New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1918-09-04

by the Government a few years ago
at $1.25 an acre is now selling for $225.5O
an acre. The presumption is that the
land did not belong to him, for though
editors Of newspapers are always land
users, they are rarely land owners.
Why then should he rejoice over high
prices for what he buys? He is never
known to break into paeans of praise
of the high price of print paper or ink
or type or anything else in the office
that he buys Why the exception IN
regard to land?
This advance in the price Of Iowa
farm land, from $500 an acre ten years
ago to $225.50 now, raises some in
teresting questions, questions that bear
upon the cost of living, the wage problem,
and social conditions in general. If
by any wild flight of fancy it could be
imagined that an editor did own l6O
acres in Pocahontas County it will
be conceded that he would be vitality
interested in that advance. The rental
from such farm at six per cent on
the valuation of ten years ago would
aid in meeting the deficit on his news
paper to the extend Of $3.50; whereas
at the present valuation it would help
out on the paper to the amount OF
$2,164.8O. Under such circumstances
one can see how even an editor would be
interested in the advance in the price
of land.
But while not all the people in Iowa
are either editors or landowners, there
are a great many scattered throughout
the state who bought land in earlier
days when the Government was selling
it at a dollar and quarter an acre,
and are now living in towns and villages
on the rent they collect from their
tenants. These men have a direct
and special interest in the rising price
of land, for every advance means an
increase in their income, just as the
doubling of the value of the slave meant
a greater income for his master; but
of what advantage is high priced land
to tenants who till it or to consumers
who use its products?, Does. an acre
of this two hundred and twenty-five
dollar land produce two and a quarter
times more oats, corn or wheat than
it did ten years ago when it was worth
but one hundred dollars? The rent
from the acre has increased, but does
the yield correspond? Is not the in
creased rent or price of the land due to
the fact that bushel of grain now
commands two or three times what it
did ten years ago? And does not this
mean t'lat the consumer is paying
proportionately more for his bread?
The rising price of Iowa farm land
means then that tenants are worse off
than before; their rent increases to
correspond with the price of products,
and it is proportionately harder for them
to buy the land they till. 1t does not
help the editor or any other consumer,
because they receive less produce for
their money. 1t does beneftthe owner
of the land because he receives a larger
income for the same service. Hence,
one might be justified in the conclusion
that for everybody except land owners
Iowa is less desirable place in which
to live than it was when land was
cheaper. Many persons will recall what
establishment was caused when the
United States Census for 1910 showed
that the population Of Iowa was less
than in 1900. Iowa of all the states
in the Union was the only one to record
a decrease in population. Though
the value of farm lands rose 1874 per cent