two kinds of contracts with irrigation districts. In one case where we have all of the land covered by individual contracts between the water user and the Government the irrigation district makes a new general contract agreeing to pay not a fixed, definite sum on a certain day but the total amount of construction charges falling due on that day under the thousand and one individual contracts then in force.

Now, in a case of that kind under this section the Secretary could change individual contracts. He could pick up delinquencies and add them together and spread them over the remainder of the contract, and he could change the terms of that individual contract, and by changing the terms of the individual contracts he would change, of course, the obligation coming from the district as a district to the Government.

But there is another kind of an irrigation district contract under which the district agrees to pay on certain dates certain specific sums without reference to individual contracts, because no individual contracts have been made. In such cases the Government would not have anything to do with the individual.

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, to make that clear, you could change this section in line 17, page 9, to make it read, "All charges due and unpaid to the United States." That would make it perfectly clear that it had nothing to do with charges due and unpaid to the water users' association.

Mr. RAKER. One other question: In line 19, page 9, is that permissive discretion given to the Secretary for the purpose of authorizing him to charge off the back amount due and unpaid of all kinds of charges or to enter into a new contract by which they shall be paid as construction charges? Is it within his discretion to do either one of those things?

Mr. SIMMONS. There is no discretion there to charge off. Mr. HAMELE. There is no charging off involved in section 15. Mr. RAKER. It does not say there is not; that is the reason of my question; it says the Secretary may do this. Now, he may add these due and unpaid charges. What else may he do?

The CHAIRMAN. Or he may compel them to pay.

Mr. RAKER. That is what I am asking.

Mr. HAMELE. It means exactly the same kind of relief that has been passed by Congress for three years last past. It authorizes the Secretary to pick up delinquencies and spread them over the remainder of the contract.

Mr. RAKER. What I am asking is, taking this provision does it authorize him in his discretion only to take up all back due and unpaid charges and add them together and put them in as construction charges to be paid in the future in so many years; or (as in another part of the bill) does it authorize him to charge them off? Now, which does this section do? Is that to be read in connection with the rest of the bill which precedes it so as to authorize him to charge it off, or to include it in the construction charge, just as in his judgment he may see fit?

Mr. HAMELE. No; there is nothing in the nature of a charge off in section 15. Section 15 contemplates the retaining of the total obligation; not only the total obligation both on account of con

struction and on account of operation and maintenace, but includes also the total of the penalty and interest up to date.

Mr. RAKER. Do you believe that the way it now reads it would not give him that discretion if he wanted to charge it off entirely? Mr. HAMELE. Oh, not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hamele, do you not think that language could be broadened if you added after the word "Secretary," in line 20, page 9, "on application of the water user"; so that it would read, "including interest and penalties, may, in the discretion of the Secretary, on the application of the water user in each case be added to the total obligation of the water user"?

Mr. HAMELE. That may be all right, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that it would be superfluous.

Mr. HAYDEN. Let us read section 16; I wanted to know about that. It provides:

SEC. 16. That every entryman on a project farm unit not yet patented, which unit has been classified by the Secretary as being insufficient to support a family and pay water charges, shall have the right upon request to exchange his entry for another farm unit of unentered public land on the same or another project, in which event all installments of construction charges theretofore paid on account of the relinquished farm unit shall be credited on account of the new farm unit taken in exchange: Provided, That where two entrymen apply for the same farm unit under the exchange provision of this section, only one of whom is an ex-service man, as defined by the joint resolution of January 21, 1922 (Forty-second Statutes, page 358), the ex-service man shall have a preference in making such exchange.

It is perfectly clear to me that can be done within the project and not disturb the financial arrangements at all, because he could take up another piece of Government land under exactly the same conditions and go on. But suppose a man was on the Frannie project in Wyoming and wanted to transfer to the Newlands project in Nevada, how does the Government come out in that transfer? Is there any loss?

Mr. CAMPBELL. There would be a loss to the Frannie and a gain to the Newlands.

Mr. HAYDEN. How are you going to handle your bookkeeping? He has made some payments on the Frannie project.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Naturally there would be a loss, because those payments would be then credited to him on his Newlands project, on his homestead entry there.

Mr. HAYDEN. Would there be any loss to the Government?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly there would be a loss to the Government on the Frannie project unless some other homesteader came in and took that land up.

Mr. HAYDEN. But if the Government had already received his money on the Frannie and the credit is transferred from the Frannie to the Newlands, would the Government lose anything in that case? Mr. CAMPBELL. No; the fund would not lose.

Mr. HAYDEN. I am talking about protecting the reclamation fund. Does this protect the fund or not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It protects the fund. It simply transfers the man from one project to another.

Mr. MEAD. It would change the financial showing of the two projOne would be injured and the other would be improved, but,

ects.

as far as the Government was concerned, its position would be the same as before.

Mr. WINTERS. Governor, you do not mean there would be a loss to the Government?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No.

Mr. RAKER. How would the Carson project be improved by this change?

Mr. MEAD. You would have to make a transfer from the Frannie project. It would have to pay over to the Newlands project the amount of the payments already made.

Mr. HAYDEN. That transfer would be made on the books of the Treasury?

Mr. MEAD. That transfer would be made on the books; yes.
Mr. RAKER. What would you transfer?

Mr. MEAD. The credit of his payments. Supposing that a man had gone on the Frannie unit and he had paid construction costs for two years. He stands on the books as having paid one-tenth, we will say, of his construction cost. Now, he finds that he is not doing well there and wants to go to another project. He goes on the other project and if the payments were the same-we will say he has paid $500-now, what you do is when he went over and took up a unit you would credit him with construction cost payments of $500, and under the other project you would have to make a transfer on the books and a deduction from the payments made on the one project and an addition to the payments made on the project to which he moved.

Mr. RAKER. You could not transfer on the books, you would have to transfer the gold coin from the Frannie to the Truckee to get the benefit of it.

Mr. MEAD. The payments go into the Treasury.

Mr. RAKER. But Truckee is entitled to the $500 cash, so it can use the money.

The CHAIRMAN. The reclamation service is given as a profit what the man has paid in on the Frannie project, and that amount is transferred on the books to the credit of this new settler and to the credit of the Carson project.

Mr. RAKER. I do not see where the gain is.

The CHAIRMAN. This only applies where the land occupied by the settler is found to be worthless.

Mr. MEAD. That is correct; you could not allow a man to do it just because he desired to shift.

Mr. SIMMONS. On the abandoned piece of land, the land which he leaves, you give the project to which he goes credit for the payments he has made on the land that he left. That would then automatically create a delinquent charge against the land he has left, would it not?

Mr. MEAD. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. While the Government would not lose any money which it actually has it would take up a delinquent account against the unit of land where he left.

Mr. MEAD. Yes.

Mr. LEAVITT. You could not avoid that, because the land has been proven to be worthless?

Mr. MEAD. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And the Frannie project would be behind.

Mr. MEAD. It would be behind those two payments. You see he can not make the change if it is still productive.

Mr. RAKER. Doctor, take the $500; it is not credit, it is cash. The Newlands project would be entitled to $500 cash.

Mr. MEAD. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. To use in its project.

Mr. WINTER. No.

Mr. HAYDEN. The repayment to the reclamation fund from the project is money returned on that fund not to use on that project but to use anywhere and everywhere. It has been so used. It is in the fund available.

Mr. HAMELE. I would like to suggest that possibly there should be a slight amendment to this section so that the entryman would get the credit for the time of residence spent on the old farm unit.

Mr. RICHARDS. Where do you do that?

Mr. HAMELE. I think in line 6 after the word "unit" it would be well to insert the words " and time of residence thereon."

Mr. RAKER. What induces the suggested amendment? What particular kind of cases?

Mr. HAMELE. Nothing except equitably the man ought to have the credit of his residence applied to the new unit.

Mr. RAKER. I know, but I am asking the doctor what suggested this amendment, this round Robin Hood's barn circus riding from district to district?

Mr. MEAD. Why, it is the effort to prevent an injustice to a water user who has been unfortunate enough to get on a piece of land proved to be worthless, that after he has made payments on that worthless land, if there is not some legislation of this kind he simply has to walk off, and if he took another farm under the Government. he would have to begin to make payments on construction costs twice on a project. It is so he will have to make only one payment,

Mr. RAKER. I will finish this with one question. Are there any homesteaders or water applicants under the Carson-Truckee project, that are delinquent or in a condition that they claim the land is not of first-class character and want a deduction on that account? Mr. WINTER. Do you mean transfer or deduction?

Mr. RAKER. Generally speaking they want an extension of their payments because the land is not productive or they have not paid. Are there any on the Truckee-Frannie of that kind?

Mr. MEAD. Yes; there happen to be under both the projects *e have been considering.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I will not ask any questions on this but I will ask the committee before we get through with that that I may return and I would like to take up the Carson project, and find out the situation relative to the condition that the doctor has just referred to.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose me read wention. 194
Mr. Spocor Mr. Hamele on page

gested following the word "estiman

words

or assignee. There may be a long time between

proof and the patent, and the entry is s

Mr. Haxe. Ye

Mr. SIMMONS. Would there be any objection to that?

Mr. HAMELE. I see no objection.

Mr. RAKER. Then that surely does make a circus riding. Assignee would mean any time under any circumstances.

Mr. SIMMONS. After the patent issues.

Mr. RAKER. No.

Mr. SIMMONS. Read it "That every entryman on a project farm unit not yet patented."

Mr. RAKER. "Or his assignee."

Mr. SIMMONS. "Every entryman or his assignee."

Mr. RAKER. You did not say where the assignee comes in.
Mr. SIMMONS. Put it right following the "entryman."

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let me ask one question. Suppose this section should be enacted into law, would the entryman in making the transfer there have to go in under the general homestead act as to why he abandoned the first entry?

Mr. HAMELE. No; the Secretary would make a finding that the old farm unit was insufficient to support a family and pay water charges. That in itself would put the entryman in a status to make the exchange.

Mr. WINTER. Doctor Mead, refer to section 16 that we are just about to read. Now I will ask you whether this provision or one similar to it is not absolutely necessary to take care of many cases, for instance, those on the Frannie project in Wyoming, to prevent downright absolute suffering and failure?

Mr. MEAD. I think it is necessary if we are going to act justly toward a great many entryman under those projects.

The CHAIRMAN. I might say at the last session of Congress the Secretary of the Interior submitted a bill along this line with special relief for settlers on this project, most of whom are soldiers, I understand.

Mr. WINTER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 17.

That the Secretary is hereby authorized to employ trained farm and economic advisers who will give farming and business advice to enable water users on the projects to increase their farm incomes and organize for cooperation in business and social affairs.

Mr. HAYDEN. What is the necessity of that legislation, in view of the fact that Congress has appropriated considerable sums of money to farm and home aid and bureaus of the Department of Agriculture? We have county farm advisers and other individuals that go about doing practically this same thing. Would it not be a duplication in the Interior Department of the work that the Agricultural Department is now doing?

Mr. MEAD. No; the county farm advisers can not give to these projects the time required to do that work properly. The need for this has long been recognized on these projects, regardless of the existence of the county agents, and a beginning was made for this sort of thing on the North Platte project several years ago. It was carried on long enough to show clearly its value and ought to have been continued, but it was stopped because of a decision that the act as it stood did not give legal authority for that kind of employment.

Mr. HAYDEN. How many of these trained farm and economic advisers would be necessary?