Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-03-30
farm Copies.
|RMONT AS AN AGRICULTURAL
STATE.


From the Brattleboro Phoenix
last weeks Rural Vermonter has an
torial article headed "The depopula-
b of Vermont" The caption is some
ht misleading. 1t can hardly be said
t the State is being depopulated when
one of the ten census enumeratlons
|ws an actual loss of population. The
h since 1910 has been about 10000.
Rural proceeds to say: 1--WE sup
|e no one will dispute the statement
t there are fewer native Yankees in
Fmont today than there were forty
|rs ago. The slight gain in population
be that time is made up of outsiders,
Billy Canadians and Irish, who find
mont enough better than Ireland and
\ ada to be good enough for them"
es; some one will dispute the state
bit. The native population of Vermont
!, according to the census of
1880. ................. .2S0, O33
1860. ................. .2S2 ,355
1880. ................ 29l 1927
very poor showing, it is true, when
5pared with other States, yet showing
oss, but a gain of more than 200
n 1850 to 1880. The foreign popula-
of the State, at the same dates, was
blows:
1850. ........... 10
1870. .............. Al 100
1880. ............... .4O,95l
will be seen that there was cOnsid-
lie loss of foreign population from
to 1880. Below is the total popula-
of each census, in which is included
" hundred not in the above tables,
|se nativity was unknown:
1900. ............... l54 ,4G1
lSl0.. ............ .2l1 800
1880. .......... $50, CO.,
1910. ................ 29l .94S
1850. NATURALIZATION. .3l5, 09S
1870. .......... $50, DOL
lSSO. .......... ..... .302 2SO
he period of slowest growth was from
to 1860, when the gain was less than
third of one per cent.
e Rural charges the low price of
5 and the general lack of progress in
State to the greed of the Vermont
Dads. 1t is indeed bad if it costs a
mont farmer as much. or nearly as
4, as Western farmer to deliver his
uce in Boston. Yet we do not be-
this sufficient reason, or that there
Y sufficient reason, unless it is self
rciation, to account for our own slow
in population, and the want of a
er demand for Vermont farms.
hitting part OF the connection. we
again from the Rural Vermonter:
nd yet, in many respects, Vermont
lay better State to live in than it
was before. 1t may be said with
that the taking off the export duties
upon Vermont farm products by
IS of freight rates, above what SINH
foducts are carried for an equal dis
from competing States, would
Vermont as desirable a home for
armer as any State in the Union.
ers here have striven to evade these
Fsive rates by putting most of their
and labor into butter, and, to a
extent, they have done so. And
the railroad managers, by their eX-
ms, have driven the farmers into con-
ating the product of their farms into
W tons as possible, instead of seeing
folly and applying the obvious rem
make the small amount of freight
ID an excuse for the high rates =
be true friends of Vermont farmers
worked hard i'm years past, and en-
obloquy, to keep Vermont railroads
Vermont control, hoping that thus
irming interest would reap the just
ltage of a generous confidence in
Iatiye railway magnates. We fear
great mistake was made. Expert
appears to favor consolidation and
lie management. Facts seem to in
that it would be worth more to the
e of Vermont than the whole cost of
ilroads. if they were managed in
n. A single change of this kind has
ly reduced the charges over one
nearly fifty per cent on small ship
;, which is far more important to
rmers of the State than the car rate,
Ugh both should be much lower than
are. Compared with the rest of
England, to say nothing of New
and the West, there is an export