Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1907-08-13
Large Versus Small Farms.

note that Mr.. A. B. Chandler agaiI
raises the question of the large versus
the small farm. He enumerates the in
stances OF successes on small farms tha
referred to last winter in my articl,
and also offers his services to assist tht
negative side of the question by giving
some other instances of success on the
small farm. Then he seeks to knock the
props out Of the whole fabric by stating
that these are only exceptional cases anG
that the men who made these successes
would have made success anywhere. He
proceeds further TO demolish the small
farm by citing single instance where a
large farm was successfully run and the
laborers employed educated their chill.
dren and were contented and happy. He
describes his case as follows: "Oi
twelve families on one farm having chill
dren of school age there are two in
grammar grade, two in high school and
two in college; the other four children
are in primary departments. | think the
percentage for high education is as favor.
able as is shown in sections made up
of small FARMS"
Now if any one will read MIR. Chand.
ler's statement carefully he will find that
if it means anything it means that there
was not an average of one child to the
family in school at all. Twelve families
that had children of school age and only
ten children in school of any kind. His
statement if applied to the average
small farmer in West Virginia would
mean that there were not half of the
children of school age in school. This
is not all: the instance he cites is evil
IDENTIFY the most successful venture of
the kind that he can find and is an ex-
ceptionally favorable one.
Probably the large farm would make
some money for the owners If it was
properly managed, but in many instances
the management would be bad. Again
is it fair to measure success by the stand
ard of dollars and cents laid up for some
capitalist? Is it not better far for a
number of families to have home that
they can call their own, in which they
can exercise their energies in improving
and managing to suit their individual
tastes, and lay up enough to support
them in old age rather than be dependent
on some large land holder who may or
may not be considerate of the we'll being
of his hired help? The average Ameri-
can citizen loves independence, and he
can not be contented under. any system
that savors of landlordism.
Just across the river from where
write there is Deighborhood of small
farmers nearly all of whom own less
than so acres each They are happy
and contented, all living we'll and have
some money laid up. They have good
churches that are we'll attended, good
school houses, and the schools are well
and regularly attended. A number of
young men have gone out from this
community of small farmers and have
made their mark in the world. If a
farmers institute is held in this neigh
borhood there is large, we'll informed
attendance of farmers and their families.
All are interested in up-to-date methods
of improving their farms and getting
more out of their labor because they
own their homes and have the assurance
that they can reap the full benefit of
their labor. The labor agitators do not
disturb them because they do not desire
to hire out, neither do they employ hired
labor. Now, ask Mr.. Chandler if this
is not far better than for the people to
be dependent on a capitalist for their
living. The fact that a man owns the
land on which he labors is an incentive
to exertion and satisfaction that the
hired man cannot enjoy. The large-land,
holder system has proved itself detri-
mental to the interests of the common
people in every country where it has
been tried. The past history of the
world proves this. Then why should
Mr.. Chandler seek to build up a system
that has caused discomfort, trouble,
bloodsbed and all manner of suffering
and oppression of the masses for the
benefit of the few in past ages of the
world?-A. j. Legg in The Country
Gentleman.