was keeping that quiet. We went to see Mr. Kenney and Governor Saltonstall. Mr. Kenney held no hearing in Massachusetts, and no one in the area knew that he was proposing to do this or had given his consent, and he didn't 'fess up until later-we got hold of his correspondence.

At that hearing in May 1943, in Boston, Dr. Gabrielson was in attendance. He came there and we were trying to find out something from him. We had been trying, the town officials had been trying to get maps, and Dr. Gabrielson said, "I came to listen. I didn't come to answer questions." He was there all day, and two days later some of the gentlemen, among them Mr. Hale, who is here, went to Dr. Gabrielson, to Mr. Lock, head of the Boston office, and said: "How high are you going to put those dams?" Mr. Pearson said: "I have been using the power for 300 years in my family. How are you going to put dams up in Crane Pond?" He said they didn't know. Then we said: "Here is Newburyport up here. You are going to flood right up into there if you put a dam here, and you will flood right over into the Newburyport water supply. There is only 12 inches difference in elevation."

Dr. Gabrielson turned to Mr. Lock and says: "What is the story about this bridge here?" Well, Mr. Lock said-I was not even present, but he said: "We have taken no elevations on that." Then Dr. Gabrielson said to get a map, which they did in October, and through Governor Saltonstall's office I obtained a map from the Government, and I will read the letter that went with that map.

I will have to suspend for a moment to another witness.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ogg, who is the American Farm Bureau representative, wishes to appear at this time because he has a very urgent appointment.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear him at this time.

STATEMENT OF W. R. OGG, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE,
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, MUNSEY BUILDING,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. OGG. Mr. Chairman, it will only take a few minutes. I have been requested by the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation to present this brief statement on their behalf, which I would like to do at this time. This is a statement which was submitted on June 8, 1945, to the Secretary of the Interior at a hearing on this matter, and they have not had relief up to this time, but I think it summarizes their case very succinctly.

This is to place before you the protest of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation for itself and in behalf of its constituent member, the Essex County Farm Bureau, against the seizure by the United States of America of agricultural land in the County of Essex, Mass., sa a migratory bird refuge. The Massachusetts Farm Bureau protests the seizure on this ground:

1. It represents the taking of agricultural land, including pasture, wood land and plow land, used for the raising of crops, sources of fresh water, and other rights valuable to members of this organization and to other farmers in one of the oldest settled counties in the United

States, depriving these farmers of their means of livelihood, or a part of such means of livelihood.

2. This seizure is made not in connection with any national emergency, such as war or insurrection, but in the interest of wildlife after a period of 300 years, during which these lands have been settled and used for agriculture and other productive purposes.

3. There is no certainty whatever that the land now deeded will not later be enlarged by further encroachment on farm property. In this connection it should be stated that the organizations presenting this brief are acting on representations which they believe to be reliable, that the lands to be taken were worthless agriculturally, voted that they would not oppose the project, provided the so-called Little River portion of the taking was eliminated. It is not clear, however, as shown by appended documents that instead of the property being land of little worth or small value, actual operating farms had been seized in whole or in part.

Furthermore, we are informed, over the signature of a Congressman, a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, of the existence of a letter addressed to that Congressman by the Secretary of the Interior, which contains these words:

There has been some local criticism against taking certain of these lands, but the taking has been approved by Raymond J. Kenney, Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Massachusetts. Beyond that, this project was brought to the attention of Governor Saltonstall, who, in spite of the allegations made against the project by certain people, gave endorsement to it.

Now notice that

However, we have eliminated for the time being a unit of the project to which most of the objection was made locally.

I call your attention to the words "for the time being." There is no assurance that at some later date they might not go back and take it. We submit that is the responsible officials of the United States in charge of taking eliminate a part of the project for the time being, only in order to overcome local opposition, including that of this organization, what certainty can there be on the part of the farmers whose lands are now included in the project, that further land will not be taken, or on the part of the farmers in that very vicinity, and of the towns concerned, that further farms and other valuable properties will not be added to the area of the proposed refuge in the future?

We respectfully represent that the seizure of these lands, against the wishes and interests of the farmers and other occupiers in this area, is unjust and arbitrary, particularly since no emergency exists to justify it.

We respectfully request that the lands forcibly taken from our members or other farmers, be returned to their owners and that the project be confined to areas acquired by the Government through ordinary purchase. In support of this position we offer appendent hereto, as examples of the situation, written statements from the following members and other farmers. I would like to insert in the record a copy of these statements which these farmers who are affected have submitted.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered. (The papers referred to follow :)

MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC.,
June 8, 1945.

To: The Honorable Secretary of the Interior.

The Select Committee of Congress on the Conservation of Wildlife
Resources.

The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

To Whom it May Concern:

This is to place before you the protest of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation for itself and in behalf of its constituent member, the Essex County Farm Bureau against the seizure by the United States of America of agricultural land in the County of Essex, Mass., as a migratory bird refuge,

The Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation protests the seizure on these grounds:

1. It represents the taking of agricultural land including pasture, woodland, and plowland, range for flocks, sources of fresh water, and other rights valuable to members of this organization and to other farmers, in one of the oldest settled counties in the United States, depriving these farmers of their means of livelihood, or of a part of such means of livelihood.

2. This seizure is made not in connection with any national emergency such as war or insurrection, but in the interests of wildlife, after a period of 300 years during which these lands have been settled and used for agricultural and other productive purposes.

3. There is no certainty whatever that the area now seized will not later be enlarged by further encroachment on farm property. In this connection, it should be stated that the organizations presenting this brief, acting on representations which they believed to be reliable, that the lands to be taken were worthless agriculturally, voted that they would not oppose the project provided the so-called Little River portion of the taking was eliminated. It is now clear, however, as shown by appended documents, that instead of the property being all land of little worth or small value, actual operating farms have been seized in whole or in part. Furthermore, we are informed over the signature of a Congressman, member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, of the existence of a letter addressed to that Congressman by the Secretary of the Interior which contains these words:

"There has been some local criticism against taking certain of these lands, but the taking has been approved by Raymond J. Kenney, Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Massachusetts. Beyond that, this project was brought to the attention of Governor Saltonstall who, in spite of allegations made against the project by certain people, gave endorsement to it. However, we have eliminated for the time being a unit of the project to which most of the objection was made locally." (Italics ours.)

We submit that if the responsible official of the United States in charge of the taking eliminates a part of the project "for the time being" only in order to overcome local opposition, (including that of this organization) what certainty can there be on the part of the farmers whose lands are now included in the project that further land will not be taken; or on the part of farmers in that vicinity and of the towns concerned that further farms and other valuable properties will not be added to the area of the proposed refuge in the future?

We respectfully represent that the seizure of these lands against the wishes and interests of the farmers and other occupiers in this area is unjust and arbitrary, particularly since no emergency exists to justify it.

We respectfully request that the lands forcibly taken from our members and other farmers be returned to their owners, and that the project be confined to areas acquired by the Goverment through ordinary purchase.

In support of this position, we offer appended hereto as examples of the situation written statements from the following members and other farmers:

Leonard and Elizabeth B. Woodman, 45 Storey Ave., Newburyport; Howard R. Shays, Crane Neck St., West Newbury; George R. Emerson, West Newbury; Mrs. Harriet A. Jaquith, Pillsbury St., Georgetown; Mrs. Henry Hunter, Pillsbury St., Georgetown; Andrew S. Longfellow, Groveland; Ralph Villacaro, King St., Groveland; Merton J. Spencer, Crane Neck St., West Newbury; Ralph M. Battis, Outlook Farm, Rowley.

Respectfully submitted.

By order of the board of directors:

Secretary-Treasurer.

MAY 25, 1945.

I have been supplying Riverside Dairy in Haverhill for 18 years from my farm. I have a herd of nine cows. Now they have taken all of my pastureland. I have a boy overseas, Charles R. Spencer, MM 2/c, USS Leo, AKA, 60, % Fleet Post Office, San Francisco.

I this taking goes through, I will be forced to quit the dairy business.

I furnished Riverside Dairy 22,561 quarts of milk besides furnishing my neighbor and my own family which should be at least a thousand more in 1944.

I harvested about a thousand bushels of mixed vegetables and sold them in Haverhill, Mass., in 1944.

Without my pasture, my farm will no longer be a going unit and the value of what is left would be so reduced in value, that I would be unable to purchase a like place for what I would realize from this one after it is split up; and I could not continue to make a living here.

MERTON J. SPENCER.

W. NEWBURY, MASS.

June 5, 1945.

MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

GENTLEMEN: The land that the Government presumably took from me includes the only wood on my place; a fine stand of swamp maple; but what is more important to me it includes a fine spring of water, the only water there is in the pasture for the cows.

However, about 3 months ago the head surveyor of the project came to me and said they were surveying the land back to me. I have no written proof of this, however.

The whole thing seems to be up in the air and no one around here knows what to do or what plan to make for the future.

I would list the whole idea very definitely as an outrage to New England farmers who have tried to do so much for the war effort.

HOWARD R. SHAYS.

WEST NEWBURY, MASS.

June 6, 1945.

MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of May 23, 1945, can let you know I own 100 acres of pasture land on the Downfall Rd. I have owned this land for quite a few years and always pastured about 50 head of cattle each year. the Government takes my land we might as well give up farming. We own 100 head of cattle and can't continue if we don't have pasture.

If

I have never been notified, but I noticed when we went to put the cattle in pasture it was posted. I have 45 head of cattle there right now and 9 going in. I would be more than glad if something could be done to save the farmers from losing their land which they need so badly. Of course my son Leonard owns the cattle and the land is mine. He make 12 40-quart jugs of milk a day now. How could we continue without pasture.

I would be very thankful to you and all concerned in helping the farmers. I only wish something could be done about this terrible situation. Thanking you very much, I remain,

NEWBURYPORT, Mass.

MRS. ELIZABETH B. WOODMAN.
LEONARD WOODMAN.

NEWBURY, MASS., May 28, 1945.

Mr. HOWARD S. RUSSELL,

Secretary, Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation

DEAR MR. RUSSELL: I would appreciate hearing from the Farm Bureau in regard to the wildlife-refuge question. We, in this section, were very much disappointed that the Farm Bureau was apparently the only organization that did nothing to act for the farmer's cause. However, better now than never.

I hire a 360-acre farm from S. D. Adams of Reading. There are 60 acres of tillage, 30 acres marsh, the rest is of pasture and woodland. The pasture that the Government proposed taking (has taken) is used for young stock and dry This land includes the water hole-the only one in the pasture in a dry It also has an estimated 500 cords of wood.

Cows. year.

Last September Mr. Radway, surveyor in charge, visited Mr. Adams in Reading and made him an offer for the "75 acres" you mentioned in your letter to me. Radway gave him until October 2 to make up his mind to sell, for after that date it would be taken by eminent domain. Mr. Adams decided he would not sell.

Since that time I have gone through the pasture, along the lines cut by the surveyors, and found that the "75 acres" turns out to be nearer 150 to 160 acres. Some months later I saw Mr. Radway and told him that I knew it was 150 to 160 acres that they were taking and that he, Radway, knew it when he offered Mr. Adams the price for only 75 acres. Mr. Radway's answer was that he did not at the time know the full extent of the boundaries. A likely excuse that. I wonder if the price would have remained the same for the 150 as for the 75 acres? In November I presented a claim against the Department of Interior for injury to a cow. The letter read in part:

"I am presenting a claim for a cow injured by a stub left by surveyors from your Department who had no permission from owner or myself to trespass this property. This cow was so severely injured that-in spite of treatments of a veterinary, and my own and hired-man's attention and treatments-she is a three-teated cow who is only boarding herself, not paying me a profit:

Cow, about to freshen_-_-_

Veterinarian, 2 calls, at $6.50_.
Medicine and time_..

Total Market value.

$250

13

20

283

63

Claim

220"

I received a reply dated December 12, forwarding two forms to be filled out, and asking for two signed appraisals of the cow before the injury and its present value. I received three other letters in regard to the matter up to January 25, then another communication dated March 30 and I quote the entire letter:

"Your claim for damage resulting from injury sustained by a dairy cow has been approved by the Solicitor of the Department in the net amount of $198. A copy of his determination respecting the claim is enclosed for your information.

"As provided by the applicable statute under which considered-act of December 28, 1922 (42 Stat. 1066)-the claim will be certified for payment out of appropriations that may be made by Congress for this purpose. The necessary channels through which a case of this kind must pass to complete the action usually require some time. As soon as funds have been appropriated, however, you will be advised by this office in the matter of procedure which should be followed to obtain payment." (No money yet to replace cow.)

I also wrote to the Department of the Interior and asked that they send someone to trim down all stubs and sticks of brush, or else pay me for doing the work myself. Since then, the stubs have been cut down on the part of the land that is still considered mine, but not on the rest of the line that they consider theirs.

Also, the surveyors broke down (or trod down) a fence when entering a pasture. A cow got out and got into a cornfield, damaged some corn, and once getting the taste of it, made such a nuisance of herself that I had to keep her in and feed her in the barn.

Keeping this 150 to 160 acres of pasture and woodland would be a great convenience to me, for then all the stock is near home-all 360 acres being in one unit. I keep 42 head of cattle here.

To finish up, I would like to say that the whole affair has been handled in an extremely hurried and sneaky manner. Dr. Gabrielson said that he couldn't let people know what was going on because they would put up their prices. But on the other hand, it really made no difference about the people's prices, for he had the land condemned and was putting on his own price tag. The land was condemned without public notice or hearing. Is this considered a fair practice?

If this land had been taken, or asked for, to benefit the public, or if it had been taken for the purpose of national defense, then very likely there would be cooperation. But when land is taken merely for the purpose of spending the surplus money collected from gunner's licenses, to set up a Department of the Interior WPA, why then very naturally Yankee thrift and Yankee independence is going to come to the fore. Right now the Yankees of Essex County are up in arms for their rights as free (free?) citizens to own their own lands and homes, and