of various kinds (such as educational, insurance, etc.) might be used

for this purpose.

(6) Improve the leasing system so that tenants may become more permanent in their communities and may accumulate enough to make first payment and eventually become owners. Long leases with compensation to tenants for improvements and betterments

are necessary.

(7) Reform the courses and methods of teaching arithmetic in country schools, show farm boys and girls the possibilities of farm accounts and the first principles of banking.

(8) Perfect the system of rural commercial credit by authorizing the formation of credit unions and prescribing their peculiar field in this country.

(9) Extend insurance in agriculture as rapidly as possible in order that all may bear the burden of unforeseen happenings more nearly equally.

(10) Eliminate as rapidly as possible the present store-credit system by the establishment of the cooperative store, by a reorganization of farm practice and the establishment of a more regular farm income, and by use of the credit unions.

G. THE PIONEER CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED

STATES.

By LEONARD G. ROBINSON,

Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, New York City.

Last year a poor Hebrew immigrant-let us call him X- bought a small farm in Nassau, Rensselaer County, N. Y. Ten years in a sweatshop had impaired his health, and he was advised by his physician to live in the country. By dint of pinching economy he had saved up $1,000. The farm he bought cost $3,000. He paid down his $1,000 and gave a first mortgage for the balance of $2,000 at 6 per cent. With a bare farm on his hands he turned to the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society of New York. From that society he received a loan of $1,000 to equip his farm.

Everything seemed to go along fairly well. But in the spring, when in the midst of his plowing, X lost one of his horses. His first thought was of the aid society. Time was very precious, however, and every day counted just then. He therefore went to Y, from whom he had purchased his first team. Yes, Y would be glad to sell him a horse, but he must have at least half cash. X then went to Z, who, he knew, lent money occasionally to the farmers in the neighborhood. Z could let him have $50 for three months provided he signed a note for $75 at 6 per cent. X had no alternative.

He took the $50 and bought a horse for $100, giving a note for the balance of $50 for three months, also at 6 per cent. It therefore cost X $26.88 for the use of $100 for three months, or at the rate of 107 per cent per annum.

The following spring X again lost a horse. He saw three or four of his neighbors, and within an hour he obtained a loan of $100, for which he paid interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, or $1.50 for the same accommodation for which he had paid $26.88 only the season before.

What was it that caused the extraordinary change in this farmer's ability to borrow? The answer is cooperative credit.

The question of rural credit is one of the burning questions of the day. Our aid society, in its work with Hebrew farmers, had long realized the need of short-time personal credit by the American farmer, but it was not until 1909 that we were prepared to attack the problem in earnest. By-laws were drafted, and an educational campaign was inaugurated. The idea of cooperative credit was seized upon by the Jewish farmers with avidity, and several farmers set to work to raise funds for the organization of credit associations. The form of organization of these credit unions is similar to that of the Raiffeisen banks, in so far as that system could be adapted to American conditions and to the peculiar needs of the situation.

We have to-day 17 thriving credit unions-the first and so far the only cooperative credit banks on American soil. Eight of them are in New York, five in New Jersey, and four in Connecticut. Three were organized in 1911, five more in 1912, and nine more this year. The eight credit unions doing business last year reported on December 31 a total membership of 251. Their outstanding shares ($5 each) were 865. They had been in operation for a period averaging 13 months, during which time they made 411 loans, aggregating $28,140, nearly seven times their share capital. Their net profits for this period amounted to $545.48, or at the rate of about 12 per cent per annum on that capital.

One of the most marked benefits resulting from these credit unions is the virtual stamping out of usury in the communities in which they exist. The farmer, finding no difficulty in obtaining a moderate loan for productive purposes quickly and cheaply, no longer has to depend upon the generosity of his neighbors, the forbearance of the local storekeeper, or the cupidity of the usurer.

Not the least important is the moral and educational value of these credit unions. They teach their members business methods and self-government. They imbue them with self-reliance and selfrespect. They endow them with a high sense of mutual responsibility, stimulate them to further efforts in the direction of cooperation and mutual self-help, and make them better farmers and better citizens.

H. COOPERATION AND THE RURAL SCHOOLS.

By T. J. COATES.

State Supervisor of Rural Schools, Kentucky.

Cooperation is team work. Cooperation means an organization of men for some common end. Cooperation is the antithesis of individualism. Cooperation means an increase of power; and power may be a good or a bad thing according to the way in which it may be used. A cooperation of good men, of intelligent men, for a noble purpose is a good thing; but a cooperation of ignorant men led by selfish and unscrupulous leaders may be a very dangerous thing.

Again, cooperation will no doubt increase material wealth; but an increase of wealth without a corresponding spiritual growth may prove little better than a curse. The ideal of more corn and more hogs is a good one, provided they do not make the grower a greater "hog" than he was before. One of the most alarming "signs of the times" is the drift of people from the country to the town. Out of over 1,100 cases that I have personally investigated, over 1,000 of these removals were caused by a desire for school, or church, or social advantages. Now, a cooperation that simply enables people to make more money without building up the school, the church, and social life in the country will only accelerate the migration from rural to urban communities. It seems to me, therefore, that the heart of this whole matter is the upbuilding of the rural school, because without it the rest of our efforts will prove to be in vain.

II. THE RURAL PROBLEM.

A. BUSINESS MEN AND THE RURAL PROBLEM.

Report by HARRY HODGSON, Athens, Ga.

Business men, bankers, merchants, railway officials, and representatives of commercial organizations from the entire South met at Richmond to consider the rural problem and to formulate a plan for commercial aid in developing the farm and farm life.

The chairman of the conference, Gen. Julian S. Carr, of North Carolina, urged first of all that a way be found to hold the young people on the farms. Gen. Carr pointed out various pressing needs: Better methods of intercommunication; organization of clubs in the country for educational and social purposes; the supplanting of the tenant by the farmer who tills his own soil; greater interest by the agricultural schools and colleges in developing and improving agricultural resources; and cheaper working capital for the farmer, to be provided by rural credit banks.

John Lee Coulter presented a series of tables showing the volume of the leading crops now produced by southern farmers. This was the first complete presentation of the number of southern farmers interested in specified crops, together with the extent of their interest. The weak spots in southern farming were strikingly brought out. Dr. Coulter called special attention to the large amount expended by southern farmers to purchase feed for their live stock. In the States of the South Atlantic division 30 out of every 100 farmers purchase feed, and in 1909 these farmers expended almost $20,000,000, or an average of $57 per farm, for this purpose. In the east South Central division 28 farmers out of every 100 purchase feed, and the total amount expended was almost $16,000,000, or $54 per farm, while in the west South Central division 29 farmers out of every 100 reported expenditures of almost $25,000,000, or $89 per farm. This feed apparently came from districts outside the South.

Mr. J. A. McKee, Kentucky; Hon. E. J. Watson, commissioner of agriculture, South Carolina; and Mr. J. W. Newman, commissioner of agriculture, Kentucky, showed the results of unskilled and wasteful tillage, indicating at the same time how conditions could be remedied.

Commissioner Newman stated boldly that any farmer who depended upon commercial fertilizer alone for fertility of the soil would land in the poorhouse. He urged leguminous crops as the sure means for soil upbuilding. He concluded with the statement: "Soil fertility can be conserved only through education." Mr. Newman then called attention to the fact that only about 50 per cent of the children of the State actually attend school for the full term. He made a plea for instructing those outside the schoolhouse walls in more accurate food production and food preparation.

The tenant evil, its origin, its extent, its increase, and its consequences, economic and social, were set forth by Prof. E. C. Branson, head of the department of rural sociology in the State Normal School at Athens, Ga.1

Considering the lack of capital among farmers, Dean H. C. Price, Ohio College of Agriculture, and Leonard G. Robinson, director of the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, New York, submitted plans for remedying the defect."

The value of cooperative market association in preventing wasteful marketing and its consequences was demonstrated by Mr. J. C. Caldwell, president and secretary of a number of cooperative organizations centering at Lakefield, Minn. The special problem of cotton marketing was discussed by the Hon. John L. McLaurin, of South Carolina, and by the Hon. E. F. Noel, of Mississippi. After calling attention to the serious drawbacks for the farmer in the present economic situation, Mr. McLaurin advocated that the State provide a warehouse for the storage of the farmer's cotton. The State was not to lend money, but to give a receipt which would enable the farmer to borrow money in the regular way. He urged that the cotton crop was especially worthy of governmental protection, inasmuch as it supports one-fifth of the population of the United States, gives employment to as many more in manufactures, and at the same time is a chief factor in maintaining the Nation's balance of trade.

A practical plan for community growing and handling of cotton was submitted to the conference by Charles J. Brand, of the United States Department of Agriculture. "The first ideal in community cotton growing," said Mr. Brand, "should be the exclusive production of a single variety or of varieties so closely allied that cross pollenization will not in a few years decrease the value of the staple." He advocated a community gin, to carry out the development of machine pickers and gin compresses. Mr. Brand suggested a form of organization which provided for sufficient money to conduct the marketing operations of a community by a system of expense notes.

1 For abstract of this paper, see p. 19.

96493-13--2

See p. 13.