Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1879-03-21
Ce-opsration IN the Purchase Of Farm
ImBlemeats-

In an article Lately upon SKlnea
Labor" we showed that the ineVltable
tendency of the present unorganlzea
condition of agriculturists Is to break
-, c1,r democratic system of small, inde-
,,Pn5ent farming, and TO aggregate
these small farms into large ones, on
which machinery may be employed as
largely as possible.
In our country, where education is
open to all, and where intelligence is
more generally diffused than in any
other land, It would seem that these
small holdings might be more general
lY saved TO their owners by q simple
plau of cooperation. Superior inteli-
pence ought to result in a superior So
cial system among our farmers-ought
to add to mutual confidence and reeip-
roeal help. The concentration OF the
landed property of q country N the
hands of small minority Of its inhablt-
ants is quite eongenial to 3 monarchy,
but it would be decidedly opposed to
the progress of republican institutions
in this country. The breaking up Of
small proprietors would interfere with
our school system; for, owing to the
sparse population of the large districts,
there could only be a small attendance
at some of the schools unless the sehOl-
ars Travelled from greater distances
than would be desirable. Its political
bearing, also, would be disastrous to
the Well-being of the State, as it would
constantly create more and more dis
1 proportion between the populations of
/ country and city, until all political
power would gravitate to the latter,
and who can look with Indifference
upon the time when great State shall
/ suecumb TO the easy virtue of its cities!
We feel like doing all we can to in
crease and not diminish the number Of
these independent tillers Of small
farms.
| And If these small farmers will study
cooperation, it win put them IN pos
session of all the facilities for working
| their land with the best labOr-saving
machinery. And as can easily be
shown, this cooperation viii give each
| of them all these advantages as cheap
". in proportion, as if he owned all the
/ farms of his associates. Let us sup
pose that one set OF machinery VIII
work 800 acres of land, and that these
500 acres are owned by seven farmers
five with fifty acres each, and two
with twenty-five acres-al adjoining.
Now what should reasonably hinder
these seven farmers from forming a
cooperative partnership. in the pur-
chase and working of all the machinery
REQUIRED to till these 800 acres to the
best possible adEantageP As there are
in this supposed partnership two, each
of fwhom owns twenty-five acres, this
number of acres must represent share,
and each of the ifty-acre farms will
hold two shares.
Let US suppose them to purchase a
mower and reaper, and if in a grain re-
gion, self-binder, hay-tedder, grain
drill, field roller, two-hOrse cultivator,
| an artificial-manure distributor, stock
and hay scales, horsepower, straw
/ cutter, etc. These and perhaps a few
other implements would cost from $500
to 81, 600, and eachgshare would cost
from 500 to S84 The seven f armers
would even feel the cost less than q
single farmer owning the 800 acres;
for the seven small farms would be
worth more than the one large farm,
and there would be more work for the
set of machinery, as the small farms
would be worked more carefully and
the aggregate production would be
larger, and the more the machinery
was used, the more profit.
II it is objected that eight f.
could not be accommodate
set of implements, it ~
that proper diV'
afford abup'l~