REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. INTRODUCTION. The importance of agriculture among the industries of the country is attributed in part to its fundamental character,' but is due also to the large number of persons engaged in agricultural employments. The agricultural population of the country doubled during the 40 years between 1850 and 1890, and at the latter date constituted more than one-third of the entire population, about 8,500,000 persons being engaged in gainful agricultural occupations and representing a total agricultural population of about 27,000,000. A little more than 60 per cent of those engaged in agriculture owned their farms, the remainder being either tenants or hired laborers." The wealth of the farmers, which is estimated to have been nearly one-half of the entire wealth of the country in 1860, has increased less rapidly than other forms of wealth, and in 1890 amounted to about one-fourth of the wealth of the country. In some of the Eastern States there has been an actual diminution in the number of farms. The value of farms was given by the Eleventh Census as a little more than $13,000,000,000, or, including live stock and farming implements, about $16,000,000,000.* Productivity of agriculture.-Professor Bailey calls attention to a decided increase in the average productivity of farms during the past century. The average yield of wheat near Philadelphia in 1791, according to the testimony of a contemporary observer, was rather less than 8 bushels to the acre, while dairy cows averaged only 104 pounds of butter a year. A comparison of these figures with present conditions in the same locality shows an increase of more than 100 per cent in the yield of both products, and Professor Bailey's final conclusion is that the average productivity of agriculture has increased in even a greater ratio than this. He attributes the increase to the use of better tools and fertilizers, rotation of crops, and better tillage. The activity of the farmers has been stimulated both by increased competition and by more varied demand for agricultural products. On the other hand, insect pests and diseases of plants and animals have been introduced from abroad; but they are under better control than formerly. Other witnesses think it doubtful whether the product per acre has increased on the whole, in spite of the tendency toward intensive agriculture in certain lines. According to the census the aggregate value of farm products remained nearly stationary during the two decades, 1869–1889, while the value of manufactures nearly doubled during the latter of these decades; but the census is thought to show too small a product in the case of agriculture and to magnify the increase of manufactured products. Comparing 1880 with 1894, there appears to have been an increase in the aggregate production, and also in the yield per acre, but a loss in the money value of the product. J Stockwell, 892. "Holmes, 152, 157; Powers, 170. * Wedderburn, 628; Stockwell, 887, 888. Pages 1004-1006, 1013. * Holmes, 156; Nall, 109. 5 6 7 Hammond, 835, 836; Holmes, 154, 155. 8 Wedderburn, 628. IX GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS. The testimony of different witnesses as to the general condition of agriculture shows marked differences of opinion, some complaining of depression and others testifying to increased prosperity. This conflict of testimony may perhaps be reconciled to some extent by remembering that the different witnesses speak with particular reference to their own sections of the country, and also that the standard of comparison varies. It is mainly from the Eastern and Southern States that complaints of depression have been heard, and both in the East and in the South there is evidence of an improvement of conditions during the past few years. Some witnesses compare recent conditions with those of the period of high prices following the civil war, and the discontent of farmers in certain sections is attributed to the tendency to use that era of agricultural prosperity as a standard of comparison, whereas if the comparison were made with the period preceding the war an increase of prosperity would be shown. A number of witnesses call attention to an increase in the usual standard of living of many farmers. 4 Again, the testimony of Southern agriculturists varies greatly with the time at which it was given. A South Carolina cotton planter testified that he made money steadily until 1890, but after that date, in spite of fertile soils and propitious seasons, there was hardship and distress, prices had fallen, crops would not pay the expense of production, and landowners were losing their property. Cotton planters and other Southern witnesses who testified after the close of 1899, however, reflected the influence of better prices for cotton." While these conflicts of testimony may be explained to some extent by differences of time and locality, they appear to be due also in part to differences in the point of view. Thus, a series of questions as to the existence and causes of agricultural decline sent out by Professor Bailey to representative New York farmers brought out decided differences of opinion. Out of 20 farmers who replied to the questions, six affirmed the existence of a general agricultural depression. The decline in the selling value of farm land is frequently taken as an evidence of agricultural depression in the East, but it is pointed out that from the standpoint of intending purchasers of farms a low purchase price makes possible a good rate of profit and comparative ease in paying for the farms bought after the decline in price." Causes of agricultural depression. The cause most often assigned for the depression of agriculture in the Eastern States is the increased production due to the opening of Western lands in advance of the natural demand, especially through the agency of liberal land laws and grants of land in aid of railroad construction. The competition of the West has been rendered especially severe by the policy of the railroads in making freight rates relatively low for long distances. The old staple products having thus become unprofitable in the East, it has been necessary for farmers to change their methods and vary the character of their crops, taking up especially the culture of products which are not easily transported long distances. Thus truck farming has largely superseded cereal growing along the Atlantic coast, but farmers in the North Atlantic States now complain of the severe competition of States farther south in this industry, and much the same may be said of fruit growing. Even so perishable a commodity as milk is trans Crowell, 337; Bachelder, 40, 41; Stockwell, 884; Stevens, 905, 906–915; Poole, 924, 925; Stubbs, 782; Balch, 496, 497; Hill, 503; Norfolk, 488; Moseley, 515; Kyle, 470. 2 Ketchum, 132; Hill, 503. Miller, 614; Ketchum, 132. 4 Coles, 125-129; Moran, 711; Graham, 433, 434; Powers, 178; Holmes, 157. Stubbs, 782; Stevens, 916, 917; Balch, 496, 497; Hill, 503; Norfleet, 488; Moseley, 515; Kyle, 470. 6 Bailey, 1006-1010; Ketchum, 134-136. ported much longer distances than formerly since the introduction of refrigerator cars. Another cause which several witnesses assign for the unsatisfactory condition of agriculture in some parts of the country is the conservatism of the farmers, their lack of quick adjustment to changed conditions, and lack of effective business planning and management. The farmers as a class have not kept up with the times, but have raised the same crops year after year without regard to changes in supply and demand. This undue conservatism and lack of managing ability among farmers is especially emphasized with reference to the Southern States, and is given as an explanation of the too exclusive attention to cotton production prevailing there. Another cause assigned for agricultural depression in the South is the scarcity of money, the difficulty of borrowing on real estate security, and the consequent high rates of interest. It seems to be possible, however, to borrow money in the South at somewhat lower rates of interest than formerly. The decline in the price of cotton is of course an important element in the depression of agriculture in the South. The inefficiency of negro labor is assigned as another cause. On the other hand, it is affirmed that there is too much good and cheap labor in the South. An abundance of cheap labor is said to be unfavorable to the success of agriculture, because it results in planting too large an acreage and in neglect of personal attention by the planter. Against the charge that farmers are unduly conservative is put the countercharge that they turn from one crop to another without sufficient regard to the suitability of the climate and soil, or to the conditions of the market." Professor Bailey considers the lack of good farming the fundamental cause of most of the agricultural unrest. By this he appears to mean not only exhaustion of the soil by injudicious methods of culture and failure to adopt sufficiently intensive methods of cultivation, but also the general lack of executive ability which makes it difficult for the farmer to direct the labor of others with profitable results.10 12 Diminution of profits.-The preponderance of testimony is to the effect that capital employed in agriculture yields a lower rate of profit than it did 30 or 40 years ago, but it is pointed out that profits in all other industries have been falling, together with the rate of interest, and the number of men who are seeking and acquiring farms is cited as evidence that relatively there is more profit in farming than ever before. To those who understand farming the farm is said to be the best place to make money. It is also pointed out that in calculating the rate of profit much depends upon the basis of calculation. Much land that was bought at very low prices 40 years ago is now worth many times the original price. If the rate of profit is calculated upon the present selling value of the land it will, of course, be much lower than if calculated upon the price which was paid for the land while it was cheap. The actual profit of the farmer, therefore, depends upon whether the land was bought at a low or a high price. Again, where land was bought at inflated prices and has since fallen in value, it may fail to pay a fair profit upon the actual purchase price and yet afford a reasonable prospect of profit to a new purchaser who is able to secure it at a lower price. The agricultural depression which results in lower selling values of land thus becomes an opportunity to the 1 Brigham, 10, 11; Snow, 240; Whitney, 865,866; Hamilton, 366, 367; Dye, 595, 596. 'Bailey, 1010; Ager, 113-115; Whitney, 867. "True, 145, 146; Crowell, 335. 'Brown, 60-62; Lovejoy, 75-77. * Hale, 381,382. *Lovejoy, 75-77. 13 7 Brown, 60-62. • Hale, 378. • Hanley, 286. 10 Page 1013. 11 Norris, 325; Coles, 126; Ager, 110; Wilson, 247. 12 Powers, 184. 13 Davenport, 265. |