAN. That is of the committee print?

Representative JOHNSON. Of the committee print; at the end of section 4, on page 5, in line 9, which section designates the restrictions and names some of the schedules to be proposed in the census, the proposed amendment to read as follows:

Provided, That the population schedule shall, in addition to the Tentative Population Schedule, 1929, prepared by the Director of the Census, include (a) the name and racial descent of the father, and (b) the maiden name and racial descent of the mother, of each person enumerated; provided that racial descent shall, as nearly as possible, be given in terms of quarters.

Senator BURTON. Of what?

Representative JOHNSON. Quarters. That is, of ancestral nationality. Your father might be Scotch-Irish. That would carry that out. Senator BURTON. What do you mean by "quarters"? Representative JOHNSON. The division according to parents, first. Each parent would be one-half, and in back of that the grandparents. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the good of that?

I

Representative JOHNSON. I think it would be highly necessary. will explain, and I do not think it will be heavy to carry. I have here a blank that was used in the population enumeration of 1910. This is

a blank consisting of three columns on the subject of nativity. Under that heading it says:

Place of birth of each person and parents of each person enumerated. If born in the United States, give the State or Territory. If of foreign birth, give the country.

That was for 1910.

In 1920 the blank had several columns, the space being enlarged to as much width again on the blank, and it called for this:

Nativity and mother tongue. Place of birth of each person and parents of each person enumerated. If born in the United States, give the State or Territory. If of foreign birth, give the place of birth and, in addition, the mother tongue. (See instructions.)

I had, and I suppose I will be at liberty to use it now, this tentative population schedule prepared by Director Steuart for the 1930 census. This blank drops back to three columns on this subject, and the heading is "Place of birth." That is the title. Underneath that it reads:

Place of birth of each person and parents of each person enumerated. If born in the United States, give the State or Territory. If of foreign birth, give the country of birth.

Now, in my opinion as in the opinion of all those who have assisted me in the study, including some experts, who are of the same opinion, this proposal for the 1929 or 1930 census is an improvement over this wide space in the previous censuses, called "nativity" or "mother tongue"; but we think that the lines should be divided once more, and in these three lines the heading should be "Person," "Father,' and "Mother." Then you will have these data as to each person and as to the father and mother of each person. We think those lines should be divided, so that we could add, in a subcolumn, the surname of the father and racial descent, and in the third column the mother, the surname of the mother and racial descent. We would then pick up something we have been looking for for a great many years, in a sense to classify back in the two generations, the ancestry of the people of the United States. I think it is highly desirable, because our population statistics have been much changed a number of times since 1890, with the result that they are not complete and lead to very little in the matter of study, and for the further reason, as I take it, that the basic purpose of the census is a census of population; and the secondary reason of the census is for the purpose of redistricting for the House of Representatives. When you talk of a census you think of population.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that is the number of the population, do you not?

Representative JOHNSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Not so much their nativity?

Representative JOHNSON. Well, we have had it-ancestry.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I understand that.

Representative JOHNSON. So that we are going more and more into these other things, into agriculture and manufactories, and we have a great number of volumes devoted to those things, and the population statistics are reduced to a comparatively small volume. This census is going to cost, I understand, $40,000,000.

Senator SACKETT. If you had those figures, what would you gain by this information you are asking for?

Representative JOHNSON. We would begin to gain, Senator, an analysis of the racial stock of the people of the United States.

Senator SACKETT. Of what beenfit is that? What good is it?
Representative JOHNSON. I think it is highly desirable.

Senator GOULD. Speaking on a basis of representation here, of the percentage of different nationalities, if we had had that at this late session here, it would have been very valuable indeed.

Representative JOHNSON. Yes; if we had had it in any form at all, it would have been valuable.

Senator SACKETT. To be really valuable it must go right back to the beginning. This goes only part way.

Representative JOHNSON. I beg your pardon.

Senator SACKETT. I say if this is to be really valuable, ought it not to go back to the beginning?

Representative JOHNSON. That is probably beyond the capacity of the enumerators.

Senator SACKETT. I appreciate that; but when you cut it off at the start, only two-thirds of the way up, you have not a very good statement.

Representative JOHNSON. The reason for that, of course, is that it can not undertake to make a complete analysis of family descent; but we can make a beginning. We would get some figures. It is very interesting. I would like to take the time to bring the figures before you of the past two or three censuses and show how they undertook to introduce the matter and how they made the changes, and how the director, I think very wisely, too, is now proposing a third.

I am told that this census will cost $40,000,000, which is an increase of 43 per cent over what the last census cost. The number at the last was 105,700,000 population. This census will show around 122,000,000, so that the cost per census is going to be much larger in proportion to the population. A great part of the cost goes to. the analysis afterwards; the publication of all these books, which it takes years to get out. The enumerators themselves get only about 12 per cent of the entire expenditure for the census. And inasmuch as we go into the enumeration with a blank as large as this [indicating] and inasmuch as Congress undertakes to designate certain things that shall be done which we think advisable, I would like to see it designated, also.

There are a great many things you have to leave to the wisdom of the Director of the Census, and things are only certain to be taken if they are so directed in an act of Congress.

Senator TYSON. Have you estimated in any way what the additional cost would be?

Representative JOHNSON. I do not think the additional cost would be anything. The enumerator would ask the father's name and language, I believe, in the proposal; then the birth of each person's parents; each person enumerated, if born in the United States, in what State or Territory, and if of foreign birth giving the country. Now we are asking for the father's name and his place of birth. Senator TYSON. And the mother's name?

47180-29-2