The Saint Paul globe., 1897-10-16

townships to interview each farmer, and
find out how much capital he had when he
started in farming and how much he has
accumulated today, and thus, by contrasting
what the farmer possesses now with what he
had ten years ago or when he started In,
ascertain the general profit and loss of farm
ing. In this way do take account Of the
principal and also the by-products of farm
ing, so far as both affect the final and only
vital result, the gain or less, the success or
failure of the farmer, individually and col
lectively. OF course incidentally to this line
of investigation we should ascertain, if pos
sib.e, the number of men who have failed in
farming and the losses suffered by them.
The method here outlined in brief is not
perfect one; ne ther is it free from criticism.
1t does not measure the loss of gain from
individual crops, or even from agriculture
and that to a great and vital degree, the data
which arise from the personal element in
farming-the individual thrift of thr.ftless-
ness, of energy or sloth of the tiller of the
soil. But, If there is any other way OF esti
mating the value of the by-produets OF the
farb. how Is it to be brought about.
Twenty years ago the money with which
to handle the Minnesota wheat crops had to
come from the East Now the bankers and
grain men depend largely for the money
on the little banks of Southern nnesota,
which have deposits Of the farmers. In other
words, the great grain crop of the Red river
valley Is today handled, not by the money
OF the banker, but by the farmer Of Southern
Minnesota. We must not make the great
the failure of certain farmers the other
the rule by which to juAe all. l can find
on our Western farms plenty of failures with
plenty of successes; but when any one comes
here and says that there is greater depres-
sion among the agricultural classes Of
America than ameng other classes, can find
no evidence of it. 1 do find that American
agriculture shows higher average trend,
or at least as high average trend, as
manufactures.
Take this question of tenancy which has
been referred to here and which is constantly
being referred to in the discussions on this
subject. 1t is this very feature which has
given to American farming that measure of
independence which it enjoys today. In
1850 on the farms of the United States there
were nearly many men slaves, laborers,
and tenants as there are today as tenants Nld
laborers. This whole problem has arisen
from leaving the saves out of the quest on.
In this is overlooked the great progress Of
American agriculture. In 1850 half the men
In America living by agriculture, were either
slaves or worked for wages. Tenants as
compared with farm owners, are increasing,
but the number Of farm owners in the last
ten years has increased more than that of
tenants. The increase of tenants therefore
is at the expense of farm laborers and slaves,
not of farm owners.
The total number Of tenant and laboring
families is only about one-half what it was
In 1860, at the breaking out of the war The
number of tenants and heads of fam les
as laborers is about the same as the number
of heads of families working for wages, or as
slaves or tenants in 1860 but the number
Of farm owners has more than doubled.
Where, then, is the indication of the decay OF
the farmer? Where can you find the evidence
OF as great progress in any ether industry,
as it marks the independence of the worker
as it marks the esArnt al elements that in
all ages go for the up-building of the nation
and the welfare OF the people? In discussing
these questions you want to be careful about
throwing s,urs the farmer and the farm
Ing industry going to the wall