Page images

Mr. O'NEAL. Let me ask this for my own information The Indians ever lease or rent their lands to others for products merely live by the rental, or is it all an individual farming pro : with these Indians?

Mr. Bunston. No, some of these lands are leased by the Indias white people.

Mr. Rich. You have opened up a new subject there and the am vitally interested in, and that is the sugar-beet in iustr la you make a profit by raising your sugar beets in Montana

Mr. Bunston. We have. It is the best thing that we have to: will put it that way.

Mr. Rich. It has been the best crop that you have had
Mr. BUNSTON. It has been the best crop that we have hai

Mr. Rich. If you were given permission to increase your con beet quota, it would be the best thing to help the farmen in . wouldn't it?

Mr. Bunston. Oh, yes, indeed. Mr. Ricu. You are really giving us a lot of light about Moots that will vitally affect the welfare of this country, because we » been prohibiting the farmers from raising a product which wouli 18" been the best crop, according to your statement, for the State Montana. Isn't that so?

Mr. BU'NSTON. Yes; let me just say this: I want to show you s' record of the Shoshone project, which is a project that is just sbore sa in Wyoming. Here is the record of the production of a property gated valley. You will see what beets are produced there

Mr. Rich. This table shows the production of sugar heets Shoshone Valley from 1925 to 1936. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to insert that in the record here?

(The table referred to is as follows:)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

11% tweet Ayures include estimated bonus, former years include actual bemus

Mr. Rich. I don't want to take up a lot of time on this, but I as very much interested in it, if that is really the best crop 11 interested in the American farmer. I want to see the market this country handled for the benefit of the American farmer s the committee should give every consideration to that project

Mr. Bunston. I would just like to make one further statement, if I may have permission.

The sugar beet is not only our best cash crop and our surest onewe depend on the sugar beet to pay our taxes and to pay our expenses of operation and our whole farm cost. It is sure money every fall. We not only get an average of $76.28, such as they do in the Shoshone Valley, which is a very comparable valley to ours, during the last 11 years; but we have the byproducts. In an agriculture like ours, stockraising and farming, those byproducts are worth a great deal to us. The tops that we get per acre are worth more than a ton of hay per acre.

Mr. Rich. Would you rather devote your land to that purpose rather than to the raising of wheat or the raising of other commodities?


Mr. Rich. Then you had better go to the Department of Agriculture and tell them to raise your quota on sugar beets so that you can be raising a good crop, because the Department of the Interior is trying to advance commodities that are essentially to the welfare of the American farmer and the American laborer; but the Department of Agriculture is trying to hold the farmer down and give this to Cuba and some of these other countries.

Mr. BUNSTON. We have been before the sugar section, last summer, for that very purpose.

Mr. Rich. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if these people in Wyoming and Montana want to do something for their farmers, we ought to help them.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I would like to have the right to have Mr. Greever make a statement to the committee in support of this proposition.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. We will be glad to hear him. Mr. GREEVER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I just want to say this: This Lodge Grass Creek, which is the main tributary of Little Horn River, heads right at the north of the Wyoming line, just over into Montana. Part of the water comes out of the Big Horn Mountains in the State of Wyoming.

In order to get the proper picture of this, I think you almost need to see the geography of that country along the Big Horn Mountains. The Big Horn Mountains run generally in a north and south direction from up in Montana clear down to the central part of Wyoming. Out of those mountains come various creeks that have produced water for our agricultural products in connection with our cattle and sheep raising, which is the big industry.

In recent years the sugar-beet industry has become quite an industry in the western country. There is a sugar-beet factory at Sheridan, which is just about 40 miles below the Montana line in Wyoming. That sugar-beet factory has been a prosperous addition to the Sheridan community, which today is very productive. It is a very substantial and prosperous community.

But recently, on account of the lack of storage water and on account of the condition that has been described here by Mr. Gwinn and Mr. Bunston, they have been short of sugar beets, and there has been a fear of further shortage of sugar beets. And, of course, they cannot run a factory profitably unless they have a sufficient supply of sugar Now, the condition along the Little Horn is one with which I am very familiar. It is one of the richest valleys that there is in the United States today. It was the one, as Mr. Bunston said, that caused the Custer massacre, because the Crows and the other Indians were desirous of retaining that for themselves, and for the reason that it has always been wonderful land, and it is one of the most beautiful valleys and one of the most fertile valleys.


You have a situation there along that river where there are 30,000 acres all laid out to be irrigated. The ditches are there. The laterals are there. The headgates are there, and everything. But they simply have only water enough for 8,000 acres.

And I want to say, and I know that the gentleman from Pennsylyania will be interested in this—that in the West today, if it were not for irrigation—and I know the chairman of this committee will bear me out—if it had not been for irrigation in the West, we would have had the greatest relief problem in the West per county of any section of the entire United States.

The reason for that is this: We depend upon stockraising. We have had in 1934 and again in 1936 the most disastrous droughts that we ever had. I wouldn't believe it myself if I had not seen it with my own eyes. You will just have to take my word for this. I have seen land that used to be the most fertile pasture land just as bare as this table. And what the drought had not done the grasshoppers completed last year.

The grasshoppers even went so far as to girdle the fence posts in that country, if you can believe that. They ate the needles off the pine trees. That is how hungry they were and how many there were of them.

What happened here on these irrigated sections that had sufficient water? They were raising enough forage crops so that the farmers over there could take these drought cattle and bring them in and feed them on these irrigated acres. A man who had sufficient forage could bring those cattle in on those irrigated areas and take care of them. That saved thousands of their cattle, and it saved thousands of their sheep, that otherwise would have been a total economic loss.

Now, this is a valley the rejuvenation of which just means a tremendous lot, and for this reason: We spend a good deal of money to rehabilitate the farmers and to rehabilitate the ranchers, and take care of them, to take them away and put them somewhere else. It has been no doubt necessary to do that in these irrigated areas of the country. But right here you have a condition where the houses are already built. You have the barns. You have the fences. You have the corrals and everything that you need there.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. The canals and ditches are already built?
Mr. GREEVER. The canals and ditches are already built.
Mr. O'NEAL. Over the entire area?
Mr. GREEVER. Over the entire 30,000 acres.

It means that you are not bringing in any competitive crops except sugar beets. And I think, just as this gentleman here indicated, that we should have just as many sugar beets raised in this section as we possibly can.

I think that the perfectly sound and right way to rehabilitate ? man today, where you can do it, is to rehabilitate him right on his own place. And here you can rehabilitate 1,200 Indians and 600 white families right here on their own places.


I am not financially interested in Montana at all, but I am extremely interested in this problem. I know what that problem is. At this time there is no better way to rehabilitate 600 white families and 1,200 Indians than there is right there on the Lodge Grass and Little Horn Rivers. I may say this: That from the nature of that land there I know positively that when they get adequate water on there, every cent of this $500,000 which it will cost will be paid right back to the United States Treasury.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Greever. You have made a very able and very interesting presentation to the committee.

Mr. O'Connor. May we have the right to offer additional proof next week when we get the individuals here? I think they will be here about Tuesday.


FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1937.
Mr. Johnson. The committee will be in order.

Judge Tarver, who is a member of the appropriations committee, has a subcommittee meeting this morning, and asks for 5 minutes' time now. Mr. Fuller will have charge of the presentation of wit. nesses. May I ask members of the committee to permit members to make statements without interruptions in an effort to save time.

Mr. FULLER. I will say, Mr. Chairman that there will probably be representatives from 30 States here who will desire to be heard. I will try to expedite the hearing by introducing them in order. As far as we can carry out the program, we will call on only one or two representatives from a State. We will be glad to cooperate with the committee in every way possible to expedite the hearing.

Mr. JOHNSON. We will now hear Judge Tarver.


IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. TARVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues on the committee, and of those in charge of the presentation of this matter, in permitting me to be heard first at this time on account of the emergency reason that the chairman has mentioned.

The friends of vocational agricultural and industrial training and of the teaching of home economics in the public schools of the Nation have been very painfully disappointed by the action of the Budget in sending over for the approval of Congress this estimate in only the same amount that is available for the present fiscal year for carrying on this character of work throughout the country.

It is unnecessary for me to go into the details concerning the matter, because Congress only last year reviewed the entire subject, particularly with a view of increasing the amount of funds available for this purpose so as adequately to supply the needs of the country.

It appeared from statements submitted by educational authorities, particularly the Commissioner of Education under the Department of the Interior, that the funds available were considered by him to be only 35 percent of the amount really necessary adequately to carry

139751—37—pt. 2— 4

on the work throughout the country. The Secretary of the Interior, as shown by the report to the House Committee on Education on the George-Deen bill, approved the increase to the amount which was authorized by Congress in the legislation enacted last year. Congress had in mind the necessity of an increase of the amount of this fund, and acted specifically upon the question whether it should be increased or not; and it seems to me that the action of the Bureau of the Budget in approving an estimate only for the amount available for the present fiscal year is in direct contravention of the expressed will of Congress, and ought not to be regarded by this committee.

There are in my files—but I will not take up the time of the committee to read them—communications from the State superintendent of schools of my State, and other high educational authorities in my State, indicating that in anticipation of an increase in these funds which have been specifically authorized by Congress for appropriation, many school districts throughout the State have gone to great expense in the way of additional construction to existing school buildings and in the purchase of additional equipment necessary in order that they may be put in a position to take advantage of the increase in these funds which Congress had authorized. Now these people are to be disappoited and the work is to be cut down under new administrative provisions substantially below, as I understand it, even that carried on by funds for the present fiscal year.

I appear here, not because of a desire or purpose to go into a full discussion of the merits of the matter but to insist that the committee is not only justified, but that it is substantially required, if it desires to carry out the intent and purpose of Congress, to increase the amount of this appropriation to the full authorization made by Congress only last year.

That is all I desire to say, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JOHNSON. We thank you for your statement, Judge Tarver.

Mr. Rich. I would like to ask one or two questions. The statement is made that the people throughout the country have built a great many buildings and purchased additional equipment for the purpose of taking advantage of this vocational education program. Where did they get the funds with which to build and equip those buildings?

Mr. TarvER. I am not advised as to the details in any particular case, or as to every school district which may have provided additional construction with a view of securing the advantage of additional appropriations which were anticipated. The gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, of course, that I would have no opportunity to investigate those matters in detail.

Mr. Rich. Were not most of those buildings constructed and the equipment purchased from grants made by the P. W. A.?

Mr. TARVER. I have already explained to the gentleman that I am not in a position to answer that question, and I do not conceive that that issue is material here.

Mr. Rich. What I want to bring out is the fact that in the first instance they received P. W. A. funds for those purposes, and now, because of having those funds, they want to ask the Federal Government to furnish additional money with which to operate the schools. It looks a great deal like a full grant from the Federal Government. Personally, I am in favor of vocational education, but I do not think that we should give more than we did, so far as this committee is concerned.

« PreviousContinue »