216 WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION.

to the farmer because of his more efficient and continuous use of his
spare time. This will undoubtedly do away with the problem of
itinerancy, but no one will seriously believe that such a plan would-be
accepted by the industrial worker in this country. Are you willing
that the American farmer demand such a step as the only other
alternative to peasantry, which he will not and should not accept?
The CrairMAN. Is it not possible that the compensation of people
in the larger cities and the increase of hand-to-mouth living in these
cities will drive the children at least out of those cities to the suburban
territory or to the land?
Mr. Tavvor. That is probably true to a certain extent. Unless
something is done to make it possible for our people here in our rural
districts to earn sufficient to keep these other people employed by
consuming their products, I see no other outlet except to have these
people come out into our rural communities and operate these farms
as I-man farms, either on a peasant basis or, what is the only other
way out of it, and I can not conceive that agriculture with its present
stage of intelligence would permit a thing of that kind to happen,
would actually offer to industry the opportunity to decentralize their
operations and bring them out into the rural districts—which has
been discussed many times—and enable them to have their employment,
 during the time when they can not be occupied on their own
farms, in these industrial plants.” I know it is a difficult thing to do,
but the situation is such that labor itself ought to face that issue and
recognize it. We do not ask it. Not at all. We do not believe that
it is the soundest thing to do, but we do believe that if necessary it
may come to that, and we do not want to force the industrial man into
that position.
The CratrMAN. As a matter of act, aren’t all the cities of California
now doing all they can to induce industry to put factories—branch
factories—in California cities—branch manufacturing plants?
Mr. Tavror. That may be so, yes; that can go on still further in
the cities. It has been done some. Men of nation-wide reputation
have discussed that thin very seriously in past years, not only of
putting them in the various cities throughout the country, but also
of putting them out in the rural districts, right where the farmers are.
I recognize, Congressman, the problem that is presented. It is not
a simple one at all, but frankly I do not welcome such a situation as
this proposal would bring about. I don’t think it is the best thing,
and yet it is far better than to have one group in our cities well fed,
well taken care of, earning a good wage, and having the entire rural
population in this country going into the position that they now face
In the South, where they are practically in peasantry, earning 20 to
25 cents a day.
The one answer that we can see, therefore, is an attempt on the
part of our people to maintain in a reasonably prosperous and satisfied
 condition a group of people who will supply the demands for
peak labor loads, and when these are past in any one place move on
to the peak load in another locality, thereby utilizing their own
efforts over as large a portion of the year as possible and increasing the
return to all classes using this type of labor.
We realize fully that we are proposing a number of alternatives,
none of which are ideal, but we are up against hard facts, and until