the sugar beet from a marketing standpoint as compared to wheat, potatoes, and other bulky crops. In shipping these latter crops, the entire bulk has to bear the expense of the long haul to market, or else they must be converted into livestock products and the latter then shipped to market. But a large part of the food consumed by the animal is utilized to maintain the animal during the fattening period. It is estimated that it takes 500 to 1,000 pounds of hay and grain to produce a gain of 100 pounds of livestock. On the other hand, aside from the fact that an acre of sugar beets produces 2,500 pounds of pure white granulated sugar constituting a human food, 100 per cent of which is digestible, the mere by-products from an acre of beets, properly fed to livestock in a balanced ration, will produce approximately 300 pounds of meat. The by-products alone of an acre of beets will produce as much human food in the form of meat as will the entire product of an acre of corn.

The beet tops, pulp, and molasses are considered by dairymen and cattle feeders to be excellent food, and the feeding of those byproducts to cattle increases the stock-carrying capacity of the farm, and as a corrollary, produces additional barnyard fertilizer for the land.

Some allusion has been made to the fact that we are now surfeited with surplus farm crops, and that it may be a blessing in disguise if, through lack of labor these surpluses might be reduced or eliminated. But, Mr. Chairman, we are now producing in continental United States less than one-fifth of the total amount of sugar we consume, and as long as we are importing from foreign countries annually 60 per cent of our sugar requirements and sending abroad from $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 a year, the question of a surplus crop of sugar beets need cause us no worry. No matter how large a crop of beets the farmer may grow, he has a ready market at a remunerative price, at his door, for as large a crop as he is willing to produce.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite your attention to the value of the sugar beet as a rotating crop.

The President of the United States, the Department of Agriculture, and various Government officials have been stressing the need of diversified farming as a means of remedying the present unfavorable condition of the American farmer. We believe, and our belief is concurred in by the greatest agronomists and economists of Europe and the United States, as well as the farmers who are engaged in beet culture, that the sugar beet is by far the best crop to introduce into the cycle of rotation, because not only is it a cash-paying crop for which the farmer has a remunerative market in his own community, but that it builds up and rejuvenates the soil and puts it in better shape for succeeding crops.

In this connection I quote from a statement made by the President of the United States published in the report of the United States Tariff Commission on sugar in 1926:

The American farmer received advice on every hand to diversify his crops. He proceeds to do so by going in for sugar-beet culture, protected from the competitive impact of cheap Cuban labor by a tariff duty of 1.764 cents per pound on Cuban raws. The American farmer is thus in process of building up a great home agricultural industry which at once improves the farmer's soil, enables him to diversify crops, and tends to release the American people from dependence upon the foreigner for a major item in the national food supply.

This committee has no doubt been the recipient of many petitions and resolutions, as well as personal letters, advocating and opposing the passage of the proposed measure, and therefore we have no desire to encumber the record by inserting a great quantity of evidence expressing opposition to the bill.

Of far more importance, we believe in giving you a cross section of sentiment regarding this measure, we invite your attention to the fact that organized industry and organized agriculture-voicing the composite views of their members are on record as opposing the placing of Mexico and Canada on the quota basis.

You have probably been advised of the action of the American Farm Bureau Federation on this subject. I might add that in addition to this the American Farm Congress, at its annual meeting held in Kansas City November 18, 1927, also passed a resolution along similar lines.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in its Current Program dated October 6, 1927, states:

The chamber * * * opposes the extension of the quota to Mexico and other countries of the Western Hemisphere, because, after all the arguments for and against have been weighed, the odds favor exceptional treatment of these neighbor nations.

We submit, Mr. Chairman, that these official expressions by these great organizations comprising millions of members residing in every section of the country should carry as much weight in determining this question.

It has been asserted that there are millions of Mexicans now in the United States, and that while they mostly enter for seasonal agricultural work, many of them eventually drift to the cities, becoming a menace to American labor and causing a serious social problem. While this may be true to a limited extent, we believe the statements regarding this condition have been very much exaggerated.

Senator KEYES. You do not concede there are millions, do you? Mr. AUSTIN. I say, while this may be true to a limited extent Senator, we admit a good many of them are in, but not to the extent of millions and millions as the statement is made lots of times. I will say for the Senator's information that last year, covering the substance of the hearing before the House committee, I sent a questionnaire out to all beet-sugar producers, covering the entire situation and all the information that was sought by the House committee, including the number of Mexicans, number of general laborers, housing conditions, etc. I have the permission of the chairman to file that with the committee, so that you will get an entire picture of the Mexican problem as it applies to the beet-sugar industry.

Senator KING. Are those figures which you present for the record a statement of the number of Mexicans now in the United Statesand when I say "Mexicans," of course, I do not include American citizens such as those residing in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. There are many Mexican American citizens of Mexican descent. You are excluding them?

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.

Senator KING. Excluding them, how many Mexicans are there in the United States?

Mr. AUSTIN. I have not covered that.

Senator KING. Have you those that owe allegiance to the Republic of Mexico and who have come from Mexico for the purpose of obtaining work in the United States?

Mr. AUSTIN. No.

Senator KEYES. The statement you have submitted just covered the beet sugar?

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. I will say this, that in the testimony before the House committee there are many opinions about the number of Mexicans who are here and the number of Mexicans who leave every year and come back as there were Mexicans present.

The experience of the beet-sugar producers and sugar-beet farmers is that as a general rule the Mexican has a "homing instinct"; that he loves his country and even though he remain in this country for several years, the hope and expectation of returning to his homeland is always uppermost in his mind. This fact is borne out by implication, from the following statement of the 1927 Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration:

Only one Mexican out of every three was going to join his immediate family or other relative already established in the United States, and in addition the male married were nearly three times the number of female married. These facts indicate, as did the figures for the previous year-1926-that many of the Mexican wage earners are coming alone, leaving their families in Mexico.

There can be no other conclusion drawn from this statement that that quite generally the intent of the Mexican when entering this country for seasonal work is to return to his family in his native land.

The very fact that each year the beet-sugar industry is compelled to exert its efforts to secure Mexican laborers clearly demonstrates that the greater portion of them return home. If this were not the fact, there would be sufficient labor in the field to adequately fulfill every requirement, and it is evident that the industry would not go to the expense of securing additional Mexicans each year if those which they secured one year remained in this country for the succeeding year.

There are two kinds of labor performed on the farm-horse-power and hand-power. We believe that enough has already been said and written in regard to the distaste of the average American farmer to perform the hand work necessary in the cultivation of his crops. For this reason it is necessary that the farmer have available a class of labor which is adaptable and willing to perform the hand work. There are certain classes of laborers which have for generations been accustomed to this work. These are the inhabitants of Northern Europe where, for generations, they have been practicising intensive cultivation, especially in sugar-beet culture. When there was a free flow of this character of labor from Europe it was employed very largely in the beet-sugar industry in. this country, but since this supply has been shut off the sugar-beet farmer has been compelled to seek labor from other sources. They have found that the only available source at the present time is the Mexican, and while at the beginning of his employment the sugar-beet farmer was doubtful as to his adaptability to the work, they have since become of almost universal opinion that he is a satisfactory acceptable worker in the beet fields. In fact, in many districts it has been demonstrated that the Mexican is more efficient than many of those of other nationalities. In some districts where Mexicans are used quite freely,

experience has shown that they have produced approximately a half a ton more per acre than those of other nationalities engaged in the same work.

As far as the experience of the beet-sugar people is concerned, they have always found the Mexican laborer to be competent and industrious, and in many instances, such as extreme cold, or excessively inclement weather, these laborers have stuck to their work when others refused to do so. As an illustration of their adaptability it is stated that in some areas where prizes are offered each year for the best results obtained in the cultivation of the crop, Mexican laborers always receive more than their proportionate share of these prizes.

In regard to the assertion that Mexicans residing in the United States or coming here for season work not only present a social problem but become dependent to a very large extent upon charitable institutions, I quote from an article appearing in the United States Daily of July 26, 1927, giving extracts from a survey then just completed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. Among other things this report states:

The statements of charitable associations affirmed that a very few Mexicans ask for help, as they help one another. Social workers have observed that the Mexicans have a willingness to share their means with any of their unfortunate countrymen and a marked reluctance to ask for public assistance. The information given by bankers revealed that many of the Mexican laborers have a habit of saving, notwithstanding the rather heavy remittances of money to Mexico. A few savings accounts run as high as $500 and there are many from $100 to $250, mostly started within the last two years. In some places a fourth of the wageearning Mexicans have saving accounts, but generally are over a tenth and in some places less. It was also shown that many Mexicans hoard money in their homes. Investments in securities are rare, only five or six men in a thousand putting their money into interest-bearing paper. * * *

The Mexicans as a rule wear good clothing. They avoid articles of dress which might distinguish them from people in general. Many of the younger Mexicans buy automobiles. In the beet country employers oppose their men buying used cars, particularly when bought on credit, for they say that often a Mexican will spend for an old car the money which he needs to keep him through the winter.

That is a quotation from the Department of Labor.

Senator KEYES. That is not unlike our people.

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; we have all got stuck with secondhand cars one time and another, I think.

Senator KEYES. And new ones, too.

Mr. AUSTIN. These statements are corroborated by the experience of the beet-sugar producers as you will note in the summary of the questionnaire, which we have filed with this committee.

Mr. Chairman, the impression seems to prevail in some quarters that Mexican seasonal labor is employed in this country because it is cheaper than American labor, but this is not the case. The method of employing Mexican labor in the beet fields is by contract between the farmer and the laborer and in practically all cases the work is performed at so much per acre, usually about $23 or $24. In addition to these wages, the laborer is furnished free housing, water, etc., and in most instances, he has the use of a small plot of land for growing vegetables, etc. The Mexican laborers signs a contract identical with that signed by American laborers, and in all cases, where the laborer works by the day, be he Mexican, European, or American, he receives the prevailing wage rate in the section in which he works for that class of labor.

To corroborate these statements, I quote from the survey of the Labor Department I have already filed with this committee:

As a typical average, the Mexican works about 250 days a year, earning $4 a day. For food, a family of five spends hardly $2 a day, 30 cents for rent, 25 cents for clothing, and 10 cents for other expenses.

This survey covered the entire United States and, of course, being conducted by the Department of Labor, these figures undoubtedly can be relied upon.

Now, let us see what the Bureau of Labor has to say with reference to the wages and earnings of Mexican laborers engaged in field work in the sugar-beet section:

The Mexicans arrive about April 15 or May 1. Whenever the crop is clean the workers are at liberty to do outside work, earning current wages at gathering tomatoes, picking sweet corn, shocking grain, making hay, topping onions, husking corn, or doing whatever work is offered at the season. From August 1 to September 15 the best worker generally has an opportunity to do other work to earn extra money outside of his contract. Industrious workers are able to earn $75 or $100 in this way.

That is also a statement from the Department of Labor. Our people feel they can earn a little bit more than that, but it is just a mere matter of detail.

It is estimated that the average Mexican can take care of from 10 to 12 acres of beets, for which he receives $24 per acre, thus an average family of four adults, caring for 40 acres of beets, would receive an income from this work alone of $960, not including bonuses. In addition to this, the family could undoubtedly earn from $150 to $200 at day work, tending to other crops, making a total income for the family of four of, say, $1,110. Besides this, free transportation is furnished the laborer from the point of supply to the point of destination, and he also receives free rent and other perquisites. For instance, living on the farm he can secure a considerable supply of truck and other crops, milk, etc., at little, if any, cost. Taking these various perquisites into consideration, we believe that the net income of the average Mexican family employed in the beet fields would amount to approximately $1,300 to $1,400 for the year's work.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and we have one or two other witnesss here who would like just to give you a brief statement. As I stated, Senator King, before you came in, we have made a very lengthy case before the House Committee on Immigration, and we did not want to develop that evidence as the members of the committee will read it. There is an "X" problem in whether they will read it.

Senator KEYES. I have a list of witnesses here.

Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Heckman, labor superintendent of the American Beet Sugar Co., of Denver, was over here a moment ago, but he has gone over to the House committee, in order to keep track of the witnesses going over there while I speak here, and if he may present this statement and have it included in the record, it will be appreciated.

Senator KEYES. Certainly, and incorporate it in the record. (The statement submitted is as follows:)