Gloucester County Democrat., 1879-02-11
eIgriraltars.
Cooperation in the Purchase Of Farm
Yea Implements.


Implements.
In an article lately upon "Skilled
Labor we showed that theinevitable
tendency of the present unorganized
condition of agriculturists is to break
up our democratic system of small, in
dependent 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 generally
saved to their owners by a simple
plan of cooperation. Superior intelli-
gcnce ought to result in superior So
cial system among our farmers-ought
to add to mutual confidence and re-
ciprocal help. The concentration of
the landed property of a country in the
hands OF small minority of its inhabi-
tants is quite congenial to monarchy,
but it would be decidedly opposed to
the progress ofrepublican institutions
in this country. The breaking up of
small proprietors would interfere with
our school system; for, owing to the
sparse population of large districts,
there could be only small attendance
at some of the schools, unless the
scholars travelled from greater dis
tances than would be desirable. Its
political bearing, also, would be dis
astrous to the well-being of the State,
as it would constantly create more and
more disproportion between the popu-
lations of country and city, until all
political power would gravitate to the
latter, and who can look with indiffer-
ence upon the time when a great State
shall succumb to the easy virtues of its
cities? We feel like doing all we can
to increase and not diminish the num-
Der of these independent tillers of small
farms.
And if these small farmers will study
cooperation, it will 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 will give each
of them all these advantages as cheap'y,
in proportion, as if he owned all the
farms of his associates. Let us suppose
that one set of machinery will work
300 acres of land, and that these 300
acres are owned by seven farmers five
with 80 acres each, and two with 25
acres-all adjoining. Now what should
reasonably hinder these seven farmers
from forming go operative partner
ship for the purchase and working of
all the machinery required to till these
300 acres to the best possible advan-
tage? AS there are in this supposed
partnership two, each of whom owns
twenty-five acres, this number of
acres mrst represent a share, and
each of the fifty-acre farms will hold
two shares.
Let us suppose them to purchase
mower and reaper, and if in a grain
region, self-binder, hay-tedder, grain
drill, field roller. two-horse cultivator,
an artificial manure distributor, stock
and hay scales, horsepower straw-cut-
ter, etc. These and perhaps few
other implements would cost from $500
to 81 ,000, and each share would cost
from $66 to SS4. The seven farmers
would even feel the cost less than
single farmer owning the 300 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 ma
chinery, as the smaller farms would be
worked more carefully and the aggre-
gate production would be larger, and
the more the machinery was used. the
more profit.
IT it is objected that eight farmers
could not be accommodated with one
set of implements, it may be answered
that a proper division of time would
afford abundant opportunity for all the
work to be done on each farm, since
the area of land is no greater than is
often worked on one farm with one set
OF machinery. In haylng and harvest
ing, each could use the moving and
reaping machines in rotation. The
horsepower straw-cutter would en-
able each one to cut his hay and straw
or feed in the most economical way.
Moreover, owning the machinery to-
gether, they would be likely to assist
each other and thereby save the cost of
considerable labor.
In social point, these cooperative
partnerships would improve the neigh
borly relations among farmers in a
marked degree. We urge this as fea-
sible means of preventing the necessity
for the small farmers selling out to his
neighbor, and either going into new
States or accepting wages from the
larger landowners. This simple CO.
operation, requiring only knowledge
of business DrinciDles will anahla tha
small farmer to compete most success
fully with the large one, and to main
tain his footing under the most trying
circumstances. The natural result Of
such cooperation among the small far
mers would soon lead to the co-opera-
tion of larger bodies of farmers for
other great and important purposes.
1t is want of social education that has
prevented closer relations of farmers
with each other, and their persistent.