The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, February 10, 1919, Page 9

. out thé principles of this ‘Who Houston Serves—Not Farmers! Proof of R(;c.kefell’er Influence in Possession of Congressmen—Department of Agriculture Serves Business Instead of Agricultural Interests Washington Bureau, ‘Nonpartisan Leader VIDENCE of a startling nature concerning the United States department of agriculture and Secretary of Agriculture Hous- tom is in the hands of mem- bers of congress representing agricultural interests, and it is expected that facts which will astonish the farmers will be brought out in the not distant future, through a congressional investiga- tion. Charges of a very se- rious nature have! al- ready been made public in connection with the withdrawal from the de- partment of agriculture of W. J. Spillman, who was. head of the farm management bureau. The results of investigations made by Mr. Spillman and his staff, showing that the cost of growing - various farm crops was considerably greater than certain interests want the public to know, were suppressed by Secretary Houston. Mr. Spillman has already told farmers” meetings of some of the conditions existing in the department of agricul- ture, which made it im- possible for him to serve farmers whenever his in- vestigations seemed to conflict with special priv- ilege interests. ! NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW For instance, Mr. Spill- man says: “For 10 years past the office of farm manage- ment has been working on the cost of production of agricultural products, and has finally worked problem. It is now ready to do important work on this subject. Ever since Mr. Houston has been secretary he has frowned on this work. In Octo- ber, 1917, he called me to his office and gave me positive orders to stop it. He stated that ‘the farmer is not entitled to any information on the subject. The only use ever made of such data is for agitators like this man Baer (League con- TR T gressman) of North Da- 3 kota, to go out and stir the farmers up with it I wrote these words down shortly after he uttered them. The next day I received from him an un- signed letter, ostensibly that I might suggest changes in it before he signed it, beginning: “¢According to the agreement we reached in our conference yesterday the following projects in _ your office will be discontinued:’ “He then went on to enumerate every project relating to cost of production. The letter was never signed, but the secretary refused to grant letters of authorization for continuing this work.” This statement-by Mr. Spillman is mild compared with other evidence which has been placed in -the hands of congressmen, and which will be used in the coming investigation, showing how the depart- ment- of agriculture has been made to serve the big interests rather than the farmers. For in- stance, the National Livestock association desired some information from the department of agri- culture relating to the cost of producing beef cattle. Ike Pryor, president of the association, sent Sec- retary Houston a telegram stating that the asso- ciation was in session in Denver and desired to know the status of the investigations relating to the cost of producing beef cattle being conducted by one of the bureaus of the department of agri- culture. In reply to this a telegram was written for the signature of Mr. Houston, stating that the inves- tigations referred to were being greatly extended and being pushed vigorously. The telegram prom- |- “] HATED TO DO IT, BUT—” | With profiteering in mill by-products running rampant since the removal of government war restric- tions on price, will farmers have to resort to killing off their livestock? jumped frqm $27 a ton to from $46 to $49, and in some instances to $50. ised the livestock association that a report would be ready soon. One of Secretary Houston’s personal assistants gave the man who prepared the telegram a severe calling down, stating that Secretary Houston in- tended to stop all investigations into the cost of producing livestock, and that the telegram could not be sent to the livestock association. - COST STUDIES GO IN PIGEON HOLE However, Secretary Houston feared the organ- ized power of the livestock association and, when " it was explained to him that the livestock breeders would make it uncomfortable for him if he notified them that these investigations would be discon- tinued, he finally authorized_the telegram orig- inally prepared for him to sign, and as a result the department had to continue its investigations of livestock produ&tion. e " PAGE NINE 3 \ After full investigations and reports as to the cost of production of all the leading farm products had been completed and submitted to Secretary Houston, they were pigeon-holed. The secretary does not believe the farmers entitled to any in- formation on the cost of production. R The secretary of agriculture was subsequently compelled to take .some action in regard to these cost reports for the reason that information was given to a congressional committee, showing how an attempt had been made to sidetrack the re- ports. The action that the secretary of agricul- ture took was to get to- gether a lot of so-called experts, some of whom . were personal enemies of the men who had pre- pared the cost reports, and caused them to get out a report questioning the reliability of the cost figures. ROCKEFELLER INFLUENCE Evidence concerning the influence of the Gen- eral Education board of New York on the affairs of the department of agriculture is also in the hands of congressmen. The General Education board is, as is well known, one of John D. Rockefeller’s endowed in- stitutions, having an en- dowment of $40,000,000. While James Wilson was secretary of agriculture, Doctor S. A. Knapp, who had charge of the county demonstration work of the department of agri- culture, obtained from the General Education board an appropriation for salaries for county agents. Secretary Wil- son was dissatisfied with this arrangement and later had similar work carried on with federal funds instead of Rocke- feller money. It is a notable fact that Mr. Houston, the present sec- retary of * agriculture, was formerly a member of the General Education ° board, the Rockefeller in- stitution, and of other organizations financed by Mr. Rockefeller. Congressmen have be- fore them evidence of the alleged fact that, after Mr. Houston became sec- retary of agriculture, there was circulated among employes of his department a typewrit< ten sheet, unaddressed and unsigned. This typewritten sheet was shown by a high official of the department to the various employes, and this high official said that the sheet had been given him by Secretary Houston. It rep- resented the views of John D. Rockefeller as to how the department of agriculture should be con- ducted, and it was said that Secretary Houston concurred in the views given. Persons who were permitted to read the sheet are ready to testify that it laid particular emphasis on the fact that under no circumstances should the department of agriculture give out any information on matters relating to the cost of production on the farm, or on the profits made by farmers, and should never even intimate that there is a possibility of over- production of any agricultural product. The busi- ness of the department, according to the views giyen in the typewritten sheet, was simply to show farmers how to produce more. : : _Following is a statement taken verbatim from Cattle feed has