California is the first, and so far the only state in the Union to undertake the public colonization of land. Its first experiment is very recent and on a comparatively small scale. Its leaders are ably utilizing their knowledge of the experiences in public land colonization in foreign countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the Scandinavian states, and Great Britain. Although it is impossible to foresee the outcome, the writer is inclined to believe that the public land colonization in California will continue to be a success, giving impetus to similar projects in other states.

THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT

The California experiment and its history may be outlined briefly as follows: A report of the California Commission on Land Colonization and Rural Credits made in 1916 revealed the fact that few settlers were coming to California and that many who had come were leaving because of hardships created by high prices of land, high interest rates, and short terms of payment given in colonization contracts. As a result, the California legislature passed the Land Settlement Act, approved June 1, 1917, [9] for the purpose of

The act appropriated $250,000 for a demonstration in state land colonization, fixing 10,000 acres as the limit which should be bought. The land might be situated in one or two localities, but not profitably in more, because of the increase in overhead expenses. To carry out the provisions of the act a state Land Settlement Board was appointed of which Prof. Elwood Mead was chairman. The board was organized at the end of August, 1917, and immediately began the search for a suitable tract of land. With the advice of technical experts of the University of California and of other authorities upon soil, irrigation, health, and various conditions which would affect the success of the colony, final selection was made of a tract at Durham, Butte County, California.

On May 7, 1918, the land was finally transferred to the state. Prior to this, however, the land had been subdivided and had been prepared for farming, a large acreage having even been seeded. On May 15th, 3,421 acres were offered to settlers, consisting of 53 farms, ranging in size from 31/2 acres to 160 acres, and of 21 two-acre farm laborers allotments. The prices of the farms varied from $875 (above which the next price was $3,646) to $14,942. The price of the farm laborers' allotments was $400. The law provided that the value of the former, without improvements, should not exceed $15,000, and that of the latter, without improvements, should not exceed $400. The terms of sale were as follows:

Settlers were to pay 5 per cent of the cost of the land and 40 per cent of the cost of the improvements at the time of purchase, the remainder of the purchase price to be paid over a period of twenty years with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. Payments of principal and interest were to be made semiannually in accord with the amortization table of the Federal Farm Loan Board.

All applicants for land were carefully considered as to their character and their fitness for farming. The minimum amount of capital a settler was required to have was fixed at $1,500 or a working equipment of equal value. A farm laborer was not required to have any capital, but had only to pay the initial deposit of $20 and semiannual payments of about $15.

The board reserved the right of supervision of the methods of cultivation of each settler, of the state of repair of buildings, of fire-insurance policies, and of other details.

Plans of houses and barns were prepared and the board offered to build these, or others, for the settler, on payment of 40 per cent of the cost. An engineer was employed to supervise the erection of buildings and to help settlers plan the grouping of buildings, orchard, garden, and field. The board bought material at wholesale and let contracts in groups and in this way each family was saved much money and valuable farming time.

The board kept the following objects in view:

1. That the settlement become widely and favorably known as the home of one breed of dairy cattle, one breed of beef cattle, one breed of hogs, and one or two breeds of sheep.

2. The co-operation of the settlers in buying and selling.

3. The establishment at Durham, or on the settlement, of a training school in agriculture.

4. The erection in the near future of a social hall owned and paid for by settlers.

Co-operative action among the farmers and farm laborers was particularly desired and encouraged. A co-operative stock breeders' association was formed. Twenty-two acres were reserved for community use, and here it is hoped that community buildings will be erected.

When the farms were offered for sale there were from ten to fourteen applicants for each of the improved farms. Four of the unimproved farms were not applied for and these will be seeded and offered to settlers later at the opening of the next tract. Every one of the farm laborers' allotments was applied for. The settlement was made self-sustaining and productive within sixty days from the date the land was purchased.

As to the racial composition of this colony and the way in which the method of colonization would affect the incorporation of the different racial elements in the life of the settlement, the superintendent, Mr. George C. Kreutzer, made the following statement:

This undertaking of California is the only one in the field of public land colonization anywhere in the country, except for projects involving soldier settlements which some states have lately begun to undertake.

STATE PROVISION FOR SOLDIER SETTLEMENTS

With the close of the War there began to appear on the calendars of state legislatures the subject of land settlement provision for returning soldiers. Up to the time this report was written, twenty-three states had passed some legislation relative to this need. The following table indicates in a general way the extent and nature of this provision.

In more than half the states the laws refer to Federal legislation, in a few cases specifying that the appropriation shall be contingent upon a national appropriation. Several states signify their approval of co-operation with Federal provision, but make no appropriation for the work. The largest appropriation in the form of a bond issue for popular approval of $10,000,000 was passed by the California legislature. Similar provision was made by Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah to the amount of $1,000,000. Nevada arranged for the borrowing of $1,000,000 for "reclamation, improvement, and equipment of lands ... for soldiers, sailors, marines, and other loyal citizens." Washington appropriated a revolving fund beginning with $1,050,000 and eventually reaching $3,000,000 to create a state Reclamation Service.

In spite of this evidence of awakened interest in soldier settlements, many such projects have died before any real attempt could be made to put them into practical operation. This is to be explained as follows. The projects in a number of cases were products rather of sentiment than of logic based upon experience. War-time patriotism created a desire to give some sort of reward to men fighting for the country's cause. "Let us give to each returning soldier a farm—a ready-made farm!" was heard throughout the country. Whether we had enough land, or economically available land, for millions of farms was not always asked. Many of the project-makers turned to our swamps, deserts, and cut-over lands filled with stumps and debris.

The easy-flowing imagination of these people, especially of the city type, made out of these lands new farms, flourishing gardens, meadows and fields burdened with crops waving in the winds. How much it would cost, whence would come the money and energy to create such a miracle, and how much time the prosecution of the plan would require was not asked. Would not our returned soldiers, who already are matured men, be in their graves before their desert and swamp farms gave a living to their cultivators? Still more strange was the common notion that all soldiers, even the crippled, were eager to settle on land—that all wanted land and all were fit to be farmers!

As the product of mere fancy, such sweeping soldiers' settlement projects were bound to die a natural death. And yet they have not been without value. They created lively discussion, and called attention to our land problems, especially to the reclamation and colonization of unused lands by the people who want land and are fit to be farmers and to do hard land-pioneering work, be they returned soldiers, native farmers, or newly arrived immigrants.

THE RECLAMATION ACT

The Federal Reclamation Service was established by an act of June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat., 388. [12] This act provides that the moneys received from the sale of public lands in the Western states, with the exception of the 5 per centum reserved by law for educational and other purposes, shall be set aside in the Treasury as a reclamation fund to be used for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the purpose of reclaiming arid and semiarid lands in these states.

Authority to conduct the reclamation work is placed in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He is given authority to withdraw from public entry the lands required for irrigation works and to restore the withdrawn lands to public entry when their use for such purpose is over. Under the authority conferred upon him by the act (Section 4, and Opinion Assistant Attorney General, April 16, 1906, 34 L. D., 567) he may enter into contracts for the construction of irrigation works or construct such works by labor employed and operated under the superintendence and direction of government officials.

The Secretary is authorized to give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project, and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the reclaimed lands; and of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the entries, and upon lands in private ownership which may be irrigated by the waters of the irrigation works. The charges shall be determined with a view to returning to the reclamation fund the cost of construction and shall be apportioned equitably.

It is provided that in all construction work eight hours shall constitute a day's work and no Mongolian labor shall be employed (32 Stat., 389). No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding 160 acres to any one landowner. It is provided that the reclamation fund shall be used for the operation and maintenance of irrigation works and that when the payments required by the act are made for the major portion of the lands irrigated the management of these works shall pass to the landowners.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire any rights or property for reclamation purposes by purchase or by condemnation under judicial process, and to pay from the reclamation fund sums needed for that purpose. Within thirty days, upon application of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General of the United States shall institute condemnation proceedings. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make rules and regulations for carrying the provisions of the act into full force and effect.

In the seventeen years since the passage of the Reclamation Act the surveys, examinations, and construction authorized by it have proceeded, and to-day, according to the report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1919, [13]

A number of bills have been proposed for enlarging and extending this work.

PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION

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, and for 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 authorized public 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 an interdepartmental 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 to create, 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 of coal, 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:

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.

PROVISION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

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.