2

Report of the

Country Life Commission

February 9, 1909

By:

Liberty Hyde Bailey, Chairman

Henry C. Wallace

Kenyon L. Butterfield

Walter Hines Page

Gifford Pinchot

Charles S. Barrett

William A. Beard
3
4
5
6

Liberty Hyde Bailey, Chairman

Henry C. Wallace

Kenyon L. Butterfield

Walter Hines Page

Gifford Pinchot

Charles S. Barrett

William A. Beard
7
8
9

table of contents

Title: Report of the Country life Commission and special message from the President of 

the United States

Print 

Source:

Report of the Country life Commission and special message from the President of 

the United States

Chamber of Commerce,

Spokane, Wash. :

[1909?]

60th Congress, 2nd Session

SENATE Document No. 705

REPORT OF THE COUNTRY LIFE 

COMMISSION

AND

SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 

OF THE UNITED STATES
10

PRINTED FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SPOKANE, WASH. U

FOREWORD

In printing for free distribution the report of the Country Life Commission appointed by 

President Roosevelt, the Spokane Chamber of Commerce desires to meet a wide-spread demand 

for the document, which is not available through government channels. The request for the 

publication of the report came in the following resolution from the Country Life Convention, 

which met in Spokane on November 18, 1909, when the Western States were largely represented 

by farmers and orchardists attending the Second National Apple Show: Resolved, That this 

convention urges the Spokane Chamber of Commerce to secure the approval of President Taft in 

the publication of the report of the Country Life Commission. In accordance with the resolutions 

the appended telegram was sent to President Taft: 

By unanimous request of largely attended meeting on Country Life held today at the 

Second National Apple Show the Spokane Chamber of Commerce consented to print for 

free distribution, the report of the Country Life Commission ap- pointed by Mr. 

Roosevelt. Are there any objections? 

Fred E. Carpenter, Secretary to President Taft, replied as follows: 

Telegram received. The President has not the slightest objection to the free distribution of 

the report of the Country Life Commission, appointed by Mr. Roosevelt. He thinks it 

would be an excellent thing for the Spokane Chamber of Commerce to do. 

Continuing its work in fostering and encouraging the agricultural development of the country, 

the Spokane Chamber of Commerce publishes the Commissions report, which has been endorsed 

by the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Members of 

Congress have received urgent calls for the report, but were unable to supply it, as only a few 

copies were printed as a Senate document for the use of the legislators while considering the 

subject. 
11

SPECIAL MESSAGE To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the report of the Commission on Country Life. At the outset I desire to point 

out that not a dollar of the public money has been paid to any commissioner for his work on the 

Commission. 

The report shows the general condition of farming life in the open country, and points out its 

larger problems; it indicates ways in which the Government, National and State, may show the 

people how to solve some of these problems; and it suggests a continuance of the work which the 

Commission began. 

Judging by thirty public hearings, to which farmers and farmers wives from forty States and 

Territories came, and from 120,000 answers to printed questions sent out by the Department of 

Agriculture, the Commission finds that the general level of country life is high compared with 

any preceding time or with any other land. If it has in recent years slipped down in some places, 

it has risen in more places. Its progress has been general, if not uniform. 

Yet farming does not yield either the profit or the satisfaction that it ought to yield and may be 

made to yield. There is discontent in the country, and in places discouragement. Farmers as a 

class do not magnify their calling, and the movement to the towns, though, I am happy to say, 

less than formerly, is still strong. 

Under our system, it is helpful to promote discussion of ways in which the people can help 

themselves. There are three main directions in which the farmers can help themselves; namely, 

better farming, better business, and better living on the farm. The National Department of 

Agriculture, which has rendered services equaled by no other similar department in any other 

time or place; the state departments of agriculture; the state colleges of agriculture and the 

mechanic arts, especially through their extension work; the state agricultural experiment stations; 

the Farmers Union; the Orange; the agricultural press; and other similar agencies; have all 

combined to place within the reach of the American farmer an amount and quality of agricultural 

information which, if applied, would enable him, over large areas, to double the production of 

the farm. 

The object of the Commission on Country Life therefore is not to help the farmer raise better 

crops, but to call his attention to the opportunities for better business and better living on the 

farm. If country life is to become what it should be, and what I believe it ultimately will be one 

of the most dignified, desirable, and sought-after ways of earning a living the farmer must take 
12

advantage not only of the agricultural knowledge which is at his disposal, but of the methods 

which have raised and continue to raise the standards of living and of intelligence in other 

callings. 

Those engaged in all other industrial and commercial callings have found it necessary, under 

modern economic conditions, to organize themselves for mutual advantage and for the protection 

of their own particular interests in relation to other interests. The farmers of every progressive 

European country have realized this essential fact and have found in the cooperative system 

exactly the form of business combination they need. 

Now whatever the State may do toward improving the practice of agriculture, it is not within the 

sphere of any government to reorganize the farmers business or reconstruct the social life of 

farming communities. It is, however, quite within its power to use its influence and the 

machinery of publicity which it can control for calling public attention to the needs and the facts. 

For example, it is the obvious duty of the Government to call the attention of farmers to the 

growing monopolization of water power. The farmers above all should have that power, on 

reasonable terms, for cheap transportation, for lighting their homes, and for innumerable uses in 

the daily tasks on the farm. 

It would be idle to assert that life on the farm occupies as good a position in dignity, desirability, 

and business results as the farmers might easily give it if they chose. One of the, chief difficulties 

is the failure of country life, as it exists at present, to satisfy the higher social and intellectual 

aspirations of country people. Whether the constant draining away of so much of the best 

elements in the rural population into the towns is due chiefly to this cause or to the superior

business opportunities of city life may be open to question. But no one at all familiar with farm 

life throughout the United States can fail to recognize the necessity for building up the life of the 

farm upon its social as well as upon its productive side. 

It is true that country life has improved greatly in attractiveness, health, and comfort, and that the 

farmers earnings are higher than they were. But city life is advancing even more rapidly, because 

of the greater attention which is being given by the citizens of the towns to their own betterment. 

For just this reason the introduction of effective agricultural cooperation throughout the United 

States is of the first importance. Where farmers are organized cooperatively they not only avail 

themselves much more readily of business opportunities and improved methods, but it is found 

that the organizations which bring them together in the work of their lives are used also for social 

and intellectual advancement. 

The cooperative plan is the best plan of organization wherever men have the right spirit to carry 

it out. Under this plan any business undertaking is managed by a committee; every man has one 

vote and only one vote; and everyone gets profits according to what he sells or buys or supplies. 

It develops individual responsibility and has a moral as well as a financial value over any other 

plan. 

I desire only to take counsel with the farmers as fellow-citizens. It is not the problem of the 

farmers alone that I am discussing with them, but a problem which affects every city as well as 
13

every farm in the country. It is a problem which the working farmers will have to solve for 

themselves; but it is a problem which also affects in only less degree all the rest of us, and 

therefore if we can render any help toward its solution, it is not only our duty but our interest to 

do so. 

The foregoing will, I hope, make it clear why I appointed a commission to consider problems of 

farm life which have hitherto had far too little attention, and the neglect of which has not only 

held back life in the country, but also lowered the efficiency of the whole nation. The welfare of 

the former is of vital consequence to the welfare of the whole community. The strengthening of 

country life, therefore, is the strengthening of the whole nation. 

The Commission has tried to help the farmers to see clearly their own problem and to see it as a 

whole; to distinguish clearly between what the Government can do and what the farmers must do 

for themselves; and it wishes to bring not only the farmers but the Nation as a whole to realize 

that the growing of crops, though an essential part, is only a part of country life. Crop growing is 

the essential foundation; but it is no less essential that the farmer shall get an adequate return for 

what he grows; and it is no less essential indeed it is literally vital that he and his wife and 

children shall lead the right kind of life. 

For this reason, it is of the first importance that the United States Department of Agriculture, 

through which as prime agent the ideas the Commission stands for must reach the people, should 

become without delay in fact a Department of Country Life, fitted to deal not only with crops, 

but also with all the larger aspects of life in the open country. From all that has been done and 

learned three great general and immediate needs of country life stand out: 

First, effective cooperation among farmers, to put them on a level with the organized interests 

with which they do business. 

Second, a new kind of schools in the country, which shall teach the children as much outdoors as 

indoors and perhaps more, so that they will prepare for country life, and not as at present, mainly 

for life in town. 

Third, better means of communication, including good roads and a parcels post, which the 

country people are everywhere, and rightly, unanimous in demanding. 

To these may well be added better sanitation; for easy preventable diseases hold several million 

country people in the slavery of continuous ill health. 

The Commission points out, and I concur in the conclusion, that the most important help that the 

Government, whether National or State, can give is to show the people how to go about these 

tasks of organization, education, and communication with the best and quickest results. This can 

be done by the collection and spread, of information. One community can thus be informed of 

what other communities have done, and one country of what other countries have done. Such 

help by the peoples’ government would lead to a comprehensive plan of organization, education, 

and communication, and make the farming country better to live in, for intellectual and social 
14

reasons as well as for purely agricultural reasons. 

The Government through the Department of Agriculture does not cultivate any mans farm for 

him. But it does put at his service useful knowledge that he would not otherwise get. In the same 

way the National and State Governments might put into the peoples hands the new and right 

knowledge of school work. The task of maintaining and developing the schools would remain, as 

now, with the people themselves. 

The only recommendation 1 submit is that an appropriation of $25,000 be provided, to enable the 

Commission to digest the material it has collected, and to collect and to digest much more that is 

within its reach, and thus complete its work. This would enable the Commission to gather in the 

harvest of suggestion which is resulting from the discussion it has stirred up. The Commissioners 

have served without compensation, and I do not recommend any appropriation for their services, 

but only for the expenses that will be required to finish the task that they have begun. 

To improve our system of agriculture seems to me the most urgent of the tasks which lie before 

us. But it can not, in my judgment, be effected by measures which touch only the material and 

technical side of the subject; the whole business and life of the farmer must also be taken into 

account. Such considerations led me to appoint the Commission on Country Life. Our object 

should be to help develop in the country community the great ideals of community life as well as 

of personal character. One of the most important adjuncts to this end must be the country church, 

and I invite your attention to what the Commission says of the country church and of the need of 

an extension of such work as that of the Young Men’s Christian Association in country 

communities. Let me lay special emphasis upon what the Commission says at the very end of its 

report on personal ideals and local leadership. Everything resolves itself in the end into the 

question of personality. Neither society nor government can do much for country life unless 

there is voluntary response in the personal ideals of the men and women who live in the country. 

In the development of character, the home should be more important than the school, or than 

society at large. When once the basic material needs have been met, high ideals may be quite 

independent of income; but they can not be realized without sufficient income to provide 

adequate foundation; and where the community at large is not financially prosperous it is

impossible to develop a high average personal and community ideal. In short, the fundamental 

facts of human nature apply to men and women who live in the country just as they apply to men 

and women who live in the towns. Given a sufficient foundation of material well being, the 

influence of the farmers and farmers’ wives on their children becomes the factor of first 

importance in determining the attitude of the next generation toward farm life. The farmer should 

realize that the person who most needs consideration on the farm is his wife. I do not in the least 

mean that she should purchase ease at the expense of duty. Neither man nor woman is really 

happy or really useful save on conditions of doing his or her duty. If the woman shirks her duty 

as housewife, as home keeper, as the mother whose prime function it is to bear and rear a 

sufficient number of healthy children, then she is not entitled to our regard. But if she does her 

duty she is more entitled to our regard even than the man who does his duty; and the man should 

show special consideration for her needs. 

I warn my countrymen that the great recent progress made in city life is not a full measure of our 
15

civilization; for our civilization rests at bottom on the wholesomeness, the attractiveness, and the 

completeness, as well as the prosperity, of life in the country. The men and women on the farms 

stand for what is fundamentally best and most needed in our American life. Upon the 

development of country life rests ultimately our ability, by methods of farming requiring the 

highest intelligence, to continue to feed and clothe the hungry nations; to supply the city with 

fresh blood, clean bodies, and clear brains that can endure the terrific strain of modern life; we 

need the development of men in the open country, who will be in the future, as in the past, the 

stay and strength of the nation in time of war, and its guiding and controlling spirit in time of 

peace. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 

The White House, February 9, 1909. 

APPENDlX A.

One of the most illuminating and incidentally one of the most interesting and amusing series of 

answers sent to the Commission was from a farmer in Missouri. He stated that he had a wife and 

11 living children, he and his wife being each 52 years old; and that they owned 520 acres of 

land without any mortgage hanging over their heads. He had himself done well, and his views as 

to why many of his neighbors had done less well are entitled to consideration. These views are 

expressed in terse and vigorous English; they can not always be quoted in full. 

He states that the farm homes in his neighborhood are not as good as they should be because too 

many of them are encumbered by mortgages; that the schools do not train boys and girls 

satisfactorily for life on the farm, because they allow them to get an idea in their heads that city 

life is better, and that to remedy this, practical farming should be taught. 

To the question whether the farmers and their wives in his neighborhood are satisfactorily 

organized, he answers: Oh, there is a little one-horse grange gang in our locality, and every 

darned one thinks they ought to be a king. 

To the question, Are the renters of farms in your neighborhood making a satisfactory living? He 

answers: No; because they move about so much hunting a better job. 

To the question, Is the supply of farm labor in your neighborhood satisfactory? The answer is: 

No; because the people have gone out of the baby business; and when asked as to the remedy he 

answers, Give a pension to every mother who gives birth to seven living boys on American soil. 

To the question, Are the conditions surrounding hired labor on the farm in your neighborhood 

satisfactory to the hired men? He answers: Yes, unless he is a drunken cuss, adding that he 

would like to blow up the still-houses and root out whisky and beer. 
16

To the question Are the sanitary conditions on the farms in your neighborhood satisfactory? he 

answers: No; too careless about chicken yards, and the like, and poorly covered wells in one well 

on neighbors farm I counted 7 snakes in the wall of the well, and they used the water daily, his 

wife dead now and he is looking for another. 

He ends by stating that the most important single thing to be done for the betterment of Country 

life is good roads; but in his answers he shows very clearly that most important of all is the 

individual equation of the man or woman. 

The humor of this set of responses must not blind us to the shrewd common sense and good 

judgment they display. The man is a good Citizen; his wife is a good Citizen; and their views are 

fundamentally sound. Very much information of the most valuable kind can be gathered if the

Commission is given the money necessary to enable it to arrange and classify the information 

obtained from the great mass of similar answers which they have received. But there is one point 

where the testimony is as a whole in flat contradiction to that contained above. The general 

feeling is that the organizations of farmers, the granges and the like, have been of the very 

highest service not only to the farmers, but to the farmers’ wives, and that they have conferred 

great social as well as great industrial advantages. An excellent little book has recently been 

published by Miss Jennie Buell, called One Woman’s Work for Farm Women. It is dedicated To 

farm women everywhere, and is the story of Mary A. Mayos part in rural social movements. It is 

worth while to read this little volume to see how much the hard-working woman who lives on 

the farm can) do for herself when once she is given sympathy, encouragement, and occasional 

leadership. 
17

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON COUNTRY LIFE

Washington, January 23, 1909.
18

To the President: 

The Commission on Country Life herewith presents its report, covering the following topics: 

Introductory review or summary: 

I. General statement 

The purpose of the Commission. Methods pursued by the Commission. (Circulars, 

hearings, school-house meetings.) 

II. The main special deficiencies in country life 

1. Disregard of the inherent rights of land workers. 

(a) Speculative holding of lands. 

(b) Monopolistic control of streams. 

(c) Wastage and control of forests. 

(d) Restraint of trade. 

(e) Remedies for the disregard of the rights of the farmer. 

2. Highways. 

3. Soil depletion and its effects. 

4. Agricultural labor. 

(a) Statement of the general problem. 

(b) The question of intemperance. 

(c) Development of local attachments of the farm laborer. 

5. Health in the open country. 

6. Woman’s work on the farm. 

III. The general corrective forces that should be set in motion 

7. Need of agricultural or country life surveys. 

8. Need of a redirected education. 

9. Necessity of working together. 

10. The country church. 

11. Personal ideals and local leadership. 
19

INTRODUCTORY REVIEW OR SUMMARY.

The Commission finds that agriculture in the United States, taken altogether, is prosperous 

commercially, when measured by the conditions that have obtained in previous years, although 

there are some regions in which this is only partially true. The country people are producing vast 

quantities of supplies for food, shelter, clothing, and for use in the arts. The country homes are 

improving in comfort, attractiveness, and healthfulness. Not only in the material wealth that they 

produce, but in the supply of independent and strong citizenship, the agricultural people 

constitute the very foundation of our national efficiency. As agriculture is the immediate basis of 

country life, so it follows that the general affairs of the open country, speaking broadly, are in a 

condition of improvement. 

Many institutions, organizations, and movements are actively contributing to the increasing 

welfare of the open country. The most important of these are the United States Department of 

Agriculture, the colleges of agriculture and the experiment stations in the States, and the national 

farmers’ organizations. These institutions and organizations are now properly assuming 

leadership in country-life affairs, and consequently in many of the public questions of national 

bearing. With these agencies must be mentioned state departments of agriculture, agricultural 

societies, and organizations of very many kinds, teachers in schools, workers in church and other 

religious associations, traveling libraries, and many other groups, all working with commendable 

zeal to further the welfare of the people of the open country. 

THE MOST PROMINENT DEFICIENCIES.

Yet it is true, notwithstanding all this progress as measured by historical standards, that 

agriculture is not commercially as profitable as it is entitled to be for the labor and energy that 

the farmer expends and the risks that he assumes, and that the social conditions in the open 

country are far short of their possibilities. We must measure our agricultural efficiency by its 

possibilities rather than by comparison with previous conditions. The farmer is almost 

necessarily handicapped in the development of his business, because his capital is small and the 

volume of his transactions limited; and he usually stands practically alone against organized 

interests. In the general readjustment of modern life, due to the great changes in manufactures 

and commerce, inequalities and discriminations have arisen, and naturally, the separate man 

suffers most. The unattached man has problems that government should understand. 

The reasons for the lack of a highly organized rural society are very many, as the full report 

explains. The leading specific causes are: 

• A lack of knowledge on the part of farmers of the exact agricultural conditions 

and possibilities of their regions; 
20

• Lack of good training for country life in the schools; 

• The disadvantage or handicap of the farmer as against the established business 

systems and interests, preventing him from securing adequate returns for his 

products, depriving him of the benefits that would result from un-monopolized 

rivers and the conservation of forests, and depriving the community, in many 

cases, of the good that would come from the use of great tracts of agricultural land 

that are now held for speculative purposes; 

• Lack of good highway facilities; 

• The widespread continuing depletion of soils, with the injurious effect on rural 

life; 

• A general need of new and active leadership. 

Other causes contributing to the general result are: Lack of any adequate system of agricultural 

credit, whereby the farmer may readily secure loans on fair terms; the shortage of labor, a 

condition that is often complicated by intemperance among workmen; lack of institutions and 

incentives that tie the laboring man to the soil; the burdens and the narrow life of farm women; 

lack of adequate supervision of public health. 

THE NATURE OF THE REMEDIES.

Some of the remedies lie with the National Government, some of them with the States and 

communities in their corporate capacities, some with voluntary organizations, and some with 

individuals acting alone. From the great number of suggestions that have been made, covering 

every phase of country life, the commission now enumerates those that seem to be most 

fundamental or most needed at the present time. 

Congress can remove some of the handicaps of the farmer, and it can also set some kinds of 

work in motion, such as: 

• The encouragement of a system of thoroughgoing surveys of all agricultural 

regions in order to take stock and to collect local fact, with the idea of providing a 

basis on which to develop a scientifically and economically sound country life; 

• The encouragement of a system of extension work of rural communities through 

all the land-grant colleges with the people at their homes and on their farms; 

• A thoroughgoing investigation by experts of the middleman system of handling 

farm products, coupled with a general inquiry into the farmers disadvantages in 

respect to taxation, transportation rates, cooperative organizations and credit, and 

the general business system; 

• An inquiry into the control and use of the streams of the United States with the 

object of protecting the people in their ownership and of saving to agricultural 

uses such benefits as should be reserved for these purposes; 

• The establishing of a highway engineering service, or equivalent organization, to 
21

be at the call of the States in working out effective and economical highway 

systems; 

• The establishing of a system of parcels posts and postal savings banks; and 

providing some means or agency for the guidance of public opinion toward the 

development of a real rural society that shall rest directly on the land. 

Other remedies recommended for consideration by Congress are: 

• The enlargement of the United States Bureau of Education, to enable it to 

stimulate and coordinate the educational work to the nation; 

• Careful attention to the farmers interests in legislation on the tariff, on regulation 

of railroads, control or regulation of corporations and of speculation, legislation in 

respect to rivers, forests, and the utilization of swamp lands; 

• Increasing the powers of the Federal Government in respect to the supervision and 

control of the public health; 

• Providing such regulations as will enable the States that do not permit the sale of 

liquors to protect themselves from traffic from adjoining States. 

In setting all these forces in motion, the cooperation of the States will be necessary; and in many 

cases definite state laws may greatly aid the work. 

Remedies of a more general nature are: A broad campaign of publicity, that must be undertaken 

until all the people are informed on the whole subject of rural life, and until there is an awakened 

appreciation of the necessity of giving this phase of our national development as much attention 

as has been given to other phases or interests; a quickened sense of responsibility in all country 

people, to the community and to the State, in the conserving of soil fertility, and in the necessity 

for diversifying farming in order to conserve this fertility and to develop a better rural society, 

and also in the better safeguarding of the strength and happiness of the farm women; a more 

widespread conviction of the necessity for organization, not only for economic but for social 

purposes, this organization to be more or less cooperative, so that all the people may share 

equally in the benefits and have voice in the essential affairs of the community; a realization on 

the part of the farmer that he has a distinct natural responsibility toward the laborer in providing 

him with good living facilities and in helping him in every way to be a man among men; and a 

realization on the part of all the people of the obligation to protect and develop the natural 

scenery and attractiveness of the open country. 

Certain remedies lie with voluntary organizations and institutions. All organized forces, both in 

town and country, should understand that there are country phases as well as city phases of our 

civilization, and that one phase needs help as much as the other. All these agencies should 

recognize their responsibility to society. Many existing organizations and institutions might 

become practically cooperative or mutual in spirit, as, for example, all agricultural societies, 

libraries, Young Men’s Christian Associations, and churches. All the organizations standing for 

rural progress should be federated, in States and nation. 
22

THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM OF COUNTRY LIFE.

The mere enumeration of the foregoing deficiencies and remedies indicates that the problem of 

country life is one of reconstruction. And that temporary measures and defense work alone will 

not solve it. The underlying problem is to develop and maintain on our farms a civilization in full 

harmony with the best American ideals. To build up and retain this civilization means, first of 

all, that the business of agriculture must be made to yield a reasonable return to those who follow 

it intelligently; and life on the farm must be made permanently satisfying to intelligent, 

progressive people. The work before us, therefore, is nothing more or less than the gradual 

rebuilding of a new agriculture and new rural life. We regard it as absolutely essential that this 

great general work should be understood by all the people. Separate difficulties, important as 

they are, must be studied and worked out in the light of the greater fundamental problem. 

The commission has pointed out a number of remedies that are extremely important; but running 

through all of these remedies are several great forces, or principles, which must be utilized in the 

endeavor to solve the problems of country life. All the people should recognize what those 

fundamental forces and agencies are. 

Knowledge.--To improve any situation, the underlying facts must be understood. The farmer 

must have exact knowledge of his business and of the particular conditions under which he 

works. The United States Department of Agriculture and the experiment stations and colleges are 

rapidly acquiring and distributing this knowledge; but the farmer may not be able to apply it to 

the best of advantage because of lack of knowledge of his own soils, climate, animal and plant 

diseases, markets, and other local facts. The farmer is entitled to know what are the advantages 

and disadvantages of his conditions and environment. A thoroughgoing system of surveys in 

detail of the exact conditions underlying farming in every locality is now an in- dispensable need 

to complete and apply the work of the great agricultural institutions. As an occupation, 

agriculture is a means of developing our internal resources; we cannot develop these resources 

until we know exactly what they are. 

Education.--There must be not only a fuller scheme of public education, but a new kind of 

education adapted to the real needs of the farming people. The country schools are to be so 

redirected that they shall educate their pupils in terms of the daily life. Opportunities for training 

toward agricultural callings are to be multiplied and made broadly effective. Every person on the 

land, old or young, in school or out of school, educated or illiterate, must have a chance to 

receive the information necessary for a successful business, and for a healthful, comfortable, 

resourceful life, both in home and neighborhood. This means redoubled efforts for better country 

schools, and a vastly increased interest in the welfare of country boys and girls on the part of 

those who pay the school taxes. Education by means of agriculture is to be a part of our regular 

public school work. Special agricultural schools are to be organized. There is to be a welldeveloped plan of extension teaching conducted by the agricultural colleges, by means of the 

printed page, face-to-face talks, and demonstration or object lessons, designed to reach every 

farmer and his family, at or near their homes, with knowledge and stimulus in every department 

of country life. 
23

Organization.--There must be a vast enlargement of voluntary organized effort among farmers 

themselves. It is indispensable that farmers shall work together for their common interests and 

for the national welfare. If they do not do this, no governmental activity, no legislation, not even 

better schools, will greatly avail. Much has been done. There is a multitude of clubs and 

associations for social, educational, and business purposes; and great national organizations are 

effective. But the farmers are nevertheless relatively unorganized. We have only begun to 

develop business cooperation in America. Farmers do not influence legislation as they should. 

They need a more fully organized social and recreation life. 

Spiritual Forces.--The forces and institutions that make for morality and spiritual ideals among 

rural people must be energized. We miss the heart of the problem if we neglect to foster personal 

char- acter and neighborhood righteousness. The best way to preserve ideals for private conduct 

and public life is to build up the institutions of religion. The church has great power of 

leadership. The whole people should understand that it is vitally important to stand behind the 

rural church and to help it to become a great power in developing concrete country life ideals. It 

is especially important that the country church recognize that it has a social responsibility to the 

entire community as well as a religious responsibility to its own group of people. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission recommends all the correctives that have been mentioned under the head of 

The nature of the remedies. It does not wish to discriminate between important measures of relief 

for existing conditions. It has purposely avoided indorsing any particular bill now before 

Congress, no matter what its value or object. 

There are, however, in the opinion of the Commission, two or three great movements of the 

utmost consequence that should be set under way at the earliest possible time, because they are 

fundamental to the whole problem of ultimate permanent reconstruction; these call for special 

explanation. 

1. Taking Stock of Country Life.--There should be organized, as explained in the main report, 

under government leadership, a comprehensive plan for an exhaustive study or survey of all the 

conditions that surround the business of farming and the people who live in the country, in order 

to take stock of our resources and to supply the farmer with local knowledge. Federal and state 

governments, agricultural colleges and other educational agencies, organizations of various 

types, and individual students of the problem should be brought into cooperation for this great 

work of investigating with minute care all agricultural and country life conditions. 

2. Nationalized Extension Work.--Each state college of agriculture should be empowered to 

organize as soon as practicable a complete department of college extension, so managed as to 

reach every person on the land in its State, with both information and inspiration. The work 

should include such forms of extension teaching as lectures, bulletins, reading courses, 

correspondence courses, demonstration, and other means of reaching the people at home and on 
24

their farms. It should be designed to forward not only the business of agriculture, but sanitation, 

education, home making, and all interests of country life. 

3. A Campaign for Rural Progress.--We urge the holding of local, state, and even national 

conferences on rural progress, designed to unite the interests of education, organization, and 

religion into one forward movement for the rebuilding of country life. Rural teachers, librarians, 

clergymen, editors, physicians, and others may well unite with farmers in studying and 

discussing the rural question in all its aspects. We must in some way unite all institutions, all 

organizations, and all individuals having any interest in country life into one great campaign for 

rural progress. 

THE CALL FOR LEADERSHIP.

We must picture to ourselves a new rural social structure, developed from the strong resident 

forces of the open country; and then we must set at work all the agencies that will tend to bring 

this about. The entire people need to be roused to this avenue of usefulness. Most of the new 

leaders must be farmers who can find not only a satisfying business career on the farm, but who 

will throw themselves into the service of up-building the community. A new race of teachers is 

also to appear in the country. A new rural clergy is to be trained. These leaders will see the great 

underlying problem of country life, and together they will work, each in his own field, for the 

one goal of a new and permanent rural civilization. Upon the development of this distinctively 

rural civilization rests ultimately our ability, by methods of farming requiring the highest 

intelligence, to continue to feed and clothe the hungry nations; to supply the city and metropolis 

with fresh blood, clean bodies, and clear brains that can endure the strain of modern urban life; 

and to preserve a race of men in the open country that, in the future as in the past, will be the stay 

and strength of the nation in time of war and its guiding and controlling spirit in time of peace. 

It is to be hoped that many young men and women, fresh from our schools and institutions of 

learning, and quick with ambition and trained intelligence, will feel a new and strong call to 

service. 

I. GENERAL STATEMENT.

Broadly speaking, agriculture in the United States is prosperous and the conditions in many of 

the great farming regions are improving. The success of the owners and cultivators of good land, 

in the prosperous regions, has been due partly to improved methods, largely to good prices for 

products, and also to the general advance in the price of farm lands in these regions. 

Notwithstanding the general advance in rentals and the higher prices of labor, tenants also have 

enjoyed a good degree of prosperity, due to fair crops, and an advance in the price of farm 
25

products approximately corresponding to the advance in the price of land. Farm labor has been 

fully employed and at increased wages, and many farm hands have become tenants and many 

tenants have become landowners. 

There is marked improvement, in many of the agricultural regions, in the character of the farm 

home and its surroundings. There is increasing appreciation on the part of great numbers of 

country people of the advantage of sanitary water supplies and plumbing, of better construction 

in barns and all farm buildings, of good reading matter, of tasteful gardens and lawns, and the 

necessity of good education. 

Many institutions are also serving the agricultural needs of the open country with great 

effectiveness, as the United States Department of Agriculture, the land-grant colleges and 

experiment stations, and the many kinds of extension work that directly or indirectly emanate 

from them. The help that these institutions render to the country-life interests is everywhere 

recognized. State departments of agricultural, national, state, and local organizations, many 

schools of secondary grade, churches, libraries, and many other agencies are also contributing 

actively to the betterment of agricultural conditions. 

There has never been a time when the American farmer was as well off as he is today, when we 

consider not only his earning power, but the comforts and advantages he may secure. Yet the real 

efficiency in farm life, and in country life as a whole, is not to be measured by historical 

standards, but in terms of its possibilities. Considered from this point of view, there are very 

marked deficiencies. There has been a complete and fundamental change in our whole economic 

system within the past century. This has resulted in profound social changes and the redirection 

of our point of view on life. In some occupations the readjustment to the new conditions has been 

rapid and complete; in others it has come with difficulty. In all the great series of farm 

occupations the readjustment has been the most tardy, because the whole structure of a 

traditional and fundamental system has been involved. It is not strange, therefore, that 

development is still arrested in certain respects; that marked inequalities have arisen; or that 

positive injustice may prevail even to a very marked and wide-spread extent. All these 

difficulties are the results of the unequal development of our contemporary civilization. All this 

may come about without any intention on the part of anyone that it should be so. The problems 

are nevertheless just as real, and they must be studied and remedies must be found. 

These deficiencies are recognized by the people. We have found, not only the testimony of the 

farmers themselves, but of all persons in touch with farm life, more less serious agricultural 

unrest in every part of the United States, even in the most prosperous regions. There is a 

widespread tendency for farmers to move to town. It is not advisable, of course, that all country 

persons remain in the country; but this general desire to move is evidence that the open country 

is not satisfying as a permanent abode. This tendency is not peculiar to any region. In difficult 

farming regions, and where the competition with other farming sections is most severe, the 

young people may go to town to better their condition. In the best regions the older people retire 

to town, because it is socially more attractive and they see a prospect of living in comparative 

ease and comfort on the rental of their lands. Nearly everywhere there is a townward movement 

for the purpose of securing school advantages for the children. All this tends to sterilize the open 
26

country and to lower its social status. Often the farm is let to tenants. The farmer is likely to lose 

active interest in life when he retires to town, and he becomes a stationary citizen, adding a 

social problem to the town. He is likely to find his expenses increasing and is obliged to raise 

rents to his tenant, thereby making it more difficult for the man who works on the land. On his 

death his property enriches the town rather than the country. The withdrawal of the children from 

the farms detracts from the interest and efficiency of the country school and adds to the interest 

of the town school. Thus the country is drained of the energy of youth on the one hand and the 

experience and accumulation of age on the other, and three problems more or less grave are 

created: a problem for the town, a problem for the public school, and also a problem of tenancy 

in the open country. 

The farming interest is not, as a whole, receiving the full rewards to which it is entitled, nor has 

country life attained to anywhere near its possibilities of attractiveness and comfort. The farmer 

is necessarily handicapped in the development of social life and in the conduct of his business 

because of his separateness, the small volume of his output, and the lack of capital. He often 

begins with practically no capital, and expects to develop his capital and relationships out of the 

annual business itself; and even when he has capital with which to set up a business and operate 

it the amount is small when compared with that required in other enterprises. He is not only 

handicapped in his farming, but is disadvantaged when he deals with other business interests and 

with other social groups. It is peculiarly necessary, therefore, that Government should give him 

adequate consideration and protection. There are difficulties of the separate man, living quietly 

on his land, that government should understand. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission is requested to report on the means that are now available for supplying the 

deficiencies which exist in the country life of the United States and upon the best methods of 

organized permanent effort in investigation and actual work along the lines of betterment of rural 

conditions. 

The Presidents letter appointing the Commission is as follows: 

Oyster Bay, N. Y., August 10, 1908. 

My Dear Professor Bailey: No nation has ever achieved permanent greatness unless this 

greatness was based on the well-being of the great farmer class, the men who live on the soil; for 

it is upon their welfare, material and moral, that the welfare of the rest of the nation ultimately 

rests. In the United States, disregarding certain sections and taking the nation as a whole, I 

believe it to be true that the farmers in general are better off today than they ever were before. 

We Americans are making great progress in the development of our agricultural resources. But it 

is equally true that the social and economic institutions of the open country are not keeping pace 

with the development of the nation as a whole. The farmer is, as a rule, better off than his 

forbears; but his increase in well- being has not kept pace with that of the country as a whole. 
27

While the condition of the farmers in some of our best farming regions leaves little to be desired, 

we are far from having reached so high a level in all parts of the country. In portions of the 

South, for example, where the Department of Agriculture, through the farmers cooperative 

demonstration work of Doctor Knapp, is directly instructing more than 30,000 farmers in better 

methods of farming, there is nevertheless much unnecessary suffering and needless loss of 

efficiency on the farm. A physician, who is also a careful student of farm life in the South, 

writing to me recently about the enormous percentage of preventable deaths of children, due to 

unsanitary condition of southern farms, said: 

“Personally, from the health point of view, I would prefer to see my own daughter, 9 years old, at 

work in a cotton mill than have her live as tenant on the average southern tenant one-horse farm. 

This apparently extreme statement is based upon actual life among both classes of people.” 

I doubt if any other nation can bear comparison with our own in the amount of attention given by 

the Government, both Federal and State, to agricultural matters. But practically the whole of this 

effort has hitherto been directed toward increasing the production of crops. Our attention has 

been concentrated almost exclusively on getting better farming. In the beginning this was 

unquestionably the right thing to do. The farmer must first of all grow good crops in order to 

support himself and his family. But when this has been secured the effort for better farming 

should cease to stand alone, and should be accompanied by the effort for better business and 

better living on the farm. It is at least as important that the farmer should get the largest possible 

return in money, comfort, and social advantages from the crops he grows as that he should get 

the largest possible return in crops from the land he farms. Agriculture is not the whole of 

country life. The great rural interests are human interests, and good crops are of little value to the 

farmer unless they open the door to a good kind of life on the farm. 

This problem of country life is in the truest sense a national problem. In an address delivered at 

the semi-centennial of the founding of agricultural colleges in the United States a year ago last 

May, I said: 

“There is but one person whose welfare is as vital to the welfare of the whole country as is that 

of the wage-worker who does manual labor, and that is the tiller of the soil the farmer. If there is 

one lesson taught by history, it is that the permanent greatness of any State must ultimately 

depend more upon the character of its country population than upon anything else. No growth of 

cities, no growth of wealth can make up for loss in either the number or the character of the 

farming population.”

* * * * * * * *

“The farm grows the raw material for the food and clothing of all our citizens; it supports 

directly almost half of them; and nearly half the children of the United States are born and 

brought up on the farms. How can the life of the farm family be made less solitary, fuller of 

opportunity, freer from drudgery, more comfortable, happier, and more attractive? Such a result 

is most earnestly to be desired. How can life on the farm be kept on the highest level, and, where 

it is not already on that level, be so improved, dignified, and brightened as to awaken and keep 
28

alive the pride and loyalty of the farmers boys and girls, of the farmers wife, and of the farmer 

himself? How can a compelling desire to live on the farm be aroused in the children that are born 

on the farm? All these questions are of vital importance not only to the farmer but to the whole 

nation. 

* * * * * * * *

“We hope ultimately to double the average yield of wheat and corn per acre; it will be a great 

achievement; but it is even more important to double the desirability, comfort, and standing of 

the farmer’s life.” 

It is especially important that whatever will serve to prepare country children for life on the farm 

and whatever will brighten home life In the country and make it richer and more attractive for 

the mothers, wives and daughters of farmers should be done promptly, thoroughly, and gladly. 

There is no more important person, measured in influence upon the life of the nation, than the 

farmers wife, no more important home than the country home, and it is of national importance to 

do the best we can for both. 

The farmers have hitherto had less than their full share of public attention along the lines of 

business and social life. There is too much belief among all our people that the prizes of life are 

away from the farm. I am therefore anxious to bring before the people of the United States the 

question of securing better business and better living on the farm, whether by cooperation 

between farmers for buying, selling, and borrowing; by promoting social advantages and 

opportunities in the country; or by any other legitimate means that will help to make country life 

more gainful, more attractive, and fuller of opportunities, pleasures, and rewards for the men, 

women, and children of the farms. 

I shall be very glad indeed if you will consent to serve upon a commission on country life, upon 

which I am asking the following gentlemen to act: Professor L. H. Bailey, New York State 

College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y., chairman; Mr. Henry Wallace, Wallaces Farmer, Des 

Moines, Iowa; President Kenyon L. Butterfield, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, 

Mass.; Mr. Gifford Pinchot, United States Forest Service; Mr. Walter H. Page, editor of The 

Worlds Work, New York. 

My immediate purpose in appointing this Commission is to secure from it such information and 

advice as will enable me to make recommendations to Congress upon this extremely important 

matter. I shall be glad if the Commission will report to me upon the present condition of country 

life, upon what means are now available for supplying the deficiencies which exist, and upon the 

best methods of organized permanent effort in investigation and actual work along the lines I 

have indicated. You will doubtless also find it necessary to suggest means for bringing about the 

redirection or better adaptation of rural schools to the training of children for life on the farm. 

The national and state agricultural departments must ultimately join with the various farmers and 

agricultural organizations in the effort to secure greater efficiency and attractiveness in country 

life. 
29

In view of the pressing importance of this subject I should be glad to have you report before the 

end of next December. For that reason the Commission will doubtless find it impracticable to 

undertake extensive investigations, but will rather confine itself to a summary of what is already 

known, a statement of the problem, and the recommendation of measures tending toward its 

solution. With the single exception of the conservation of our natural resources, which underlies 

the problem of rural life, there is no other material question of greater importance now before the 

American people. I shall look forward with the keenest interest to your report. 

Sincerely yours, THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 

PROF. L. H. BAILEY,

New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y. 

Subsequently Charles S. Barrett, of Georgia, and William A. Beard, of California, were added to 

the Commission. 

The means that may be suggested for amelioration of country life fall under one or more of three 

general classes: (a) Definite recommendations for executive or legislative action by the Federal 

Government; (b) suggestions for legislative enactment on the part of States; (c) suggestions or 

recommendations to the public at large as to what the Commission thinks would be the most 

fruitful lines of action and policy on the part of individuals, communities, or States. 

The problem before the Commission is to state, with some fullness of detail, the present 

conditions of country life, to point out the causes that may have led to its present lack of 

organization, to suggest methods by which it may be redirected, the drift to the city arrested, the 

natural rights of the farmer maintained, and an organized rural life developed that will promote 

the prosperity of the whole nation. 

We are convinced that the forces that make for rural betterment must themselves be rural. We 

must arouse the country folk to the necessity for action, and suggest agencies which, when 

properly employed, will set them to work to develop a distinctly rural civilization. 

In making its inquiries, the Commission has had constantly in mind the relation of the farmer to 

his community and to society in general. It has made no inquiry into problems of technical 

farming except as they may have bearing on general welfare and public questions. 

The Commission has not assumed that country-life conditions are either good or bad, nor is it 

within its province to compare country conditions with city conditions; but it has assumed that 

we have not yet arrived at that state of society in which conditions may not be bettered. 

It is our place, therefore, to point out the deficiencies rather than the advantages and the progress. 

In doing this we must be distinctly understood as speaking only in general terms. The conditions 
30

that we describe do not, of course, apply equally in all parts of the country, and we have not been 

able to make studies of the problems of particular localities. 

Before discussing the shortcomings more fully, we may explain how the Commission undertook 

its work. 

METHODS PURSUED BY THE COMMISSION.

The field of inquiry has been the general social, economic, sanitary, educational, and labor 

conditions of the open country. Within the time at its disposal, the Commission has not been able 

to make scientific investigations into any of these questions, but, following the suggestion of the 

President, has endeavored to give a summary of what is already known, a statement of the 

problem, and the recommendation of measures looking toward its solution. We have been able to 

make a rather extensive exploration or reconnaissance of the field, to arrive at a judgment as to 

the main deficiencies of country life in the United States today, and to suggest some of the means 

of supplying these deficiencies. 

The Commission and its work have met with the fullest cooperation and confidence on the part 

of the farmers and others, and the interest in the subject has been widespread. The people have 

been frank in giving information and expressing opinions, and in stating their problems and 

discouragements. There is every evidence that the people in rural districts have welcomed the 

Commission as an agency that is much needed in the interest of country life, and in many of the 

hearings they have asked that the Commission be continued in order that it may make thorough 

investigations of the subjects that it has considered. The press has taken great interest in the 

work, and in many cases has been of special service to the Commission in securing direct 

information from country people. 

The activities of the Commission have been directed mainly along four lines: The issuing of 

questions designed to bring out a statement of conditions in all parts of the United States; 

correspondence and inquiries by different members of the Commission, so far as time would 

permit, each in a particular field; the holding of hearings in many widely separated places; 

discussions in local meetings held in response to a special suggestion by the President. 

THE CIRCULAR OF QUESTIONS.

As a means of securing the opinions of the people themselves on some of the main aspects of 

country life, a set of questions was distributed, as follows: 

I. Are the farm homes in your neighborhood as good as they should be under existing 

conditions? 
31

II. Are the schools in your neighborhood training boys and girls satisfactorily for life on 

the farm? 

III. Do the farmers in your neighborhood get the returns they reasonably should from the 

sale of their products? 

IV. Do the farmers in your neighborhood receive from the railroads, highroads, trolley 

lines, etc., the services they reasonably should have? 

V. Do the farmers in your neighborhood receive from the United States postal service, 

rural telephones, etc., the service they reasonably should expect? 

VI. Are farmers and their wives in your neighborhood satisfactorily organized to promote 

their mutual buying and selling interest? 

VII. Are the renters of farms in your neighborhood making a satisfactory living? 

VIII. Is the supply of farm labor in your neighborhood satisfactory? 

IX. Are the conditions surrounding hired labor on the farms in your neighborhood 

satisfactory to the hired man? 

X. Have the farmers in your neighborhood satisfactory facilities for doing their business 

in banking, credit, insurance, etc.? 

XI. Are the sanitary conditions of farms in your neighborhood satisfactory? 

XII. Do the farmers and their wives and families in your neighborhood get together for 

mutual improvement, entertainment, and social intercourse as much as they should? 

What, in your judgment, is the most important single thing to be done for the general betterment 

of country life? 

(NOTE.--Following each question are the subquestions: (a) Why? (b) What suggestions 

have you to make?) 

About 550,000 copies of the circular questions were sent to names supplied by the United States 

Department of Agriculture, state experiment stations, farmer’s societies, women's’ clubs, to rural 

free deliverymen, country physicians and ministers, and others. To these inquiries about 115,000 

persons have now replied, mostly with much care and with every evidence of good faith. Nearly 

100,000 of these circulars have been arranged and some of the information tabulated in a 

preliminary way by the Census Bureau. In addition to the replies to the circulars, great numbers 

of letters and carefully written statements have been received, making altogether an invaluable 

body of information, opinion, and suggestion. 
32

THE HEARINGS.

Hearings were held at 30 places by the whole Commission, or part of it, between November 9 

and December 22, 1908; and frequently two or more long sessions were held. Very full notes 

were taken of the proceedings. They were attended by good audiences, in some instances 

overflowing the hall. At several, especially in the Northwest, delegates were in attendance 

representing associations and communities in the vicinity, who were anxious to present their 

views and needs. Speeches were numerous and usually short and pithy, and represented every 

sort of person concerned with rural life, including many women, who contributed much to the 

domestic and educational aspects of the subject. The governors and principal officials of the 

States were often present; and also the presidents and professors of institutions of learning, 

clergymen, physicians, librarians, and others, but the bulk of the speakers and audiences was 

country people. No attempt was made to follow a definite programme of questioning, but general 

discussions proceeded, with an occasional show of hands or outburst of applause to signify 

general assent to the speaker’s words. 

The hearings were held as follows: 

November 9.--College Park, Md. 

10. Richmond, Va. 

11. Raleigh, N. C., and Athens, Ga. 

12. Spartanburg, S. C. 

13. Knoxville, Tenn. 

14. Lexington, Ky. 

16-18. Washington, D. C. 

19-21. Dallas, Tex. 

22-23. El Paso, Tex. 

24. Tucson, Ariz. 

25-26. Los Angeles, Cal. 

27-28. Fresno, Cal. 

28-29. San Francisco, Cal. 

30. Sacramento, Cal. 

December 1. Reno, Nev. 

2. Portland, Oreg. 
33

2-3. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

4-5. Spokane, Wash. (and at Opportunity, near by). 

5. Cheyenne, Wyo. 

6. Bozeman, Mont. 

7-8. Denver, Col. 

9-10. Omaha, Nebr. 

10. Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

11. Minneapolis,. Minn. (St. Anthony Park). 

12. Madison, Wis. 

14. Champaign, Ill. 

16. Ithaca, N. Y. 

17. Springfield, Mass. 

18. Boston, Mass. 

22. Washington, D. C. 

THE SCHOOLHOUSE MEETINGS.

The suggestion of the President that the country people of the United States come together in 

their district schoolhouses to discuss country-life questions under consideration by the 

Commission was officially transmitted by the Commission to the state and county 

superintendents of schools of every State and Territory. A great part of the press of the country 

quoted the suggestion in full, often printing with it the original list of questions issued by the 

Commission. School officials, ministers of country churches, and other persons concerned in the 

advancement of country matters contributed their active efforts for organizing such meetings. 

Reports of meetings have already come in from almost every State, and we have notice of many 

meetings still to be held. Separate States have set specific days for simultaneous meetings in all 

their country schoolhouses, notably Nebraska and Missouri. The States of Washington, Oregon, 

Montana, and Idaho, by concerted arrangement, held meetings December 5, the date suggested 

by the President. Suggestion has come from many parts of the country for the regular 

establishment of such meetings for annual national observance by the country people as an 
34

inventory-taking day and for planning community advancement for the ensuing year. 

II. THE MAIN SPECIAL DEFFICIENCIES IN COUNTRY LIFE. 

The numbers of problems and suggestions that have been presented to the Commission in the 

hearings and through the correspondence are very great. We have chosen for special discussion 

those that are most significant and that seem most to call for immediate action. The main single 

deficiency is, of course, lack of the proper kind of education, but inasmuch as the redirection of 

educational methods is also the main remedy for the shortcomings of country life, as also of any 

other life, the discussion of it may be reserved for Part III. 

1. DISREGARD OF THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF LAND WORKERS. 

Notwithstanding an almost universal recognition of the importance of agriculture to the 

maintenance of our people there is nevertheless a widespread disregard of the rights of the men 

who own and work the land. This results directly in social depression, as well as in economic 

disadvantage. 

The organized and corporate interests represented in mining, manufacturing, merchandising, 

transportation, and the like, seem often to hold the idea that their business may be developed and 

exploited without regard to the farmers, who should, however, have an equal opportunity for 

enjoyment of the land, forests, and streams and of the right to buy and sell in the open markets 

without prejudice. 

The question of the moral intention of the consolidated interests is not involved in these 

statements. The present condition has grown up, and without going into the reasons it is 

imperative that we recognize these disadvantages to country-life interests and seek to correct 

them. The way in which discriminating conditions may arise is well illustrated in the inequalities 

of taxation of farm property. It is natural that visible and stationary property should be taxed 

freely under our present system; it is equally natural that invisible and changeable property 

should tend to evade taxation. The inevitable result is that the farmer’s property bears an unjust 

part in taxation schemes. 

Nor is this disregard of the inherent rights of the land worker confined to corporations and 

companies or to the recognized inequalities of taxation. It is often shared by cities. Instead of 

taking care of their own undesirables, they often turn them off on the country districts. The fringe 

of a city thereby becomes a low-class or even vicious community, and its influence often extends 

far into the country districts. The Commission hears complaints that hoboes are driven from the 

cities and towns into the country districts, where there is no machinery for controlling them. 

The subjects to which we are here inviting attention are, of course, not confined to country life 

alone. They express an attitude toward public questions in general. We look for the development 

of a sentiment that will protect and promote the welfare of all the people whenever there is a 
35

conflict with the interests of a small or particular class. 

The handicaps that we now have specially in mind may be stated under four heads: Speculative 

holding of lands; monopolistic control of streams; wastage and monopolistic control of forests; 

restraint of trade. 

(a) SPECULATIVE HOLDING OF LANDS. 

Certain landowners procure large areas of agricultural land in the most available location, 

sometimes by questionable methods, and hold it for speculative purposes. This not only 

withdraws the land itself from settlement, but in many cases prevents the development of an 

agricultural community. The smaller landowners are isolated and unable to establish their 

necessary institutions or to attract the attention of the market. The holding of large areas by one 

party tends to develop a system of tenantry and absentee farming. The whole development may 

be in the direction of social and economic ineffectiveness. In parts of the West and South this 

evil is so pronounced that persons have requested the Commission to recommend measures of 

relief by restricting, under law, the size of speculative holdings of agricultural lands. 

A similar problem arises in respect to the utilization of the swamp lands of the United States. 

According to the reports of the United States Geological Survey, there are more than 75,000,000 

acres of swamp land in this country, the greater part of which are capable of reclamation at 

probably a nominal cost as compared to their value. It is important to the development of the best 

type of country life that the reclamation of the lands in rural regions proceed under conditions 

insuring their subdivision into small farm units and their settlement by men who would both own 

them and till them. Some of these lands are near the centers of population. They become a 

menace to health, and they often prevent the development of good social conditions in very large 

areas of country. As a rule, they are extremely fertile. They are capable of sustaining an 

agricultural population numbering many millions, and the conditions under which these millions 

must live are properly a matter of national concern. In view of these facts, the Federal 

Government should act to the fullest extent of its constitutional powers in securing the 

reclamation of these lands under proper safeguards against speculative holding and landlordism. 

It may be that in the case of those lands ceded to the States for the purpose of reclamation, the 

greater part of which are un-reclaimed, there exists a special authority on the part of the Federal 

Government by reason of failure to comply with the terms of the grant; and there should be a 

vigorous legal inquiry into the present rights of the Government with respect to them, followed, 

if the status warrants it, by legal steps to rescind the grants and to begin the practical work of 

reclamation. 

(b) MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL OF STREAMS. 

The legitimate farming interests of the whole country would be vastly benefited by a systematic 

conservation and utilization, under the auspices of the State and Federal Governments, of our 

water-ways, both great and small. Important advantages of these water-ways are likely to be 

appropriated in perpetuity and without adequate return to the people by monopolistic interests 
36

that deprive the permanent agricultural inhabitants of the use of them. 

The rivers are valuable to the farmers as drainage lines, as sources of irrigation supply, as 

carriers and equalizers of transportation rates, as a readily available power resource, and for the 

raising of food fish. The wise development of these and other uses is important to both 

agricultural and other interests; their protection from monopoly is one of the first responsibilities 

of government. The streams belong to the people; under a proper system of development their 

resources would remain an estate of all the people, and become available as needed. A broad 

constructive programme involving coordinate development of the many uses of streams, under 

conditions insuring their permanent control in the interest of the people themselves, is urgently 

needed, and none should be more concerned in this than the farmers. 

River navigation affords the best and cheapest transportation of farm products of a nonperishable 

nature. The rivers afford the best means of competition with railroads, because river carriage is 

cheap, and because the rivers once opened by the Government for navigation are open to all, and 

monopoly of their use should be an impossibility. Interest in river improvement for the purpose 

of navigation is very keen among the farmers who actually use river transportation and to some 

extent among farmers who enjoy advantages in railway rates due to parallel water lines; but the 

great mass of farmers, while complaining of what they affirm to be unjust and exorbitant railway 

rates, have given too little thought to the means of relief with which nature has favored them. 

This is probably due to lack of knowledge of the actual economies of river transportation. For 

example, one community located 200 miles from a former head of navigation ships wheat by rail 

to a market that is 1,033 miles distant, at a cost of 21 cents per bushel, yet it showed no interest 

in the reopening of the channel that would reduce the train haul to less than one-fifth the 

distance. 

This failure to consider the waterways is probably due very largely to the high rates per ton-mile 

charged by railroads for short hauls. Under the present methods of fixing the railway tariffs, local 

rates are often almost or quite as great as between points far distant, and there is small 

inducement to use cheap river freights because of the cost of reaching the river banks. The 

remedy for this lies in two directions: It must come either from a rearrangement of freight 

schedules, which may involve a complete change in the present policy of the railway companies 

with reference thereto, or by means of competition by independent or local companies. 

It must be remembered, also, that no interests inimical to the public welfare should be allowed to 

acquire permanent control of the stream banks. Facilities for ready and economical approach are 

practically as important as the channels themselves. 

River transportation is not usually antagonistic to rail way interests. Population and production 

are increasing rapidly, with corresponding increase in the demands made on transportation 

facilities. It may be reasonably expected that in the evolution of the transportation business, the 

rivers will eventually carry a large part of the freight that does not require prompt delivery, while 

the railways will carry that requiring expeditious handling. This is already foreseen by leading 

railway men; and its importance to the farmer is such that he should encourage and aid, by every 

means in his power, the movement for large use of the rivers. The country will produce enough 
37

business to tax both streams and railroads to their utmost. 

In many regions the streams afford facilities for the development of power, which, since the 

successful inauguration of electrical trans- mission, is available for local rail lines and offers the 

best solution of local transportation problems. In many parts of the country local and interurban 

lines are providing transportation to farm areas, thereby increasing the facilities for moving crops 

and adding to the profit and convenience of farm life. Notwithstanding this development, 

however, there seems to be a very general lack of appreciation on the part of farmers of the 

possibilities of this water-power resource as a factor in governing transportation costs. 

The streams may also be used as a source of small water power on thousands of farms. This is 

particularly true of the small streams. Much of the manual labor about the house and barn can be 

performed from transmission of power from small water wheels running on the farms themselves 

or in the neighborhood. This power could be used for electric lighting and for small manufacture. 

It is more important that small power be developed on the farms of the United States than that we 

harness Niagara. 

Unfortunately, the tendency of the present laws is to encourage the acquisition of these resources 

on easy terms, or on their own terms, by the first applicants, and the power of the streams is 

rapidly being acquired under conditions that lead to the concentration of ownership in the hands 

of monopolies. This state of things constitutes a real and immediate danger, not to the country 

life interests alone, but to the entire nation, and it is time that the whole people become aroused 

to it. 

The laws under which water is appropriated or flowage rights secured for power were enacted 

prior to the introduction of electrical transmission, and, consequently, before there was any 

possibility of water power becoming of more than local importance or value. Monopoly of water 

power was practically impossible while the sources and uses were alike isolated, but the present 

ability to concentrate the power of streams and to develop transportation, manufacturing, 

heating, and lighting on a vast scale invites monopolization. 

It appears as a result of governmental investigation that practically in the last five years there has 

been a very significant concentration of water powers; that this concentration has now placed 

about 33 per cent of the total developed water powers of the country under the control of a group 

of 13 companies or interests; that there are very strong economic and technical reasons forcing 

such concentration. The rapid concentration already accomplished, together with the obvious 

technical reasons for further control and the financial advantages to be gained by a substantial 

monopoly, justifies the fear that the concentration already accomplished is but the forerunner of 

a far greater degree of monopoly of water power. Unless the people become aroused to the 

danger to their interests, there will probably be developed a monopoly greater than any the world 

has yet seen. 

The development of power plants and of industries using this power ought to be encouraged by 

every legitimate and proper means. It should not be necessary, however, to grant perpetual rights 

in order to encourage this development. There should be no perpetual grant of water-power 
38

privileges. On the contrary, the ownership of the people should be perpetually maintained, and 

grants should be in the nature of terminable franchises. 

The irrigation water should be protected. Farm life in the irrigated regions is usually of an 

advanced type, due principally to the small size of farms and the resulting social and educational 

advantages and to intensive agriculture. Because of these facts the development of the arid 

regions by irrigation may be a distinct contribution to the improvement of the country life of the 

nation. In the use of streams for irrigation, as in other uses, monopoly should be discouraged. 

The ownership of water for irrigation is no less important than the ownership of land; “waterlordism” is as much to be feared as “landlordism.” In the irrigated regions the water is more 

valuable than the land to which it is applied; the availability of the water supply often gives to 

the land all the value that it has, and when this is true it must follow that the farmer must own 

both the water and the land if he is to be master of his own fortunes. One of the very best 

elements of any population is the independent home-owning farmer, and the tendency of 

government, so far as may be practicable, should be toward securing the ownership of the land 

by the man who lives on it and tills it. It should seek to vest in the farmer of the irrigated region 

the title to his water supply and to protect his tenure of it. The national reclamation act, under 

which large areas of arid land are now being placed under irrigation, is commended as a 

contribution to the development of a good country life in the West, not alone because it renders 

available for settlement large areas of previously worthless land, but still more because it insures 

to settlers the ownership of both the land and the water. 

The need to utilize the streams is to be considered in the East as well as in the West. 

The Commission suggests that a special inquiry be made of the control and stream resources of 

the United States, with the object of protecting the people in their ownership and of reserving to 

agricultural uses such benefits as should be reserved for these purposes. 

(b) WASTAGE AND CONTROL OF FORESTS. 

The forests have been exploited for private gain until not only has the timber been seriously 

reduced, but until streams have been ruined for navigation, power, irrigation, and common water 

supplies and whole regions have been exposed to floods and disastrous soil erosion. Probably 

there has never occurred a more reckless destruction of property that of right should belong to all 

the people. These devastations are checked on the government lands, but similar devastation in 

other parts of the country is equally in need of attention. The Commission has heard strong 

demands from farmers for the establishment of forest reservation in the White Mountains and the 

Southern Appalachian region to save the timber and to control the sources of streams, and no 

statements in opposition to the proposal. Measures should be enacted creating such reservations. 

The forests as well as the streams should be saved from monopolistic control. 

The conservation of forests and brush on watershed areas is important to the farmer along the full 

length of streams, regardless of the distance between the farm and these areas. The loss of soil in 

denuded areas increases the menace of flood, not alone because of the more rapid run-off, but by 

the filling of channels and the greater erosion of stream banks when soil matter is carried in 
39

suspension. 

Loss of soil by washing is a serious menace to the fertility of the American farm. A high 

authority on this subject recently made the statement that soil wash is the heaviest impost borne 

by the American farmer. 

The wood-lot property of the country needs to be saved and increased. Wood-lot yield is one of 

the most important crops of the farm, and is of great value to the public in controlling streams, 

saving the run-off, checking winds, and in adding to the attractiveness of the region. In many 

regions, where poor and hilly lands prevail, the town or county could well afford to purchase 

forest land, expecting thereby to add to the value of the property and eventually to make the 

forests a source of revenue. Such communal forests in Europe yield revenue to the cities and 

towns by which they are owned and managed. 

(c) RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

The Commission has heard much complaint, in all parts of the country and by all classes of 

farmers, of injustice, inequalities, and discrimination on the part of transportation companies and 

middle-men. These are the most universal direct complaints that have been presented to the 

Commission. If the statements can be trusted, the business of farming as a whole is greatly 

repressed by lack of mutual understanding and good faith in the transportation and marketing of 

agricultural produce. 

Without expressing an opinion on these questions, we feel that there should be a free 

understanding between transportation companies and farmers in respect to their mutual business. 

We find that farmers who have well-informed opinions on tariff, education, and other public 

questions are yet wholly uninformed in respect to the transportation man’s point of view on 

freight rates and express rates that may be in dispute. A disposition on the part of all parties to 

discuss the misunderstandings fairly would probably accomplish much. 

The whole matter of railway freight rates should be made more understandable. There should be 

a simplifying or codifying of rates that will enable the farmer or a group of farmers or of other 

citizens who use the railways to ascertain readily from the published tariffs the actual rate on any 

given commodity between two points. Railway rate making is fundamentally a matter of public 

importance. The rates are a large factor in the development of population; in many instances the 

railway rates determine both the character of the population and the development of industry. 

The railway companies, by their rates, may decide where the centers of distribution shall be, 

what areas shall develop manufactures, and other special industries, To the extent that they do 

this they exercise a purely public function, and for this reason alone, if for no other, the 

Government should exercise a wise supervision over the making and publication of rates. 

Favoritism to large shippers has been one of the principal abuses of the transportation business 

and has contributed to the growth of monopolies of trade. While rebating is largely discontinued, 

it is very generally believed that this favoritism is still practiced, in various forms, to an extent 

that works a hardship on the small shipper and the unorganized interests. Complaint is not confined to steam roads alone, but is directed toward the trolley lines as well. There is a feeling that 
40

trolley systems should be feeders to the steam roads, and that these systems, which are rapidly 

being extended through rural districts, should afford to farmers a freight service that is ready, 

rapid, and cheap. It is charged that this is not done; that steam lines discourage the use of the 

trolleys for freight, or absorb them and eliminate competition, to the detriment of the farm 

population which they should most benefit. 

The Interstate Commerce Commission exercises a most valuable governmental function. It is a 

body to which complaint may be made of any rate considered to be unreasonable. It has been of 

great benefit to the farmers of the country. What is needed now is a careful study of the railway 

situation with a view to reaching and correcting abuses and practices still in existence that 

operate against the unorganized and the rural interests. In this connection attention is invited to 

the fact that many States have railway commissions charged with the duty of protecting the 

public from paying exorbitant freight rates, and the farmers who feel that they are charged more 

than is fair should see to it, first, that their state railway commissions are composed of men who 

do their duty; and second, that these men are sustained in honest efforts to do their duty with 

fairness to all concerned. The charge is frequently made that these commissions are not effective; 

but as they are a part of the machinery of the State, it would seem that the farmers have here an 

excellent opportunity to serve their interests by active devotion to a plain political duty. 

Dissatisfaction with the prevailing systems of marketing is very general. There is a widespread 

belief that certain middlemen consume a share of agricultural sales out of all proportion to the 

services they render, either to the consumer or the producer, making a larger profit often without 

risking the selling of the product than the farmer makes in producing it. We have no desire to 

condemn middlemen as a class. We have no doubt that there are many businesses of this kind 

that are conducted on a square-deal basis, but we are led to believe that grave abuses are 

practiced by unscrupulous persons and firms, and we recommend a searching inquiry into the 

methods employed in the sale of produce on commission. 

(e) REMEDIES FOR THE DISREGARD OF THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE 

FARMER. 

We need, in the first place, as a people, to recognize the necessary rights of the individual farmer 

to the use of the native resources and agencies that go with the utilization of agricultural lands 

and to protect him from hindrance and encroachment in the normal development of his business. 

If the farmer suffers because his business is small, isolated, and un-syndicated, then it is the part 

of the government to see that he has a natural opportunity among his fellows and a square deal. 

In the second place, we need such an attitude of government, both state and national, as will 

safeguard the separate and individual rights of the farmer, in the interest of the public good. As a 

contribution toward this attitude, we commend the general policy of the present administration to 

safeguard the streams, forests, coal lands, and phosphate lands, and in endeavoring to develop a 

home-owning settlement in the irrigated regions. 

At the moment, one of the most available and effective single means of giving the farmer the 

benefit of his natural opportunities is the enlargement of government service to the country 
41

people through the post office. We hold that a parcels post and a postal savings bank system are 

necessities; and as rapidly as possible the rural free delivery of mails should be extended. 

Everywhere we have found the farmers demanding the parcels post. It is opposed by many 

merchants, transportation organizations, and established interests. We do not think that the 

parcels post will injure the merchant in the small town or elsewhere. Whatever will permanently 

benefit the farmer will benefit the country as a whole. Both town and country would readjust 

themselves to the new conditions. We recognize the great value of the small town to the country 

districts and would not see it displaced or crippled; but the character of the open country largely 

makes or unmakes the country town. 

In order that fundamental correctives may be applied, we recommend that a thoroughgoing study 

or investigation be made of the relation of business practices and of taxation to the welfare of the 

farmer, with a view to ascertaining what discriminations and deficiencies may exist, whether 

legislation is needed, and to give publicity to the entire subject. This investigation should include 

the entire middleman system, farmers’ cooperative organizations, transportation rates and 

practices, taxation of agricultural property, methods of securing funds on reasonable conditions 

for agricultural uses, and the entire range of economic questions involved in the relation of the 

farmer to the accustomed methods of doing business. 

We find that there is need of a new general attitude toward legislation, in the way of 

safeguarding the farmers’ natural rights and interests. It is natural that the organized and 

consolidated interests should be strongly in mind in the making of legislation. We recommend 

that the welfare of the farmer and countryman be also kept in mind in the construction of laws. 

We specially recommend that his interests be considered and safeguarded in any new legislation 

on the tariff, on regulation of railroads, control or regulating of corporations and of speculation, 

river, swamp, and forest legislation, and public-health regulation. At the present moment it is 

especially important that the farmer’s interests be well considered in the revision of the tariff. 

One of the particular needs is such an application of the reciprocity principle as to open 

European markets for our flour, meats, and live cattle. One of the great economic problems of 

our agriculture is how to feed the corn crop and other grains profitably, for it must be fed if the 

fertility of the land is to be maintained; to dispose of the crop profitably requires the best markets 

that can be secured. 

2. HIGHWAYS.

The demand for good highways is general among the farmers of the entire United States. 

Education and good roads are the two needs most frequently mentioned in the hearings. 

Highways that are usable at all times of the year are now imperative not only for the marketing 

of produce, but for the elevation of the social and intellectual status of the open country and the 

improvement of health by insuring better medical and surgical attendance. 

The advantages are so well understood that arguments for better roads are not necessary here. 

Our respondents are now concerned largely with the methods of organizing and financing the 
42

work. With only unimportant exceptions, the farmers who have expressed themselves to us on 

this question consider that the Federal Government is fairly under obligation to aid in the work. 

We hold that the development of a fully serviceable highway system is a matter of national 

concern, coordinate with the development of waterways and the conservation of our native 

resources. It is absolutely essential to our internal development. The first thing necessary is to 

provide expert supervision and direction and to develop a national plan. All the work should be 

cooperative between the Federal Government and the States. The question of federal 

appropriation for highway work in the States may well be held in abeyance until a national 

service is provided and tested. We suggest that the United States Government establish a 

highway engineering service, or equivalent organization, to be at the call of the States in working 

out effective and economical highway systems. 

3. Soil Depletion and Its Effects.

A condition calling for serious comment is the lessening productiveness of the land. Our farming 

has been largely exploitational, consisting of mining the virgin fertility. On the better lands this 

primitive system of land exploitation may last for two generations without results pernicious to 

society, but on the poorer lands the limit of satisfactory living conditions may be reached in less 

than one generation. 

The social condition of any agricultural community is closely related to the available fertility of 

the soil. Poor land, poor people, and rough land, rough people have long since passed into 

proverbs. Rich land well farmed does not necessarily mean high ideals or good society. It may 

mean land greed and dollar worship; but, on the other hand, high ideals can not be realized 

without at least a fair degree of prosperity, and this can not be secured without the maintenance 

of fertility. 

When the land begins to yield with difficulty the farmer may move to new land, develop a 

system of self-sustaining agriculture (becoming thereby a real farmer), or be driven into poverty 

and degradation. The first of these results has been marked for many years, but it is now greatly 

checked because most of the available lands have been occupied. The second result the evolution 

of a really scientific and self-perpetuating agriculture is beginning to appear here and there, 

mostly in the long-settled regions. The drift to poverty and degradation is pronounced in many 

parts of the country. In every region a certain class of the population is forced to the poor lands, 

becoming a handicap to the community and constituting a very difficult social problem. 

There are two great classes of farmers those who make farming a real and active constructive 

business, as much as the successful manufacturer or merchant makes his effort a business; and 

those who merely passively live on the land, often because they can not do anything else, and by 

dint of hard work and the strictest economy manage to subsist. Each class has its difficulties. The 

problems of the former class are largely those arising from the man’s relation to the whole at 

large. The farmer of the latter class is not only powerless as against trade in general, but is also 

more or less helpless in his own farming problems. In applying corrective measures, we must 
43

recognize these two classes of persons. 

When no change of system has followed the depletion of the virgin fertility, the saddest results 

have followed. The former owners have often lost the land, and a system of tenantry farming has 

gradually developed. This is marked in all regions that are dominated by a one-crop system of 

agriculture. In parts of the southern States this loss of available fertility is specially noticeable, 

particularly where cotton is the main if not the only crop. In some parts of the country this 

condition and the social results are pathetic, and particularly where the farmers, whether white or 

black, by reason of poverty and lack of credit and want of experience in other kinds of farming, 

are compelled to continue to grow cotton. Large numbers of southern farmers are still obliged to 

mortgage their unplanted crop to secure the means of living while it is growing; and, as a matter 

of course, they pay exorbitant prices for the barest necessities of life. The only security that the 

man can give, either to the banker or the merchant, is cotton, and this forces the continued 

cultivation of a crop that decreases the soil fertility in a country of open winters where the waste 

by erosion is necessarily at the maximum. The tenants have little interest in the land, and move 

from year to year in the vain hope of better luck. The average income of the tenant-farmer family 

growing cotton is about $150 a year; and the family usually does not raise its poultry, meat, fruit, 

vegetables, or breadstuffs. The landlords in large sections are little better off than the tenants. 

The price of the product is manipulated by speculators. The tenant farmer, and even the landlord, 

is preyed upon by other interests, and is practically powerless. The effect of the social 

stratification into landlord, tenant, and money-lending merchant still further complicates a 

situation that in some regions is desperate and that demands vigorous treatment. 

The recent years of good prices for cotton have enabled many farmers to get out of debt and to 

be able to handle their own business. These farmers are then free to begin a new system of 

husbandry. The problems still remain, however, of how to help the man who is still in bondage. 

While these conditions are specially marked in the cotton-growing States, they are arising in all 

regions of a single-crop system, except, perhaps, in the case of fruit regions and vegetable 

regions. They are beginning to appear in the exclusive wheat regions, where the yields are 

constantly growing less and where the social life is usually monotonous and barren. The hayselling system of many parts of the Northeastern States presents similar results, as does also the 

exclusive corn growing for the general market when stock raising is not a part of the business. 

The loss of fertility in the Northern States is less rapid because of the climatic conditions that 

arrest the winter waste; fewer landlords, and these for the most part retired farmers who live near 

their farms and largely control the methods of cultivating the land; and a different kind of 

agriculture and a different social structure. It is, however, serious enough even in the Northern 

States, and especially in the Mississippi Valley, particularly when lands are held as an 

investment by capitalists who know nothing about farming and care only for annual returns, and 

also when held by speculators in the hope of harvesting the unearned increment, which has been 

large of late years, due probably to some world-wide cause which it is beyond our province to 

discuss. In any case, whether North or South, it has become a matter of very serious concern, 

whether farmers are to continue to dominate and direct the policy of the people as they do now in 

large part in the more prosperous agricultural sections, or whether because of soil deterioration 
44

they shall become a dependent class or shall be tenants in name but laborers in fact and working 

for an uncertain wage. 

Fortunately, there is abundant evidence on every hand, both North and South, that the fertility of 

the soil can be maintained, or where it has been greatly decreased can be restored at least 

approximately to its virgin fertility. The hope of the future lies in the work of the public 

institutions that are devoted to the new agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture, 

experiment stations, colleges of agriculture, and other agencies are making great progress in 

correcting these and other deficiencies, and these institutions deserve the sympathetic support of 

all the people. The demonstration work of the Department of Agriculture in the Southern States 

is a marked example of the good that can be done by teaching the people how to diversify their 

farming and to redeem themselves from the bondage of a hereditary system. Similar work is 

needed in many parts of the United States, and it is already under way, in various forms, under 

the leadership of the land-grant institutions. 

The great agricultural need of the open country is a system of diversified and rotation farming, 

carefully adapted in every case to the particular region. Such systems conserve the resources of 

the land and develop diversified and active institutions. Nor is this wastage of soil resources 

peculiar to one-crop systems, although it is more marked in such cases. It is a general feature of 

our agriculture, due to a lack of appreciation of our responsibility to society to protect and save 

the land. Although we have reason to be proud of our agricultural achievements, we must not 

close our eyes to the fact that our soil resources are still being lost through poor farming. 

This lessening of soil fertility is marked in every part of the United States, even in the richest 

lands of the prairies. It marks the pioneer stage of land usage. It has now become an acute 

national danger, and the economic, social, and political problems arising out of it must at once 

receive the best attention of statesmen. The attention that has been given to these questions is 

wholly inadequate to the urgency of the dangers involved. 

4. AGRICULTURAL LABOR.

There is a general, but not a universal, complaint of scarcity of farm labor. This scarcity is not an 

agricultural difficulty alone, but one phase for expression of the general labor-supply problem. 

So long as the United States continues to be a true democracy it will have a serious labor 

problem. As a democracy, we honor labor, and the higher the efficiency of the labor the greater 

the honor. The laborer, if he has the ambition to be an efficient agent in the development of the 

country, will be anxious to advance from the lower to the higher forms of effort, and from being 

a laborer himself he becomes a director of labor. If he has nothing but his hands and brains, he 

aims to accumulate sufficient capital to become a tenant, and eventually to become the owner, of 

a farm home. A large number of our immigrants share with the native-born citizen this laudable 

ambition. Therefore there is a constant decrease of efficient farm labor by these upward 

movements. 

At the same time, there is a receding column of farm owners who, through bad management, 
45

have become farm tenants, and who from farm tenants may become farm laborers. While the 

percentage of this class is small, there are, nevertheless, some who fail to make good, and if they 

are tenants farm for a living rather than as a business, and if laborers become watchers of the sun 

rather than efficient workers. 

(a) STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL FARM PROBLEM. 

The farm labor problem, however, is complicated by several special conditions, such as the fact 

that the need for labor is not continuous, the lack of conveniences of living for the laborer, long 

hours, the want of companionship, and in some places the apparently low wages. Because of 

these conditions the necessary drift of workmen is from the open country to the town. On the part 

of the employer the problem is complicated by the difficulty of securing labor, even at the 

relatively high prices now prevailing, that is competent to handle modern farm machinery and to 

care for live stock and to handle the special work of the improved dairy. It is further complicated 

in all parts of the country by the competition of railroads, mines, and factories, which, by reason 

of shorter hours, apparently higher pay, and the opportunities for social diversion and often of 

dissipation, attract the native farm hand to the towns and cities. 

The difficulty of securing good labor is so great in many parts of the country that farmers are 

driven to dispose of their farms, leaving their land to be worked on shares by more or less 

irresponsible tenants, or selling them outright, often to foreigners. All absentee and proxy 

farming (which seems to be increasing) creates serious social problems in the regions thus 

affected. There is not sufficient good labor available in the country to enable us to farm our lands 

under present systems of agriculture and to develop our institutions effectively. Our native labor 

supply could be much increased by such hygienic measures as would lessen the unnecessary 

death rate among country children and insure better health to workmen. 

So long as the labor supply is not equal to the demand the country can not compete with the town 

in securing labor. The country must meet the essential conditions offered by the town or change 

the kind of farming. 

The most marked reaction to the labor difficulty is the change in modes of farm management, 

whereby farming is slowly adapting itself to the situation. In some cases this change is in the 

nature of more intensive and businesslike methods whereby the farmer becomes able to secure a 

better class of labor and to employ it more continuously. More frequently, however, the change 

is in the nature of a simplification of the business and a less full and active farm life. In the sod 

regions of the Northeast the tendency is toward a simple or even a primitive nature farming, with 

the maximum of grazing and meadow and the minimum of hand labor. In many States the more 

difficult lands are being given up and machinery farming is extending. This results in an unequal 

development of the country as a whole, with a marked shift in the social equilibrium. The only 

real solution of the present labor problem must lie in improved methods of farming. These 

improvements will be forced by the inevitable depletion of soil fertility under any and all onecrop systems in every part of the country, and realized by the adoption on the part of intelligent, 

progressive farmers of a rotation of crops and a system of husbandry that will enable them to 

employ their labor by the year and thereby secure a higher type of workman by providing him a 
46

home with all its appurtenances. The development of local industries will also contribute to the 

solution of the problem. 

The excessive hours of labor on farms must be shortened. This will come through the working 

out of the better farm scheme just mentioned and substituting planning for some of the muscular 

work. Already in certain regions of well-systematized diversified farming the average hours of 

labor are less than ten. 

There is a growing tendency to rely on foreigners for the farm labor supply, although the 

sentiment is very strong in some regions against immigration. It is the general testimony that the 

native American labor is less efficient and less reliable than much of the foreign labor. This is 

due to the fact that the American is less pressed by the dire necessity to labor and to save, and 

because the better class of laborers is constantly passing on to land ownership on their own 

account. Because of their great industry and thrift certain foreigners are gradually taking 

possession of the land in some regions, and it seems to be only a question of time until they will 

drive out the native stock in those regions. 

The most difficult rural labor problem is that of securing household help on the average farm. 

The larger the farm the more serious the problem becomes. The necessity of giving a suitable 

education to her children deprives the farm woman largely of home help; while the lure of the 

city, with its social diversions, more regular hours of labor, and its supposed higher 

respectability, deprives her of help bred and born in the country. Under these circumstances she 

is compelled to provide the food that requires the least labor. This simple fact explains much of 

the lack of variety, in the midst of the greatest possible abundance, so often complained of on the 

farmers table. The development of the creamery system over large sections of the country has 

relieved the farmer’s wife of a heavy burden. This gives the hint for further improvement. The 

community laundering and other work could be done in an establishment connected with the 

creamery. Labor-saving appliances in the future will greatly lighten the burdens of those who are 

willing to use them. With the teaching of home subjects in the schools, household labor will 

again become respectable as well as easier and more interesting. 

There is widespread conviction that the farmer must give greater attention to providing good 

quarters to laborers and to protect them from discouragement and from the saloon. The shortage 

of labor seems to be the least marked where the laborer is best cared for. It is certain that farming 

itself must be so modified and organized as to meet the labor problem at least half way. While all 

farmers feel the shortage of help, the Commission has found that the best farmers usually 

complain least about the labor difficulty. 

(b) THE QUESTION OF INTEMPERANCE. 

The liquor question has been emphasized to the Commission in all parts of the country as 

complicating the labor question. It seems to be regarded as a burning country life problem. 

Intemperance is largely the result of the barrenness of farm life, particularly of the lot of the 

hired man. The Commission has made no inquiry into intemperance as such, but it is impressed, 

from the testimony that has accumulated, that drunkenness is often a very serious menace to 
47

country life, and that the saloon is an institution that must be banished from at least all country 

districts and rural towns if our agricultural interests are to develop to the extent to which they are 

capable. The evil is specially damning in the South, because it seriously complicates the race 

problem. Certain States have recently adopted prohibitory regulations, but liquor is shipped into 

dry territory from adjoining regions, and the evil is thereby often increased. Dry territories must 

rouse themselves to self-preservation in the face of this grave danger, and legislation must be 

enacted that will protect them. When a State goes dry, it should be allowed to keep dry. 

There is most urgent need for a quickened public sentiment on this whole question of 

intoxication in rural communities in order to relieve country life of one of its most threatening 

handicaps. At the same time it is incumbent on every person to exert his best effort to provide the 

open country with such intellectual and social interests as will lesson the appeal and 

attractiveness of the saloon. 

(c) DEVELOPING THE LOCAL ATTACHMENTS OF THE FARM LABORER. 

The best labor, other things being equal, is resident labor. Such reorganization of agriculture 

must take place as will tend more and more to employ the man the year round and to tie him to 

the land. The employer bears a distinct responsibility to the laborer, and also to society, to house 

him well and to help him to contribute his part to the community welfare. Eventually some kind

of school or training facilities must be provided for the farm laborer to cause him to develop skill 

and to interest him intellectually in his work. Some kind of simple saving institution should also 

be developed in order to encourage thrift on the part of the laborer. It would be well, also, to 

study systems of life insurance in reference to farm workmen. The establishment of postal 

savings banks should contribute toward greater stability of farm labor. 

The development of various kinds of cooperative buying and selling associations might be 

expected to train workmen in habits of thrift, if the men were encouraged to join them. 

5. HEALTH IN THE OPEN COUNTRY.

Theoretically the farm should be the most healthful place in which to live, and there are 

numberless farm-houses, especially of the farm-owner class, that possess most excellent modern 

sanitary conveniences. Still it is a fact that there are also numberless other farmhouses, especially 

of the tenant class, and even numerous rural school houses, that do not have the rudiments of 

sanitary arrangement. Health conditions in many parts of the open country, therefore, are in 

urgent need of betterment. There are many questions of nation-wide importance, such as soil, 

milk, and water pollution; too much visiting in case of contagious diseases; patent medicines, 

advertising quacks, and intemperance; feeding of offal to animals at local slaughterhouses and 

general insanitary conditions of those houses not anger federal or other rigid sanitary control; in 

some regions unwholesome and poorly prepared and monotonous diet; lack of recreation; too 

long hours of work. 

Added to these and other conditions, are important regional questions, such as the extensive 

spread of the hook-worm disease in the large Gulf-Atlantic States, the prevalence of typhoid 
48

fever and malaria, and other difficulties due to neglect in the localities. 

In general, the rural population is less safeguarded by boards of health than is the urban 

population. The physicians are farther apart and are called in later in case of sickness, and in 

some districts medical attendance is relatively more expensive. The necessity for disease 

prevention is therefore self-evident, and it becomes even more emphatic when we recall that 

infection may be spread from farms to cities in the streams and also in the milk, meat, and other 

farm products. Quite aside from the humanitarian point of view, the aggregate annual loss to the 

nation from unsanitary conditions on the farms must, when expressed in money values, reach an 

enormous sum, and a betterment of these conditions is a nation-wide obligation. 

There is great need for the teaching of the simplest and commonest laws of hygiene and 

sanitation in all the schools. The people need knowledge, and no traditions should prevent them 

from having it. How and what to eat, the nature of disease, the importance of fresh air, the 

necessity of physical training even on the farm, the ineffectiveness or even the danger of 

nostrums, the physical evils of intemperance, all should be known in some useful degree to every 

boy and girl on leaving school. 

Some of the most helpful work in improving rural sanitary conditions and in relieving suffering 

is now proceeding from women’s organizations. This work should be encouraged in every way. 

We especially commend the suggestion that such organizations, and other interests, provide 

visiting nurses for rural communities when they are needed. 

We find urgent need for better supervision of public health in rural communities on the part of 

States and localities. The control is now likely to be exercised only when some alarming 

condition prevails. We think that the Federal Government should be given the right to send its 

health officers into the various States on request of these States, at any time, for the purpose of 

investigating and controlling public health; it does not now have this right except at quarantine 

stations, although it may attend to diseases of domestic animals. It should also engage in 

publicity work on this subject. 

6. WOMAN’S WORK ON THE FARM.

Realizing that the success of country life depends in very large degree on the woman’s part, the 

Commission has made special effort to ascertain the condition of women on the farm. Often this 

condition is all that can be desired, with home duties so organized that the labor is not excessive, 

with kindly cooperation on the part of husbands and sons, and with household machines and 

conveniences well provided. Very many farm homes in all parts of the country are provided with 

books and periodicals, musical instruments, and all the necessary amenities. There are good 

gardens and attractive premises and a sympathetic love of nature and of farm life on the part of 

the entire family. 

On the other hand, the reverse of these conditions often obtains, sometimes because of pioneer 

conditions and more frequently because of lack of prosperity and of ideals. Conveniences for 
49

outdoor work are likely to have precedence over those for household work. 

The routine work of woman on the farm is to prepare three meals a day. This regularity of duty 

recurs regardless of season, weather, planting, harvesting, social demands, or any other factor. 

The only differences in different seasons are those of degree rather than of kind. It follows, 

therefore, that whatever general hardships, such as poverty, isolation, lack of labor-saving 

devices, may exist on any given farm, the burden of these hardships falls more heavily on the 

farmers wife than on the farmer himself. In general, her life is more monotonous and the more 

isolated, no matter what the wealth or the poverty of the family may be. 

The relief to farm women must come through a general elevation of country living. The women 

must have more help. In particular these matters may be mentioned: Development of a 

cooperative spirit in the home, simplification of the diet in many cases, the building of 

convenient and sanitary houses, providing running water in the house and also more mechanical 

help, good and convenient gardens, a less exclusive ideal of money getting on the part of the 

farmer, providing better means of communication, as telephones, roads, and reading circles, and 

developing of women’s organizations. These and other agencies should relieve the woman of 

many of her manual burdens on the one hand and interest her in outside activities on the other. 

The farm woman should have sufficient free time and strength so that she may serve the 

community by participating in its vital affairs. 

We have found good women’s organizations in some country districts, but as a rule such 

organizations are few or even none, or where they exist they merely radiate from towns. Some of 

the stronger central organizations are now pushing the country phase of their work with vigor. 

Mothers clubs, reading clubs, church societies, home economics organizations, farmer’s 

institutes, and other associations can accomplish much for farm women. Some of the regular 

farmer’s organizations are now giving much attention to domestic subjects, and women 

participate freely in the meetings. There is much need among country women themselves of a 

stronger organizing sense for real cooperative betterment. It is important also that all rural 

organizations that are attended chiefly by men should discuss the home-making subjects, for the 

whole difficulty often lies with the attitude of the men. 

There is the most imperative need that domestic, household, and heath questions be taught in all 

schools. The home may well be made the center of rural school teaching. The school is capable 

of changing the whole attitude of the home life and the part that women should play in the 

development of the best country living. 

III. THE GENERAL CORRECTIVE FORCES THAT SHOULD BE SET IN 

MOTION. 

The ultimate need of the open country is the development of community effort and of social 

resources. Here and there the Commission has found a rural neighborhood in which the farmers 

and their wives come together frequently and effectively for social intercourse, but these 
50

instances seem to be infrequent exceptions. There is a general lack of wholesome societies that 

are organized on a social basis. In the region in which the Grange is strong this need is best 

supplied. 

There is need of the greatest diversity in country life affairs, but there is equal need of a social 

cohesion operating among all these affairs and tying them all together. This life must be 

developed, as we have said, directly from native or resident forces. It is neither necessary nor 

desirable that an exclusive hamlet system be brought about in order to secure these ends. The 

problem before the Commission is to suggest means whereby this development may be directed 

and hastened directly from the land. 

The social disorder is usually unrecognized. If only the farms are financially profitable, the rural 

condition is commonly pronounced good. Country life must be made thoroughly attractive and 

satisfying, as well as remunerative and able to hold the center of interest throughout ones 

lifetime. With most persons this can come only with the development of a strong community 

sense of feeling. The first condition of a good country life, of course, is good and profitable 

farming. The farmer must be enabled to live comfortably. Much attention has been given to 

better farming, and the progress of a generation has been marked. Small manufacture and better 

handicrafts need now to receive attention, for the open country needs new industries and new 

interests. The schools must help to bring these things about. 

The economic and industrial questions are, of course, of prime importance, and we have dealt 

with them; but they must all be studied in their relations to the kind of life that should ultimately 

be established in rural communities. The Commission will fail of its purpose if it confines itself 

merely to providing remedies or correctives for the present and apparent troubles of the farmer, 

however urgent and important these troubles may be. All these matters must be conceived of as 

incidents or parts in a large constructive programme. We must begin a campaign for rural 

progress. 

To this end local government must be developed to its highest point of efficiency and all 

agencies that are capable of furthering a better country life must be federated. It will be 

necessary to set the resident forces in motion by means of outside agencies, or at least to direct 

them, if we are to secure the best results. It is specially necessary to develop the cooperative 

spirit, whereby all people participate and all become partakers. 

The cohesion that is so marked among the different classes of farm, folk in older countries can 

not be reasonably expected at this period in American development, nor is it desirable that a 

stratified society should be developed in this country. We have here no remnants of a feudal 

system, fortunately no system of entail, and no clearly drawn distinction between agricultural 

and other classes. We are as yet a new country with undeveloped resources, many faraway 

pastures which, as is well known, are always green and inviting. Our farmers have been moving, 

and numbers of them have not yet become so well settled as to speak habitually of their farm as 

“home.” We have farmers from every European nation and with every phase of religious belief 

often grouped in large communities, naturally drawn together by a common language and a

common faith, and yielding but slowly to the dominating and controlling forces of American 
51

farm life. 

Even where there was once social organization, as in the New England town (or township), the 

competition of the newly settled West and the wonderful development of urban civilization have 

disintegrated it. The middle-aged farmer of the Central States sells the old homestead without 

much hesitation or regret and moves westward to find a greater acreage for his sons and 

daughters. The farmer of the Middle West sells the old home and moves to the Mountain States, 

to the Pacific coast, to the South, to Mexico, or to Canada. Even when permanently settled, the 

farmer does not easily combine with others for financial or social betterment. The training of 

generations has made him a strong individualist, and he has been obliged to rely mainly on 

himself. Self-reliance being the essence of his nature, he does not at once feel the need of 

cooperation for business purposes or of close association for social objects. In the main, he has 

been prosperous, and has not felt the need of cooperation. If he is a strong man, he prefers to 

depend on his own ability. If he is ambitious for social recognition, he usually prefers the society 

of the town to that of the country. If he wishes to educate his children, he avails himself of the 

schools of the city. He does not as a rule dream of a rural organization that can supply as 

completely as the city the four great requirements of man -- health, education, occupation, 

society. While his brother in the city is striving by moving out of the business section into the 

suburbs to get as much as possible of the country in the city, he does not dream that it is possible 

to have most that is best of the city in the country. 

The time has come when we must give as much attention to the constructive development of the 

open country as we have given to other affairs. This is necessary not only in the interest of the 

open country itself, but for the safety and progress of the nation. 

It is impossible, of course, to suggest remedies for all the shortcomings of country life. The mere 

statement of the conditions, as we find them, ought of itself to challenge attention to the needs. 

We hope that this report of the Commission will accelerate all the movements that are now in 

operation for the betterment of country life. Many of these movements are beyond the reach of 

legislation. The most important thing for the Commission to do is to apprehend the problem and 

to state the conditions. 

The philosophy of the situation requires that the disadvantages and handicaps that are not a 

natural part of the farmers business shall be removed, and that such forces shall be encouraged 

and set in motion as will stimulate and direct local initiative and leadership. 

The situation calls for concerted action. It must be aroused and energized. The remedies are of 

many kinds, and they must come slowly. We need a redirection of thought to bring about a new 

atmosphere, and a new social and intellectual contact with life. This means that the habits of the 

people must change. The change will come gradually, of course, as a result of new leadership; 

and the situation must develop its own leaders. 

Care must be taken in all the reconstructive work to see that local initiative is relied on to the 

fullest extent, and that federal and even state agencies do not perform what might be done by the 

people in the communities. The centralized agencies should be stimulative and directive, rather 
52

than mandatory and formal. Every effort must be made to develop native resources, not only of 

material things, but also of people. 

It is necessary to be careful, also, not to copy too closely the reconstructive methods that have 

been so successful in Europe. Our conditions and problems differ widely from theirs. We have 

no historical, social peasantry, a much less centralized form of government, unlike systems of 

land occupancy, wholly different farming schemes, and different economic and social systems. 

Our country necessities are peculiarly American.

The correctives for the social sterility of the open country are already in existence or under way, 

but these agencies all need to be strengthened and especially to be coordinated and federated; 

and the problem needs to be recognized by all the people. The regular agricultural departments 

and institutions are aiding in making farming profitable and attractive, and they are also giving 

attention to the social and community questions. There is a widespread awakening as a result of 

this work. This awakening is greatly aided by the rural free delivery of mails, telephones, the 

gradual improvement of highways, farmers’ institutes, cooperative creameries and similar 

organizations, and other agencies. 

The good institutions of cities may often be applied or extended to the open country. It appears 

that the social evils are in many cases no greater in cities in proportion to the number of people 

than in country districts; and the very concentration of numbers draws attention to the evils in 

cities and leads to earlier application of remedies. Recently much attention has been directed, for 

example, to the subject of juvenile crime, and the probation system in place of jail sentences for 

young offenders is being put into operation in many places. Petty crime and immorality are 

certainly not lacking in rural districts, and it would seem that there is a place for the extension of 

the probation system to towns and villages. 

Aside from the regular churches, schools, and agricultural societies, there are special 

organizations that are now extending their work to the open country, and others that could 

readily be adapted to country work. One of the most promising of these newer agencies is the 

rural library that is interested in its community. The libraries are increasing, and they are 

developing a greater sense of responsibility to the community, not only stimulating the reading 

habit and directing it, but becoming social centers for the neighborhood. A library, if provided 

with suitable rooms, can afford a convenient meeting place for many kinds of activities and 

thereby serve as a coordinating influence. Study clubs and traveling libraries may become parts 

of it. This may mean that the library will need itself to be redirected so that it will become an 

active rather than a passive agency; it must be much more than a collection of books. 

Another new agency is the county work of the Young Men's Christian Association, which, by 

placing in each county a field secretary, is seeking to promote the solidarity and effectiveness of 

rural social life, and to extend the larger influence of the country church. The Commission has 

met the representatives of this county work at the hearings, and is impressed with the purpose of 

the movement to act as a coordinating agency in rural life. 

The organizations in cities and towns that are now beginning to agitate the development of better 
53

play, recreation, and entertainment offer a suggestion for country districts. It is important that 

recreation be made a feature of country life, but we consider it to be important that this 

recreation, games and entertainment, be developed as far as possible from native sources rather 

than to be transplanted as a kind of theatricals from exotic sources. 

Other organizations that are helping the country social life, or that might be made to help it, are 

women’s clubs, musical clubs, reading clubs, athletic and playground associations, historical and 

literary societies, local business men’s organizations and chambers of commerce, all genuinely 

cooperative business societies, civic and village improvement societies, local political 

organizations, granges and other fraternal organizations, and all groups that associate with the 

church and school. 

There is every indication, therefore, that the social life of the open country is in process of 

improvement, although the progress at the present moment has not been great. The leaders need 

to be encouraged by an awakened public sentiment, and all the forces should be so related to 

each other as to increase their total effectiveness while not interfering with the autonomy of any 

of them. The proper correctives of the underlying structural deficiencies of the open country are 

knowledge, education, cooperative organizations, and personal leadership. These we may now 

discuss in more detail. 

7. NEED OF AGRICULTURAL OR COUNTRY LIFE SURVEYS.

The time has now come when we should know in detail what our agricultural resources are. We 

have long been engaged in making geological surveys, largely with a view to locating our 

mineral wealth. The country has been explored and mapped. The main native resources have 

been located in a general way. We must now know what are the capabilities of every agricultural 

locality, for agriculture is the basis of our prosperity and farming is always a local business. We 

can not make the best and most permanent progress in the developing of a good country life until 

we have completed a very careful inventory of the entire country. 

This inventory or census should take into account the detailed topography and soil conditions of 

the localities, the local climate, the whole character of streams and forests, the agricultural 

products, the cropping systems now in practice, the conditions of highways, markets, facilities in 

the way of transportation and communication, the institutions and organizations, the adaptability 

of the neighborhood to the establishment of handicrafts and local industries, the general 

economic and social status of the people and the character of the people themselves, natural 

attractions and disadvantages, historical data, and a collation of community experience. This 

would result in the collection of local fact, on which we could proceed to build a scientifically 

and economically sound country life. 

Beginnings have been made in several states in the collection of these geographical facts, mostly 

in connection with the land-grant colleges. The United States Department of Agriculture is 

beginning by means of soil surveys, study of farm management, and other investigations, and its 

demonstration work in the Southern States is in part of this character. These agencies are 

beginning the study of conditions in the localities themselves. It is a kind of extension work. All 
54

these agencies are doing good work; but we have not yet, as a people, come to an appreciation of 

the fact that we must take account of stock in detail as well as in the large. We are working 

mostly around the edges of the problem and feeling of it. The larger part of the responsibility of 

this work must lie with the different States, for they should develop their internal resources. The 

whole work should be coordinated, however, by federal agencies acting with the States, and 

some of the larger relations will need to be studied directly by the Federal Government itself. We 

must come to a thoroughly nationalized movement to understand what property we have and 

what uses may best be made of it. This in time will call for large appropriations by State and 

nation. 

In estimating our natural resources we must not forget the value of scenery. This is a distinct 

asset, and it will be more recognized as time goes on. It will be impossible to develop a 

satisfactory country life without conserving all the beauty of landscape and developing the 

people to the point of appreciating it. In parts of the East a regular system of parking the open 

country of the entire State is already begun, constructing the roads, preserving the natural 

features, and developing the latent beauty in such a way that the whole country becomes part of 

one continuing landscape treatment. This in no way interferes with the agricultural utilization of 

the land, but rather increases it. The scenery is, in fact, capitalized, so that it adds to the property 

values and contributes to local patriotism and to the thrift of the commonwealth. 

8. NEED OF A REDIRECTED EDUCATION.

The subject of paramount importance in our correspondence and in the hearings is education. In 

every part of the United States there seems to be one mind, on the part of those capable of 

judging, on the necessity of redirecting the rural schools. There is no such unanimity on any 

other subject. It is remarkable with what similarity of phrase the subject has been discussed in all 

parts of the country before the Commission. Everywhere there is a demand that education have 

relation to living, that the schools should express the daily life, and that in the rural districts they 

should educate by means of agriculture and country life subjects. It is recognized that all 

difficulties resolve themselves in the end into a question of education. 

The schools are held to be largely responsible for ineffective farming, lack of ideals, and the drift 

to town. This is not because the rural schools, as a whole, are declining, but because they are in a 

state of arrested development and have not yet put themselves in consonance with all the recently 

changed conditions of life. The very forces that have built up the city and town school have 

caused the neglect of the country school. It is probable that the farming population will willingly 

support better schools as soon as it becomes convinced that the schools will really be changed in 

such a way as to teach persons how to live. 

The country communities are in need of social center-places where persons may naturally meet, 

and where a real neighborhood interest exists. There is difference of opinion as to where this 

center should be, some persons thinking it should be in the town or village, others the library, 

others the church or school or grange hall. It is probable that more than one social center should 

develop in large and prosperous communities. Inasmuch as the school is supported by public 

funds, and is therefore an institution connected with the government of the community, it should 
55

form a natural organic center. If the school develops such a center, it must concern itself directly 

with the interests of the people. It is difficult to make people understand what this really means, 

for school-teaching is burdened with tradition. The school must express the best cooperation of 

all social and economic forces that make for the welfare of the community. Merely to add new 

studies will not meet the need, although it may break the ground for new ideas. The school must 

be fundamentally redirected, until it becomes a new kind of institution. This will require that the 

teacher himself be a part of the community and not a migratory factor. 

The feeling that agriculture must color the work of rural public schools is beginning to express 

itself in the interest in nature study, in the introduction of classes in agriculture in high schools 

and elsewhere, and in the establishment of separate or special schools to teach farm and home 

subjects. These agencies will help to bring about the complete reconstruction of which we have 

been speaking. It is specially important that we make the most of the existing public- school 

system, for it is this very system that should serve the real needs of the people. The real needs of 

the people are not alone the arts by which they make a living, but the whole range of their 

customary activities. As the home is the center of our civilization, so the home subjects should be 

the center of every school. 

The most necessary thing now to be done for public school education in terms of country life is 

to arouse all the people to the necessity of such education, to coordinate the forces that are 

beginning to operate, and to project the work beyond the schools for youth into continuation 

schools for adults. The schools must represent and express the community in which they stand, 

although, of course, they should not be confined to the community. They should teach health and 

sanitation, even if it is necessary to modify the customary teaching of physiology. The teaching 

should be visual, direct, and applicable. Of course the whole tendency of the schools will be 

ethical if they teach the vital subjects truthfully; but particular care should be taken that they 

stand for the morals of the pupils and of the communities. 

We find a general demand for federal encouragement in educational propaganda, to be in some 

way cooperative with the States. The people realize that the incubus of ignorance and inertia is 

so heavy and so widespread as to constitute a national danger, and that it should be removed as 

rapidly as possible. It will be increasingly necessary for the national and state governments to 

cooperate to bring about the results that are needed in agricultural and other industrial education. 

The consideration of the educational problem raises the greatest single question that has come 

before the Commission, and which the Commission has to place before the American people. 

Education has now come to have vastly more significance than the mere establishing and 

maintaining of schools. The education motive has been taken into all kinds of work with the 

people, directly in their homes and on their farms, and it reaches mature persons as well as 

youths. Beyond and behind all educational work there must be an aroused intelligent public 

sentiment; to make this sentiment is the most important work immediately before us. The whole 

country is alive with educational activity. While this activity may all be good, it nevertheless 

needs to be directed and correlated, and all the agencies should be more or less federated. 

The arousing of the people must be accomplished in terms of their daily lives or of their welfare. 
56

For the country people this means that it must be largely in terms of agriculture. Some of the 

colleges of agriculture are now doing this kind of work effectively, although on a pitiably small 

scale as compared with the needs. This is extension work, by which is meant all kinds of 

educational effort directly with the people, both old and young, at their homes and on their 

farms; it comprises all educational work that is conducted away from the institution and for those 

who can not go to schools and colleges. The best extension work now proceeding in this country 

if measured by the effort to reach the people in their homes and on their own ground is that 

coming from some of the colleges of agriculture and the United States Department of 

Agriculture. Within the last five or ten years the colleges of agriculture have been able to attack 

the problem of rural life in a new way. This extension work includes such efforts as local 

agricultural surveys, demonstrations on farms, nature study, and other work in schools, boys and 

girls clubs of many kinds, crop organizations, redirection of rural societies, reading clubs, library 

extension, lectures, traveling schools, farmers institutes; inspections of herds, barns, crops, 

orchards, and farms, publications of many kinds, and similar educational effort directly in the 

field. 

To accomplish these ends, we suggest the establishment of a nation-wide extension work. The 

first, or original, work of the agricultural branches of the land-grant colleges was academic in the 

old sense; later there was added the great field of experiment and research; there now should be 

added the third coordinate branch, comprising extension work, without which no college of 

agriculture can adequately serve its State. It is to the extension department of these colleges, if 

properly conducted, that we must now look for the most effective rousing of the people on the 

land. 

In order that all public educational work in the United States may be adequately studied and 

guided, we also recommend that the United States Bureau of Education be enlarged and 

supported in such a way that it will really represent the educational activities of the nation, 

becoming a clearing house, and a collecting, distributing, and investigating organization. It is 

now wholly inadequate to accomplish these ends. In a country in which education is said to be 

the national religion, this condition of our one expressly federal educational agency is pathetic. 

The good use already made of the small appropriations provided for the bureau shows clearly 

that it can render a most important service if sufficient funds are made available for its use. 

9. NECESSITY OF WORKING TOGETHER.

It is of the greatest consequence that the people of the open country should learn to work 

together, not only for the purpose of forwarding their economic interests and of competing with 

other men who are organized, but also to develop themselves and to establish an effective 

community spirit. This effort should be a genuinely cooperative or common effort in which all 

the associated persons have a voice in the management of the organization and share 

proportionately in its benefits. Many of the so-called cooperative organizations are really not 

such, for they are likely to be controlled in the interest of a few persons rather than for all, and 

with no thought of the good of the community at large. Some of the societies that are cooperative 

in name are really strong centralized corporations or stock companies that have no greater 
57

interest in the welfare of the patrons than other corporations have. 

At present the cooperative spirit works itself out chiefly in business organizations devoted to 

selling and buying. So far as possible, these business organizations should have more or less 

social uses; but even if the organizations can not be so used, the growth of the cooperative spirit 

should of itself have great social value, and it should give the hint for other cooperating groups. 

There is great need of associations in which persons cooperate directly for social results. The 

primary cooperation is social and should arise in the home, between all members of the family. 

The associations that have an educational purpose are very numerous, such as the common 

agricultural societies and clubs devoted to stock raising, fruit growing, grain growing, poultry 

keeping, floriculture, bee culture, and the like, mostly following the lines of occupation. These 

are scarcely truly cooperative, since they usually do not effect a real organization to accomplish a 

definite end, and they may meet only once or twice a year; they hold conventions, but usually do 

not maintain a continuous activity. These societies are of the greatest benefit, however, and they 

have distinct social value. No doubt a great many of them could be so reorganized or developed 

as to operate continuously throughout the year and become truly cooperative in effort, thereby 

greatly increasing their influence and importance. 

A few great farmers’ organizations have included in their declarations of purposes the whole 

field of social, educational, and economic work. Of such, of national scope, are Patrons of 

Husbandry and the Farmers Union. These and similar large societies are effective in proportion 

as they maintain local branches that work toward specific ends in their communities. 

While there are very many excellent agricultural cooperative organizations of many kinds, the 

farmers nearly everywhere complain that there is still a great dearth of association that really 

helps them in buying and selling and developing their communities. Naturally the effective 

cooperative groups are in the most highly developed communities; the general farmer is yet 

insufficiently helped by the societies. The need is not so much for a greater number of societies 

as for a more complete organization within them and for a more continuous active work. 

Farmers seem to be increasingly feeling the pressure of the organized interests that sell to them 

and buy from them. They complain of business understandings or agreements between all 

dealers, from the wholesaler and jobber to the remote country merchants, that prevent farmers 

and their organizations from doing an independent business. 

The greatest pressure on the farmer is felt in regions of undiversified one-crop farming. Under 

such conditions he is subject to great risk of crop failure; his land is soon reduced in 

productiveness; he usually does not raise his home supplies, and is therefore dependent on the 

store for his living, and his crop, being a staple and produced in enormous quantities, is subject 

to world prices and to speculation, so that he has no personal market. In the exclusive cotton and 

wheat regions the hardships of the farmer and the monotony of rural life are usually very 

marked. Similar conditions are likely to obtain in large-area stock ranging, hay raising, tobacco 

growing, and the like. In such regions great discontent is likely to prevail and economic heresies 
58

to breed. The remedy is diversification in farming on one hand and organization on the other. 

The Commission has found many organizations that seem to be satisfactorily handling the 

transporting, distributing, and marketing of farm products. They are often incorporated stock 

companies, in which the cooperators have the spur of money investment to hold them to their 

mutual obligations. In nearly all cases the most successful organizations are in regions that are 

strongly dominated by similar products, as fruit, dairy, grain, or live stock. 

Two principles may be applied in these business societies: In one class the organization is in the 

nature of a combination, and attempts to establish prices and perhaps to control the production: 

in the other class the organization seeks its results by studying and understanding the natural 

laws of trade and taking advantage of conditions and regulating such evils as may arise, in the 

same spirit as a merchant studies them, or as a good farmer understands the natural laws of 

fertility. 

With some crops, notably cotton and the grains, it is advantageous to provide cooperative 

warehouses in which the grower may hold his products till prices rise, and also in which 

scientific systems of grading of the products may be introduced. In certain fruit regions 

community packing houses have proved to be of the greatest benefit. In the meantime the cotton 

or grain in the warehouse becomes, for business purposes, practically as good as cash (subject to 

charge for insurance) in the form of negotiable warehouse receipts. This form of handling 

products is now coming to be well understood, and, combined with good systems of farming, it 

is capable of producing most satisfactory results. 

Organized effort must come as the voluntary expression of the people; but it is essential that 

every State should enact laws that will stimulate and facilitate the organization of such 

cooperative associations, care being taken that the working of the laws be not cumbersome. 

These laws should provide the associations with every legal facility for the transaction of the 

business in which they are to engage. They are as important to the State as other organizations of 

capital and should be fostered with as much care, and their members and patrons be adequately 

safeguarded. It is especially important that these organizations be granted all the powers and 

advantages given to corporations or other aggregations of capital, to the end that they may meet 

these corporations on equal legal ground when it is necessary to compete with them. Such laws 

should not only protect the cooperative societies, but should provide means that will allow the 

societies to regulate themselves, so that they may be safeguarded from becoming merely 

commercial organizations through the purchase or control of the stock by dealers in the products 

that they handle. It is not unlikely that federal laws may also be needed to encourage 

cooperation. 

Organized associative effort may take on special forms. It is probable, for example, that 

cooperation to secure and to employ farm labor would be helpful. It may have for its object the 

securing of telephone service (which is already contributing much to country life, and is capable 

of contributing much more), the extension of electric lines, the improvement of highways, and 

other forms of betterment. Particular temporary needs of the neighborhood may be met by 
59

combined effort, and this may be made the beginning of a broader permanent organization. 

A method of cooperative credit would undoubtedly prove of great service. In other countries 

credit associations loan money to their members on easy terms and for long enough time to cover 

the making of a crop, demanding security not on the property of the borrower but on the moral 

warranty of his character and industry. The American farmer has needed money less, perhaps, 

than land workers in some other countries, but he could be greatly benefited by a different 

system of credit, particularly where the lien system is still in operation. It would be the purpose 

of such systems, aside from providing loans on the best terms and with the utmost freedom 

consistent with safety, to keep as much as possible of the money in circulation in the open 

country where the values originate. The present banking systems tend to take the money out of 

the open country and to loan it in town or to town-centered interests. We suggest that the 

national-bank examiners be instructed to determine, for a series of years, what proportion of the 

loanable funds of rural banks is loaned to the farmers in their localities, in order that data may be 

secured on this question. All unnecessary drain from the open country should be checked, in 

order that the country may be allowed and encouraged to develop itself. 

It is essential that all rural organizations, both social and economic, should develop into 

something like a system, or at least that all the efforts be known and studied by central 

authorities. There should be, in other words, a voluntary union of associative effort, from the 

localities to the counties, States, and the nation. Manifestly, government in the United States can 

not manage the work of voluntary rural organization. Personal initiative and a cultivated 

cooperative spirit is the very core of this kind of work; yet both State and National Government, 

as suggested, might exert a powerful influence toward the complete organization of rural affairs. 

Steps should be taken whereby the United States Department of Agriculture, the State 

departments of agriculture, the land-grant colleges and experiment stations, the United States 

Bureau of Education, the normal and other schools, shall cooperate in a broad programme for 

aiding country life in such a way that each institution may do its appropriate work at the same 

time that it aids all the others and contributes to the general effort to develop a new rural social 

life. 

10. THE COUNTRY CHURCH.

This Commission has no desire to give advice to the institutions of religion nor to attempt to 

dictate their policies. Yet any consideration of the problem of rural life that leaves out of account 

the function and the possibilities of the church, and of related institutions, would be grossly 

inadequate. This is not only because in the last analysis the country life problem is a moral 

problem, or that in the best development of the individual the great motives and results are 

religious and spiritual, but because from the pure sociological point of view the church is 

fundamentally a necessary institution in country life. In a peculiar way the church is intimately 

related to the agricultural industry. The work and the life of the farm are closely bound together, 

and the institutions of the country react on that life and on one another more intimately than they 

do in the city. This gives the rural church a position of peculiar difficulty and one of unequaled 

opportunity. The time has arrived when the church must take a larger leadership, both as an 
60

institution and through its pastors, in the social reorganization of rural life. 

The great spiritual needs of the country community just at present are higher personal and 

community ideals. Rural people need to have an aspiration for the highest possible development 

of the community. There must be an ambition on the part of the people themselves constantly to 

progress in all of those things that make the community life wholesome, satisfying, educative, 

and complete. There must be a desire to develop a permanent environment for the country boy 

and girl, of which they will become passionately fond. As a pure matter of education, the 

countryman must learn to love the country and to have an intellectual appreciation of it. More 

than this, the spiritual nature of the individual must be kept thoroughly alive. His personal ideals 

of conduct and ambition must be cultivated. 

Of course the church has an indispensable function as a conservator of morals. But from the 

social point of view, it is to hold aloft the torch of personal and community idealism. It must be a 

leader in the attempt to idealize country life. 

The country church doubtless faces special difficulties. As a rule, it is a small field. The country 

people are conservative. Ordinarily the financial support is inadequate. Often there are too many 

churches in a given community. Sectarian ideas divide unduly and unfortunately. While there are 

many rural churches that are effective agents in the social evolution of their communities, it is 

true that as a whole the country church needs new direction and to assume new responsibilities. 

Few of the churches in the open country are provided with resident pastors. They are supplied 

mostly from the neighboring towns and by a representative of some single denomination. 

Sometimes the pulpit is supplied by pastors of different denominations in turn. Without a 

resident minister the church work is likely to be confined chiefly to services once a week. In 

many regions there is little personal visitation except in cases of sickness, death, marriage, 

christening, or other special circumstance. The Sunday school is sometimes continued only 

during the months of settled weather. There are young people’s organizations to some extent, but 

they are often inactive or irregular. The social activity of the real country church is likely to be 

limited to the short informal meetings before and after services and to suppers that are held for 

the purpose of raising funds. Most of the gatherings are designed for the church people 

themselves rather than for the community. The range of social influence is therefore generally 

restricted to the families particularly related to the special church organization, and there is likely 

to be no sense of social responsibility for the entire community. 

In the rural villages there are generally several or a number of churches of different 

denominations, one or more of which are likely to be weak. The salaries range from $400 to 

$1,000. Among Protestants there is considerable denominational competition and consequent 

jealousy or even conflict. United efforts for cooperative activity is likely to be perfunctory rather 

than sympathetic and vital. The pastor is often overloaded with station work in neighboring 

communities. 

It is not the purpose of the Commission to discuss the difficulties of the rural church at this time 

nor to present a solution for them, but in the interests of rural betterment it seems proper to 
61

indicate a few considerations that seem to be fundamental. 

1. In New England and in some other parts of the North the tremendous drawback of 

denominational rivalry is fairly well recognized and active measures for church federation 

are well under way. This does not mean organic union. It means cooperation for the purpose 

of trying to reach and influence every individual in the community. It means that “some 

church is to be responsible for every square mile.” When a community is over-churched, it 

means giving up the superfluous church or churches. When a church is needed, it means a 

friendly agreement on the particular church to be placed there. This movement for federation 

is one of the most promising in the whole religious field, because it does not attempt to break 

down denominational influence or standards of thought. It puts emphasis, not on the church 

itself, but on the work to be done by the church for all men -- churched and unchurched. It is 

possible that all parts of the country are not quite ready for federation, although a national 

church federation movement is under way. But it hardly seems necessary to urge that the 

spirit of cooperation among churches, the diminution of sectarian strife, the attempt to reach 

the entire community, must become the guiding principles everywhere if the rural church is 

long to retain its hold. 

The rural church must be more completely than now a social center. This means not so much 

a place for holding social gatherings, although this is legitimate and desirable, but a place 

whence constantly emanates influences that go to build up the moral and spiritual tone of the 

whole community. The country church of the future is to be held responsible for the great 

ideals of community life as well as of personal character. 

2. There should be a large extension of the work of the Young Men’s Christian Association into 

the rural communities. There is apparently no other way to grip the hearts and lives of the 

boys and young men of the average country neighborhood. This association must regard 

itself as an ally of the church, with a special function and a special field. 

3. We must have a complete conception of the country pastorate. The country pastor must be a 

community leader. He must know the rural problems. He must have sympathy with rural 

ideals and aspirations. He must love the country. He must know country life, the difficulties 

that the farmer has to face in his business, some of the great scientific revelations made in 

behalf of agriculture, the great industrial forces at work for the making or the unmaking of 

the farmer, the fundamental social problems of the life of the open country. 

Consequently, the rural pastor must have special training for his work. Ministerial colleges 

and theological seminaries should unite with agricultural colleges in this preparation of the 

country clergyman. There should be better financial support for the clergyman. In many 

country districts it is pitiably small. There is little incentive for a man to stay in a country 

parish, and yet this residence is just what must come about. Perhaps it will require an appeal 

to the heroic young men, but we must have more men going into the country pastorates, not 

as a means of getting a foothold, but as a permanent work. The clergyman has an excellent 

chance for leadership in the country. In some sections he is still the dominating personality. 

But everywhere he may become one of the great community leaders. He is the key to the 
62

country church problem. 

11. PERSONAL IDEALS AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP.

Everything resolves itself at the end into a question of personality. Society or government can 

not do much for country life unless there is voluntary response in the personal ideals of those 

who live in the country. Inquiries by the Commission, for example, find that one reason for the 

shift from the country to town is the lack of ideals in many country homes and even the desire of 

the countryman and his wife that the children do not remain on the farm. The obligation to keep 

as many youths on the farms as are needed there rests on the home more than on the school or on 

society. 

It is often said that better rural institutions and more attractive homes and yards will necessarily 

follow an increase in profitableness of farming; but, as a matter of fact, high ideals may be quite 

independent of income, although they can not be realized without sufficient income to provide 

good support. Many of the most thrifty farmers are the least concerned about the character of the 

home and school and church. One often finds the most attractive and useful farm homes in the 

difficult farming regions. On the other hand, some of the most prosperous agricultural regions 

possess most unattractive farm premises and school buildings. Many persons who complain most 

loudly about their incomes are the last to improve their home conditions when their incomes are 

increased; they are more likely to purchase additional land and thereby further emphasize the 

barrenness of home life. Land hunger is naturally strongest in the most prosperous regions. 

When an entire region or industry is not financially prosperous, it is impossible, of course, to 

develop the best personal and community ideals. In the cotton-growing States, for example, the 

greatest social and mental development has been apparent in the years of high prices for cotton; 

and the same is true in exclusive wheat regions, hay regions, and other large areas devoted 

mainly to one industry. 

While it is of course necessary that the farmer receive good remuneration for his efforts, it is 

nevertheless true that the money consideration is frequently too exclusively emphasized in farm 

homes. This consideration often obscures every other interest, allowing little opportunity for the 

development of the intellectual, social, and moral qualities. The open country abounds in men 

and women of the finest ideals; yet it is necessary to say that other ends in life than the making of 

more money and the getting of more goods are much needed in country districts; and that this, 

more than anything else, will correct the unsatisfying nature of rural life. 

Teachers of agriculture have placed too much relative emphasis on the remuneration and 

production sides of country life. Money hunger is as strong in the open country as elsewhere, and 

as there are fewer opportunities and demands for the expenditure of this money for others and for 

society, there often develops a hoarding and a lack of public spirit that is disastrous to the general 

good. So completely does the money purpose often control the motive that other purposes in 

farming often remain dormant. The complacent contentment in many rural neighborhoods is 

itself the very evidence of social incapacity or decay. 
63

It must not be assumed that these deficiencies are to be charged as a fault against the farmer as a 

group. They are rather to be looked on as evidence of an uncorrelated and unadjusted society. 

Society is itself largely to blame. The social structure has been unequally developed. The 

townsman is likely to assume superiority and to develop the town in disregard of the real 

interests of the open country or even in opposition to them. The city exploits the country; the 

country does not exploit the city. The press still delights in archaic cartoons of the farmer. There 

is as much need of a new attitude on the part of the townsman as on the part of the farmer. 

This leads us to say that the country ideals, while derived largely from the country itself, should 

not be exclusive; and the same applies to city and village ideals. There should be more frequent 

social intercourse on equal terms between the people of the country and those of the city or 

village. This community of interests is being accomplished to a degree at present, but there is 

hardly yet the knowledge and sympathy and actual social life that there should be between those 

who live on the land and those who do not. The business men’s organizations of cities could well 

take the lead in some of this work. The country town in particular has similar interests with the 

open country about it; but beyond this, all people are bettered and broadened by association with 

those of far different environment. 

We have now discussed some of the forces and agencies that will aid in bringing about a new 

rural society. The development of the best country life in the United States is seen, therefore, to 

be largely a question of guidance. The exercise of a wise advice, stimulus, and direction from 

some central national agency, extending over a series of years, could accomplish untold good, 

not only for the open country, but for all the people and for our institutions. 

In the communities themselves, the same kind of guidance is needed, operating in good farming, 

in schools, churches, societies, and all useful public work. The great need everywhere is new and 

young leadership, and the Commission desires to make an appeal to all young men and women 

who love the open country to consider this field when determining their careers. We need young 

people of quality, energy, capacity, aspiration, and conviction, who will live in the open country 

as permanent residents on farms, or as teachers or in other useful fields, and who, while 

developing their own business or affairs to the greatest perfection, will still have unselfish 

interest in the welfare of their communities. The farming country is by no means devoid of 

leaders, and is not lost or incapable of helping itself, but it has been relatively overlooked by 

persons who are seeking great fields of usefulness. It will be well for us as a people if we 

recognize the opportunity for usefulness in the open country and consider that there is a call for 

service.

L.H. BAILEY, 

HENRY WALLACE, 

KENYON L. BUTTERFIELD, 

WALTER H. PAGE, 
64

GIFFORD PINCHOT, 

C.S. BARRETT, 

W.A. BEARD. 

Albert R. Mann Library. 2006. Core Historical Literature of Agriculture (CHLA). Ithaca, NY: Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University. 

http://chla.library.cornell.edu (Version June 2004).

© 2004 Cornell University Library. Questions? Comments? Please contact us. 
65
66
67
68
69
70
71

Significant Quotes from

The Report of the Country Life Commission

Quotes from Theodore Roosevelt’s Message to the Senate Report of the Country Life 

Commission

“. . . . farming does not yield either the profit or the satisfaction that it ought to yield and may be 

made to yield. There is discontent in the country, and in places discouragement. Farmers as a 

class do not magnify their calling, and the movement to the towns, though, I am happy to say, 

less than formerly, is still strong.” 

The cooperative plan is the best plan of organization wherever men have the right spirit to carry 

it out. Under this plan any business undertaking is managed by a committee; every man has one 

vote and only one vote; and everyone gets profits according to what he sells or buys or supplies. 

It develops individual responsibility and has a moral as well as a financial value over any other 

plan. 

The farmer should realize that the person who most needs consideration on the farm is his wife.

I warn my countrymen that the great recent progress made in city life is not a full measure of our 

civilization; for our civilization rests at bottom on the wholesomeness, the attractiveness, and the 

completeness, as well as the prosperity, of life in the country. The men and women on the farms 

stand for what is fundamentally best and most needed in our American life. Upon the 

development of country life rests ultimately our ability, by methods of farming requiring the 

highest intelligence, to continue to feed and clothe the hungry nations; to supply the city with 

fresh blood, clean bodies, and clear brains that can endure the terrific strain of modern life; we 

need the development of men in the open country, who will be in the future, as in the past, the 

stay and strength of the nation in time of war, and its guiding and controlling spirit in time of 

peace. 

Introductory Review or Summary

. . . . the agricultural people constitute the very foundation of our national efficiency.

THE CALL FOR LEADERSHIP
72

Upon the development of this distinctively rural civilization rests ultimately our ability, by 

methods of farming requiring the highest intelligence, to continue to feed and clothe the hungry 

nations; to supply the city and metropolis with fresh blood, clean bodies, and clear brains that 

can endure the strain of modern urban life; and to preserve a race of men in the open country 

that, in the future as in the past, will be the stay and strength of the nation in time of war and its 

guiding and controlling spirit in time of peace.

II. GENERAL STATEMENT.

There has never been a time when the American farmer was as well off as he is today, when we 

consider not only his earning power, but the comforts and advantages he may secure. Yet the 

real efficiency in farm life, and in country life as a whole, is not to be measured by historical 

standards, but in terms of its possibilities.

He (the farmer) often begins with practically no capital, and expects to develop his capital and 

relationships out of the annual business itself; and even when he has capital with which to set up 

a business and operate it the amount is small when compared with that required in other 

enterprises.

Two Excerpts from Theodore Roosevelt’s letter appointing the Commission

No nation has ever achieved permanent greatness unless this greatness was based on the 

well-being of the great farmer class, the men who live on the soil; for it is upon their 

welfare, material and moral, that the welfare of the rest of the nation ultimately rests.

Agriculture is not the whole of country life. The great rural interests are human interests, 

and good crops are of little value to the farmer unless they open the door to a good kind 

of life on the farm. 

The caution of “Monopolistic Control of Streams” (on the top of page 32 of the Report) It 

must be remembered, also, that no interests inimical to the public welfare should be allowed to 

acquire permanent control of the stream banks. Facilities for ready and economical approach 

are practically as important as the channels themselves. 

On the matter of the need for a Parcel Posts system the Report stated (the last sentence is 

particularly important). . .We hold that a parcels post and a postal savings bank system are 

necessities; and as rapidly as possible the rural free delivery of mails should be extended. 

Everywhere we have found the farmers demanding the parcels post. It is opposed by many 

merchants, transportation organizations, and established interests. We do not think that the 

parcels post will injure the merchant in the small town or elsewhere. Whatever will permanently 

benefit the farmer will benefit the country as a whole.
73

On the matter of the rights of farmers in business practices and taxation, the Report stated. . . 

This investigation should include the entire middleman system, farmers’ cooperative 

organizations, transportation rates and practices, taxation of agricultural property, methods of 

securing funds on reasonable conditions for agricultural uses, and the entire range of economic 

questions involved in the relation of the farmer to the accustomed methods of doing business. 

(underline added to emphasize).

On the issue of a “national highway” system, the Report stated . . .We hold that the 

development of a fully serviceable highway system is a matter of national concern, coordinate 

with the development of waterways and the conservation of our native resources. It is absolutely 

essential to our internal development. The first thing necessary is to provide expert supervision 

and direction and to develop a national plan. All the work should be cooperative between the 

Federal Government and the States. The question of federal appropriation for highway work in 

the States may well be held in abeyance until a national service is provided and tested. We 

suggest that the United States Government establish a highway engineering service, or 

equivalent organization, to be at the call of the States in working out effective and economical 

highway systems. 

On the issue of “Agricultural Labor”, the Report stated. . . So long as the United States 

continues to be a true democracy it will have a serious labor problem. As a democracy, we 

honor labor, and the higher the efficiency of the labor the greater the honor. The laborer, if he 

has the ambition to be an efficient agent in the development of the country, will be anxious to 

advance from the lower to the higher forms of effort, and from being a laborer himself he 

becomes a director of labor. If he has nothing but his hands and brains, he aims to accumulate 

sufficient capital to become a tenant, and eventually to become the owner, of a farm home. A 

large number of our immigrants share with the native-born citizen this laudable ambition. 

Therefore there is a constant decrease of efficient farm labor by these upward movements. 

So long as the labor supply is not equal to the demand the country can not compete with the town 

in securing labor. The country must meet the essential conditions offered by the town or change 

the kind of farming. 

This statement, which is in the Report, pertaining to the use of foreign labor in domestic 

agriculture could be controversial today: There is a growing tendency to rely on foreigners for 

the farm labor supply, although the sentiment is very strong in some regions against 

immigration. It is the general testimony that the native American labor is less efficient and less 

reliable than much of the foreign labor. This is due to the fact that the American is less pressed 

by the dire necessity to labor and to save, and because the better class of laborers is constantly 

passing on to land ownership on their own account. Because of their great industry and thrift 
74

certain foreigners are gradually taking possession of the land in some regions, and it seems to be 

only a question of time until they will drive out the native stock in those regions. 

Also, the Report stated: There is widespread conviction that the farmer must give greater 

attention to providing good quarters to laborers and to protect them from discouragement and 

from the saloon. The shortage of labor seems to be the least marked where the laborer is best 

cared for. It is certain that farming itself must be so modified and organized as to meet the labor 

problem at least half way. While all farmers feel the shortage of help, the Commission has found 

that the best farmers usually complain least about the labor difficulty. 

In regard to Corrective Actions to build rural America . . . The first condition of a good country 

life, of course, is good and profitable farming. The farmer must be enabled to live comfortably. . 

. . . Small manufacture and better handicrafts need now to receive attention, for the open country 

needs new industries and new interests. The schools must help to bring these things about. 

With respect to the nature of farmers: Even when permanently settled, the farmer does not 

easily combine with others for financial or social betterment. The training of generations has 

made him a strong individualist, and he has been obliged to rely mainly on himself. Self-reliance 

being the essence of his nature, he does not at once feel the need of cooperation for business 

purposes or of close association for social objects.

With respect to corrective actions: Care must be taken in all the reconstructive work to see that 

local initiative is relied on to the fullest extent, and that federal and even state agencies do not 

perform what might be done by the people in the communities. The centralized agencies should 

be stimulative and directive, rather than mandatory and formal. Every effort must be made to 

develop native resources, not only of material things, but also of people. 

On the matter regarding diversified farming: The greatest pressure on the farmer is felt in 

regions of undiversified one-crop farming. Under such conditions he is subject to great risk of 

crop failure; his land is soon reduced in productiveness; he usually does not raise his home 

supplies, and is therefore dependent on the store for his living, and his crop, being a staple and 

produced in enormous quantities, is subject to world prices and to speculation, so that he has no 

personal market.

On the need for cooperatives: Organized effort must come as the voluntary expression of the 

people; but it is essential that every State should enact laws that will stimulate and facilitate the 
75

organization of such cooperative associations, care being taken that the working of the laws be 

not cumbersome. These laws should provide the associations with every legal facility for the 

transaction of the business in which they are to engage. They are as important to the State as 

other organizations of capital and should be fostered with as much care, and their members and 

patrons be adequately safeguarded. It is especially important that these organizations be granted 

all the powers and advantages given to corporations or other aggregations of capital, to the end 

that they may meet these corporations on equal legal ground when it is necessary to compete 

with them. Such laws should not only protect the cooperative societies, but should provide means 

that will allow the societies to regulate themselves, so that they may be safeguarded from 

becoming merely commercial organizations through the purchase or control of the stock by 

dealers in the products that they handle. It is not unlikely that federal laws may also be needed to 

encourage cooperation. 

On page 59 of the Report of the Country Life Commission, we have the paragraph that gave 

rise to the Farm Credit System as we know it today . . . .A method of cooperative credit would 

undoubtedly prove of great service. In other countries credit associations loan money to their 

members on easy terms and for long enough time to cover the making of a crop, demanding 

security not on the property of the borrower but on the moral warranty of his character and 

industry. The American farmer has needed money less, perhaps, than land workers in some other 

countries, but he could be greatly benefited by a different system of credit, particularly where the 

lien system is still in operation. It would be the purpose of such systems, aside from providing 

loans on the best terms and with the utmost freedom consistent with safety, to keep as much as 

possible of the money in circulation in the open country where the values originate. The present 

banking systems tend to take the money out of the open country and to loan it in town or to 

town-centered interests. We suggest that the national-bank examiners be instructed to 

determine, for a series of years, what proportion of the loanable funds of rural banks is loaned to 

the farmers in their localities, in order that data may be secured on this question. All 

unnecessary drain from the open country should be checked, in order that the country may be 

allowed and encouraged to develop itself. 

In an effort to keep the kids on the farm . . .Society or government can not do much for country 

life unless there is voluntary response in the personal ideals of those who live in the country. 

Inquiries by the Commission, for example, find that one reason for the shift from the country to 

town is the lack of ideals in many country homes and even the desire of the countryman and his 

wife that the children do not remain on the farm. The obligation to keep as many youths on the 

farms as are needed there rests on the home more than on the school or on society. 
76

In closing . . . . The great need everywhere is new and young leadership, and the Commission 

desires to make an appeal to all young men and women who love the open country to consider 

this field when determining their careers. 

We need young people of quality, energy, capacity, aspiration, and conviction, who will live in 

the open country as permanent residents on farms, or as teachers or in other useful fields, and 

who, while developing their own business or affairs to the greatest perfection, will still have 

unselfish interest in the welfare of their communities. 

The farming country is by no means devoid of leaders, and is not lost or incapable of helping 

itself, but it has been relatively overlooked by persons who are seeking great fields of usefulness. 

It will be well for us as a people if we recognize the opportunity for usefulness in the open 

country and consider that there is a call for service.

Authors: L.H. BAILEY, HENRY WALLACE, KENYON L. BUTTERFIELD, WALTER 

H. PAGE, GIFFORD PINCHOT, C.S. BARRETT, W.A. BEARD.
77

THE COUNTRY LIFE COMMISSION: Reconsidering a Milestone in American 

Agricultural History

SCOTT J. PETERS AND PAUL A. MORGAN

Theodore Roosevelt charged his 1908 Country Life Commission with looking into the 

deficiencies of agriculture and country life, and the means by which they might be 

remedied. Though some scholars have judged it a positive milestone in American 

agricultural history, prevailing assessments are critical, negative, and often conflicting. 

Critics view it as an example of patronizing, technocratic social engineering aimed at 

urbanizing and industrializing the countryside to benefit national and industrial economic 

interests. Yet this interpretation is inconsistent with the commission’s report. Rather 

than offering a technocratic program to engineer agriculture and country life, the report 

is one of the first high-profile, comprehensive attempts to outline a broad-gauge vision 

of sustainability in American agriculture. It reflects an ecological sensitivity and a variant 

of Progressive Era reform devoted to key civic and economic ideals. Though flawed, the 

commission’s vision of agriculture and country life deserves to be seen as a milestone in 

the story for the struggle for sustainability.
78

 

 Winter 2003 Vol. 15 No. 4

It’s time for another Country Life Commission

Agriculture is not commercially as profitable as it is entitled to be for the labor and energy that 

the farmer expends and the risks that he assumes...The farmer is almost necessarily 

handicapped in the development of his business, because his capital is small...and he usually 

stands practically alone against organized interests. 

Not many people would argue with these statements – they accurately describe some of the 

problems that farmers face in agriculture today. Now consider when they were made – nearly a 

century ago – and the need to find workable solutions to the problems faced by our nation’s 

farmers takes on new urgency.

The statements above are from the January 23, 1909 Report of the Commission on Country Life 

to President Theodore Roosevelt. It was the first time that any president had requested a study 

on the future of agriculture and country life in the United States, and the commission was made 

up of some of the nation’s most prestigious leaders. 

The Commission on Country Life was chaired by Liberty Hyde Bailey, the thoughtful and 

imaginative agriculture leader at Cornell University. Other members were magazine editor 

Henry C. Wallace from Iowa; Kenyon L. Butterfield, president of the Massachusetts Agricultural 

College; Walter Hines Page from New York; Gifford Pinchot, chief forester at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; Charles S. Barrett, president of the Farmers Union; William A. Beard 

from California, and E.W. Allen, assistant director of the Office of Experiment Stations. 

Overall, the commission was hopeful about the future of agriculture and country living in the 

United States. The report concluded that agriculture, when “taken altogether,” was “prosperous 

commercially.” “The country people are producing vast quantities of supplies for food, shelter, 

clothing, and for use in the arts” and that “the agricultural people constitute the very foundation 

of national efficiency.”

But the commission also saw ominous signs, as noted above, that needed attention. The 

commission noted numerous deficiencies that could lead to a compromised rural life. Among 

them was the “handicap” of a farmer not being able to secure an adequate return for products, 

“depriving him of the benefits that would result from unmonopolized rivers and the conservation 

of forests, and depriving the community, in many cases, of the good that would come from the 

use of great tracts of agricultural land that are now held for speculative purposes.” Another 

deficiency was the “continuing depletion of soils.”

The American Country Life Association (ACLA) was a direct descendant of Roosevelt’s Country 

Life Commission. The Association was organized in 1919 and continued in various forms until 

1976. Osgood Magnuson served as its last president (1975-1976), preceeded by Gene 

Wunderlich (1974-1975).
79

Wunderlich has written a new book chronicling the history of the ACLA [American Country Life: 

A Legacy, University Press of America, 2003]. It will, as historian David Danbom at North 

Dakota State University says, “stand as the definitive institutional history” of the Association. 

The Leopold Center is proud to have had a role in funding that made publication of the book 

possible.

The story told in Wunderlich’s book may play an important role in shaping the future of rural 

America. Many issues that the Association addressed during its 57-year history still plague us 

today. Recognizing the ongoing importance of these issues to all Americans, the Association

made a valiant but unsuccessful effort in the 1950s to get the President and Congress to 

appoint a second Country Life Commission. Perhaps Wunderlich’s narrative can help us revisit 

that proposal.

When lobbying for another Commission in 1957, ACLA president Roy Buck expressed the need 

to “study the country community as a production-consumption unit to better carry out a rural 

development program,” improve understanding between rural and urban interests, and preserve 

the values and attitudes of rural communities and their role in the nation’s character. 

The Rev. E.W. Mueller, who served on the ACLA at the time, suggested that such a Commission 

needed to address a new rural-urban reality: “It is one thing what happens to the people 

involved [in rural communities] like the small farmer or the commercial farmer. It is another 

thing what happens to a nation if the nation permits it to happen, because it will influence and 

affect the total spirit of the people.” 

These questions are more crucial now than they were in the 1950s because independent family 

farms may disappear from the landscape if present trends continue. We need to ask ourselves 

what kind of food system we will then have, what kind of landscape we will have, what kind of 

national spirit we will have. And we need to ask ourselves if that kind of future is okay with us.

These are important national issues that deserve discussion and debate at the center of our 

democracy, and a new Country Life Commission could stimulate such a debate in both rural and 

urban communities.

– Frederick L. Kirschenmann