The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1903-06-11

Two gentlemen were discussing the
steady drift of country dweIers to the
cities, which has been shown so mark
edly by the census figures of the past
three decades, says writer in the To-
ledo Blade.
"The reason is very SIMPLE" said
one. "There is more money to be
made in a city than by working on
farm"
"Suppose we figure out the annual
income of our farmers from the reports
of the last census-that of 1907 slug
gested the other. This article tells
what the figures show.
In that year, there were 3,712,40S
farm owners IN the United States, ,and
1924 1854 tenants--a total OF 5,737 ,372
families who obtained their living from
the farms. Whether man was single
or married, whether owner or tenant,
he is classed as a ':family"-because
the great majority have families, or
other persons dependent upon them for
maintenance.
All the other families of the nation,
excluding the farm population enum-
Grated above, were 10, ,226, ,593 in num-
ber-thus being nearly double the total
of farm families. The total income of
each class, and the grand total, are
herewith given:
5,737 1872 farm families.......$ 1858. 700, 900
lO, ,226 593 other famiies....... IA $3.50, 300, 900
Total income for all. ...... SIS, ,659, 900, 900
Divide the total earnings of each
class by the number in that class, and
the following is the result:
Farm-average income for each fam
lily, $643 per year.
Other workers-average income for
each family, 81 ,463 per year.
"There," exclaimed one gentleman
triumphantly. "That shows it, Why
should man stay on farm when he
cammake two and a quarter times as
much in the city? Figures don't liew
mo, figures don't lie," responded
the other. "But in this case it is very
easy to draw false conclusions from
them. Let us examine into the mat
ter"
When the census taker went to
farmer to ascertain his income, how
did the farmer figure it? Evidently by
taking the total sales from his farm
the money received for the grain, for
age, live stock, wool, poultry, eggs,
butter, potatoes ana other vegetables,
fruits and berries, and whatever else he
may have sold. If he rented all or
part of his farm, the amount received
as rent, or that from the sale of his
portion of its product, if the farm were
worked on the shares, was figured as
part of his income.
The tenant farmer figured in the
same way, of course, deducting the
rent he paid. The ordinary farm
hand" working for say SIS per month
and board, counted the money he re-
ceived as his income.
But let us consider further the case
of the man owning his own farm. His
"income,n as it is set down in his CEN
sus paper, is merely the amount re-
ceived for the surplus of hi. products
those he was unable to use himself.
Much of the food consumed by himself,
his family and his hired hands was
produced on the farm. His fuel came
from his own woodland. He paid no
rent. A very large part of his living
therefore was part of the product of the
land, and it's value does not figure in
his income account. The same thing
is true of the tenant farmer.
Now take the case of the man living
in the city. He pays from one-fifth to
one-fourth of his annual income for
house-rent-2O to 25 per cent. If he
uses gas or electric light, there ia an
other item OF expense not found in the
country, for coal oil is much cheaper.
Unlike the farmer, he cannot raise
his living. As rule, the city dweller
must buy everything be eats; and this
takes. ON an average, over 40 per cent
OF his income. Then, it takes from 5