Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1870-03-25
Large an d Small Farms.

We notice some discussion in the
leading journals of both Europe and
America ~ to comparative advantage
oflarge aud small landholdings. Some
journals insist upon the necessity of
large farms, held by capitalists, who
are able to use all the machinery and
apply all the improved means OF cul-
ture and fertilization necessary to
produce the largest amount of net
profit. Others contend that small
holdings increase the proportion Of
independent farmers; and as indepen-
dence encourages the manly sense,
general intelligence is increased, and
with this increase there comes in add
dition to the net results Of labor
which, in the aggregate, greatly ex-
ceeds that of large holdings with few
independent and intelligent people,
and, consequently, less general COM
fort.
While the valae of land and the
cheapness of labor in Europe are so
widely different from what they are in
this country, the question OF large or
small farms is even now interesting
to u.s.. What is large farm? In
Belgium ten acres would be 4 large
farm. In New England 100 acres,
in Ohio 400 acres, in Illinois $40
acres, and in Kansas and iowa 1880
acres are large farms. We will sup
pose that 100 acres are .judicious
limit to the size of farm which may
be considered neither large nor
small.
If a township of $4,000 acres be
owned by $50 persons, with 100 acres
each, representing population of
1850 persons, it is evident that there
is better state of society, far more
equality, higher degree Of general
intelligence, virtue and security, than
in township owned by % land,hold-
ers with 900 acres each, represent
ing an independent population of us
persons, poor, dependent, depressed,
Inundated and debascI population Of
1885 persons.
Then, again, when a township is
owned in farms of from so to 1000
acres, there is not only a gross in
equality unfavorable to society edu-
cation, virtue and the democratic
sentiment, but great i'.justice is done
the small holders in respect to taxa
ton. A l,O0C-acres farm is assess
ed to say 100000, and l0oacre
farm at $1,000; and the aggregate
assessment of the township is $780,
600, counting 10 1,0O0-acre farms
and 100 lOO-acre farms. The tax is
say two cents on the dollar. The
1oO-acre farmer pays 500 and the
1,OOO-acre farmer pays $500 tax
that is, with ten times the land the
large holder pays only tourtold more
tax than the moderate holder.
Now, suppose the whole township
be held in lo0-acre improved farms,
the aggregate assessment would reach
$l,15O,OOO, against 100000, as in
the former case. The rate of tax to
raise the same amount would be
about l.3, and the lOO-ac farmer
would pay s65, instead OF sloo, as
the former case-a clear gain to him
Of S35 year, as the result of a fair
subdivision Of tie land and con-
sequent increase of improvements.
But the better morals of such a
township would still further reduce
the taxation, and the greater intelIi-
gence of the people would increase
the value ofproperty. The tax would
be thus reduced to about three quar-
tiers of cent, SO that the tax of a
one hundredacre farmer would not
amount to more than s25 year, as
against 500 under monopoly y show
ing loss to the smaller farmers Of
$75 a year
But all this, though weighty in
political economy, is a tritie in com
parison with the moral contrast of the
two examples.-Erchonge.