Norwich bulletin., 1915-02-13

- Written Specially for The Buuet1n.)
 Big far1n2 Or little farm?
 Which Is best for the community? Which is best for the individual far Iner?
 The debate is always an interesting one for the reason that so much can ae said O both sides l. is also in teresting for the reason that, when E. ever side he takes, the debater IS : eocksure that he is in the right of 1t.
 Down in the bottom of almost every mans heart there is 2. craving which 2 has come to " be known as land hunger. He wants a bit of the earth which he can make his own, which he can possess and use, On which ne can be lord and master, which shall be his as much as his nittens or his - finger nails. The desire is often as real as the hunger for bread. It is not confined to farmers, l have seen t widening the eyes of pale city clerks and those Of peripatetic pack peddlers. It may not be a universal human trait. but I think 1t is, at least, q very general masculine feeling.
 Most men want to own land. They don't care 50 much about hiring 1t or : renting it or leasing it. Such tenures arc merely mazeshifts. They want to own 1t in fee simple, from the center Of the earth up, and out 10 the front 1era of infinite space.
 # is perfectly natural when one with this land-hunger in his heart finds the means to begin to satisfy it that he should be tempted to carry on to the limit If ten acres are good, a. hun C7red will be better: three or five hun dred will be better still. That is his way Of locking at fl, and it is not un- natural.
 So far as Ele qualification of his in- nate land-hungeT is concerned it is, moreover. a. comparatively innocent form Of acQuisitiveness. To buy more land and still more land seems a rather -audable way of investing money and the spreading acres offer a worthy field for extending productive effort.
 But-
 Is it better for the community that there should be some big farms or many small ones? Is it better busi- ness for. the farmer himself to farm two hundred acres or fifty?
 Admitting the force and pressure of the lald-hunger which most of us feel, to what extent is ir wiSest for us, both as farmers and as citizens. to gratify OUT greed?
 Are big scattered ranches or snugly neighbOring small farms most efec- tive in the upbuilding of a. prosperous community life?
 Are they better business invest IneIzts for the ordinary working far 1ner. himself?
 Considered solely as a business pro- - position, Is 1t better to spread ones time and thought and manure and .- labor over 8 couple of hundred acres, Or to concentrate them on forty or fifty?
 Edwin Rerdman of Polar, Wiscon- strs who has made something of a reputation by his feat of keeping 9S g head Of cattle on 60 acres of land, has recently written for The Wisconsin AgrlcultuFist q strong plea for the sEzan farm. He argues with vigor that il is better, not only for the town and the state, but also for the farmer s himself that farms should be small and many rather than large and wide " separated. l am tempted to quote one or two paragraphs
 Think of inc saving and the inn pTovenlent that could be affected in the mana cement Of our schools, in the construction and the maintenance of our highways, in the building of rural telephone lines and other public con- veEiences if the farms were smaller and farmers lived closer together -- Then there are the opportunities for better social advantages in thickly settled communities that should also be taken into action
 The above applies to the general 7 pubic good. Mir. Nortlrlan is quite as sure that t would be for the individual farrne CTS private advantage. He says:
 Undoubtedly farmers as well as other people would be much better off If farms averaged about one-half their present size. If our farmers would contne their operations to @ smaller
 Z-71z1zzseesesez.