convey is that there still remain great potentialities of the fuller utilisation of the land. Extension of the productive area is, no doubt, dependent on economic factors; and these again are dependent on proximate population. In short, the "turning point" in American history, above mentioned, is marked out not so much by an immediate scarcity of land as by threatened over-supply of people. The complacency with which, throughout the last century, the rapid increase of population was regarded has vanished, and there is now general alarm at the process which was then acclaimed.

There has, indeed, been a decline in the percentage rate of increase since the middle of the last century. From 1850 to 1860, for example, the increase was 36 per cent., while from 1910 to 1920 it was 15 per cent. But percentages are illusive. The pregnant fact is that, whereas during the decade 1850-60 the increase of population was little more than two millions, in 1910-20 the increase was nearly 14 millions.

It is generally agreed not only that the rate of increase during the nineteenth century does not apply to the present or the future, but that there are definite signs of a progressively decreasing rate. Elaborate calculations have been made predicting the slackening of the rate, and the ultimate result of the process, culminating, according to one well-known hypothesis, in a stationary population at no very distant date. Where all the factors are speculative, only the most reckless of prophets would be dogmatic. But on any reasonable estimate of probabilities it is justifiable to assume that by the end of the present century the population of the United States will have increased by at least 50 millions. Those 50 millions, more or less, are the incarnation of the greatest of America's rural problems.

This may be said to over-shadow and embrace all the problems connected with the land and its use. Meanwhile there are other subjects which more intimately and insistently engross the attention of those who occupy the land now in use. It is with these that we are immediately concerned.

The rural population of the United States up to the end of the first decade of the twentieth century outnumbered the urban population. In 1880 the census first discriminated between town and country dwellers, and in that year the rural population were

71.4 per cent. of the total. In 1920 the proportion had fallen to 48.6. That fact represents a very definite turning point. It swings the balance of political power from the country to the towns. Unless all the lessons of history are belied, the swing will continue with increasing impetus. The endless economic feud between industrialism and agriculture-between consumers and producers of food-takes a new aspect in a democratic country when the majority shifts over to the other side. The implications of the change will become apparent very slowly, but they will dominate the future.

While recognising the significance of this fact, it is necessary to beware of the lure of statistics. The census classification of 54 millions as urban, and 52 millions as rural inhabitants has a neat arithmetical appearance, but it represents no conscious change, at present, in the social order of things. It has to be remembered, in the first place, that every resident in a city or incorporated place containing 2,500 inhabitants is classed as "urban." It is evident that a considerable number of these have rural interests, notwithstanding their urban classification. Agricultural interests stretch far beyond the farms. There is probably no other industry in which the fortunes of so many who are not actually engaged in it are implicated as they are in agriculture.

The size and diversity of the United States are factors which affect every problem. The density of population, for example, ranges from less than 1 per square mile in Nevada, 2 in Wyoming, and 3 in Arizona, to 479 in Massachusetts, and 566 in Rhode Island. The proportion of the rural population (omitting Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which are practically all urban) ranges from 17 per cent. in the State of New York to 87 per cent. in Mississippi.

The racial factor introduces further diversity into rural problems. It may be regarded as more complex in the towns, for in the country it is, in the main, a question of colour, although it is not uncommon to find, scattered throughout the States, villages or districts which were originally occupied by a group of alien settlers, and still retain the characteristics of their racial origin. One small town, for instance, in Wisconsin, which I visited last July, was established by a band of Swiss families, whose descendants occupy the surrounding district and are still

distinguished by the retention of the typical virtues of their thrifty and hard-working progenitors. Such instances as these, however, introduce no difficulty. Whatever their national origin, the white races are soon assimilated as American farmers.

The negro does not assimilate; or, to put it more accurately, there are very substantial barriers against his doing so. Outside the Southern States signs of a weakening of the colour prejudice may perhaps be detected, but even the most liberal-minded protagonists of the equality of man make reservations about inter-marriage. This trenches on the dangerous ground of an immense sociological problem which menaces the American people, and will need for its solution all the resources of their statesmanship. In its rural aspects the complication of colour is localised. In only 15 States of the 49 do the negroes form more than 10 per cent. of the rural population, and in the majority of States their numbers are negligible. But in South Carolina and Mississippi they form 54 per cent. and in Louisiana 44 per cent. of the rural population. It is not necessary to discuss the merits or demerits of the American negro as a cultivator of the soil. Whatever he may be, he is the product of his history and environment. But he obviously introduces a complication of the rural problem, not only in its economic, but still more in its sociological aspect.

One of the features which most impresses the enquiring visitor is the importance attached to the study of rural sociology. Six hundred American educational institutions-normal schools, colleges, universities, and theological seminaries-give one or more courses during the year on this subject. Forty of the fortyeight State colleges of agriculture are among the 600. Fifteen of these forty State colleges employed full-time instructors to teach rural sociology. Ten years ago, not more than twenty of these 600 institutions gave any attention to the social or human side of rural life. In the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics it is observed that the growing popularity of courses in rural sociology is " an index to the national interest in the progress of American rural life as a whole."

The division of the Bureau entrusted with this part of its work was established in 1918 on the recommendation of a committee of social workers and students of farm life. The head of the division is Dr. C. J. Galpin, who has three assistants, all, like

himself, University-trained economists, and a clerical staff. Its activities, which are carried out in co-operation with the State departments and colleges, are demonstrated by the long list of "studies" or monographs on subjects relating to rural social development. Citation of a few of the titles will indicate their scope :-rural community buildings; service relations of town and country; rural organization; the role of rural education in community life; farm population studies; Nebraska homes; the social aspects of rural life, etc. Altogether between sixty and seventy such monographs have been published, or are in course of preparation.

With so infinite a variety of sociological conditions, any attempt to impose a rigid form of organization on the rural districts would be foolish and futile. The aim of those who are seeking to promote "better living " is, in the first place, to arouse the desire for it. There may be in some cases vague aspirations. In more numerous cases there is apathetic acceptance of existing conditions. The work of the rural sociologist is missionary and propagandist. He has to stimulate the sentiment of social responsibility, to awaken the latent community spirit and to promote the co-operation of all members of the community in the common effort. The form in which the spirit will find expression, the direction the effort may take, are comparatively unimportant and will certainly be diverse. The fundamental principle is the establishment of active community life. On that foundation all else can be built; but without that foundation the awakening of activity results in sectionalism, cliquism and eventual discord. Those responsible for the vigorous country life movement in America have been sufficiently clear-sighted to see the rural social problem steadily, and to see it whole.

The most pressing economic problems of rural America arise from the war. The main cause of trouble there, as elsewhere, was the sudden fall from fictitious prosperity to realistic adversity. In 1919 the value of farm crops was estimated at 16,000 million dollars; in 1921 the estimated value was 6,500 million dollars. In 1920 the index number of the prices of farm products was 250; in 1921 it was only just over 100. Some recovery has taken place, and the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, recently issued, notes with satisfaction a marked improvement in 1923, which "gives renewed hope to millions of farmers who have struggled

against most distressing conditions." Nevertheless, the position is still unsatisfactory and presents in many States a difficult and perplexing outlook.

The Agricultural Department in 1923 made an interesting investigation by asking farmers to state their opinions as to the chief cause of their financial difficulties. The replies have a psychological as well as a practical interest. The analysis showed the proportions to be :-low prices of farm products, 42 per cent. ; high taxes, 17 per cent.; high cost of labour, 11 per cent.; high freight rates, 10 per cent.; high interest, 10 per cent.; reckless expenditure during the boom period, 6 per cent.; too much credit, 4 per cent.

It is very natural that low prices should be foremost in the farmer's mind, but lowness is a relative term, and it may have been given varying meanings. The level of prices was low in comparison with the boom period, but it was also low in its more exact connotation, as expressing purchasing power. Of the more specific causes, "high taxes " stand foremost. In 1914, the total amount of property-tax paid by farmers was about 350 million dollars, and in 1923 it was nearly 850 million dollars. The increase mainly occurred after 1919, and it is explained by "the adjustment of local and State governmental costs to the new price level, as well as to a material expansion in public improvements which had been postponed during the war, or were initiated early in the post-war period, when high prices and a spirit of optimism prevailed." It is calculated that in 1922 the total amount of taxes on farms was equivalent to the total value of the wheat crop.

Complaints of the heavy and increasing burden of taxation are very general, and they are supported by evidence officially collected. In a recently published volume (“ Elements of Land Economics") by Dr. R. T. Ely and Mr. Morehouse, a table, prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is given, showing that in typical counties of six States-Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana-the ratio of taxes on farms to the net rents ranged from 15 to 66 per cent. Taxes on farm land in Ohio are stated to have increased by 77 per cent., and in Kansas by 171 per cent., between 1913 and 1921. In a memorandum issued by the Bureau last July, taking a wider survey, and purporting to summarise the tax position as it affects