the farmer will become a slave and not the owner of the place that they have struggled for years to build up for their homes.

Senator SACKETT. Suppose that is taking place, what is going to become of the corporation that tries to run the farm? Is it going to make a success?

Mr. YOAKUM. All kinds of success, for the reason that when you get into a corporation you will find organization. You will not find corporations selling among themselves, unorganized. The only trouble with the farmers is that they are not together, and there is no law of this country to-day that will permit them to go together. Let me tell you another thing on that: Eighty per cent of the agricultural products to-day are interstate shipments, and when the products of the farm go to a railroad station a bill of lading is issued. That becomes an interstate shipment. There is no local organization or no State law that can regulate business between the States. It is only the Federal Government which can give that authority.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Yoakum, do you not know it to be a fact that nearly every corporation that has attempted to handle either ranch or farm property in the country has lost more money than they could afford to lose, and almost without a single exception they have failed to make any profits on farming or ranching?

Mr. YOAKUM. That is very easily answered, Senator. I am very glad you brought it up, because it is a question that I have tried to think out in every way.

I could show you hundreds of cases, and it is the situation throughout the country to-day. It is not the dealer. The dealer is only the organization. From the dealer, who is perfectly willing-I have the documents to show willingness to handle the business on 5 per cent, if they can get a sufficient business. That is a good commission, but, on a 10 per cent basis-there are always from four to seven who must have either 10 or 15 per cent. The next man, to make his living, must have 5 or 10 per cent. The next man must take it.

I do not care how many men you take there, they all get their portion and there is all the way from 60 to 75 per cent taken out of that farmers' product. Of course, they can not make money. The fundamentals of this business are not yet understood. They can not be understood except to follow the business as you would your own business.

Senator KENDRICK. But the question I asked, Mr. Yoakum, was, in effect, Is it not true that the only return in the way of a net profit on any kind of farming operation, during your long period of occupation, has been to the individual operator of the farm, the man who actually, together with his own family, has done his own work and saved and economized in every particular, and on the other hand, the man who has attempted to do the work through corporation principles, or principles, we will say, of a company, has invariably failed to make good?

Mr. YOAKUM. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. So that there it is a case of lost motion on the farm at least. The farther you get away from the supervision of the actual owner, the farther you are removed from any net profits?

Mr. YOAKUM. The removal of this great expense between the farmer and the consumer is the gist of the whole question.

In New York we have 80,000 institutions of grocery stores, selling food products. That means if each one of them have one clerk, 80,000 clerks. Some of them have three or four clerks, naturally. It means 80,000 different rents. It means 80,000 different telephones. It means 80,000 different delivery wagons. That must all come from somewhere. It must come therefore between the farmer and the

consumer.

Senator KENDRICK. That has to do with distribution, Mr. Yoakum. Mr. YOAKUM. Well, it is marketing and distribution. You can not separate them.

Senator KENDRICK. But I am speaking now of the net returns to the actual producer on the farm. Is it not your observation that the only man who has been able to make any money-and I have never thought that he made a return that was parallel to what might be had in other lines, I do not believe that is so-I think the farmer has never received his share of the profits, but, is it not true that the man who does his own work on the farm, conducts his own farm, is the only man who has ever made any money out of it, and on the other hand, the company who handles it, or the individual who attempts to handle it on a large scale, as you have suggested, invariably loses money?

Mr. YOAKUM. They would not, under a national system of selling. Senator FERRIS. But the question is, Does he?

Mr. YOAKUM. To-day, I have never charged that the dealers were making exhorbitant profits. The dealer's profit, or the profit between the farmer and the consumer passes through too many hands. There is too much of a division there. That is the whole question, but the actual farmer, the individual farmer to-day, on the farm, is a class of farmer that has suffered more than any other class, either corporation or otherwise. There is no question about that.

Senator GOODING. Mr. Yoakum, here is a statement that you made, and I think perhaps that has led to some confusion. I have no idea you intended to make it. It was asked here, When a farmer turned over his farm to a corporation, what became of it, and you said, the corporation took the farm, and then you were asked if he made a success, and you said "Yes." You did not mean to imply that he makes a success of it to-day, under these conditions, did you? Mr. YOAKUM. No. I think I was misunderstood in that.

Senator GOODING. Yes. The thought is that the whole system must be changed, before either a corporation or the individual farmer can succeed on the farm?

Senator KENDRICK. Right along that line, let me ask you another question. Is it not fair to the creditors, the men who have made these loans on the land, to say that they are, too, disappointed with the farmer, that he must turn over to them their lands instead of returning to them their money?

Mr. YOAKUM. Not in all cases, by a good deal. There is a good deal more, in many cases, of taking improved farms at the original loan, three or four or five years ago, not to exceed 25 or 30 per cent of the value of that farm, and the increased value to-day is more than in any other line of business. The lands of this country are becoming more valuabie. These loans date back. The farmer who made

those ioans and the creditors who carried those loans are in the same position, except one has depreciated that is, the farmer, in his income has depreciated, and this land value upon which the creditor holds the mortgage has increased

Senator GOODING. Have you any actual figures as to the percentage of foreclosures and peaceable surrenders of farms in New York or any other State, in the last year or in the last past number of years?

Mr. YOAKUM. There is no record of them that can be had. It would take a lot of money to get them. I have tried. I have letters and telegrams from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota, on that very question. I have investigations I have made myself. It is impossible. In one case, out of 122 failures there were 75 surrenders, and the balance were foreclosures. I say broadly that is runs about 50-50, but there is no way of proving this. My assertion is only from study. You can not prove it because it does not exist.

Senator GOODING. It is vastly more in my community. The surrenders are vastly more than the real foreclosures. I know that from my own personal experience.

Mr. YOAKUM. That carries out my observation. I have made a close study of it.

Senator FERRIS. There is one thing I can not understand in your statement. You say that the land has become more valuable. More valuable to whom?

Mr. YOAKUM. More valuable-instrinsic value; actual value. Farm lands had reached a point a few years ago where they were worth $10 or $15 an acre, and those same lands to-day are selling for $25 or $30 in a great many communities.

I have a letter from Mr. Weller, of South Dakota, who farms 10,000 acres, and he writes me that he begins now to see that there is a good chance in his own State, because the farmers have been dispossessed of their farms and now farm lands are advancing from $5 to $10 an acre. I am not using the great activities in Florida to illustrate this, because every one knows that was carried a little bit fast, but it is true, from my own observation in Alabama, in Georgia, and in Louisiana. You can not touch land to-day in Louisiana or Alabama or those Southern States-take South Carolina. It is all the way from 15 to 50 per cent higher. Take my own adopted State. I know it. In Texas I have almost daily letters from friends asking me why it would not be a good idea now to get hold of lands down there that are advancing so rapidly. A large part of those lands have been sold out or surrendered by the farmers. The farmer is getting it both ways. But whose fault is it? It is the changed condition, gentlemen.

Senator SACKETT. Mr. Yoakum, if nobody can make any money on the farm under present conditions, why should lands advance? Mr. YOAKUM. That is an economic question. I do not think any man on earth can answer that. I do not think any man can say, for instance, why Florida land should go from $10 an acre to $1,000 an

acre.

Senator SACKETT. That is a matter of climate down there.

Mr. YOAKUM. Why is it being done? I can illustrate with lands right in my own neighborhood that were offered to me personally

three years ago, and they have not changed one iota that I can see, and still there is 100 per cent advance. You can not get it for less. Senator SACKETT. Does the man that pays that 100 per cent advance buy the land for farms?

Mr. YOAKUм. He is a speculator. In some cases he is a farmer. Farmers will always buy land. But, here is another thing that is taking place in this country, and you gentlemen know it. The younger people of this country are not remaining on the farm. The older people are the only ones remaining on the farm; people that are unable to come in and take their chances in industrial work.

I have seen the statement, and I have used it, because I believe it is true, that in the oldest agricultural State, and one of the best, the State of Illinois, 65 per cent of the farm labor to-day-I mean the home farm labor, is over 60 years old. If the United States Steel Corporation or any other great corporation should depend upon its old people and allow something more alluring to come along and offer them a better opportunity to make more money, where would we land industrially? We are going there agriculturally just as fast as we can.

Senator GOODING. I am sure you are correct on that. I know from my own experience on my own farm that there are old men and cripples, men who largely could not hold jobs in other places.

Mr. YOAKUM. I have 10 of those men on my place. There is not one of their children there. Some of them are over 70 years old. They have been with me for over 20 years. That is taking place, gentlemen. I tell you this question is the greatest danger and menace to the United States that we have to-day.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Yoakum, in the first place this is exceedingly interesting, but the committee is anxious to get a remedy. I think we all concede it needs one. I have read your article recently published in the Manufacturers' Record along this line, but you do not suggest a remedy, as I recall, for this situation. Mr. YOAKUM. No, but I have one.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to hear that. Let me suggest now that in your remarks, and also in your article which I have referred to, you call attention to the fact that the farms are being owned by the wealthy people in town. Now, you live in town. Are you not one of the class yourself?

Mr. YOAKUM. I belong there.

The CHAIRMAN. I speak in no disrespectful sense.

Mr. YOAKUM. I understand that, but I have been on the farm all of my life. I am not a foreclosure man.

my life.

I never foreclosed one in

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. I am not criticizing you.
Mr. YOAKUM. I know you are not.

The CHAIRMAN. But all of us who own farms are really in that class. It would be better if we did not own them and the farmer did, would it not?

Mr. YOAKUM. Yes, if he could make a living; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have you suggest a remedy.

Mr. YOAKUM. I will. I want to call your attention to the fact that I was coming pretty close to the remedy when I answered the questions of the members of the committee, and I am very glad of that opportunity.

Organization is all there is to this proposition, but that must be national. It can not be local. As you gentlemen probably all know, to some extent at least, I have worked on this so long and I have stated that there should be a general organization board. That board will show what is intended of them. It is to be composed of 12 meinbers to be chosen as follows: By the Farmers' National Union, four; by the National Grange and patrons of industry, four; by the American Farm Bureau Federation, four.

ests.

That gives you 12 on the organization board, whose duties shall be general legislation or other matters pertaining to agricultural interTheir headquarters would be in Washington. One to be chosen by the President of the United States, to act in a fiduciary capacity, whose term shall expire when the money advanced by the Government has been returned. He checks the vouchers. He looks to see that all the money goes into the proper channels. Then, you want an operating board, organization. Each State would elect a board of directors of seven. Those farmers, to be chosen by the present farm organizations in each State, the board to elect its own chairman. Now, you have gone from your genera' board, which is necessary under Federal authority, to the foundation of your organization. Then you go to your States, and the farmers elect their seven members. Then you go to the interstate zone, a directory organization. The interstate zone board of directors to be composed of the chairman of each of these seven zone directors, elected by the farmers, the board to elect its own chairman, and also elect from its members a manager for each respective zone.

The general executive committee, to be composed of the chairmen of each of these zone boards, That makes seven members of the executive boards, with headquarters in the West, at a point best adapted, and to devote their entire time to the business of this organization, this committee to elect its own chairman. The compensation is to be fixed by the seven interstate zone directors. It would have a full staff, including sales agents, operating, accounting, traffic and transportation departments. It would be just as well equipped as the Standard Oil Co. or as any other business nearest approaching this business. This plan for marketing would be promulgated through an enabling law under which the farmers would work out their own problems of distribution and marketing.

This bill, the Curtis-Aswell bill, does not come under, nor should this bill be classed with other so-called farm relief bills. This plan is a national farm marketing plan, under which the farmers, though a national organization, can stabilize and control the prices of the products.

Under this plan the method of distribution and stabilizing of prices on the potatoes, for instance-I use that because it is universally used and it is the fourth crop in the United States-would be the same in the State of Maine and the State of California and every State in the Union. How would that be brought about? It would be brought about through 49 zone directors, operating through their respective executive committees. They would be located somewhere in the West. I have made this plan so that this farm organization and farm management is removed from Washington in that sense. That general board would decide such matters as you are discussing here to-day, probably, but the business of this board or this organ