The great undeveloped West which, under normal conditions would be the area which would attract population in greater proportions than any other part of the country, has been losing instead of gaining population. I mean in actual numbers, except in a relatively few urban counties.

I have before me a map which shows for the decade 1920-30, the counties spotted in white as to which there was an actual loss of population in the 10-year period and spotted in grey those counties which had a gain of less than 10 percent and in dark, almost black color, those counties which gained 20 percent or more.

You will recall the gain for the country as a whole was something like 15 or 16 percent. If you will look at this map you will find vast areas in the West which are white. Now, those represent actual losses of population in areas that were very sparsely populated at the start. The dark areas in the West represent very moderate actual gains in people for the most part, because if you take a county that has only 5 people to the square mile and add 2 or 3 more, you get a gain of more than 20 percent, which is represented by a dark area; but, of course, if you had 100-percent gain, you would still only have 10 people per square mile in such a county.

The significance of this map is that over here in the densely populater areas and along the seaboard, the areas of greatest gain are the areas which already had these tremendous concentrations of population to which I have called attention. You will also notice these white spots in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, in the interior counties, where population was actually lost in the 10-year period during the same time that it was increasing by the millions in the areas of already dense congestions of population.

That reflects the pulling of the people away from the areas that have a small population density to those which have a great population density. There is a reason for that, and the reason is largely freight rates, as I shall undertake to point out to you.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Do you not think that immigration has had something to do with that?

Mr. CHILDE. We have not had much immigration since the war, I do not have the immigration figures in mind.

Mr. BULWINKLE. We have had five and six million since the war, probably over 6,000,000.

Mr. CHILDE. I cannot discuss the immigration with you, Congressman. I have not studied it. But whether it is immigration or not that accounts for a part of the great gains along the seacoast, the fact remains as you see by this map there have been actual losses in the interior showing immigration does not tell the story.

Mr. BULWINKLE. What has been the effect of natural conditions, we will say, dust storms, what effect have they had on that?

Mr. CHILDE. The dust storms, you are thinking about, happened after 1930 and certainly did not have any effect upon the showing here which is 1920 to 1930.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Well, I am talking about now, the population leaving some areas.

Mr. CHILDE. There has been some shifting of population during the recent drought period which is not shown on this map, but the fact remains that for 20 years or more there has been a pulling of population away from the interior to the few areas of concentration along the coast and that is the thing that I am directing your attention to now.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. Before he gets away from the question of immigration, I just read last night in the United States News, Dave Lawrence's paper, a showing that in the last 6 years immigration had exceeded emigration in the country by 227,000. That is, 227,000 more people left the country than came to it. About 4 years ago I got some figures from the Bureau of Immigration showing that that trend evidently had existed longer than 6 years. I have the impression that it has been going on about 10 years, so that for at least about 10 years immigration has been at a standstill.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I want to state right here if I can, that after the war was over in 1918, from 1918 to about 1925, probably something over a million immigrants came to this country a year, until we passed the immigration law.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Can you tell us whether there has been a decrease in the production of wealth in those white countries?

Mr. CHILDE. Production of raw materials?

Mr. WADSWORTH. No; wealth.

Mr. CHILDE. I cannot answer that as to the 10-year period. I do not have the figures before me.

Mr. HINSHAW. Would you not say that a part of that decrease is due in one respect to the mechanization of farms and another to the depletion of the soil?

Mr. CHILDE. The use of mechanical farm equipment probably has had something to do with it. It has provided less jobs for people on the farms.

Mr. HINSHAW. Then, they would have to move away?

Mr. CHILDE. Yes; they must move away if they do not have jobs. The trend, of course, is from the farm to some industrial county where factories exist, which provide employment. And because we have not had factories in the interior to hold that population they have had to go out of the interior and they have had to go to these areas of great manufacturing density. That is getting right down to the point I am trying to bring before you here, that if we are going to have a better diffusion of population, something that will hold our people in the interior instead of moving them on to the coast, we have got to have more manufacturing in the interior. That is the main source of jobs.

Mr. Chairman, if you desire, I could file this map with the committee or I can file a statement of the county populations for 1920 to 1930, which shows the trends that I have been discussing.

The CHAIRMAN. If I remember rightly, each member has already been provided a copy of that map in connection with Mr. Murray's testimony.

Mr. CHILDE. Mr. Murray's map shows trends by States, but not by counties. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CHILDE. This is a county map and shows the trend by counties. The CHAIRMAN. Will you provide each member with a copy of that

map?

Mr. CHILDE. No; I cannot. I have only the one map.

The CHAIRMAN. You may leave it with the clerk anyway, if you will. (The map referred to was thereupon filed with the committee.)

MANUFACTURING IS CONCENTRATED IN A FEW AREAS

Mr. CHILDE. As to manufacturing, I have a further map before me here which is prepared by Rand-McNally, and is a part of their big atlas which shows by counties, according to the 1930 census, the number of manufacturing plants. The red counties on this map are seven counties in the United States where 25 percent of all of the manufacturing plants in the country are located. Those seven counties are New York and Kings, both in the New York City area; Philadelphia; Suffolk, which is in the Boston area; Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that is the Cleveland area; and Los Angeles County. Calif.

The next 25 percent of the manufacturing plants in the country are located in 46 counties which are shown in a lighter red on this map. And, of those 46 counties, 34 of them are in the eastern or official territory. Only 2 of them are in the South; 5 of them are in the western territory, between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains; and 4 of them are on the Pacific coast.

Only four of the 53 counties in which half of the manufacturing plants of the United States are located are in States which do not border on the Atlantic coast, Pacific coast, or the Great Lakes.

You can see from that the tremendous sparsity of manufacturing industries in the interior States, and you can see by looking at this map how the areas where manufacturing plants are concentrated are exactly where the areas of population density are located, as I have already pointed out to you on the map in front of me.

If it would be of any value to the cor committee, I will leave this map. The CHAIRMAN. You may leave it with the clerk. It is quite expensive to put those maps into the record, so ordinarily we do not do that.

Mr. CHILDE. I have no desire to have you incur such expense. I merely want to have the information available for the committee if it would be helpful to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; thank you.

(The map above referred to was filed with the committee.)

INDUSTRY BEGINNING TO GROW ALONG INLAND WATERWAY

Mr. HINSHAW. I am amazed that manufacturing has failed to follow the inland water routes.

Mr. CHILDE. The inland water routes are just beginning to be used, but the fact is, manufacturing has had some development and some chance to grow along the inland water routes, and you will notice particularly the St. Louis area and here at the Memphis area, and here at Cincinnati, and here at Pittsburgh, and here are a few other points, such as Louisville and Evansville; here are little uprisings of population in Illinois, and Iowa, along the Mississippi River.

The inland waterways have had considerable to do with holding industry which was moving away from those areas and they are now beginning to be utilized to a sufficient extent to attract new industries in that area.

Mr. HINSHAW. They were there long before the railroads came, were they not, that is, the inland waterways?

Mr. CHILDE. Yes; but they have not been improved for low-cost water transportation until recent years. The improvements have been taking place mostly during the last 10-year period. The inland waterway system is not yet fully in use, but it shows a promise of restoring to the interior the opportunity to develop and hold manufacturing which heretofore has been lacking. That is why we are here, and that is why we are so much interested in the proposal to regulate this water transportation just as it is beginning to have an effect.

THE INLAND WATERWAYS ARE OF BENEFIT TO INLAND AS WELL AS PORT COMMUNITIES

Here is another thing about inland waterway transportation which is extremely important, and it is new. Under the Denison Act, which was passed by Congress in 1928, for the first time the policy has been adopted that the inland waterways should be used not only for the benefit of the port communities, that is, those located on the river banks, but that joint rates shall be established, rail-and-water, which will extend to the interior area on both sides of the water routes; the benefits of the lower rates.

These joint rates are in the process of making now. There has been a case before the Interstate Commerce Commission ever since the latter part of 1923 in which the Commission is undertaking to find out what joint rates shall be established over what areas, and at what differentials, if any, under all rail rates.

Before this main proceeding (which has just passed the hearing stage, by the way, and probably will not be concluded for another year or two), there were a few individual cases establishing joint rates. At the present time we have a limited structure of joint rates which has been of real help to the interior communities.

The question of joint rates, however, will not be solved in any complete manner until the general investigation now in progress before the Interstate Commerce Commission is concluded.

That takes a period of a good many years and we do not know as yet what the outcome will be. If, however, the Commission gives the interior country the full economies of the use of the water routes, it will mean for the first time in history that our water routes are being used just as much for the benefit of the inland as for the port

areas.

OUR INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM IS THE GREATEST IN THE WORLD

Before I get away from inland waterways, let me call your attention to the fact that we are developing and have almost finished, in the United States, a great criss-cross of economical water routes which is far larger than anything the world has ever seen. It extends north

and south from Minneapolis and St. Paul to the Gulf with an alternate route from Chicago to the Gulf. That is, it traverses practically the whole length of the United States. East and West, the main arteries run from Pittsburgh to Kansas City, Omaha, and Sioux City out here in the West, and the Chicago-Illinois River Waterway also connects with the Missouri and makes a feasible and economical water route from Chicago to Sioux City.

The Missouri River part of the waterway has not been completed. It will not come into use as a completed project for at least another year. We hope 9-foot navigation will start in the spring of 1940.

The Illinois River has been in use for about 4 years as I recall it. Anyway it is only a few years.

The upper Mississippi from St. Louis to Minneapolis has been in use for some years, but the completed 9-foot channel will not be available for another year or two.

So you see the only complete part of the inland waterway system, with 9-foot channels, which we have had for any length of time is the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to the mouth, and the Mississippi from St. Louis to New Orleans.

Now in that restricted area of 9-foot waterway transportation, the water carriers are operating at costs which were very low, comparing in economy with ocean transportation and Great Lakes transportation.

Mr. HINSHAW. Do those costs include the maintenance of the waterways, and their construction costs?

Mr. CHILDE. By the United States?

Mr. HINSHAW. No; by the companies that are operating on them. Mr. CHILDE. No. They include only the costs of operating the vessels and, of course, the terminals that go along with them. The United States provides the channels, just as on the lakes and oceans it provides the harbors. When we talk of water costs, we are talking of the costs of operations which the public pays in rates, which, of course, on the inland or ocean waterways does not include the amounts the Government spends to provide channels and harbors.

WATER ROUTES ARE FREE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS THE WORLD OVER

Mr. HINSHAW. Why should the Government not furnish the rightof-way and maintenance of the right-of-way for the railroads?

Mr. CHILDE. They have never adopted that policy for reasons you probably are familiar with. The railroads of the United States together with all other railroads have their own exclusive rights-of-way that the public cannot operate on, and where they are privately owned, of course, they own the lands and they have to maintain those rightsof-way.

Water transportation on the contrary, the world over, is considered an operation on public highways for which the Government provides the harbors and the channels.

Mr. HINSHAWw. That would be true, except where the deepening of the channels is required as a result of shoaling taking place. Of course, that is something else. The river Rhine perhaps does not require any deepening of channels or protection of its banks, and consequently ocean transportation goes a certain distance up the Rhine.