Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1891-07-21

the farm Indebtedness is $3.50, 900 600. Null!
tipIying that by two we have $500 000, 900,
which is just SIG, OOO, 900 less than the Cap.
tails own figures. We have made the
statement that one-half the farms are
mortgaged for more than they would sell
for on thirty days notice. Does the Capt
t0I, or does any person, honestly dispute
that statement? What proportion OF farms
could be sold to-day for more than the debt
that is due upon them? Why is it that
there is no real estate boom in Kansas to-
day? Why IS it that in this respect Kan
sas is no exception to the general rule? All
over the country there is nothing doing in
real estate. Only here and there you hear
of farm being sold. Men who are clear
of debt hold their property at high figures,
and yet the statement is true that, taking
the farms Of the State generally, they
would not sell for more than the mortgage
debt. Indeed, that statement can be
proven by the Capital itself. On the 31st
day of last August that paper contained
reports from forty three counties in the
State The reports, which were said to be
official, show that iarms-not wild lands,
but farms, were being sold in Kansas I'M
der foreclosure sales at the rate Of over
5000 year. The Capital record covered
six months of the year, showing less than
ne-half of the counties in the State: but
the Capital, not the KANSAS FARMER,
made comparison for the whole State
based upon the figures given for the forty
three counties, showing that II the same
proportion held good for the entire State,
the total number of sales OF farms under
mortgage foreclosure proceedings was
equal to 1850 for six months. We take the
liberty of extending the same proportion
over the whole year; that gives US, for one
year, in Kansas, 300 farms sold to satisfy
mortgage debts, and these are the Capitals
own figures. In addition to that, we find
that in an issue only few days later-the
following Friday, If our memory is not at
fault-a report was given OF the organiza-
ton Of land syndicate to bring together,
under one ownership, an immense acreage
of land which was being transferred vol
UNFAIRLY to loan companies in order to sat-
isfy mortgages. Every we'll informed
person knows that large number, a Uery
large number of farms have been passed
in this way into the hands Of mortgages
without any proceedings in court at all.
This voluntary surrender Of the home
saves the expense and humiliation of going
into court; and IL is fair to assume that
this class Of transfers Of homes largely ex-
ceeds in number those which are sold
under orders Of court. 1t is safe to say
that no matter what may be the actual
worth of these farms, they cannot be sold
for that amount, for Il they could be, the
owners would gladly sell them and If pos
sible save a little margin between the
worth Of the farms and the amount of the
mortgage debt. 1t is clear that II the peo-
pie could sell property enough to pay their
debts, the property would have been sold
long ago. But suppose that every mort
gage debtor in Kansas-and that includes
two thirds of them, according to the Cap
itdrs statement-were TO put up their
homes at public auction on thirty days
notice, where could we find purchasers for
them at more than their mortgage indebt-
edness, which is supposed to be only one
third OF their value? Why is it that when
farm is sold under the order Of court to
satisfy mortgage in nine cases out Of ten
the mortgage is the purchaser? Why is
it that to-day the loan companies OF the
State are burdened with lands which they
do not want, but which they are compelled
to take in order TO save themselves, be-
cause the debtor cannot pay his debt?