The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, March 24, 1919, Page 8

|| WhoHouston Serves—A Few Questions | i S e D e e e s Congressman Cramton of Michigan Introduces House Resolution Calling for - Washington Bureau, - Nonpartisan Leader EMESIS, in the form of a hostile congress, is reaching out for Secretary of Agriculture Hous- ton. Congressmar. Cramton of Michigan has introduced in the house a resolution (H. R. 611) calling for an investigation, by a special committee of nine members, into the statements and charges made by ~ Doctor J. W. Spillman, recently chief of the office of farm management in the department of agri- culture, against Houston, and involving the direct charge that Houston attempted to suppress all in= quiries by the department as to the cost of produc- tion of the various crops and products on the farm. This Cramton ‘resolution sets forth that: X“Whereas, at the semi-annual conference of the’ National Board of Farm Organizations, on Feb- ruary 11, 1919, the following statements and charges concerning the United States department of agriculture were made by Doctor J. W. Spill- man, former chief of the office of farm manage- ment in said department”—and then proceeds to re- _produce the entire Spillman speech. The substance of this speech, as readers of the Nonpartisan Leader will remember, was originally printed in this magazine, some time before the speech was made to the conference in Washington. Its author had first written it down in the form of a letter to the president of the United States, as an explana- tion of his reasons for resigning from the depart-. ment last summer. This letter was never sent to the White House, but copies of it were privately circulated. FARMER NOT ENTITLED TO COST FACTS 2 When the Farmers’ Reconstruction confer- ence was held in this city early in January, Doctor Spillman delivered an address there on the necessity for governmental study of the cost of production of farm products. An assistant secretary - of agriculturé -was present to reply teo Spillman’s charge that the secretary had attempted to misrepresent the facts as to the cost of producing wheat. During the discus- ‘sion Spillman told publicly for the first _~time of the alleged remark by Houston: “The farmer is not entitled to any infor- mation on the cost of production; his only business is to produce; the only use ever made of such information is for agitators, like this. man Baer of North Dakota, to go out and stir the farmers up with it.” As a result of the pub- lication of Spillman’s charges, both as to the matter of cost studies and as to Secretary Houston’s close relations with the Rockefeller Gen- eral Education Board, Representative Cramton believes the whole country has a right to know the truth beyond any question of prejudice or misunderstanding. . He does not expect the outgoing/ congress to pay any heed to his resolution, but he is determined that tisan_ league boosters. i 'when the new congress assembles in special ses-: sion its Republican majority will adopt the resolu- tion, and Secretary Houston will be 'summoned be- fore the special committee to testify. Under the - resolution the committee will have full power to enforce the appearance of witnesses before it, to send for papers, administer oaths and employ cle;'-: ‘These steers were raised by Trahms Bros. of Janesville; Minn., The livestock raisers, what market monopgly means and they have b supplies, quarantines, etc. The department of agriculture -comes into contact with the farmers in sev- eral ways: It offers general service in farm production. It is a great political machine which can be used for friendly or hostile purposes. It has many bu- reaus and subdivisions. Kt is closely connected with county agent work and - must necessarily have representatives in all quarters of the Union. Evidence has come to light shoWwing that this great machine which ought to be serv- . ing the farmers is being put to the service of the special interests against the farmers by the present secretary. Through him the Rockefeller interests are trying to dominate our educational system and to hamstring the farmer in his fight for better conditions. Con- gressman Cramton of Michigan has called for a congressional investi- gation of the whole matter, as described in this story. ical help. It will finally make a report to the house ) on its findings. = Questions to be asked of Houston, when this in- quiry is voted by the house, will include: 1. Did Houston refuse to authorize, in October, 1917, the sending of experts into the field to get data for crop-cost statistics? If so, why? 2. Did Houston rebuke Spillman for having placed a report in the hands of the wheat price- fixing committee, urging that any price_below $2.30 would induce many farmers to feed their wheat? Did Houston declare there was “noth- ing in” the department’s estimate of the cost of production of wheat, and did he assign as . his reason for this opinion the testimony of one of his cousins, who raised cotton in North Caro- lina, and who said there yas “no such %hing as the cost of producing” cotton? Was this the “thoreugh investigation” which convinced Sec- retary Houston that cost studies were “un- reliable”? ) ; 3. Did Houston make the statement charged, that the farmers are not entitled to information on cost of ‘production of crops, and did he make the remark: about; Congressman Baer? B 4. Did Houston attempt to bluff Spillman _into signing a statement to the effect that they PAGE EIGHT first-class cattle feeders and Nonpar- with the Big Five packers standing over them, know een foremost in the fight for the free market. The man- agement of the department of agriculture also has a very direct bearing on their work 'in relation to their general business interests as against the packing' trust and in the regulation of feed X They need a department of agriculture working for their interest rather than that of their business opponents. 3 Investigation—Important Points Which Committee Will Consider ~ had “agreed” to abandon the cost-study proj- ects? Did he actually stop the work for some five months? Was he finally forced—in Jan- uary, 1918—to permit the resumption of the work by the inquiry of Ike Pryor, president of -~ the American National Livestack association, as to the beef cattle cost study? Did Hous- ton’s private secretary tell Spillman, over the telephone: “You know damned well the secre- tary has ordered these investigations stopped®”? WHY WERE COST 5 7 STUDIES PIGEONHOLED? 5. Why did Houston’ pigeon-hole the 23 reports on farm-cost studies delivered to him last summer? Why did he tell the senate, when questioned by resolution, that these reports were not-brought to his attention until some publicity had been given (by his critics) to them? Why did he then dis- credit the reports as not being “dependable”? 6. Did Mr. Houston permit to be circulated through the department a typewritten sheet pur- porting to outline the duties of the department, and which was unsigned, but which was verbally “said to have been written by a member of Mr. Rockefeller’s General Education Board, and to have the approval of Mr. Rockefeller and of Secretary Houston? Did Mr. Houston know that this state- ment declared against any investigations which would reveal the profits made by farmers, or-that would determine the cost of producing farm prod- ucts ? 7. Did Mr. Houston bring into' the department any bias in favor of the General Education Board or other Rockefeller interests because of his own - membership in the Southern Education Board, a subsidiary of the General Education Board? Was he aware of the reputed efforts of the General Edu- cation Board to force the Rockefeller money into the big universities in order to curb any “radical” economic teachings in those universities?- Did Houston, upon first taking office in 1913, antiounce publicly that the office of farm management _-was a mushroom growth, wasting vast sums, and that he would see that it did not grow any more for some I REAL BEEF CATTLE | time? Why has he ac- tually cut down its ap- propriation during his term of office? because Generdl Educa- tion Board employes, work under the depart- ment, had been displaced in the northern and west- ern states by regular government employes un- der the office of farm - management ? 8. Why did Hous- ton issue an order forbidding demon- stration workers in the department to co- - operate with any out- side agency except Rockefeller’s Gener- al Education Board? Why was the rural organization service, established by the Rockefeller people inside the depart- ment, and why did the Rockefeller board refuse to appropri- ate any money for the work mapped out by Professor T. N. Carver of Harvard, ~ who had been induc- ed to take charge of- the service? Was it -because Professor Carver wanted to investigate marketing of farm prod- ucts, rural credits, ete.? Did they answer when he inquired whether they had brought him into the service to remove the taint from Rock- _ efeller’s money? Why did Professor Carver - resign the job? And what did Houston threat- en to do, if he could discover which one of his subordinates drew up the measure adopted -unanimouslyin congress, which forbade the use _of any further Rockefeller “co-operation” in the work of th: department? RS St Was it purporting to do field - -2 4 v