Senator DOUGLAS. Maybe the Senator from New Mexico and the other Senator from Wyoming who are interested in this matter can correct me but I think the possibility of using the wife as owner of another 160 acres is really present in other than community-property States also and that therefore this phrase of mine is too limited.

Senator WATKINS. I am advised now by one of the staff members that the Solicitor finally came to the point that he ruled that it applied to all of the States. If we are going to give it to any we ought to apply it to them all.

Senator DOUGLAS. I think it has been so decided. So this wording while technically true so far as the law is concerned is too restricted so far as the practice is concerned.

Is that all, sir?

Senator WATKINS. There are other points that I might argue but you would not finish your testimony, so I am not going to argue them

now.

Senator DOUGLAS. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to make one general remark. I am trying to speak here for the future farmers, for the opportunity for people to become farmers. I am willing that taxpayers of Illinois and of other States help to make this farming opportunity more widely available to family farmers because if you have these acreage restrictions there will be more individual ownership.

We do not believe that this money should be used to subsidize largescale corporate, often absentee-owner farms. It cuts one of the roots of American democracy. I know the political difficulties in connection with this. The future farmers by definition are not here. There is no one present who might get a farm under these acreage restrictions. It is a conjectural group for the future. We know that they will exist. We cannot identify the individuals. But the specific holders of tremendous acreage, they are here, holding very valuable properties. They are organized, they are powerful. We well know their political and economic strength.

It is always hard for the future to struggle with the present. Yet that is one of the tasks for Government, one of the responsibilities which we bear, one of the duties which we should perform."

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I apologize for being compelled to leave at this time. I will be very glad to answer any other questions or try to answer other questions that the Senators may have. I beg you not to feel that I am intruding in this program purely for captious or personal reasons. The issue is of tremendous importance in California, Texas, in Arizona, although I am not certain of New Mexico. I think it is a conflict, as I said, primarily of the Old World Spanish theory and the American theory.

I have been upheld in our fight, because it has not been a personal fight with me in any sense, by the constant support of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Morse, who is unfailing in his support of measures in the public interest.

I wish that I might stay and hear his testimony because he has borne patiently with mine.

I notice that one of the witnesses from the public is to be Dr. Paul Taylor from the University of California. I want to add a word of tribute to Dr. Taylor because he has borne in the main a lonely burden

of defending the public interest as a private citizen, combining the knowledge of the scholar with a passion to protect the long-run public interest in an economy rooted in occupancy ownership.

That fight has been a lonely fight. It has been a fight in which great pressures have been indirectly exerted on Dr. Taylor which he has successfully withstood. I wish I might be here to hear him testify. I regret that I have to leave before he takes the stand, but I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not pay him some tribute and acknowledge my thanks for the long and effective and well-tempered struggle he has made.

Thank you very much.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Douglas.

(The bill referred to by Senator Dougas is as follows:)

[S., 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. DOUGLAS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on

A BILL To express the policy of the United States in regard to landholdings on Federal reclamation projects and to lay down certain means for its application

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the policy of the United States, in order to promote the general welfare, to encourage the development of the Western States through the continued prosecution of the Federal reclamation program. The provision, through that program, of interest-free money, appropriated from the Reclamation Fund and from general funds of the Treasury, for the cost of construction of the irrigation features of Federal reclamation projects is in recognition, among other things, of their influence in the creation of farm homes on which the Nation's expanding population can find a living in decency and comfort. Large-scale holdings of land and water resources in areas developed through the Federal reclamation program would be a negation of one of the very purposes for which such interest-free money is provided. Not only must the Federal reclamation program encourage the creation of family-size farms, but it must also make the acquisition of farm homes possible at reasonable prices so that new settlers shall have access thereto at prices which they can afford to pay, without jeopardizing their ability fully to develop the resources of the soil and to repay their share of the construction costs of the project.

SEC. 2. In order to assure that, to the fullest practicable extent, the limited water resources of the West are made available for lands capable of permanent use in crop growth under irrigation, the Secretary of the Interior shall examine lands susceptible of being served from, through, or by means of Federal reclamation projects with a view, through analysis of the character of the soil, topography, location, and other pertinent factors, of determining: (A) what lands are suitable for sustained cultivation under irrigation, (B) what lands are permanently useable only for the growth under irrigation of noncultivated forage or hay crops, and (C) what lands are such that they will not sustain production or cannot profitably be subjugated. The planning and construction of irrigation features of projects shall be such, so far as practicable, as to provide water primarily for use on lands in category A and secondarily for use on lands in category B. Lands in category C shall not, so far as practicable, be included within the service areas of Federal reclamation projects.

SEC. 3. Repayment contracts hereafter entered into under section 9 (d) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, or, in lieu thereof, water-service contracts under section 9 (e) of said Act, shall, in addition to any other terms and conditions which they are required to contain under the Federal Reclamation Laws, commit the organization to confine the distribution of water for irrigation to lands within its territorial limits falling in categories A and B of Section 2 of this Act, and, in case of shortage of water, to give preference in the distribution thereof to lands in category A. Every such contract shall further provide that all land in category A of section 3 held in private ownership by any one owner in excess of one hundred and sixty irrigable acres shall be appraised

in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior and the sale price thereof fixed by the Secretary on the basis of its actual bona fide value at the date of appraisal without reference to the proposed construction of the irrigation works; that no such excess lands so held shall receive water from any project or division if the owner thereof shall refuse to execute valid recordable contracts for the sale of such lands under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and at prices not to exceed those fixed by the Secretary of the Interior; that, until one-half the construction charges against said lands shall have been fully paid, no sale of any such lands shall carry the right to receive water unless and until the purchase price involved in such sale is approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and that upon proof of fraudulent representation as to the true consideration involved in such sale the Secretary of the Interior may cancel the water right attaching to the land involved in such fraudulent sale.

SEC. 4. Where the Secretary finds that lands within an organization's boundaries are susceptible of being served with water for irrigation from, through, or by means of project works but that the owners or some of the owners of excess lands in category A of section 2 within those boundaries are unwilling to enter into the recordable contracts required by section 3 of this Act and that supplying water to those lands is in the public interest and is necessary to prevent undue interference with established and economic farming practices in the area, he may, notwithstanding a failure to execute such contracts, permit the delivery of water to any owner of such excess lands who bonds himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns by a valid recordable contract entered into with the United States

(a) to pay to the United States, during the repayment period fixed for the project, that pro rata share, as determined by the Secretary, of the entire construction cost of the project (exclusive only of those parts of said cost which are allocated to commercial power and to domestic, municipal, and industrial water supply) which is attributable to his excess lands without reduction on account of application in aid of irrigation of revenues from any other source and with interest on that share at the rate of three per centum per annum; the amount payable to the United States hereunder shall, however, be diminished by an amount equal to the construction component of any sum validly assessed or charged against his excess lands by the organization and paid by him to the organization and by the organization to the United States in that year; and

(b) to sell, in the event he disposes by sale of any excess lands in such category A, such lands at prices not exceeding their current appraised value, as determined by the Secretary, without regard to the construction of the project. Amounts received by the United States on account of the provisions of clause (a) of this section shall be credited to the reclamation fund but shall not be accounted for as repayments of construction costs of the project.

SEC. 5. The Secretary is authorized to perform such acts, to make such rules and regulations, and to include in any contracts made, in whole or in part pursuant to this Act, such provisions, as he deems proper for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 6. This Act shall be deemed a supplement to the Federal Reclamation Laws. All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be deemed to amend, repeal, or otherwise affect any provision of the Columbia Basin Project Act. The provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Act shall not apply to or affect contracts on existing projects, except that, upon request by the organization concerned, the Secretary may negotiate and execute amendments of such contracts consistent with the provisions of those sections.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Morse, we shall be glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to say before Senator Douglas leaves that my testimony is going to be a big dose of sedative compared with this stimulating injection of adrenalin that he has given us this morning.

It was inspiring testimony that he gave and I want to make this brief comment about it. The Senator from Illinois is not only a great economist but he is a great political philosopher, and no matter what any of us say in the course of this debate on the issue that these hearings of ways for further consideration in the Senate we are coming to grips with a very important principle of political philosophy.

I do not find any great difference among us in the objective and the ideal that we seek to reach. Our problem, as I witnessed in the debate in the past is the problem of implementing that objective and that ideal.

I am going to approach this problem from that standpoint this morning, but before Senator Douglas leaves the room I want him to know my very, my very deep appreciation for the leadership that he has given in the Senate to this idea of an objective to which he has addressed himself this morning in such a stimulating fashion. I shall study with great care the bills that he has offered here this morning and seek to give him the benefit of any suggestion I may have in regard to the language that might better implement the objective he has in mind, if it needs any such suggestion. But I want him to know as he leaves the room that I appreciate his great help to me.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman, before the Senator from Illinois leaves I do not want him to go without hearing an expression from one of the members of this committee that we all are pleased to have him here. He should not regard himself as being a bull in a china shop. He is anything but that. He always stimulates the intellect of those who enjoy his statements. I think, with Senator Morse, that many of us are in complete agreement with the general objective that the Senator has in mind. That is to maintain the opportunity in America for the family-size farm, to operate on the land which is left for distribution among those who would like to settle upon land. I feel, however, that a great disadvantageous effect upon individual agriculture is a concentration of industrial power through industrial corporations, and bad as it may be for the expansion of corporate farms, the real salvation of the small farmer, the marginal farmer, the real creation of an opportunity for those who want to live the individual life on a farm, is to be found in the correction of the ills that certainly do exist in our general industrial economy.

Senator DOUGLAS. I appreciate what the Senator has said, both the generous personal reference and also the reference for the need for decentralization of industry.

I merely say that in my judgment the struggle to maintain a diffusion of economic power is not merely in the industrial field but also in the agricultural field as well.

The Middle West has been called the valley of democracy, and in a sense it has been the valley of democracy to the degree that it has been based on 160-acre farms.

However, if you get a concentration of landholdings and a separation of population into a relatively small group of owners and a large group of tenants living at the pleasure and only at the pleasure of owners, then you get an uneconomic balance which prevents a real democracy from functioning.

The history of European countries illustrates this very well.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What we have got to point out is the economic units which will enable the family-size farm to operate in the land that is left in the public domain.

Senator DOUGLAS. I think I have taken enough of the committee's time so I ought not to intrude on them further. I want to thank you again for the extreme courtesy and friendliness with which you have heard me.

Senator BARRETT. I will join with my colleagues in saying that I appreciate the tenor in which the Senator has addressed himself today. I believe he intends to be fair, and reasonable in his approach and he must know that the areas of the mountain of the West are quite dissimilar to other areas in the country and so there is a need for some reasonable approach to the settlement of the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask what the program will be for recessing and for meeting again this afternoon?

Senator ANDERSON. I just want to say to Senator Douglas that we will be glad to have you back.

Senator DOUGLAS. I think I have been here too long already.
Senator ANDERSON. Oh, no.

I cannot answer the question about recessing. I know what my own situation is. I do want to say that we will try to be back here at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I will try to stay with it this afternoon regardless of my other committee assignments.

I think we might be able to meet tomorrow morning again, if we cannot get through with our witnesses this afternoon.

Sometime I would hope to put into the record a little something about where the so-called large corporate farms come from. I do not believe many of them come from Spanish land grants.

Senator BARRETT. Would it be agreeable to recess about 12:30 and come back at 2 o'clock?

Senator ANDERSON. We can reach that stipulation now. Senator Morse, you can get right into it.

Senator MORSE. It will not take me that long to finish my statement.

Senator ANDERSON. You do not know.

Senator MORSE. I think I do.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to read the statement I want to take just a half minute to make a comment about the chairman of this committee. The chairman of this subcommittee and I have worked closely together on a great many water resource bills in the Senate of the United States and I am not going to let myself, may I say to the chairman of this subcommittee, be maneuvered into a position of even seeming to be in conflict with the chairman of this committee over the objectives of the issue presented to this committee in this matter because I have always found in my work with the chairman of this committee that common denominator that would make it possible for us to join together on a program of a common idea of an objective. I expect that to be the result of these hearings as far as our relationship is concerned.

As I have said, all over the State of Oregon, I want to say for the record here today, the Senator from New Mexico is one of the men in the Senate of the United States to whom all of the people of Oregon are greatly indebted for the many contributions as a legisla