the service is in a position to deliver water to about 1,600,000 acres of irrigable land, covered by crop census, of which about 1,120,000 acres are now being irrigated. Besides this storage water is delivered from permanent reservoirs under special contracts to about 950,000 acres more. The projects that have been undertaken have been planned to provide for an area of about 3,200,000 acres.
the service is in a position to deliver water to about 1,600,000 acres of irrigable land, covered by crop census, of which about 1,120,000 acres are now being irrigated. Besides this storage water is delivered from permanent reservoirs under special contracts to about 950,000 acres more. The projects that have been undertaken have been planned to provide for an area of about 3,200,000 acres.
A number of bills have been proposed for enlarging and extending this work.
The Department of the Interior has prepared a draft of a bill providing rural homes for returning soldiers. Copies of the bill were sent to the Governors for consideration by various state legislatures.
The bill is based on the principle of co-operation, according to which (1) the state provides land, acquiring it by purchase or by agreement with the present landowners whereby the latter turn their holdings over to the state for a reasonable price gradually paid to them out of the returns from the settlers, and (2) the Federal government advances money for reclamation through irrigation, drainage, and clearing, andfor preparation of the land for immediate farming through the providing of buildings, implements, seeds, live stock, etc. The total cost of the land and improvements, with interest at 4 per cent on capital invested, will be repaid by the settlers during the course of, approximately, forty years by an annual payment of 5 per cent of the total cost.
A bill was introduced in Congress by Senator Myers (S. 4947, 65th Congress, 2d Session) in October, 1918, and backed by the Department of the Interior, which provided for a survey and classification by this department of all unentered public lands and all privately owned unused lands for the purpose of finding out what lands can be reclaimed and put to productive use by returning soldiers who would like to settle on land and engage in agriculture. After such an investigation the Secretary of the Interior was required to report to Congress and to propose a plan for the settlement and cultivation of such lands.
There were two bills (S. 5397 and H. 15672) introduced by Senator W. S. Kenyon of Iowa and Representative M. Clyde Kelly of Pennsylvania, respectively, which, among other features, made possible development of rural districts. Although differing in details, the bills both appropriated $100,000,000 to be expended in providing employment primarily for returning soldiers. This was to be done through the authorizedpublic construction work, or through the organization and extension of useful public works, in the development of natural resources. Only in localities where the Secretary of Labor reports extraordinary unemployment to exist shall public works be carried on from this fund.
The House bill provided for the building of new post roads; for the transfer of war material no longer needed by the army, the same to be used for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of the post roads; for supplementing the public school equipment where public school buildings are or shall be designated as postal stations, for the use of the construction service; and for other purposes. The bill provides for the establishment of motor transport and postal routes; for the organization of a system of marketing facilities for the collection and delivery, through the postal service and public school buildings, of farm products from producer to consumer; and for the construction of any authorized public work.
In addition to these more indirect ways of opening up the country the bill carried specific provision for promoting and conducting land-settlement colonies, as well as provision for logging or milling operations, contingent upon a continuous yield of timber, so that the forest communities would be permanent. The provisions of the bill were to be carried out by aninterdepartmental National Board of Public Construction, which would organize a body of workers, known as the United States Construction Service.
Since the bill carried the reclamation and technical land-improvement work, the only question might be, is there any need for this to be carried on by a special Construction Service? Would it not be a duplication of the work of the already existing Reclamation Service of the Department of the Interior? Would it not be economical and otherwise proper to increase the staff and other working forces of the Reclamation Service to the extent of the proposed reclamation duties of the Construction Service?
Representative E. T. Taylor of Colorado introduced in the House, February 15, 1919, a bill (H. R. 15993) providing for employment and the securing of rural homes for returned soldiers and for the promotion of the reclamation of land for cultivation under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Short-term loans to settlers were provided for. This bill contains a good land-development plan, except that the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, ought not to be burdened with colonization work and with loans to settlers. Colonization work ought to be the duty of a separate body, and the extension of credit to settlers naturally belongs to the Farm Loan Board, Department of the Treasury.
Representative Mondell of Wyoming introduced in the House, May 19, 1919, a bill (H. R. 487) providing employment and rural homes for returned soldiers through the reclamation of lands under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who may, for this purpose, acquire by gift, purchase, deed in trust, or otherwise, the necessary lands for soldier settlement projects and, for the same purpose, may withdraw, utilize, and dispose of by contract and deed suitable public lands. An appropriation of $500,000 is proposed.
The plan in this bill for the acquisition and reclamation of unused land is a strong one. Equally commendable is the provision for safeguarding the settlers' holdings against speculation, for the selling, leasing, or mortgaging of the land by settlers requires the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The bill requires that the Interior Department, through its Reclamation Service, acquire and improve lands, colonize them, and make loans to settlers. It would seem a more efficient plan to make a division of these various duties. The Reclamation Service should acquire and improve lands for settlement, while the colonization work and the extension of loans to settlers would be made the duties of other public authorities, as pointed out below.
House Bill No. 3274, introduced by Representative Knutson, May 27, 1919, proposes tocreate, in the Treasury Department, a National Colonization Board with local colonization commissions, for the purpose of providing capital for the development by land colonization of the agricultural resources of the nation, affording certain privileges to soldier settlers. The commissions approve and charter private colonization companies and recommend applications for loans after seeing all the provisions of the act have been complied with. The commissions are to include the directors of the district land bank.
The main aim of the bill is to standardize private land colonization companies to a certain degree, to facilitate the extension of credit to them, and to make loans to soldier settlers. The Knutson bill in meeting these needs is a comprehensive one. It deserves the closest attention of Congress. Would it not be advisable, however, to attach the administrative machinery for credit extension outlined in the bill to a division to be created in the Farm Loan Board, with separate colonization credit funds, and to leave the regulation and licensing of the private colonization companies to a separate body as outlined below?
Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana introduced in the Senate, August 20, 1917, a bill (S. 2812) which was passed by both Houses and reported from conference for passage in February, 1919. The bill provides for the sale or lease ofcoal, oil, and other mineral lands on the public domain. The leasing clause of the bill is weakened by the provision, "unless previously entered under Section 2 of this act." The public coal lands would be "entered," sold into private ownership, which means the loss of public control over these lands and the methods of their exploitation. However, the bill if passed would be a step forward in the sense that it would increase opportunities for investment of capital and employment of labor, which would result in the increase of the coal output so much needed.
The only step so far undertaken by Congress in the direction of land colonization is the appropriation of $200,000 for an investigation by the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, of lands outside of the existing reclamation projects. The measures needed are waiting for action.
In regard to the available land for acquisition, reclamation, and colonization, several projects are proposed by the above-quoted bills and by various Federal departments. The principal projects are as follows:
Agricultural:Logged-off lands in the North Middle Westernand Northwestern states.Irrigation of desert lands in the Southwesternstates.Drainage of swamp lands in the Southern states.Forestry projects; permanent colonies for logging,milling, and reforestation of logged-off lands in theNorthwestern states.Colonization projects for an intensive cultivation oflands around smaller growing towns.Colonization projects in Alaska for developing variousextractive industries.
Action of some sort is eminently desirable in this country, especially in view of the fact that other countries have already taken steps to these ends.
The settlement of soldiers on land has been a problem much considered in all of the warring nations. Although the plans are just only being tried out for the first time in many cases, they are suggestive of the trend that land-settlement laws are taking.
In 1918 a law was enacted in France "providing for the acquisition of small rural properties by soldier and civilian victims of the war. It provides in part for 'individual mortgage loans to facilitate acquisition, parceling out, transformation, and reconstitution of small rural properties of which the value does not exceed 10,000 francs.' The loans are to be made from the agricultural lending societies at a rate of 1 per cent, with a term of twenty-five years. Advances for improvements are provided for and a special commission is appointed to administer the law."[14]
In the United Kingdom, as well as in the majority of its dominions and states, acts providing for land settlement for ex-soldiers have been passed or formulated. Large sums of money have already been appropriated for the purchase, improvement, and development of land. In some cases the crown lands are to be used and in other private lands are to be bought. Table III indicates some of the general provisions of the legislation.
Over $133,000,000 has been appropriated and in two Australian states alone 2,060,000 acres have been set aside. The size of the individual holdings varies from 10 to 160 acres.
In some cases the land is given outright, in others the settler must help bear the cost of surveys and improvement. The third plan is that of a lease, usually with an option to buy, varying in different states. Whatever the terms of settlement are, in most cases the ex-soldier can meet his obligations because of the easy terms by which he can borrow money from the government. Although the maximum amount is limited, the rate of interest is low in most cases and the term of years, with one exception, twenty years or more. Although some farming experience is required, in almost every law, there is provision for a demonstration farm. Here the prospective farmers can learn scientific farming, usually getting paid for their work in the interval.
TABLE IIISoldier Settlement Plans For United Kingdom And Provinces[15]Aid GivenCountryActMaximumAmountTimeInterestPer CentAppropriationDominion of Canada[16]August 29, 1917$2,500[A]20 equal payments5$2,910,000OntarioNo. 150, 1916$500[B]20 years6$5,000,000British Columbia6 Geo. V. 59, 1916[C][B]20 years5$500,000 annuallyNew Brunswick6 Geo. V. 9, 1916$500 to $1,500[B]20 years5Australia1917 Conference[C][C][C]$100,000,000New South WalesNo. 21, 1916;amended, 1917$2,500Lease21⁄2on capitalvalue$100,000,000VictoriaOctober 22, 1917$2,500311⁄2years6$11,250,000Queensland1917$2,500 buildings;$3,500 equipment40 years; 25years; 10 years;perpetual31⁄2to 5;11⁄2on capitalvalue$50,000South Australia1916, 7, Geo. V.$2,40021 years4$220,000New Zealand6 Geo. V. 45, 1916;amended, 1917[D]$3,000,000TasmaniaGeo. V. 20; 1916–17$2,50021 years31⁄2to 5$750,000United Kingdom6 and 7 Geo. V., c 38$10,000,000asked forUnion of South Africa1912; amended 1917$1,250; $25 amonth to families31⁄2years to7 years.41⁄2[C]
TABLE III—ContinuedSoldier Settlement Plans For United Kingdom And Provinces[15]AcresAssignedCountryTotalIndividualHoldingsTenureTrainingNeededDemonstrationFarmProvidedCapitalDesirableDominion of Canada[16]Certain dominion lands160Free grantYesYesYesOntario100Patent given in 5yearsYesYesYesBritish Columbia160Free grantYesYesYesNew Brunswick20,00010–100Free grantYesYesAustraliaNew South Wales1,500,000Perpetual leaseYesYesYesVictoria500,000 wheat-growingplus irrigated landsPurchase in 311⁄2YearsYesYesQueensland560,000Perpetual lease onlyYesNoSouth Australia10,000Perpetual leaseYesYesNew Zealand270,000Lease 66 years, orfreeholdYesYesTasmania10099-year lease; orpurchase after 10yearsYesYesUnited Kingdom60,000LeasedYesYesUnion of South AfricaLands purchased not toexceed $7,500 for eachsettler who providesone fifth of priceLease for 5 years andoption of purchase,with 20 years to payYes
Most of the land-reform programs, beginning with those of the extreme conservatives,laissez-fairetheorists of various schools, and ending with those of the extreme radicals, anarchists, and socialists of various leanings, are primarily concerned with the question of land ownership.
These programs might be, in the main, classified as follows:
Private land ownership:Large-scale ownership, subject to no public interference.Small-scale ownership, limited and regulated bypublic authority.Public land ownership:Secured byConfiscation, by revolutionary action.Purchase, by land bond issues.Taxation, by the single tax.Forms of public ownership:Nationalization; national ownership. In theUnited States it would be Federal ownership.Provincial ownership. In the United Statesit would be state ownership, and in Switzerlandcanton ownership.Municipalization or communalization; landowned by cities and communities in the ruraldistricts.Nobody's ownership; free to all, except thatthe public takes the ground value (irrespectiveof improvements) through the single tax,from the land users, which practically meansa disguised form of public ownership, or atleast a condition very near it.Methods of use:Parceling the public land into homesteads ofone-family size, and reselling these to the cultivatorson the basis of individual fee simple.Giving the homesteads to cultivators on thebasis of perpetual leasehold.Public cultivation, either direct or throughcommunes or co-operative associations.
Comparing these programs one with another and with the existing conditions, one reaches the following conclusions: All the programs tend to treat the land problem merely as a question of ownership. Each favors a specific form of ownership almost as an all-inclusive remedy for defects in social relations so far as they depend upon land cultivation and land use. The argument is based upon reasoning, a mere logical calculation, and on what the authors of the program desire. The existing conditions and tendencies are much more varied and complex than they seem to appear to the land reformers.
First, there is nothing new or untried in these programs, for almost all the advocated forms of land ownership are already existing side by side. It seems that no one single form is able to remedy the defects in the land situation. We have in this country national (Federal), provincial (state), and municipal or communal ownership, with small-scale private ownership predominating. We also have special land taxation, as, for instance, in certain cities that tax unimproved land higher than improved land. These existing forms of land ownership are competing with one another. The forms which allow more efficient cultivation, result in greater social stability, and are based on social justice will be the winners in the march of the economic and social progress of the country.
The bold claim of Marxian or German Socialism that large private land ownership, erroneously identified with cultivation on a large scale, is going to prevail through absorption of small private land ownership is rapidly losing ground. The small landowners are able to enjoy, through co-operation, all the technical advantages of large-scale cultivation, retaining as well the advantages resulting from individual initiative and efficiency. There is a marked movement toward co-operation among the small farmers the world over. In Denmark it has developed to the highest degree.
Second, mere land ownership is only a part, though a vital part, of the problem. Many other important things have to be considered.
If a man has land, but lacks capital or credit, he is unable to make economic use of his land. If he has both land and capital, or credit, or in other terms purchasing power, but lacks access to sources of supply in which to buy seeds, breeding stock, and implements, he still is unable to make use of his land. If he has at hand all the needed implements, seeds, and stock, but lacks knowledge and experience in farming, he might entirely fail in his enterprise. Even if he possesses the necessary knowledge and produces grain, milk, beef, and other agricultural products, he must have a market for his products, be it a domestic or an international market. This involves transportation facilities, trade organization and regulation, tariff, and other forms of organized international relationships, economic and political.
Moreover, land cultivation requires social stability, security, and order, for an investment in land improvements must wait long for its returns. If a man does not know who is going to harvest his fields, or who is going to get the product of his toil, he will be disinclined to sow anything. A striking illustration of such a state is the case of the western provinces of the Russian Empire, where the battle lines for several years weresurging back and forth. First the Russian monarchy collected the farm products, then came the Germans, then came the civil warfare. When there is no security for a land cultivator, neither for his products nor his very life itself, there can be no production. There is land enough and there are cultivators enough, but the population starves because of unsettled political and international conditions.
In considering the land situation as it exists, it is true that the ownership of land or, rather, the access to land, is of primary importance. The question arises, Is there enough land in the United States for all citizens who desire to become cultivators?
The Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane, states[17]that more than 15,000,000 acres of irrigable lands remain in the hands of the United States government. There are between 70,000,000 and 80,000,000 acres of swamp and overflowed lands in the United States of which about 60,000,000 acres can be reclaimed for agricultural purposes, and there are about 200,000,000 acres of cut-over or logged-off lands which are suitable for agricultural development.
Although it might be questioned how much of these unused lands are economically available under normal conditions—for no rigid investigation has been made—still the fact remains that unused lands—swamps and deserts, cut-over and burned-over lands—are being continually improved and taken under cultivation by private and public effort. Not one land improvement and colonization company visited by the writer complained of lack of land. All the companies seemed to want more settlers and more credit. This fact indicates that there is economically available land in our country, and probably plenty of it, for a normal process of reclamation and colonization.
In the field investigation, the main questions of immigrants desiring to settle on land seemed to be where to find land of the "right kind," and how, in acquiring it, to avoid being cheated by private land sellers. The questions as to whether there was land available and what its price was were of minor importance. In many cases the immigrants had been employed in war industries and had saved money enough to buy a farm, but they were unable to decide where to settle and what kind of land to buy because they feared land sellers. Their experience with these agentshad awakened an almost universal fear of private land dealers.
To facilitate the access to land, the private land-dealing trade must be put upon a higher level. There must be Federal legislation regulating land dealers doing business in two or more states, state legislation for dealers doing business within one state only, and municipal legislation for the land dealers doing business within the city limits only. Through co-operation of these governments uniformity of such legislation can be secured and maintained so far as various local conditions and peculiarities allow.
Such regulative legislation should aim at doing away with misrepresentation and frauds in land dealing. As an effective assistance in the enforcement of the laws all private land dealers should be licensed, interstate dealers by the Federal, state dealers by the state, and city dealers by the city governments. By refusing or recalling licenses a considerable number of land sharks—get-rich-quick charlatans in the real-estate business—can be sifted out of the trade and the necessary confidence on the part of land seekers can be secured.
According to a report made in 1916 by the Committee on State Legislation of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, a sentiment was then growing in most parts of the country favoring the enactment of laws for the regulationof real-estate brokerages under state authority. This sentiment is still growing, and the secretary of the association says that realtors in several states continue to introduce bills in their legislatures with the belief that it will be possible to pass them.
In only one state has such a law passed. The state of Wisconsin enacted a law in 1919[18]which provides for the establishment of a state real-estate brokers' board consisting of three members, at least two of whom are real-estate brokers in the state, appointed by the Governor. The Director of Immigration, Department of Agriculture, acts as secretary to the board. The latter issues licenses to the real-estate brokers and salesmen doing business in the state. An annual license fee of ten dollars from a broker and five dollars from a salesman is required. License may be refused or revoked by the board for misstatement in application, for fraud or fraudulent practices, for untrustworthiness or incompetence in real-estate business.
The board receives complaints against any real-estate broker or salesman. It may conduct hearings and investigations, subpœna and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents, books and papers. The board shall, from time to time, publish the names of licensed real-estate brokers and salesmen,with information as to when each license expires. The publication shall include the names of those real-estate brokers and salesmen whose licenses have been revoked at any time within one year prior to the time of the issue of publication.
This Wisconsin Real Estate Licensing law has been in operation a year. Mr. B. G. Packer, Director of Immigration, and secretary to the Real Estate Brokers' Board, gave to the writer the following information in regard to the results of the operation of the law so far.
This law requires registration of all real-estate brokers and salesmen doing business in the state. In the past there was no way to tell who they were or where located. The license is good for one year, and thereupon a new application must be made. This gives the board a check on the dealer's operations the preceding year. The board requires him to cite all legal actions arising out of his real-estate business whether he was plaintiff or defendant.
It is a common practice with some dealers to take a judgment note for commission which can be entered up without process and execution levied against the property of the defendants. The defendant can open up the judgment and put in a defense if he can show misrepresentation and fraud. This year, when several applicants applied for new licenses, the board found this condition and the licenses were refused.
The applicant for license must show affirmatively that he is trustworthy and competent. In the past the state took no pains to find this out. The licensing board operates as a poor man's court of redress in transactions arising out of the land business. In the past the purchaser's remedy was a more or less satisfactory suit at law.
The licensing board can make investigations and hold hearings on its own motion. In the past the initiative had to be taken by the party claiming deception.
Last year the board granted licenses to 4,600 brokers and salesmen, denied 20 applications, revoked 2 licenses, and has at present 60 hearings pending on applications for licenses in 1921.
The Wisconsin license law does not reach the owner who has worthless land to unload upon an unsophisticated purchaser. Besides this, the law has other limitations. But nevertheless it is a step ahead.
Pennsylvania, the Southern states, and cities in many parts of the country have required a license fee or an occupation tax from real-estate men, but such laws do not regulate, because, as the above-mentioned report states, "no matter how high the fee, the usual run of licensing or prosecuting official will not use his authority to establish moral standards." Furthermore, "in New York and most Northern and Western states,even the slight check of the occupation tax is absent and there is no formality to be observed in entering our profession by any person, no matter how unreliable, irresponsible, or incapable, and whatever his record."
After agitation covering a period of twelve years, the real-estate brokers of California succeeded in 1917 in having enacted a law for the regulation of real-estate brokerage. In 1918 this law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, on the ground that insurance men were exempted by the wording of the act and that such exemption made the law discriminatory.
The Real Estate Commissioner of the state gives the following synopsis of the law:
The act "provides for the issuance of licenses to two classes of persons—the broker himself, who, in addition to taking out a license, is required to put up a bond running to the state of California, and the salesman, who is defined as one in the employ of a licensed broker and ... is not required to put up a bond." The act is administered by a Real Estate Commissioner appointed by the Governor. Upon petition to the Real Estate Commissioner appointed by those aggrieved in their dealings with brokers or salesmen, a hearing is provided before the commissioner, and upon proper showing the petitioner may be granted the privilege of suing the broker on his bond.... There is also a provision for the filing of complaints against brokers and salesmen concerning their conduct and, upon investigation, if found guilty, the commissioner is empowered to revoke their licenses. The law provides a heavy penalty for a broker—a fine of $2,000 or a prison sentence of two years—and in the case of corporations,a maximum fine of $5,000. The fees for licenses are, for brokers, $10 per annum, and for salesmen, $2 per annum.
The act "provides for the issuance of licenses to two classes of persons—the broker himself, who, in addition to taking out a license, is required to put up a bond running to the state of California, and the salesman, who is defined as one in the employ of a licensed broker and ... is not required to put up a bond." The act is administered by a Real Estate Commissioner appointed by the Governor. Upon petition to the Real Estate Commissioner appointed by those aggrieved in their dealings with brokers or salesmen, a hearing is provided before the commissioner, and upon proper showing the petitioner may be granted the privilege of suing the broker on his bond.... There is also a provision for the filing of complaints against brokers and salesmen concerning their conduct and, upon investigation, if found guilty, the commissioner is empowered to revoke their licenses. The law provides a heavy penalty for a broker—a fine of $2,000 or a prison sentence of two years—and in the case of corporations,a maximum fine of $5,000. The fees for licenses are, for brokers, $10 per annum, and for salesmen, $2 per annum.
The operation of the law appears to have been extremely successful and to have been heartily indorsed by the public generally and by all the reliable real-estate dealers and salesmen in the state. The Real Estate Commissioner gives the following picture of the results of the law during the eight months it was in force:
1. It gave the realtors faith in each other, each being under bond and licensed by the commissioner with power of revocation in case of violation of the law.2. It increased the confidence of the public generally in the realty business, for the law afforded the public a ready and inexpensive means of redress in case of wrongdoing.3. During the eight months, some sixty complaints were filed with the commissioner, and all were adjusted without even a formal hearing up to the time the law was thrown out, March, 1918. Some twenty-five hundred dollars was returned to defrauded purchasers through appeals to the commissioner.4. The deterrent effect of the law on wrongdoers will never be known, but must have been far-reaching.5. So satisfactory was the law that the public, the bankers, and especially the realtors, are preparing again to present to the legislature during the winter of 1918–19 a more carefully worded law governing the realty business.
1. It gave the realtors faith in each other, each being under bond and licensed by the commissioner with power of revocation in case of violation of the law.
2. It increased the confidence of the public generally in the realty business, for the law afforded the public a ready and inexpensive means of redress in case of wrongdoing.
3. During the eight months, some sixty complaints were filed with the commissioner, and all were adjusted without even a formal hearing up to the time the law was thrown out, March, 1918. Some twenty-five hundred dollars was returned to defrauded purchasers through appeals to the commissioner.
4. The deterrent effect of the law on wrongdoers will never be known, but must have been far-reaching.
5. So satisfactory was the law that the public, the bankers, and especially the realtors, are preparing again to present to the legislature during the winter of 1918–19 a more carefully worded law governing the realty business.
One of the services rendered by the Department of the Real Estate Commissioner was the issue of a directory of licensed real-estate brokers and salesmen in the state. The first copy was published October 1, 1917, and contained aboutfour thousand names, as well as other material such as maps, laws, and legal opinions, designed to be of practical value to all realtors. It was intended that this directory be issued quarterly and be distributed to licensed brokers, with a subscription price to others of one dollar a year. The commissioner regarded this directory bulletin which bound together in fraternalism the real-estate men of the state, as only one of the many possibilities of extending valuable aids through his department to the real-estate profession, and so indirectly to the agricultural industry.
Although there have been attempts in other states to secure legislation, so far they have been unsuccessful. In essentials they have resembled the California law, although differing in details, such as amounts of bonds, fees, and penalties. In Minnesota, several years ago, the State Immigration Commission was instrumental in introducing a land-regulation bill which was killed by the efforts of the land dealers.
In 1914 the Executive Committee of the Real Estate Association of New York submitted for the consideration of the association a bill for the licensing of real-estate brokers and the creation of a real-estate commission. In 1916 a bill similar to this one was introduced in the legislature of the state of New York, but failed of passage. In Texas a bill was approved by the Texas RealtyAssociation, but was not enacted into law. In addition to efforts for legislation in the states there have been national recommendations.
The Committee on State Legislation of the National Association of Real Estate Exchanges in 1913 reported on a bill for the regulation of the real-estate business. The main provisions are as follows:
A State Board on Real Estate Licenses shall be established, consisting of five members, all real-estate men, appointed by the Governor, and having its headquarters in the state capitol. Every person engaged in the real-estate business shall apply for a license to the board. The applicant shall present proof that his standing is above reproach and that his record for honesty and fair dealing is clear. The applicant shall file a satisfactory bond in the amount of $1,000, conditioned on the faithful performance of any undertaking as a real-estate broker, the bond to be renewed with each renewal of the annual license. The fee for the license shall be $10 for each dealer, firm, or corporation, and $2.50 for each salesman, the fees to be, respectively, $5 and $1 after the first year. Licenses shall expire each year. The board shall have power to revoke at any time any license where the holder thereof is guilty of gross misrepresentation in making sales, etc., or of any other conduct which, in the opinion of the board, is opposed to goodbusiness morals. The board shall investigate all complaints; it shall have power to subpœna witnesses. Any person violating the act shall be fined not less than the compensation or profit received or agreed to, and not more than four times that amount, or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
The Legislative Committee of the Interstate Realty Association of the Pacific Northwest has proposed a real-estate license law for the state of Washington, the main provisions of which are similar to the others already quoted.
Although there has been no successful state-wide provision, in Portland, Oregon, an ordinance licensing real-estate brokers was approved in 1912, including the salient features of the proposed state laws. Application is made to the city auditors, with proof of the applicant's good standing and square dealing. The Council Committee on licenses has power to revoke or withhold, and penalties are provided for.
As an example of the occupational tax law applying to the real-estate business, the law of the District of Columbia may be mentioned. The District of Columbia (1914) has a law imposing a license tax of $50 per annum on real-estate brokers or agents. The assessor of the District said that the fee was not large enough to restrict character of trade, and that the paymentof the fee was the only qualification for a license.
In addition to the need for honest dealing there is everywhere felt the need of bringing farm sellers and buyers together through a public agency. Certain states, in co-operation with the Federal Department of Agriculture, have made provision for doing this. For this purpose an office is created similar to a public employment office. It aims to provide the farm sellers and buyers with more or less reliable information without cost to either side.
In the state of Maryland the Extension Service of the state college, in co-operation with the Federal Department of Agriculture, has worked out a farm-description blank for farm sellers. The blank contains questions in regard to the location of the farm, its size, distance from communication lines, and inhabited places of various sizes and market facilities, its soil, its fences, buildings, water supply, ownership, price, and other points intended to show the condition and value of the farm for sale. The office distributes these blanks among the county agents, from whom the farm sellers secure the blanks. The county agents forward the completed forms to the main state office, which periodically publishes the collected information for farm buyers.
This information is available to farm buyers for the mere asking. Anyone can see, in the state office or in the published volume, the blanks describing in detail the farms for sale. In this way they can be directly connected with the seller of the selected farm, without agents or advertising cost to either side. Thus misrepresentation can be avoided to a certain degree. The Extension Service, however, does not enter into any financial arrangement or give any guaranties. Aside from the information contained in the filled forms, it gives information of a general character concerning the agricultural possibilities of the state and of various sections and localities in it. At present the Service is particularly interested in locating the returned soldiers.
As such a public agency system is of comparatively recent origin and has not had time to develop, it is impossible to judge with certainty its future possibilities. In theory the operation of the system seems to be an easy matter, but in practice it is complicated. The farmers who intend to sell their holdings have to be informed of the work of the office, and equally the farm buyers have to be acquainted with the plan. This involves education of the farmers by an extensive advertising campaign, which requires time and expenditure of public money. However, there is a real need for such a public agencyand the results of the attempts to establish and develop it have been encouraging.
It would be desirable that the states which have already established or will establish such public agencies should co-operate with one another through the Federal Department of Agriculture and, with the assistance of the latter, should organize a central office as a clearing house. Nation-wide advertisement should be made by the central office for all the states in co-operation. In this way the farm advertisements would be made more effective—unnecessary repetitions, and the expenses connected with these, would be avoided. Through interchange of experiences a uniform system might be established. Such a central office, in co-operation with the Immigration Bureau, Department of Labor, should inform immigrants who desire to establish rural homes of the various farm opportunities.
Up to this time both public and private efforts have been applied to the reclaiming of unused lands, rendering valuable service to the progress of the country. There ought, however, to be no question whether reclamation work should be a public or a private enterprise. If a number, and even a large number, of the private land-developmentcompanies have hitherto mined in the pockets of their land buyers instead of in the land itself, this has been largely because of the lack of any public regulation of private land-improvement companies. However, a number, perhaps a majority, of the companies have improved their land and have secured settlers who have made a success in the cultivation of the improved land. Therefore it would be a grave mistake to abandon or even to repress private enterprise in land-development work. It should be encouraged by the extension of public credit through the land companies and by putting their business under public supervision.
Where considerable areas have to be reclaimed, involving large expenditures and a long period of waiting for returns, public reclamation is preferable.
Although reclamation and colonization work are closely connected and dependent upon each other, still there is a marked difference. It is one thing to plan and irrigate a desert area and quite a different thing successfully to populate the irrigated land. The first is mainly a technical enterprise, while the other deals mainly with human beings. The people who direct and prosecute reclamation works—civil engineers and other technical experts—might not be good colonizers. The duties of the latter consist in selecting suitable settlers, directing their land-cultivationwork, and organizing and directing the community life of the settlers. On the other hand, colonizers, trained agriculturists, and community workers might not be able successfully to conduct reclamation works. Therefore these two fields ought to be recognized as distinct and provided for separately.
Almost all the proposed plans of land settlement fail to make such a distinction. They propose that the same public agency should acquire land, improve it, and colonize it. The same is true in regard to most of the private land-improvement and colonization projects. They plan to improve land and at the same time colonize it, which too often consists merely in securing land buyers and leaving the latter, after they have made their initial payment, entirely to their own fate.
Private land-improvement companies doing business in two or more states should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reclamation Service. They should be licensed, their projects approved, and their general methods of business regulated. Private companies doing business within state or city limits should be regulated by state irrigation or drainage district authorities, with whom the Federal Reclamation Service should co-operate in every possible way.
In order that the Federal Reclamation Servicemay be extended and expanded to meet the growing demands, further legislation must be passed by Congress. Liberal appropriations are needed both for the acquisition and reclamation of unused lands of different classes, as well as for the increase of the staff and working forces of the Service. The bills under consideration were discussed in Chapter VI. The bill introduced by Representative Mondell of Wyoming effectively provides for this service.
The word "colonization" suggests the following: populating a given unused area of land suitable for cultivation, according to a plan covering the selection of people, the cultivation of the land, providing credit and markets, instruction in land cultivation, planning, organizing, and directing of community life in its numerous branches, such as co-operation for various purposes, education, recreation. Colonization work in the modern sense is a new, delicate, and complex field, for it affects all sides of human life.
There is a wide difference of opinion the country over as to whether colonization should be a public affair or be left to private initiative and effort. Those who favor private colonization claim that public colonization is wasteful, uneconomical, that it puts a new burden on thetaxpayers, and savors of Socialism. Those who favor public colonization maintain that private colonization companies in the very nature of their endeavors work for their own profit, considering the settlers' interests and public welfare of secondary importance. Colonization results must not be counted only in the terms of money, but also in the terms of social value to the community and to the country.
Again the writer has to call attention to the fact that both public and private colonization is going on side by side all over the world. In certain foreign countries public colonization is predominant, while in this country the reverse is true. Only the state of California has undertaken public colonization as an experiment on a small scale, and so far with success.
It would be advisable that both public and private colonization go on, one competing with the other and learning from the other's experience. Private companies must be regulated and licensed by public authorities, and public credit should be extended to them. All this requires that the colonization work be organized on a nation-wide scale.
To meet the national need there should be established an interdepartmental Federal colonization board with the following duties:
(1) To make community plans. This would involve the location of settlements, their roadsand building sites; plans for division of land into farms; plans for erection of farm buildings; plans for town sites and buildings as colony centers, parks as playgrounds, etc., all to be surveyed and put in working shape by the Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior.
(2) To select suitable people for settlement on the lands acquired and improved by the Reclamation Service, with the preference to be given to former soldiers.
(3) To distribute the selected immigrant settlers of non-English mother tongue, including soldiers, having in mind the need of mixing different races with the native settlers so as to facilitate the process of incorporating all into American life.
(4) To plan and organize the economic life of the colonies. This means the introduction of, and instruction in, farming and methods of cultivation suitable to the land, climate, and other conditions surrounding the colony, the organization of buying and selling co-operation in the colonies, provision of markets, etc.
(5) To plan and organize the educational, recreational, and general community life of the colonies—schools, libraries, lectures, games, etc.
(6) To regulate and license or charter private colonization companies.
Among the policies of the Colonization Board a very prominent one should be a proper distributionof the immigrant settlers. Owing to the lack of any public plan or measures for the distribution of the immigrants in the country in the past the results have been astonishing. The Little Polands, Italies, ghettos, Germanies, and others in our great industrial centers are well known, though the word "Little" is not applicable in every case. It is especially inapplicable where the compact immigrant settlements exceed in numbers the largest cities of their home countries. For instance, according to the last census figures, there were in the city of New York more Italians (including their children) than the population of Rome, more Germans than in Cologne, about as many Irish as the population of Dublin and Belfast together, and about three times as many Jews as there were in the British Empire.
All this is already known to the public at large. What is not popularly known is the fact that there are foreign provinces in the agricultural sections of the country. There whole counties and even a number of neighboring counties are populated by immigrants of the same race and nationality. Such provinces have become self-sufficient; they have their own towns, their own schools, churches, industries, stores, select local public officials of their own nationality, speak their own tongue, and live according to the traditions and spirit of theirhome country. These traditions and this spirit are kept alive by their schools, churches, and libraries, and by the absence of any direct contact with American customs and traditions. From such localities came a considerable number of the American-born drafted men who could not speak, write, or even understand English.
Such foreign provinces in the rural sections of the country are principally found in the North Middle Western states and Western states. When the writer, during his field investigation, arrived in such localities—for instance, in the southwestern part of North Dakota—he found that the townspeople, business men, and public officials, as a rule, understood English, but spoke German or Scandinavian among themselves. In talking with any man in the street the writer had to resort to the man's mother tongue, while the farmers back in the country, as a rule, did not speak English at all. Yet many of them were born in this country.
On the whole, the impression of the writer was that the larger the rural immigrant colony, the less it showed evidences of American influences. This was quite apparent in regard to the Slavic and especially the Polish colonies visited by the writer in a number of states.
The immigrants already settled in large colonies of one nationality cannot be redistributed, but they can be reached by other means, one ofwhich is an efficient public-school system, which is dealt with in later chapters.
Measures should be undertaken for the distribution of the new immigrant settlers so as to avoid their congregation in large colonies of only one nationality. The experience of private land dealers and colonization companies shows that it is not wise to settle a single immigrant family among native settlers or the settlers of another nationality. Such a family becomes lonesome and sooner or later leaves the settlement. Therefore the immigrants must be settled in groups according to their nationalities.
The question is, how large such national groups must be in order to keep the settlers in the colony and at the same time to avoid their becoming clannish and remaining untouched by American influences for a generation or a number of generations. The observation of the writer and his interviews on this question with the people engaged in colonization have led him to the conclusion that such groups ought to be of from five to fifteen families each, settled in the same neighborhood among either groups of other nationalities or native settlers.
Such distribution of the immigrant settlers in smaller groups is favored by the immigrants themselves. As a rule, they are eager to learn American ways as soon as possible, and usually accede with alacrity to distribution, provided noviolent compulsion is used and they are directed to land where they are able to make a success by their investment and toil, without being cheated or exploited. The writer discussed the size of a rural immigrant group of the same nationality in a number of the immigrant colonies. The settlers, even the Russian sectarian peasants, believed that if there were not less than five families in one group no loneliness would be experienced. If there were no more than ten or fifteen families there would be no danger of their becoming clannish and self-sufficient, for they would of necessity have to deal with other groups and intermingle with them for both business and social purposes.
A rigid selection of settlers on the basis of their ability to farm and to stay on the farm is of prime importance. Among the applicants for farms in new colonies there are three main classes of people, each distinct from the others: (1) those who have experience, knowledge, and otherwise ability for land cultivation and the capacity for sticking to a job. These should be selected and will contribute to the success of the colony, which ultimately depends upon the settlers themselves; (2) those who are hunters for easy pickings in the way of a piece of property or for an opportunity for safe investment or for speculation. These should be avoided as the plague; and (3) those who are not suited forrural life and heavy toil on the land, mostly city people who dream of changing their life for improvement of their health in the country, for an independent life, or for an easy-going life, of fresh air, sunshine, flowers, and birds. Such people are not able to make a success of farming and should be avoided. These classes of applicants are found among immigrants as well as among natives, soldiers, and civilians.
How important the selection of settlers is for the success of colonization and settlement on land is shown by the close scrutiny of prospective settlers made by the agents of modern private colonization companies and also by certain state immigration officials. They ask an applicant about his supply of money or credit, about his experience, about his past in detail, his habits, his inclinations, and his aspirations. They judge him by his appearance, his physique, and his health. He is also questioned about his family life; special attention is given to the attitude of his wife toward rural life, her past experience, the probability of her being satisfied and able to stay permanently on the farm and carry the heavy burdens of a farmer's wife. Finally, the prospective settler is warned of the existing conditions in the colony, of the heavy toil and the difficulties, and of the long period of waiting which must elapse before he can enjoy the results of his investment and labors. Selection made inthis way will guarantee the success of a colonization enterprise, be it public or private.
A last measure which is extremely important and must not be overlooked in any planning for land settlement is the extension of public credit to settlers through the Federal Farm Loan Board. This, of course, applies not only to the settlers in the colonies established by the Federal Colonization Board, but also to those of private colonization companies regulated and chartered by the Colonization Board, and to individual settlers. There must be certain safeguards against loss. To accomplish this there could be established a settlers' credit division in the Federal Farm Loan Bureau, with a special land colonization credit fund. A similar plan was proposed in the bill introduced by Representative Knutson, May 27, 1919.[19]
Some such provision is indispensable in any comprehensive land policy, and should secure a place in legislative enactment.
No amount of legislation or smooth-running administrative machinery can provide, however,for one of the most fundamental factors in modern small-farm production.
Every colony of small farmers nowadays needs to provide for co-operation among its members. There is no other way for them to enjoy the technical advantages of large-scale farming in the buying of seeds, stock, fertilizers, tools, machinery, and other necessities at wholesale prices, in the selling of farm products at the best prices; in the establishment of creameries, etc. The buying of necessary costly machines, such as stumping machines, tractors, threshers, headers, is beyond the financial power of an individual settler. Even should he be able to acquire them, he cannot use such machines to their full capacity on his small piece of land. But in co-operation settlers are able to buy the heavy machinery and to use it to its fullest capacity. Mutual insurance and credit established through co-operation are another substantial assistance to the success of the settlers.