work was to secure accurate information on prices
of labor, feed, etc. The Secretary of Agriculture
refused to grant such letters of authorization, and
called me to his office. This was early in October,
1917.
"In the interview which followed he ordered me
to discontinue the cost of production investigations,
on the ground that the farmer is not entitled to
any information on the subject. 'The only use ever
made of such information,' said the Secretary, 'is
for agitators like this man Baer of North Dakota
to go out and stir the farmers up with it.' The
next day I received from the Secretary of Agri-
culture an unsigned letter, drawn for his signature,
sent me ostensibly that I might suggest changes
in it, beginning as follows: 'According to the
agreement we reached in our conference yesterday
the following projects in the Office of Farm Man-
agement will be discontinued.' He then went on to
enumerate by number every project dealing with
cost of production. This, of course, put a stop to
our field work so far as it related to this particular
investigation.
Cost of Production of Live Stock.
"Early in January (1918), Mr. Ed C. Lasater of
Texas came to my office and asked me the status of
our cost of production investigations. I told him
the facts above related. He suggested that he might
be able to help the situation, and I assured him that
his help would be appreciated.
"About the middle of January a telegram was
received by the Secretary reading substantially as
follows : 'The American National Live Stock Asso-
THE COMING LAND POLICY 61
ciation in session at Salt Lake City desires to know
the status of the investigation of the cost of produc-
tion of beef being conducted by your Office of
Farm Management. Please wire reply in time for
me to read it to this convention before it adjourns
tomorrow at 4:30.' This telegram was sent to me
to prepare a reply for the Secretary's signature. I
prepared substantially the following: The inves-
tigations on the cost of production have been
greatly extended, and are being pushed vigorously.
A report on them will be ready the first of July.'
"A few minutes after this telegram had been
sent to the Secretary's office for his signature, Mr.
Harrison of the Secretary's office called me over
the phone and the following conversation, as nearly
as I can recall it, took place: 'Spillman, what in
hell do you mean by sending a telegram like this
over here for the Secretary to sign? You know
damned well he has stopped all these investiga-
tions.' I replied that I knew he had ordered them
stopped, but that I had reason to think he was go-
ing to order them started again. Mr. Harrison
asked me what I meant by such a statement, and I
told him that I meant exactly what the statement
implied.
Making a Telegram True.
"Then Mr. Harrison said: 'The telegram is not
true.' I replied that it would be true when the
Secretary signed it. He said the Secretary would
not sign it, and then I asked him if he knew who
Ike Pryor is, this being the name of the man who
had sent the original telegram. Mr. Harrison re-
plied that all he knew was that Mr. Pryor was
signed as the president of the association. I then
remarked that he represented one of the largest
62 THE COMING LAND POLICY
and livest bunches of men in the country, and I
happened to know that these men knew what they
were after. I requested that he tell the Secretary
from me that if he valued his job he would sign
that telegram. Within half an hour I received a
very courteous note from Mr. Harrison, with a copy
of the telegram which he said the Secretary had
signed and sent.
"The next day I renewed my request for the
thirteen letters of authorization, and the request
was granted, but this was in the dead of winter and
it was not practicable to send men into the field un-
til the first of April. Because of this interruption
of the work as the result of the Secretary's refusal
to permit it to proceed, we had thus lost from early
in October to April. We got what data we could
during April, May and June, which, as already
stated, was merely supplementary to data which wc
had been ten years in collecting.
"On the 12th of July (1918), twenty-three re-
ports were submitted to the Secretary, relating to
the cost of producing various agricultural products,
including wheat and beef. I may say that the
data on the cost of producing beef consisted in part
of careful bookkeeping records covering one hun-
dred and forty-one farm years and the fattening of
over forty-eight thousand steers. These reports
arc now in the possession of the Secretary of Agri-
culture and have been since the 12th of July.
Secretary Houston on 'Methods'.
"In his letter of November 7, 1918, to the Presi-
dent of the Senate, Secretary Houston, commenting
on cost of production studies, said:
'About a year ago the results of one of the
studies were brought to my attention. After an
THE COMING LAND POLICY 63
examination of them, and in view of the criti-
cisms by competent experts of similar studies, I
indicated to Doctor Spillman, who was Chief of
the Office of Farm Management until Septem-
ber 1 (1918), that I questioned the validity of
the methods pursued in the studies and was of
the opinion that the exposition and interpreta-
tion of the data were not adequate. Indicated to
him my desire that careful consideration be given
the whole matter and that a system of inquiry
and interpretation be devised which would be re-
garded by competent students of farm economics
as sound, and which would furnish results rea-
sonably reliable and creditable to the depart-
ment.'
"I am willing to be quoted as questioning the
veracity of the Secretary in that statement. He
never advised me to use any methods in this in-
vestigation. What he did was to order me to stop
all such investigations, stating as his reasons there-
for that the farmer is entitled to no information on
cost of production.
"This opposition of the Secretary to work on cost
of production has been persistent since the early
days of his administration. It is true that by stren-
uous and persistent effort I had been able to force
to publication a number of bulletins relating to
cost of production. But at various times the Secre-
tary called me down hard for offering such material
for publication, making it perfectly clear to me
lhat he did not desire such work to be done by the
Department.
"To show that this was the fixed policy of the
Secretarv, I may refer to the fact that very early in
his administration there was circulated through the
64 THE COMING LAND POLICY
Department of Agriculture a sheet in which Sec-
retary Houston concurred, that the Department of
Agriculture should conduct no investigation that
would reveal the profits made by farmers on the
cost of producing farm products, and that no rep-
resentatives of the Department of Agriculture
should ever even intimate that it is possible to pro-
duce too much of any product. It was the business
of the farmer, this anonymous circular stated, to
produce, and it was the business of the Department
of Agriculture to show the farmer how to produce.
Why Carver Left the Department.
"As further evidence of the domination of the
Rockefeller interests in the Department, I may cite
the establishment by Mr. Rockefeller through his
General Education Board, of a bureau in the De-
partment of Agriculture known as the 'Rural Or-
ganization Service'. It later transpired that the
purpose of Mr. Rockefeller in establishing this
bureau was to control the work of the Department
and of the various agricultural colleges of the
country; but these gentlemen made the mistake of
thinking that any man who was paid a good salary
would do what he was ordered to do. They em-
ployed Prof. T. N. Carver, of Harvard University,
to head this new bureau. Professor Carver came to
the Department with much enthusiasm for his
work.
"This important work of the Bureau of Mar-
kets was made subject to the Rockefeller Bureau
in order that its activities might be kept properly
under control. Professor Carver worked very hard
and conscientiously and in due time worked out a
series of very important projects, the carrying out
of which would have resulted in great good to
THE COMING LAND POLICY 65
American farmers. These projects called for an
expenditure on the part of the General Education
Board of $160,000 a year. When they were sub-
mitted to the Board with the estimates, the Board
simply voted to give no money whatever for this
purpose, and made no explanation of why they
took this action. Shortly after that, another type-
written sheet was circulated through the Depart-
ment. It related to Professor Carver's work, and
stated that Professor Carver had misunderstood
what Mr. Rockefeller wanted. Mr. Rockefeller
did not want to build up a big central organization
for developing rural economic problems. What
Professor Carver should do was to employ about
half a dozen of the ablest men he could find and
send them around to the various state institutions
and endeavor to interest the professors of econom-
ics in these institutions in such investigations. Mr.
Rockefeller would be very liberal with his funds for
this purpose. (See foot note by the author.)
"Professor Carver sought an interview with the
members of the General Education Board, in which
he asked them if their purpose in getting him in
the Department of Agriculture was to remove the
taint from Mr. Rockefeller's money and induce in-
stitutions to accept it that are now refusing it.
They declined to answer this question."
FOOTNOTE: Both the members of the General Ed-
ucation Board and the men who control the Agricultural
Department, may have really considered that it would be
detrimental to the public interest to enlighten the farmer
in modern business methods, especially in business ac-
counting.
Such an enlightenment would doubtless stimulate agri-
cultural business organization and combination between
the farmers, particularly in the matter of selling their
products. The Board may have feared that the farmer.
66 THE COMING LAND POLICY
if better organized on the financial side of his business,
would combine against the consumer and curtail produc-
tion for the purpose of needlessly increasing the prices
of food products. Such a fear might have been quite
natural to the Board's members. In fact, profiteering of
this kind would occur in some cases. But to oppose for
su:h a reason any improvement in business methods of
farming is sheer social folly of an extremely dangerous
nature, especially since it is so vital that the white men
return to the land. Incidental drawbacks, that at times
inevitably accompany social reforms, must be met in a
direct manner and not by suppressing progress itself.
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below
APR 4 1932
APR 2 5 1962
JUN 1 8 1934
5 * 1 3 1936
m L-9-35m-8,'28
1251
Thum.
T42c
The corning
land policy.
\\ih\j
AA 000117 626 2
- . ; > ^KSiTY of CALiFOKKw
AT
LOS ANGELES
LIBRARY