In the foregoing, attention has been called to those things which may be
accomplished by the exercise of the Government's powers of supervision
and direction with the smallest outlay of money. In all this I have been
speaking of reclamation for the sake of reclamation.
The proposed soldier-settlement legislation stands on an entirely
different footing. The primary object is not to reclaim land but to
reward our returned soldiers with the opportunity to obtain employment
and larger interest in the proprietorship of the country. The policy is
based on a sense of gratitude for heroic service, not on economic
considerations. This is the answer to those who have criticized it as
class legislation or the proposal to grant special privileges to one
element of our citizenship or as a plunge into socialism. Frankly, we
avow our purpose to do for the soldier what we would not think of doing
for anybody else and what would not be justified solely as a matter of
reclamation.
Many measures of soldier legislation have been introduced into Congress.
Only one of these has been favorably reported. This was introduced by
Representative Mondell, of Wyoming, on the first day of the present
special session, embodying the plan of reclamation and community
settlement brought forward by this department in the spring of 1918.
The measure has been much misunderstood and sometimes deliberately
misrepresented. In the first place, it was not put forward as the
complete solution of the soldier problem. It was at no time supposed or
expected that all of the 4,800,000 men and women engaged in the war with
Germany would or could take advantage of its provisions. It fortunately
happens that the vast majority quickly found their places in the
national life. Of the remainder, a very large proportion may be
classified as "city minded." They have no taste for farm life but would
be better served by vocational training and opportunities to enter upon
remunerative trades or professions. There is an element of "country
minded," and of these some 150,000 have made application for
opportunities of employment and home-making under the terms of this
bill. Largely they are men who have had agricultural experience but who
can not obtain farms of their own without very considerable cash
advances and other assistance which the Government could render. It is
for this element that the policy is designed.
It has often been said that the plan would be applied only in the West
and South. The truth is that it has been the purpose from the first to
extend it to every State where feasible projects could be found, and
that our preliminary investigations lead us to believe this will include
every State in the Union.
The wide discussion of the measure has been highly educational to the
country, and some of the criticism is of constructive character. For
example, attention has been sharply called to the fact that in certain
localities there are individual farms well suited to our purpose which
may often be had at a price representing rather less than the value of
their improvements. These are the so-called "abandoned farms" so
numerous in the Northeastern States. In some cases they are interspersed
with land now cultivated, so situated that it is not possible to bring
together a large number of contiguous farms as the basis of a Government
project.
In New England and elsewhere public sentiment strongly favors a
modification of the pending measure which will enable the purchase of
individual farms rather than community settlement. This would be
practicable only in localities where a sufficient number of farms, even
if not contiguous, could be had to make possible the necessary
supervision and instruction, together with cooperative organization for
the purchase of supplies and sale of products. Without these advantages
the plan of soldier settlement would fail in many instances. My
information is that these conditions could be met. Not only so, but it
is urged that existing farm communities would be inspired by the
presence of soldier settlers and benefited by the presence of soldier
settlers by their cooperative buying and selling agencies.
Another criticism of the pending measure is directed to the amount of
the first payment the soldier settler is required to make. As the bill
now stands it calls for 5 per cent on the land, 25 per cent on
improvements and live stock, and 40 per cent on implements and other
equipment. It has been urged by some friends of soldier settlement that
no first payment should be required, but that the Government should make
advances of 100 per cent in view of the soldiers' peculiar claim upon
national consideration. It might be feasible to do this in the case of
community settlements. But it could not be done in the case of scattered
and individual farms, at least without abandoning the principles of
sound business.
In the case of community settlement the soldier literally "gets in on
the ground floor." Starting with a territory that is entirely blank so
far as homes and improvements are concerned, he finds himself in a place
where community values remain to be created. When he buys an improved
farm in a settled neighborhood the situation is precisely reversed. In
both cases there is or will be "unearned increment," or society-created
values; but in the one case he _gets_ the increment, while in the other
case he _pays_ it. Obviously, a larger advance would be justified in one
case than in the other.