Richard T. ElyJanuary, 1921.University of Wisconsin.
This report summarizes the results of a preliminary survey of rural developments in the United States from the viewpoint of the Americanization of immigrant settlers conducted by the writer for the Study of Methods of Americanization.
The field study covered a period of about four months, from June to September, 1918, inclusive, during which time the writer with his wife, Frances Valiant Speek, as his assistant, visited fifty-four cities and rural immigrant colonies in New England, the North Middle Western, the Western, and the Southwestern states. The cities and colonies visited and the nationalities involved are given in the order followed in the field study:
1.New York, N. Y.2.Vineland, N. J.Italians3."Jews4."Russian co-operative farm5.Alliance, N. J.Jews6.Norma, N. J.Jews7.Woodbine, N. J.Jews8.Willington, Conn.Bohemians9."Slovaks10.Portsmouth, R. I.Portuguese11.Fall River, Mass.Portuguese12.South Deerfield, Mass.Poles13."Lithuanians14.Oneida, N. Y.Italians15.Canastota, N. Y.Italians16.Detroit, Mich.17.Lansing, Mich.18.Holland, Mich.Dutch19.Au Gres, Mich.Germans from Russia20."Germans from Germany21.Posen, Mich.Poles22.Rudyard, Mich.Finns23."Canadian French24.Madison, Wis.25.Radisson, Wis.Poles26.Exeland, Wis.Mixed27.Conrath, Wis.Poles28.Weyerhauser, Wis.Poles29.Holcombe, Wis.Mixed30.Wausau, Wis.Mixed, Germans and native-born predominating31.Three Lakes, Wis.Poles32.Jennings, Wis.Poles33.New Rhinelander, Wis.Italians34.Roxbury, Wis.Germans35.Walworth County, Wis.Germans36.St. Paul, Minn.37.St. Cloud, Minn.Slovenians38."Germans39.Fargo, N. D.Scandinavians, Swedes, Norwegians40.Bismarck, N. D.41.Dickinson, N. D.Russians42."Germans43.San Francisco, Cal.Russian Sectarians44."Japanese45.Sacramento, Cal.46.Fresno, Cal.47.Los Angeles, Cal.Russian Sectarians48.Glendale, Ariz.Russian Sectarians49.Phœnix, Ariz.50.Globe, Ariz.51.Austin, Tex.52.Lincoln, Neb.Germans53.Milford, Neb.Germans (Mennonites)54.Chicago, Ill.
In addition to observation of the conditions in the colonies, numbers of the immigrant settlers, their leaders, native neighbors, and local public officials were interviewed on the subject of the survey. This was later supplemented by research, conducted mainly by the writer's assistant in the Library of Congress. No attempt was made to collect facts and material in a quantitative sense, attention being concentrated on what seemed to be outstanding facts, conditions, and cases.
In the writing of this summary the writer, as an immigrant himself, has also used his own experiences and earlier observations beginning in 1909, and his observations during his field investigation of the conditions of floating laborers in this country for the United States Commission on Industrial Relations during 1913–15.
The fundamental conclusion at which the writer has arrived in this summary is as follows:
The establishment of a home may involve direct material assistance, but requires protection, direction, and instruction given to the home-seeking and home-building immigrants.These aspects of the problem are discussed in Part I.
In the question of education the instruction of adult immigrants as well as immigrant children is important. Among all educational agencies the public school is the foremost. The parochial school and Catholic and Lutheran churches are, in many of the districts studied. Part II discusses the relative efficacy of public and private educational agencies in tying the immigrant into American life and loyalties.
P. A. S.
One of the strongest ties uniting human beings is found among the members of a family, the unit which is the foundation of the structure of organized society. Each family requires a home for its normal life and development. A normal home, especially in rural districts, means a piece of land and a suitable house for the family; it implies also an opportunity to earn the family living either on the same land—if it is large enough, as in the case of truck gardens or farms—or in a near-by industrial establishment; it implies acquaintances and friends in the same neighborhood, and certain minimum necessities of modern civilized life, such as roads, post office, newspaper, church, school, physician.
When an immigrant has succeeded in establishing such a home in America he invariablyanswers, when questioned as to whether he considers America or the land of his birth to be his country, that America is his country. And he goes on to explain, saying that America is a free country, with better chances for everybody; that he has made his home here; that his children have been born here; that they have better schooling and much brighter hope for the future. For all these reasons, he explains, he does not want to return to his native country except perhaps on a visit, and he repeats again and again that America, not his old country, is now his homeland.
There is no other tie that binds a man so closely to a country as his home. No wonder, for home is everybody's center of the world, lookout tower, refuge, and resting place. With it are associated the most intimate and tender feelings a human being ever experiences, and naturally the same fine feelings extend to the place in which one's home is located. So we speak of fatherland, motherland, homeland, expressing in these words the close intimacy between family, home, country, and ourselves.
Polish FamilyLAND IS NOT THE ONLY STAKE IN AMERICA FOR THESE POLISH PARENTS
LAND IS NOT THE ONLY STAKE IN AMERICA FOR THESE POLISH PARENTS
In direct distinction, the word "homeless" has implications of aimless drifting, of destitution and misery, and of the indifference of a "homeless" man to "his" country. Certain advocates of cosmopolitanism in their agitation against patriotism often take advantage of the importanceof home in the relation of a man to his country when they appeal to the "proletarians": "Do you own anything? Do you have even a home in this country? If not, why then should you love it?"
Although a home means a little world by itself—much more than a piece of land with a shelter on it—the establishment of a home, nevertheless, involves, first of all, the acquisition of a piece of land, even though it be the smallest suburban building lot with a twenty-five-foot frontage. If the piece of land is large enough so that its owner, if he is inclined to land cultivation, can make a living by working on it as either gardener or farmer, so much the better.
It so happens that a large number of immigrants who come to our shores with the intention of remaining here desire to establish a home, to acquire land, and to become land cultivators in America. Most of them have had farming experience in Europe. But what actually has happened and is happening year after year is that these immigrants, saturated with farm life and experience, drift to the cities, to work in mines and factories and at pick-and-shovel jobs.
This fact was confirmed so clearly by the investigation of the United States ImmigrationCommission that its report has been the basis of the following statement:
From one third to three fifths of these newcomers, the proportion varying according to race, had been engaged in agricultural pursuits before coming to the United States, but not one in ten has settled on farms in this country.[3]
From one third to three fifths of these newcomers, the proportion varying according to race, had been engaged in agricultural pursuits before coming to the United States, but not one in ten has settled on farms in this country.[3]
In the year 1900, as is shown in Table I, there were 276,745 foreign-born white persons of both sexes employed as farm laborers in this country. In 1910 the number of immigrant agricultural laborers was 336,753, an increase of 60,008, or about 22 per cent.
TABLE INumber (by Sex) of Foreign-born White Persons Engaged as Farm Laborers in the United States, 1900 and 1910[4]Sex19101900Males308,360253,895Females28,39322,850Total336,753276,745
According to the reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1,602,748 immigrant agricultural laborers, male and female, arrived in the United States between 1901 and 1910, both years inclusive. If all of these incoming agricultural laborers had found employment on farms in this country, the increase of immigrant agricultural laborers in 1910 over the number of 1900 would have been 579 per cent instead of 22 per cent.
The United States Immigration Commission made a detailed study of 17,141 households, the heads of which were miners or wage earners in manufacturing establishments. Of the persons of these households for whom complete data were secured, 62 per cent of the males and 24 per cent of the females were employed as farm laborers or as farmers before coming to the United States. The Immigration Commission also secured detailed information from 181,330 male and 12,968 female employees in mines and manufacturing establishments. Of these, 54 per cent of the males and 44 per cent of the females were employed in the old country in farming or as farm laborers.[5]
The transformation of European peasants into mill hands and miners in America is to be ascribed partially to the fact that land was notavailable to them when they arrived in this country. Either they did not know where the land which awaited a cultivator was located, or they had not enough money to buy such land, or they lacked credit needed to undertake operations in clearing and preparing new land, or they were ignorant of American farming conditions. Some seemingly insurmountable reason prevented them from following their desires and calling.
This occupational change has resulted in loss to this country. The experience in agriculture of these large numbers of men, coupled with their ability for the hard manual labor required in truck gardening, in intensive farming, and especially in the opening up of new land, has been wastefully cast aside. The significance of such loss is clear in view of the fundamental importance of agriculture in the nation's life. About two thirds of the area of our country is uncultivated as yet, and the one third that is cultivated is worked extensively rather than intensively. Furthermore, native Americans and even old-time immigrants avoid hard pioneering work in the wilderness since they can find opportunities of lighter work and better returns elsewhere, on already established and "paying" farms.
Aside from economic loss there has also been a loss in social values. The desire of a large number of immigrants to establish permanent rural homesand to become citizens here has gone to the winds. Instead of scattering over the country and mingling with the native population, they have been driven to the congested cities and have formed there Little Polands, Little Italies, ghettos, etc., remaining almost untouched by American influences. Both the economic and the social loss might have been averted to a considerable degree if the nation had had an effective land policy and if it had come to the aid of the immigrants in distributing and settling them on the land.
The certainty in the mind of an immigrant that there is a stake in the land for him, and his confidence that in the acquirement of his stake he gets a square deal from all concerned, are more important from the viewpoint of Americanization than the actual acquirement of any settlement on land; for not all immigrants desire to own a piece of land and work on it, and not all who desire to can actually do so. Other considerations—for instance, family conditions, industrial opportunities, city attractions, etc.—prevent a number of such immigrants from becoming farmers. Many come to America only to make money so as to return and buy land at home. For land ownership is to them the goal in life. What a change in this transient attitude might be made by a policy of having land available and usable for such birds of passage.
Certainty and confidence as purely psychological factors in the process of Americanization can be cultivated in the immigrants by affording effective public guidance and protection to those who actually attempt to settle on land.
As the land settlement conditions now are, a large number of the land-seeking immigrants are disappointed in the acquirement of land; they have no confidence in the land sellers and dealers, and they have even become suspicious of the country's laws and public institutions connected with land transfer by purchase. To illustrate: An old-time Italian immigrant, a skilled truck gardener, working for another Italian near a small Eastern town, explained to the writer:
I have saved a small sum of money for the purpose of buying a piece of land. But after years of search I have not succeeded in acquiring a piece of land suitable for gardening. All land seems to have been already "grabbed." The price asked is so high that one hardly is able to work it out of the soil. Last year a "Yankee" sold me some land, but he did not give it to me; he wanted only my money. I had to take a lawyer, but he did not get the land that I had bought for me. Only my money was returned, half of which the lawyer kept for himself as a fee for his services. There is no help from lawyers or courts. I lost my savings of years. The land-selling business in this country is a big humbug. Too bad!
I have saved a small sum of money for the purpose of buying a piece of land. But after years of search I have not succeeded in acquiring a piece of land suitable for gardening. All land seems to have been already "grabbed." The price asked is so high that one hardly is able to work it out of the soil. Last year a "Yankee" sold me some land, but he did not give it to me; he wanted only my money. I had to take a lawyer, but he did not get the land that I had bought for me. Only my money was returned, half of which the lawyer kept for himself as a fee for his services. There is no help from lawyers or courts. I lost my savings of years. The land-selling business in this country is a big humbug. Too bad!
It is an astonishing, almost unbelievable fact that, although nearly all industrial and tradepursuits have come under some sort of public regulation, licensing, or supervision—even such minor trades as shoeblacking, fruit peddling, and mere popcorn and peanut selling—land dealing, one of the most basic of all trades, has been practically overlooked by our lawmakers.
The regulation of a trade requires a definite policy toward the present and future of the trade in relation to the public safety and welfare, and especially is this true in regard to the regulation of land dealing. The United States needs acutely regulation of land dealing within its boundaries, and as a natural antecedent to regulation it should have and must have a definite land policy. To go one step farther, no efficient policy is possible unless it is founded on certain sound principles. What are the guiding principles for a practical land policy?
First of all, there is the economic principle. It is the increase of food production, on which the very life of the nation, its development and future strength, depend. The war demonstrated this in a most convincing way. The increase of productivity of the land must be continuous and permanent. The 1920 Census reports city population increases five times as rapidly as rural. Aside from conservation of the soil—that is, saving what we have—there must go on constant improvement of the soil by fertilizing and by the introduction of moreefficient methods of cultivation, intensive as well as extensive.
Then comes the social principle of an efficient land policy, with the end in view of affording more opportunities for the establishment of family homes. Among other results, this would closely bind the foreign-born elements of the population to the country and in this way materially assist the assimilation process. It would make for better public health and for greater happiness of the people.
The political goal is the stability of democracy and the strength of the country in domestic and international relations, in peace and in war. The agrarian disorders of Europe, its varied turmoils, revolutions, and war, accompanied by starvation and epidemics, are to a large degree due to the old prevailing out-of-date forms of land tenure inherited from mediæval times.
Toward these ends certain changes and reforms in the distribution and colonization of land should be undertaken. The existing conditions are such as require prompt attention, not only in the interests of the general public and for the sake of the general good of the country, but especially for the sake of the immigrant. Because of his greater ignorance and helplessness and his usually strong desire to settle on land, he suffers more often and more severely than the native-born American from the unscrupulousness anddishonesty andlaissez-fairemethods that flourish in the absence of a public land policy and public land regulation.
The partial or utter misfortune which the immigrant so often experiences molds his entire opinion of and attitude toward the United States. From the viewpoint of the Americanization of the immigrant, therefore, the questions of land policy, land colonization, and land dealing are of the utmost importance. Before a discussion of reforms is begun, a general description of present conditions, from this point of view of Americanization, is necessary.
The immigrant desiring to settle on land is constantly on the lookout for an opportunity to acquire land. The most general way of learning of such opportunity is through personal acquaintance or through correspondence with relatives and friends of the immigrant's own nationality who have previously settled on land. These sources of information are considered by the immigrant to be the most reliable, although they have certain drawbacks.
First, immigrants on the land are always desirous of increasing the number of people of their own race or nationality in their particular locality, for the sake of their own advantage; for the larger their community the better their social and business opportunities. Therefore they are often prone to exaggerate the advantages of land and farming in their section and to be silent as to the disadvantages, so as to induce more people of their race to join the community.
View of a farm.
Another view of a farmThird view of a farmTHE OWNER OF THIS FARM, SETTLED IN 1917, HAS PERSUADEDSIX MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY TO BUY FARMS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
THE OWNER OF THIS FARM, SETTLED IN 1917, HAS PERSUADEDSIX MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY TO BUY FARMS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Second, it is quite a common practice among immigrant settlers to receive from land companies certain commissions for bringing in further settlers, which induce them to exaggerate the good qualities of the land. The usual commission in the North Middle states is fifty cents per acre. The prospective buyers of land do not usually know about this.
There are also cases where a settler has secretly become a regular agent of the land company, receiving from the latter a salary in addition to a commission on each piece of land sold through him. In such cases the agent, known to the prospective buyer only as an ordinary settler, is in a position to get much higher prices for the land than a regular agent.
Still more danger for the immigrant lurks in the scheme whereby immigrant settlers already on the land, or their native-born neighbors, seeing that new people are coming in rapidly, take options on valuable land in certain desirable localities and resell it to the newcomers at a much higher price. Near Willington, Connecticut, there is a Bohemian colony, and in the days when this colony was growing rapidly a Bohemian settler looked up land available there and took a number of options on farms for which he already had would-be buyers. He took an option on one farm for its purchase at the price of $500; to the buyer he charged $1,500, andmade a clear profit of $1,000. According to a report of the Immigration Commission relating to the same colony, a man who paid $1,000 in cash for a farm found that the land "agent" who sold it to him had bought the option from the original owner for $400 a few weeks before the bargain was closed.
Quite a number of land companies are employing immigrant agents, especially of those nationalities and races with which they expect to do business on a large scale. Usually these agents are sent out to the immigrant centers in industrial towns. They bring the prospective immigrant settlers to see the land and they conduct the business in cases where the immigrants do not know English. The companies consider this the most effective way of reaching immigrants who desire to settle on land.
Another way in which immigrants learn of land opportunities is through the land companies' advertisements in the foreign-language newspapers. The immigrant newspapers, depending on a nation-wide constituency, are, as a rule, careful in accepting trade advertisements. Often the editor, before accepting the advertisement from the land company, makes a personal visit to the company's main office to find out whether the advertisement is honest or put out by schemers and crooks. According to the testimony of the land companies the editors of theforeign-language newspapers, in the vast majority of cases, are honest men who refuse to be bribed. Only in a very few cases have the editors agreed to accept commissions.
Finally comes the usual method of all land companies, that of sending out agents among the immigrants, sending them folders, etc. As a rule the advertisements and folders exaggerate the good points of the land and gloss over the bad points. Quite often the exaggerations know no bounds; the land is described as the most fertile on the surface of the earth—photographs show corn, for instance, growing like a forest; a record of the yield is given, showing it to bring hundreds and even thousands of dollars a year per acre. Such exaggerations may be illustrated by the literature sent out by the New South Farm and Home Company, advertising ten-acre farms in Florida. The representations were that the farms were not swampy, were near direct water connections with New York; that every month in the year was a growing month; that the farms were surrounded by orange and citrous-fruit farms; that there were fine roads, wells, homes, schools, hotels, etc.; that the titles were perfect; that neighboring farms were doubling, trebling, and quadrupling in price; that the settlements were rapidly growing; that there was every convenience and comfort, such as Pullman cars, long-distance telephone, etc., etc.
It is needless to say that many of these advantages were nonexistent. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to this case was that when a proposed seller goes beyond mere exaggeration of the qualities of an article and assigns to it qualities which it does not possess, "does not simply magnify in opinion the advantages which it has, but invents advantages and falsely asserts their existence, he transcends the limit of 'puffing' and engages in false representations and pretenses." By this decision it was established that to invent advantages and falsely assert their existence in a transaction of sale is a fraud.
The information given to immigrants by the Federal and state immigration offices is of value, because it presents certain facts needed by settlers, as, for instance, information on climatic conditions, general soil and market conditions, and so on. But these information bulletins often do not reach the immigrants because the immigrants do not know enough to ask for them; and, even supposing that they did reach the prospective settler, the bulletins are too general. They describe the conditions of large districts and sections of the country or state, while what the immigrant needs is exact, detailed knowledgeabout a particular piece of land in which he is interested. The government officials claim that they have not sufficient forces to undertake a detailed investigation of individual land holdings, and also that they must try to avoid any appearance of discriminating between various land companies in the sense of encouraging or discouraging the sale of land belonging to given companies.
In general, one might say that the ways open to immigrants for learning of land opportunities are defective. Misrepresentation of land conditions and actual money frauds have made them suspicious of any land dealer, so that the best land companies experience, in the immigrants' suspicion, a handicap in the development of their business. This in part explains why the various real-estate associations are trying to get some sort of public regulation for their business and why a number of states which are interested in the development of their lands have begun to talk of regulation. They reason that such regulation would be a good advertisement for the state and would increase the confidence of people in the chances of successfully settling on land in that state.
In the states of California and Wisconsin the state departments and colleges of agriculture,through their extension service and the state immigration offices, are doing highly valuable work in disseminating correct information in regard to land opportunities among prospective settlers and in defending the latter against unscrupulous land dealers. The writer was especially impressed by the methods used by the Director of Immigration of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Mr. B. G. Packer. The following statement dictated by Mr. Packer serves as the best description of his work and methods:
Four years ago, at the invitation of the Department of Labor, in Chicago, I began going down and meeting people by appointment there—immigrants who wanted to come to Wisconsin. In order to reach them, we advertised in Chicago papers. We ran classified notices in the metropolitan papers, in addition inviting correspondence from home seekers. We ran articles in foreign-language papers, showing what the crops are and how to open up the land, how to pull up the stumps, etc. We have had pamphlets on Wisconsin, and methods of cultivation of its land, published in foreign languages.I find that the home seekers do not know where to go or whom to believe, but by meeting them in conferences I have been able to protect them against exploitation and direct them to localities where they stand a good show of making good. The average capital of immigrants will run a little over fifteen hundred dollars. The average capital of native-born Americans who come to see me is considerably less. A man going on the land should have not less than twelve hundred dollars after making his first payment on forty acres. We have schedules showing approximately what his living expenses will be for the first couple of years.Our work is largely protective. The leading Chicago papers co-operate with us by refusing the advertising ofreal-estate men who misrepresent their properties. The state attorney's office co-operates with us by enforcing the confidence-game statute. Every inquirer is furnished with a certificate (see p. 22), and I find that dishonest dealers refuse to sell to home seekers who present this certificate to them.One point I should like to emphasize is that the back-to-the-farm movement will be successful in proportion to each state's activity in supplying home seekers with information that will insure their success on the land.First, those coming into the new land region in our state, must have enough capital to carry them through the first two years for the purchase of clothing and food and farm equipment.Second, they should have had some experience in farming. The city-bred man who wishes to get out into the country, not because of love of the country, but because of dislike of the city, is a poor investment. Those visiting us who have not had farm experience are urged to get it before locating or before investing their money.Third, the wife must be satisfied and willing to undergo some pioneering. Right here is where a good many fall down. The man is willing to go and his wife goes unwillingly.Fourth, the immigrants should not be flimflammed into paying excessive prices for undeveloped land. So far as Wisconsin is concerned, competition takes care of this, provided the home seeker gets into communication with our department. To illustrate: One concern in Chicago, operating in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is asking forty and forty-five dollars an acre for cut-over land no better than may be obtained from lumber and railroad companies for half this figure.Fifth, there is a tendency on the part of land salesmen to load up the immigrant with more land than he can use, or sometimes pay for. Eighty acres makes a good-sized farm for one family to develop and handle, and this is the size of tract recommended.Sixth, the back-to-the-lander should be a man in good physical condition. I believe that it is a mistake to put men on the land who are not heavy enough for farm work.The man should weigh not less than two pounds for every inch of his height, which is the army standard.Seventh, it is a mistake to encourage people to go on the land after the time for the spring work has passed. I mean by this that under our conditions the settler has to construct a small house and do some brushing and clearing in order to grow vegetables for himself and a small amount of winter feed for his stock.Eighth, the back-to-the-lander has too many fake ideas about the amount of money to be made in farming. Under our conditions the settler is putting money into his land and not taking very much out the first two or three years, unless he has merchantable timber that can be worked up into cordwood or bolts, or unless he locates in a region having little timber to be removed, and is able to specialize in potatoes. The men who have become wealthy from strictly farming operations are not numerous in Wisconsin or anywhere else.I should like to call your attention to the following form of certificate furnished inquirers in communication with this department:
Four years ago, at the invitation of the Department of Labor, in Chicago, I began going down and meeting people by appointment there—immigrants who wanted to come to Wisconsin. In order to reach them, we advertised in Chicago papers. We ran classified notices in the metropolitan papers, in addition inviting correspondence from home seekers. We ran articles in foreign-language papers, showing what the crops are and how to open up the land, how to pull up the stumps, etc. We have had pamphlets on Wisconsin, and methods of cultivation of its land, published in foreign languages.
I find that the home seekers do not know where to go or whom to believe, but by meeting them in conferences I have been able to protect them against exploitation and direct them to localities where they stand a good show of making good. The average capital of immigrants will run a little over fifteen hundred dollars. The average capital of native-born Americans who come to see me is considerably less. A man going on the land should have not less than twelve hundred dollars after making his first payment on forty acres. We have schedules showing approximately what his living expenses will be for the first couple of years.
Our work is largely protective. The leading Chicago papers co-operate with us by refusing the advertising ofreal-estate men who misrepresent their properties. The state attorney's office co-operates with us by enforcing the confidence-game statute. Every inquirer is furnished with a certificate (see p. 22), and I find that dishonest dealers refuse to sell to home seekers who present this certificate to them.
One point I should like to emphasize is that the back-to-the-farm movement will be successful in proportion to each state's activity in supplying home seekers with information that will insure their success on the land.
First, those coming into the new land region in our state, must have enough capital to carry them through the first two years for the purchase of clothing and food and farm equipment.
Second, they should have had some experience in farming. The city-bred man who wishes to get out into the country, not because of love of the country, but because of dislike of the city, is a poor investment. Those visiting us who have not had farm experience are urged to get it before locating or before investing their money.
Third, the wife must be satisfied and willing to undergo some pioneering. Right here is where a good many fall down. The man is willing to go and his wife goes unwillingly.
Fourth, the immigrants should not be flimflammed into paying excessive prices for undeveloped land. So far as Wisconsin is concerned, competition takes care of this, provided the home seeker gets into communication with our department. To illustrate: One concern in Chicago, operating in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is asking forty and forty-five dollars an acre for cut-over land no better than may be obtained from lumber and railroad companies for half this figure.
Fifth, there is a tendency on the part of land salesmen to load up the immigrant with more land than he can use, or sometimes pay for. Eighty acres makes a good-sized farm for one family to develop and handle, and this is the size of tract recommended.
Sixth, the back-to-the-lander should be a man in good physical condition. I believe that it is a mistake to put men on the land who are not heavy enough for farm work.The man should weigh not less than two pounds for every inch of his height, which is the army standard.
Seventh, it is a mistake to encourage people to go on the land after the time for the spring work has passed. I mean by this that under our conditions the settler has to construct a small house and do some brushing and clearing in order to grow vegetables for himself and a small amount of winter feed for his stock.
Eighth, the back-to-the-lander has too many fake ideas about the amount of money to be made in farming. Under our conditions the settler is putting money into his land and not taking very much out the first two or three years, unless he has merchantable timber that can be worked up into cordwood or bolts, or unless he locates in a region having little timber to be removed, and is able to specialize in potatoes. The men who have become wealthy from strictly farming operations are not numerous in Wisconsin or anywhere else.
I should like to call your attention to the following form of certificate furnished inquirers in communication with this department:
The State of WisconsinDepartment of AgricultureImmigration Division
Directing Certificate
To Whom It May Concern:
The bearer ......................................... of ........................ is in communication with this department, and looking for a farm home in ............. County, Wisconsin. It is our purpose to keep in touch with him after his removal to this state, to note his progress, and learn if he is fully satisfied with the business relations he may have with any person or firm selling him land.Any courtesies extended him will be appreciated.
The bearer ......................................... of ........................ is in communication with this department, and looking for a farm home in ............. County, Wisconsin. It is our purpose to keep in touch with him after his removal to this state, to note his progress, and learn if he is fully satisfied with the business relations he may have with any person or firm selling him land.
Any courtesies extended him will be appreciated.
.......................... 191..........................................Director of Immigration.C. P. Norgord,Commissioner.
In a bulletin of information for immigrants, issued by the Commission of Immigration and Housing of California, 1920, the commission offers its assistance to the seekers of land in the state of California, in the following words:
Immigrants who are thinking of buying farm lands should call upon or write to the office of the Commission of Immigration and Housing for free information and advice.(a) The commission co-operating with the Agricultural Department of the State University will furnish without charge general information regarding agricultural lands; and(b) It will make an investigation and free report to any immigrant concerning any particular tract of land which he may have visited, and which he contemplates buying. This report will cover the agricultural possibilities of the land and its accessibility to markets. If the immigrant states his previous experience, his financial condition, and gives other information which may be requested by the commission, the report will also give advice as to the wisdom of buying the proposed land.No purchase or contract to purchase land should be made or entered into until the immigrant knows the nature of the land, its true money value, and that the land belongs to the one who proposes to sell it.
Immigrants who are thinking of buying farm lands should call upon or write to the office of the Commission of Immigration and Housing for free information and advice.
(a) The commission co-operating with the Agricultural Department of the State University will furnish without charge general information regarding agricultural lands; and(b) It will make an investigation and free report to any immigrant concerning any particular tract of land which he may have visited, and which he contemplates buying. This report will cover the agricultural possibilities of the land and its accessibility to markets. If the immigrant states his previous experience, his financial condition, and gives other information which may be requested by the commission, the report will also give advice as to the wisdom of buying the proposed land.
(a) The commission co-operating with the Agricultural Department of the State University will furnish without charge general information regarding agricultural lands; and
(b) It will make an investigation and free report to any immigrant concerning any particular tract of land which he may have visited, and which he contemplates buying. This report will cover the agricultural possibilities of the land and its accessibility to markets. If the immigrant states his previous experience, his financial condition, and gives other information which may be requested by the commission, the report will also give advice as to the wisdom of buying the proposed land.
No purchase or contract to purchase land should be made or entered into until the immigrant knows the nature of the land, its true money value, and that the land belongs to the one who proposes to sell it.
This is the kind of public assistance which the land seekers, especially the immigrants, most urgently need, and to which they are entitled. The only questions are, will the other states follow, and how can the opportunity of such reliable public assistance be made known to the land-seeking masses?
The experiences of the Russian sectarian peasants in America in their attempts to settle on land are illuminating in regard to existing conditions of land dealing and colonization as they affect the immigrant. There are in the Western states about a thousand families (or six thousand individuals) of Russian peasant sectarians—Molokans, Holy Jumpers, Wet and Dry Baptists, and others. They were all engaged in agriculture while they lived in Russia. As a result of persecution by the Russian monarchy they left their country and came to America about ten years ago.
From the beginning of their American adventure they have had a keen desire to settle on land. They have made repeated attempts to acquire farms, but so far failure has been the rule, with few exceptions.
The facts regarding most of the unsuccessfulattempts outlined below were obtained at a meeting of Russian sectarians in Los Angeles attended by about one hundred family heads. Each one told his own experience. The men had great difficulty in indicating American names—the names of companies, counties, etc.—so that in the following account names are omitted. When questioned as to how they could secure so much money, they explained that they all work whenever it is possible to find work, that they live moderately, that their men and women dress cheaply, that they do not drink or smoke or go to any places of amusement, as all that is prohibited by their religion, and that they save. They stated that their land-seeking attempts are backed financially by the entire colony; the losses are shared by all its members, although the individual families who are on the firing line lose more than the families who remain in Los Angeles and back these scouting parties.
These peasants believe that their difficulty in finding and settling on land has been due to several causes. First, they have not enough money to buy immediately a large tract of land, irrigate and improve it, and give the families a good start. Second, they do not know the country and conditions well enough, especially the agricultural possibilities. Third, the private land dealers are mostly crooks who cheat them, either by misrepresenting the quality of the land,or by not fulfilling their contract promises, or by making contracts so complicated and so filled with catches that they afterward prove the ruin of the settler. The following are some of the most important of the attempts to find land.
From thirty to thirty-three families made a land-purchase contract with a company of —— County, Washington. One hundred and sixty acres were sold to each family, at a price of from $40 to $50 an acre. Each family pays down $400 and should pay to the company 60 per cent a year of the first, second, and third years' crops, it being understood that the remaining 40 per cent would remain in the hands of the settler for the support of his family. But during the first year it developed that the company took out of that 40 per cent the interest on the mortgages and the taxes on the land, so that very little was left for the cultivator. The next year the settlers left the land, worked on neighboring farms for another year, and then returned to Los Angeles. Some families had lost $400, some $700—practically all the money they had saved or borrowed.
Again, fifteen families made a contract with a company near Fresno, California. Forty acres were sold to each family at $115 per acre, with the privilege of water for irrigation on the stipulation that the company would receive half of the market value of the crops. The companypromised to lend seeds and implements. Several of the families had come from Mexico to escape revolutionary disturbances there, bringing implements, horses, cattle, etc. When they arrived they had to borrow seeds and provisions for the support of the families. The company furnished these on a chattel mortgage at 7 per cent. But the company was not able to provide irrigating water, so the settlers, after two years of fruitless effort, had to leave the land, losing all their mortgaged personal property. Some families lost $700 in cash, some lost $1,000, and some even more.
Later, twenty families made a contract with a land company for the purchase of farms varying in size from twenty to forty acres, at a price of $120 per acre. To be cautious, the peasants sent out only seven families. The company promised to provide either a tractor or horses, implements, seeds, and water, and was to receive one fourth of the crops. But it turned out that the company was not able to furnish water. During two years the settlers tried to make good, but did not succeed, the lack of water being the main cause of failure. One family lost $700, another $820, and the others lost about the same amount each.
Another group of twenty families made a contract with a company in the same neighborhood. Fifty acres were sold to each family at $120 per acre. The company agreed to provide twohorses for each family and all necessary implements, and for its part was to receive half of all the crops. It also promised to give water. But when the time came the company supplied only thirty horses instead of forty, and only three plows for the whole colony; it also failed to furnish water. The land was good, but without water it was of no use. The settlers battled for two years and then left the land. Each lost from $500 to $1,000.
About two years ago a farmer owning lands in the San Joaquin Valley got in touch with Russian peasants in Los Angeles. He agreed to sell these people land, with houses, stock, etc., at what seemed a nominal first payment—$200. It looked like a wonderful opportunity to the simple peasants, who, by their industry, had saved up two or three hundred dollars or more. About 120 families were induced to make the first deposit ($10 or $20). Then Prof. W. T. Clarke of the agricultural extension service of the University of California was asked by the Immigration Commission to visit this tract and report on it. He found that it was the poorest kind of alkali land—land that a grasshopper would starve on. The farmer who was selling the land raised strenuous objections to the investigation and the resulting report, but the commission succeeded in shutting off the entire deal, except in the cases of four or five peasants whoinsisted on taking the farms and who are now making a failure of it.
On an attempt of the peasants to settle in Utah, twenty families contracted to buy farms at $100 per acre, 130 acres to a family. One fourth of the crops were to be paid to the company, which promised to provide water; but the company failed to find water and all the settlers and the company itself went to pieces. The settlers' losses were very heavy, some losing $1,000, some $2,000. They were again compelled to return to Los Angeles.
In 1907 certain agents of a German sugar company in Honolulu appeared and promised to sell the peasants good land in Honolulu. Thirty families made contracts to buy farms of forty acres, with the stipulation that they would pay the price gradually out of their income from the farms. When the families arrived in Honolulu there was no land for them. The company explained that they had been merely hired for work on its plantation. Under the conditions of labor there they were half slaves and the life became unendurable. After six months of trial and hardship they returned to Los Angeles, each family having lost from $600 to $700.
In another instance seven families bought farms at Elmira, California, varying in size from twenty to seventy acres. The price was $117 an acre, and they paid down $10 an acre,the balance being covered by a mortgage at 6 per cent. This land is rather poor, but the settlers have stayed on.
Aside from a few families who have succeeded in settling on land here and there through the Western states and who are making ends meet, there is only one group of these peasants which has succeeded in establishing a well-to-do colony; that colony is at Glendale, Arizona, below the Roosevelt Dam.
The first colonists arrived in Glendale seven years ago from Los Angeles, while others came later from San Francisco and from Mexico. The development of the colony has been steady. There are four groups of colonists located a few miles from one another, but they communicate freely and consider themselves one colony. There are at present about seven hundred persons in the colony, with an average of five or six children in each family. The settlers paid down little money at the beginning. Some families did not pay anything; some paid $100, some $500, and a few paid $1,000. The price of the land was originally $125 per acre, but it has now doubled. Almost all the land is under cultivation. The men have acquired the necessary machinery, stock, plants, and seeds; they haveplenty to eat, and a large number of families have Ford automobiles, while a few are considering the purchase of higher-priced cars.
The success of the peasants in Glendale is to be explained by the fertility of the new desert land, the adequate irrigation provided by the Roosevelt Dam system, reasonable conditions of land purchase, the capacity of the men for hard labor, and their love of the land. The main money crop is cotton of the highest grade and of exceptionally heavy yield. There is no difficulty in marketing farm products, for the colony is within a few miles of Phœnix.
The report of the Commission on Land Colonization and Rural Credits of the state of California presents some interesting cases.[6]
A tract of wheat land was bought at $7 per acre. The buyer organized a syndicate composed of himself and his stenographer and sold the land to the syndicate at $100 per acre. The syndicate sold the land at $200 per acre. No settler was able to earn either the purchase price or the interest on it out of the soil.
Another colonization company bought 150,000 acres at an average of less than $40 per acre.The average selling price at the start was $75 per acre, but was soon increased to $175 per acre. The agents commission on the higher price was 30 per cent—i.e., considerably more than the cost of the land.
In another case an agent made a contract for selling a tract of land at 20 per cent of the selling price, which he was free to fix himself. He raised the price from $150 to $400 per acre, so that he received commissions of $80 per acre instead of $30. As the terms were one fifth cash, the balance in four yearly installments, the agent induced the settlers to buy as much land as would absorb all their capital for the first payments, and then he pocketed as his commission the total amount paid down. When the tract was all sold, the owner held the contracts of the moneyless settlers, the latter had the use of the land, and the agent had the coin.
Some colonization companies, in searching for a tract of land, have regarded price as the only consideration, saying that any land that could be bought for $25 an acre could be colonized. Only hardpan and alkali land could be bought in California at that price. Nevertheless, one company bought such an area, subdivided it, and traded it for houses and lots in Los Angeles. Some time later only three of the purchasers were found to be still in the colony, and probably not one of them intended to remain.
In one district a tract of "goose" land, after selling for $5 and then $15 an acre, was subdivided and sold as garden soil for $125 an acre. Three brothers who were market gardeners bought farms and settled there with their families. They found the soil, when wet, to be a quagmire and when dry to be possible of cultivation only with dynamite. After three years of utter failure they were forced to abandon their homes, having lost their money, time, and labor, and having reaped a bitter feeling of injustice and wrong.
It appears from the report that a certain class of land speculators, when buying land for reselling in plots, do not pay so much attention to the qualities of the land as to its advertising possibilities. If land in a widely known valley is alkali land, so much the better, for the buying price is lower. The speculator in his advertisement makes it appear as fruit land with a great future. It seems also to have been by no means uncommon for the agent's commission to be higher than the price paid by the owner for the land.
On February 12, 1919, in Cincinnati, Ohio, sixteen land swindlers of the McAlester Real Estate Exchange, of McAlester, Oklahoma, were found guilty by a jury in Federal court. Thecompany's land-advertisement literature was so worded as to convey the impression that the McAlester company was acting as an agent of the government in the sale of Indian lands. The prosecution was largely centered on the distribution among the customers of a tract of 41,000 acres in Oklahoma. It was charged that the president of the company secured an option on these lands when he found that he was unable to buy sufficient land at the government sale of Indian lands to fill his contracts.
It was also charged that the company perpetrated a fraud on its customers when it took $135 as a fee for locating and purchasing land, agreeing to act as attorney and agent for the customer, and then sold the land that it had bought privately at a profit. These contracts were, in the opinion of the government, so worded as to convey the impression that in paying for the locating and bidding the "party of the second part" was also making a payment on the land and was encouraged in the belief that his land would be in the midst of areas yielding oil and other mineral products as well as timber. Timber-right frauds also were alleged. The company had during 1917 collected from its victims, who lived in all parts of the country, nearly $1,000,000. It was revealed also that given plots of land had been sold to more than one buyer.
The foregoing instances indicate that companies formed for the purpose of exploiting and deceiving land settlers have succeeded. With the increasing tide of new immigration, it may be possible to ensnare even more unwary persons. But there have been a sufficient number of exposés, as well as court decisions, to make the business of fraudulent land promotion a dangerous one. All types of real-estate dealers are increasingly realizing the need for making their transactions aboveboard and honest. Steps to this end are being taken by the better class of dealer.
Except for government land grants and homestead acts, land dealing and colonization in the United States have, up to very recent times, been entirely in private hands. Land is one of the necessities of life; land dealing, consequently, is one of the most important features in social and economic relations. Yet it has been left unregulated, with the result that land dealing is now the most chaotic sort of business, one which has not worked out its own definite methods, rules, and traditions, as banking and other branches of commerce and business have done. It may even be said that people who deal in land have fallen, in the eyes of the public, into the ranks of those open to suspicion.
In the field investigation for this study, land dealing was considered to be an important phase of the problem of Americanization in rural districts. Based upon the experiences and facts collected, the picture may be drawn as follows:
According to their methods, private land dealers may be classified as follows: