Mr. PERKINS. That is not the way the law reads. There may be cases where we would want to make a man a loan for work animals, or livestock, or something of that sort. The county committee might decide that that man was a worthy man and ought to be given a loan. For instance, there was a recent hailstorm in South Carolina, and I happen to be familiar with the situation of one farmer in that area. He lost four of his mules and three of his cows. He is a fine, upstanding farmer, but that storm took everything he had. He lived on a good piece of land. He might get a loan under this tenant program, even though he owned no livestock. In such a case, if he could not get credit for a couple of mules or cows elsewhere, I think it would be perfectly sound to make him a rehabilitation loan.

Mr. CANNON. You could not give us any estimate whatever as to the total acreage that you expect to buy?

You could not give us any estimate whatever as to the cost per acre. Your figure of 2,500 farms is arrived at largely by the number of counties in the United States. You could not say now definitely whether or not, when you carry out the plan, these 2,500 farms, 40 acres in one place and 160 acres in another place, costing $20 per acre in some place and $50 per acre in another place you could not say whether that program would cost you in the end 8 or 12 million dollars?

Mr. PERKINS. Of course, we will have to go at that problem backward. We shall have an allocation of funds for each State, and when we determine on each county, we will have an allocation of funds for that county. Once that amount of money is made available in that county, the number of farms bought in that county will have to come. within that amount of money. That is why I said 2,500 or 3,000. I do not know what kind of farms they will be. The county committees are going to select them and we do not know what they will certify to be a fair appraisal of economic sized units.

Mr. CANNON. Your allocation will be based on the percentage of tenancy to the population? On what basis are you going to allocate this money?

Mr. PERKINS. We allocate the money to counties.

Mr. CANNON. To States?

Mr. PERKINS. The allocation to States is fixed by law on a combination of two things: the prevalency of tenancy and the total farm population. We are working right now on the possibility of applying a similar formula to counties. I would like to do something of that sort, if we could. It would be a pretty good answer to people who want to know why one county was selected instead of another.

Mr. CANNON. Could you include in your testimony the allocation to each State of the 91⁄2 million dollars?

Mr. PERKINS. No; I could not do that, because it involves two or three statistical factors which the Secretary has yet to pass judgment upon. But I can say informally

Mr. CANNON. The Secretary will be in the city tomorrow or at least by the first of the week. He could be consulted and you could supply that for the record, I take it.

Mr. PERKINS. It would be much easier to supply it for the Senate record. You see, it is not a simple thing. I could make a stab at it, however, if you wished.

Mr. CANNON. You can give us in round figures the allocation to each State?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes; that would be possible.
Mr. CANNON. Suppose you do that.

Mr. PERKINS. The table which follows is an approximate breakdown. This has not yet been cleared with the Secretary of Agriculture, but this estimate is likely to be within 5 percent of the amounts finally approved.

Mr. CANNON. Then you expect it is your intention, at least at the present time, although it is not finally determined to make an allocation to the counties within the State, based on the same factors?

Mr. PERKINS. I would not want to say it is our intention, but we have been doing some spadework for the Secretary prior to his return, and our minds are working in that direction. This is a tough problem. That formula might solve some of our difficulties.

Mr. CANNON. I wounder if you could submit to the committee, after you have considered the matter, as part of your testimony, an estimate of the cost based on farms in one county in the State?

Mr. PERKINS. Let me see if I understand the question; an estimate of what you think we would pay for farms?

Mr. WOODRUM. How many farms to a county?

Mr. CANNON. The number of farms that you would

Estimated distribution of the $9,500,000 available under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act according to the total farm population and the percentage of farms operated by tenants of the 48 States and 3 Territories 1

1 Data for the 48 States were obtained from the Agricultural Census, 1935; and for the 3 Territories from the Agricultural Census, 1930, there being no census in 1935.

Mr. WOODRUM. Do you mean 2,500 farms divided among 48 States? Mr. CANNON. No; you are allocating 2,500 farms among 48 States. Now, following your testimony of awhile ago, not giving each county a farm, but giving a number of farms to each county, what would be the number of farms that you would have in one county? average

H

Mr. PERKINS. The greatest number?

Mr. CANNON. The average number. You have 2,500 farms allocated to the States, segregated in a portion of the counties; not one to each county.

Mr. PERKINS. Well, our assumption is that there would be about 2,500 farms on which we could make loans. That would average about $3,900 a farm. That is a guess, but it is probably a pretty good estimate. About five farms could be bought in each county in which we operated, although that would vary quite a bit by counties. For instance, in the Corn Belt, less farms could be bought with a given amount of money than in the South, where we might honestly determine that a 40-acre farm, on good fertile land, was an economicsized unit.

Mr. CANNON. What I would like to have is an estimate, such as you have here, with the exception that, instead of dividing it among 2,500 farms, you divide the farms to be located in one county in each State.

Mr. PERKINS. But the money won't work out that way. I would not know, and I do not know how I could know-since the law puts that burden on the county committee exactly what sorts of farms they will select. I know, from the agricultural census, the average value of a farm in every State of the Union. And I know roughly the amount of money, under this bill, which will be available to each State. Therefore, it would not be a difficult matter to divide and give you a general statement that $317,000 will be the approximate amount of money that will be available in Missouri for the purposes of title I; and that the average value of a farm in Missouri being so much, we can make loans on about so many farms.

Mr. CANNON. We are trying to reach the problem, and the question is the best avenue of approach. This is an experiment. It cannot apply to every tenant in the country. It cannot apply even to every county in the country.

Therefore, if we must select only a representative tenant or a representative county, if we localize this in one county in each State, five farms to a county, why would not that be practicable?

Mr. PERKINS. As I said awhile ago, that is a matter wholly for the determination of the Congress. But we have this terrific demand for loans from expectant tenants.

Mr. CANNON. Would it be practicable?

Mr. PERKINS. Very frankly, I do not think that five farm loans in any county is going to be very significant, except in the sense of establishing a pattern and making a beginning. That is just the way I feel about it. I think if we could go into a county and convert 200 worthy tenants out of some 700 into farm owners, we might know, in 10 years, whether that meant anything. But I think that by spreading it out so thin, we shall lose the value of the experiment the first year.

!

Mr. CANNON. Do you not think it would be difficult to find a typical county, one county in a State? One county would not be typical or representative of the State, necessarily, would it?

Mr. PERKINS. No. I think the best thing to do is to operate in 500 counties the first year and see how the program works and how collections come in. Personally, although I do not think that $10,000,000 will satisfy the need-I know, of course, that it will

not-I would much rather see a program of this sort started with $10,000,000 than see it started with a $50,000,000 appropriation. I am thinking in terms of efficient administration.

We have endeavored to set up a skeleton organization. We do not want to start out with something big and vast and complicated. We are starting a program which nobody has ever administered before. I think we need the experience of working in a very limited fashion the first year. I think that is the only way we can make wise recommendations for the subsequent administration of the

program.

So I do not feel badly about the $10,000,000 appropriation, although it may be pretty tough to write answers to all of the letters which we will get asking why we cannot take care of everybody. But, in the long run, it is probably the better way to approach the problem. Mr. LUDLOW. I was very much interested in the hypothetical ques-' tion that you said this morning was to be propounded to the applicant; that is, whether he felt he was able to buy the farm on which he was located. That does not mean, does it, that you would locate tenants, or loan money to tenants, to buy farms only on which they are located? Mr. PERKINS. No; it does not mean that.

Mr. LUDLOW. If you thought that the tenant was reliable, you could sell him a farm in some other section?

Mr. PERKINS. We could not sell him, but what we would do

Mr. LUDLOW. I mean assist him to buy a farm in some other section.

Mr. PERKINS. I was trying to point out that we are going to try to put the burden on the applicant tenant to say, "I either want the farm on which I am living, or I want that farm over there." We are not going to spend the Government's money to try to match the right tenant with the right farm.

Mr. LUDLOW. If you were favorably impressed with the tenant, you could assist him to buy a farm in some other township, or even some other county, could you not?

Mr. PERKINS. Well, you could. But unless the tenant had enough hustle to get out and come to us and say, "I can buy this farm, and I want it", we might not be favorably impressed. In other words, we are trying to cut down on the Government personnel in this program, and get the borrower to do some of the work himself. Let him horse-trade with his landlord; let him find out what farm he wants; and then let him find out if it is for sale at a reasonable price.

Mr. LUDLOW. Do you imagine that most of the tenants who will be benefited by this act will purchase the farms on which they are tenants?

Mr. PERKINS. I rather think that is what will happen the first

year.

Mr. WOODRUM. That is all, gentlemen; thank you.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1937.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. DONOVAN, AUDITOR

Mr. WOODRUM. Mr. Donovan, there is submitted in Document No. 336 several deficiency estimates of appripriations for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1937 and prior fiscal years, amounting to $6,807.51, and a draft of a proposed provision pertaining to existing appropriations.

Mr. DONOVAN. You have had a statement regarding the first item for miscellaneous expenses of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes.

JUDGMENTS AGAINST DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. DONOVAN. The next item covers a judgment against the District of Columbia amounting to $4,088.82. That is a judgment rendered against the District of Columbia in favor of Charles R. Guthrie. Guthrie had a contract with the District of Columbia for the construction of a sewer. In the process of performing the work, the bidder encountered a large quantity of hard rock and soft rock, and as a result of encountering the rock, he claimed damages by reason of the increased cost of the excavation. In the settlement of the account, the auditor for the District disallowed this claim for increased compensation, and the contractor brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He obtained judgment. It is a final judgment, and there is nothing to do but pay it.

AUDITED CLAIMS

Mr. WOODRUM. The next item is "$12", under the head of "Audited claims."

Mr. DONOVAN. The next item is "$12" under the head of "Audited claims." This is asked to pay an audited claim pending in the office of the auditor, and covers services rendered by one William L. Burkholder as a juror in coroner's inquests, in February 1928, and March 1928. For some reason, this party failed to submit his certificate for payment before the appropriation lapsed. He has now submitted the certificate, and we are asking a deficiency to pay him.

OLD AGE ASSISTANCE

TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM APPROPRIATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF OF DISTRICT RESIDENTS, 1938

Mr. WOODRUM. The next is an item submitting a draft of a proposed provision pertaining to the appropriation "Emergency relief of residents, District of Columbia, 1938", and "Assistance against oldage want, District of Columbia, 1938", as follows:

The sum of $125,000 is hereby transferred from the appropriation "Emergency relief of residents, District of Columbia, 1938" to the appropriation "Assistance against old age want, District of Columbia, 1938".