My position, therefore, is that we must evolve our social rural community directly from the land itself, and mostly by means of the resident forces that now are there.
This being our proposition, it is then necessary to discover whether, given permanent residence on pieces of land, it is still possible to develop anything like a community sense. I do not now propose to discuss this question at any length, but merely to call attention to a few ways in which I think the neighborhood life of the open country may be very distinctly improved.
In this discussion, I purposely omit reference to public utilities and governmental action, because they are outside my present range. The farmer will share with all the people any needful improvement that may be made in regulation of transportation and transportation rates, in control of corporations, in equalizing of taxation, in providing new means of credit, in extending means of communication, in revising tariffs, in reforming the currency, and in perfecting the mail service.
To work out the means of neighborhood coöperation, there should be sufficient and attractive meeting places. The rural schoolhouse is seldom adapted to this purpose. The Grange hall does not represent all the people. The church is not a public institution. Libraries are yet insufficient. Town halls are few, and usually as unattractive as possible. There is now considerable discussion of community halls. Several of them have been built in different parts of the country to meet the new needs, and the practice should grow.
1. The mere increase of population will nec essarily bring people closer together, and by that much it will tend to social solidarity.
2. The natural dividing up of large farms, which is coming both as a result of the extension of population and from the failure of certain very large estates to be profitable, will also bring country people closer together. The so-called "bonanza farms" are unwieldy and ineffective economic units; and many farmers are "land poor."
3. We shall also assemble farms. The increasing population on the land will not always result in smaller farms. Most of the richer and more profitable lands will gradually be divided because, with our increased knowledge and skill, persons can make a living from smaller areas. The remoter and less productive lands will naturally be combined into larger farm areas, however, because a large proportion of such lands cannot make a sufficient profit, when divided into ordinary farm areas, to support and educate a present-day family (page 38). Contiguous areas of the better lands will be combined with them, in order to make a good business unit. As several farms come together under one general ownership, this owner will naturally gather about him a considerable population to work his lands.
The probability is that, under thoroughly skillful single management, a given area of remote or low-productive lands will sustain a larger population than they are now able to sustain under the many indifferent or incompetent ownerships. It is to be hoped that some of these amalgamated areas will develop a share-working or associative farming of a kind that is now practically unknown.
4. The re-creative life of the country community greatly needs to be stimulated. Not only games and recreation days need to be encouraged, but the spirit of release from continuous and deadening toil must be encouraged. The country population needs to be livened up. This will come about through the extension of education and the work of ministers, teachers, and organizations. All persons can come together on a recreation basis (pp. 173, 211).
The good farmer will have one day a week for recreation, vacation, and study.
5. Local politics ought to further the entire neighborhood life, rather than to divide the community into hostile camps. All movements, as direct nominations, that stimulate local initiative and develop the sense of responsibility in the people will help toward this end.
6. Rural government is commonly ineffective. It needs awakening by men and women who have arrived at some degree of mastery over their conditions. We talk much of the need of improving municipal government, but very little about rural government; yet government in rural communities is inert and dead, as compared with what it might be, and there is probably as much machine politics in it, in proportion to the opportunities, as in city government. Very much of the lack of gumption in the open country is due to the want of a perfectly free and able administration of the public affairs.[3]
The whole political organization of rural communities needs new attention, and perhaps radical overhauling. As I write these sentences, I have before me a newspaper in which a progressive surgeon expresses his opinion (which he has verified for me) on the question of supervision of health in a rural county in an Eastern state. He found the statistics too inaccurate and too indefinite to enable him to draw exact conclusions, but these are approximately the facts:
"No township seems to have deliberately paid its health officer, and but one town deliberately paid its poor physician. The others paid various bills for 'quarantine' and 'fumigating' and 'fees' and other misleading items. There was no way in which to distinguish between the care of the poor and the sick-poor except to guess and to figure on what I happened to know about. A——, the richest and largest township, has no health officers, and spent $200 for the poor in a population of 4000 people living in an area of 93 square miles. B——, the poorest township, with a population of 1000, and an area of 36 square miles, paid her health officer $28 and her poor physician $23.
"One township has 2170 inhabitants living in 51 square miles of territory, worth one and one-eighth million dollars. Its supervisor is paid $352.95 a year for a few days' work; its officers are paid $612.95. It costs $274.79 each year to elect these officers, and I understand each township is to spend about $5000 for good roads. The health officer that cares for these 2000 people over 51 miles of territory gets $42.53 a year, and the poor physician $34; while the sick-poor get helped to the munificent sum of $59.36, or two and one-half cents from each citizen. The health officers get almost exactly two cents a head for caring for the inhabitants over 51 square miles of land. The supervisor gets out of each inhabitant seventeen cents a year, the officers get thirty cents, while the sick-poor take from each citizen almost three cents. The discrepancy is too glaring to need comment. A community assessed a million dollars and probably worth two millions spends $40 a year on public health, and $60 a year on one-sixteenth of its population for sickness."
The physician proposes a county commission to take the place of the board of supervisors. He declares that the members of the board have outgrown their usefulness. "They should be junked along with other stagecoaches and a nice, new 60 h. p. county commission put in their place. The fact is that the system is wrong. Our 'government' is a survival of early times, and our science is up to date. They do not fit. You cannot expect supervisors who were useful in the time of Adam, when there were no cities, no problems, no roads, to serve in the twentieth century with its surgical treatment of degenerates, its germs and prophylactics, its preventive medicine and its scientific spirit. Supervisors could look after noxious plants and animals in the old days, and they could paper the court-house and eat fat dinners at the poor-house. They did fairly well at settling line fences, drinking sweet cider, and blarneying with insurgents. But they are out of place when it is a question of constructing roads of macadam, of building a tuberculosis hospital for an $18,000,000 county, and especially they are out of place when it is a question of dozens of defectives in the jails and thousands outside who ought to be in hospitals."
7. A community program for health[4] is much needed. The farmer lives by himself in his own house, on his own place. If a disease arises in his neighbor's family, it is not likely to spread to his family. Therefore, disease has seemed to him to be a personal rather than a neighborhood matter. There is the greatest need that the farmer possess a community sense in respect to disease and sanitary conditions. If the city is the center of enlightenment, it should help the country to get hold of this problem.
We should have a thoroughgoing system of health supervision and inspection for the open country as well as in the city. Health inspection should run out from the cities and towns into all the adjoining regions, maintaining proper connections with state departments of health. It should be continuous. It should include inspection of animals as well as of human beings. In other words, the whole region is a unit, one part depending on the other. The remarks of the physician, just quoted, indicate how great is the need of an organized health supervision for country communities.
We need meat inspection laws for meat killed and sold within the states, to supplement the inter-state law. We need community slaughter-houses in which all slaughtering of animals shall be under proper inspection. We need state milk inspection programs. It is not right that any large city should be compelled to inspect the milk throughout the state in order to protect itself. It is not right to the farming districts that such inspection should center in the city.
We must not assume that the farmer is specially guilty of sanitary faults. There are many such shortcomings in the open country, and I accept them without apology; but I can match them every one in city conditions. The fact is that the whole people has not yet risen to an appreciation of thoroughly sanitary conditions, and we cannot say that this deficiency is the special mark of any one class of our population. Persons ride along the country roads and see repulsive barn-yards, glaring manure piles, untidy back-yards, and at once make remarks about them. All these things are relegated to the rear in towns and cities and are not so visible, but they exist there.
I know that there are very filthy stables in the country districts, but I have never known worse stable conditions than I have seen in cities and towns. All progress in these directions must come slowly, and we must remember that it is expensive to rebuild and reorganize a stable. No doubt one of the reasons for the high cost of living is the demand of the people that pure-food laws shall be enacted and enforced, for this all adds to the cost of food supplies; similarly, we must expect a betterment in conditions of stabling to result in increased price of dairy products. In the cost of living we must figure the expense of having clean and pure food.
The farmer is much criticized for polluting streams; but when the farmer pollutes one stream occasionally, a city will pollute a whole system of streams continually. One of the greatest sins of society is the wholesale befoulment of streams, lakes, and water-courses. I do not see how we can expect to be called a civilized people until we have taken care of our refuse without using it to fill up ponds and lakes, and to corrupt the free water supplies of the earth.
If the countryman has been ignorant of sanitary conditions, we must remember that his ideas are largely such as he has derived from teachers, physicians, and others.
We cannot expect a man to develop within himself enough community pride and altruism to compel him to go to great expense for the benefit of the public; but he will gladly contribute his part to a public program.
8. Local factories and industries of whatever kind tend to develop community pride and effectiveness. Creameries have had a marked effect in this way in many places, giving the community or locality a reason for existence and a pride in itself that it never had before, or at least that it had not enjoyed since the passing out of the small factories. There is much need of local industries in the open country, whether they are distinctly agricultural or otherwise, not only for the purpose of providing additional employment for country people but to direct the flow of capital and enterprise into the country and to stimulate local interest of all kinds. It is not by any means essential that all the new life in country neighborhoods should be primarily agricultural.
Much has been said of late about the necessity of introducing the handicrafts in the open country in winter with the idea of providing work for farm people during that season. I do not look for any great extension of this idea in real agricultural sections, and for the following reasons: (1) because as better agriculture develops, the farms will of themselves employ their help more continuously. Modern diversified and intensive farming brings about this result. The present-day dairying employs men continuously. The fruit-grower needs help in winter for pruning and spraying. Live-stock men need help in feeding and caring for the animals. Modern floriculture and vegetable-gardening are likely to run the year round. (2) The conditions of American country life are such that skilled handicraft has not arisen amongst the rural people, and we cannot expect that it will arise. Skilled artisanship of this kind is not the growth of a generation, nor is it a result of the utilization of merely a few weeks or months of time. (3) It is very doubtful whether such handicrafts as are often mentioned could compete in the markets with the goods produced by consolidated factories, or could find a sufficient patronage of people interested in this kind of handicraft products.
I am not arguing against the introduction of handicrafts, but wish only to call attention to what I think to be an error in some of the current discussions. I am convinced that local industries of one kind or another will find their way into the open country in the next generation, and greatly to the advantage of the country itself; but the most useful of them will be regular factories able to compete with other factories. Their largest results will come not in providing employment for persons who temporarily need it, but in developing a new community life in the places where they stand.
9. The country store ought to be a factor in rural betterment. How to make it so, I do not know. The country store is the nexus between the manufacturers or the city jobbers, with their "agreements," on the one hand, and the people, on the other hand, whose commercial independence the jobbers may desire to control. The country merchant takes up the cause of the large dealer, because his own welfare is involved, and he unconsciously becomes one of the agencies through which the open country is drained and restrained. The parcels post—which must come—will probably considerably modify this establishment, although I do not look for its abolition nor desire it. Certain interests make strong opposition to the parcels post on the ground that it will ruin the country merchant and, therefore, the country town. I doubt if it will do any such thing; but even if it should, the end to be gained is not that the country merchant shall not be disturbed, but that the people at large may be benefited. No one knows just what form of readjustment the parcels post will bring about; but trade will very soon readjust itself to this condition as it has reacted to the introduction of farm machinery, good roads, the telegraph and telephone, rural free delivery.
The trader in the small town in some parts of the country is likely to own the people. He is almost necessarily opposed to coöperation and to any new movements that do not tend to enlarge his trade.
I wish we might also do something with the country hotel.
10. The business men's organizations, or chambers of commerce, in villages and country cities will not confine their activities within the city boundaries in the future. A wholly new field for usefulness and for the making of personal reputation lies right here. The business organization of one village or city should extend out into the country until it meets a similar organization from the adjoining village, and the whole region should be commercially developed (pages 122-123). A chamber of commerce could exert much influence toward making a better reputation for the pack of apples, or for other output of the region.
11. The influence of certain great corporations is likely to be felt on the rural readjustment. This is particularly true of the new interest that railroads are taking in Eastern agriculture. A coördination between railroads and farming interests will do very much for the property of both sides; and the railroads can exercise great power in tying country communities together. The Wall Street Journal comments as follows on the situation, after calling attention to the fact that the "Eastern trunk lines have already entered upon a campaign for the encouragement of agriculture":
"Thirty-six years ago the Pennsylvania state legislature made an effort to save the farmers of that state from the damaging competition of ruinously low rates on Western grain to Eastern mills and to the seaboard. The result was practically nil. Eastern farmers were left so completely out in the cold that thousands of them sold out and went West to raise more grain there, still further to handicap the Eastern producer. The widespread bankruptcy of the middle states farmers during the eighties was a consequence partly of cut-throat competition among railroads to haul Western grain to the East at less than cost, and partly the result of a general depression from which it took ten full years to recover.
"What is it that has brought the railroads to the farmers on terms of coöperation for the development of their common territory? It is the same thing which has served the railroads so admirably in the solution of their cost problems. It is science applied to reducing the expenses of transportation in the one case, and to the greater mastery of the resources of the soil in the other case. In this lies the possibility of increasing railway freight to and from rural sources. The coöperation of transportation and agriculture, in the East especially, is not wholly new, but it is highly significant.
"Nothing could be more encouraging than the service which the railroads are beginning to render in the better distribution of population over the land, by putting a premium on good farming and encouraging the young to find careers for themselves in rural industries."
12. Local institutions of all kinds must have a powerful effect in evolving a good community sense. This is true in a superlative degree of the school, the church, the fair, and the rural library. These institutions will bring into the community the best thought of the world and will use it in the development of the people in the locality.
Such institutions must do an extension work. The church, from the nature of its organization, could readily extend itself beyond its regular and essential gospel work. The high-school will hold winter-courses and will take itself out to its constituency. The library ought to occupy its whole territory (page 92).
Similarly, village improvement societies should organize country and town together, extending tree-care, better roads, lawn improvement, and other good work throughout the entire community contributory to the city. Civic societies, fraternal orders, hospital associations, business organizations (page 119), women's clubs and federations, could do the same.
13. The local rural press ought to have a powerful influence in furthering community action. Many small rural newspapers are meeting their local needs, and are to be considered among the agents that make for an improved country life. In proportion as the support of the country newspaper is provided by political organizations, hack politicians, and patent medicine advertisements, will its power as a public organ remain small and undeveloped.
14. The influence of the many kinds of extension teaching is bound to be marked. Reading-courses, itinerant lectures, the organizing of boys' and girls' clubs, demonstration farms, the inspections of dairies, orchards, and other farms, and of irrigation supplies, the organization of such educational societies as cow-testing societies, and the like, touch the very core of the rural problem. The influence of the traveling teacher is already beginning to be felt, and it will increase greatly in the immediate future. I mean by the traveling teacher the person who goes out from the agricultural college, the experiment station, the state or national department of agriculture, or other similar institutions, to impart agricultural information, and to set the people right toward their own problems.
15. The modern extension of all kinds of communication will unite the people, even though it does not result in making them move their residences. I have in mind good highways, telephones, rural free deliveries, and the like. The automobile is already beginning to have its effect in certain rural communities, but we have yet scarcely begun to develop the type of auto-vehicle which is destined, I think, to make a very great change in country affairs. The improvement of highways on a regular plan will itself tend to organize the rural districts. We must add to all this a thoroughly developed system of parcels post, not only that the farmer may receive mail, but that he may also have greater facilities and freedom to transact his business with the world (page 118).
16. Economic or business coöperation must be extended. There is much coöperation of this kind among American farmers, more than most persons are aware. Some of it is very effective, but much of it is coöperative only in name. It takes the form of milk organizations, creameries, fruit associations, poultry societies, farmers' grain elevators, unions for buying and selling, and the like, some of which are of great extent.
A really coöperating association is one in which all members take active part in government and control, and share in their just proportions in the results. It is properly a society, rather than a company. Many so-called coöperative units are really stock companies, in which a few persons control, and the remainder become patrons; and others are mere shareholding organizations.
Business coöperation in agriculture is of three kinds: (1) coöperative production; (2) coöperative buying; (3) coöperative selling. The last two are extensively practiced in many regions. Coöperative production of animals and crops is practically unknown in the rural communities in the United States, and we are not to expect it to arise in those communities to any extent under the present organization of society. Colonies organized on a coöperative basis may practice it within their membership, but it is doubtful whether persons who are well equipped to be farmers will enter such organizations for this purpose so long as it is so easy to make a financial success at independent farming.
There is a fourth form that should be mentioned, although it is not coöperation in the real sense, but rather a form of combination. I refer to movements to control the production or output of commodities, as of wheat, cotton, tobacco, maize, and arbitrarily to fix the price. This cannot be permanently accomplished with any of the great staples, and even if it could be accomplished, in my opinion it would be an economic and social error.
Very much has been said about the necessity of business coöperation among farmers, and the importance of the subject can hardly be overstated; and yet it should be understood that economic coöperation is only one of many means that may be put in operation to propel country life. The essential thing is that country life be organized: if the organization is coöperative, the results—at least theoretically—should be the best; but in one place, the most needed coöperation may be social, in another place educational, in another religious, in another political, in another sanitary, in another economic in respect to buying and selling and making loans or providing insurance. When the chief deficiency in any region is economic, then it should be met by an organization that is primarily economic. Some of the effective coöperation in the West, so often cited, is really founded on the land-selling spirit of the community.
In some parts of the United States, the financial status of the farmer is very low, but in general the economic condition is in advance of other conditions. The American farmer is prosperous,—not as prosperous as he ought to be, but so prosperous that he can conduct his own business without support or aid of his neighbors. Although he might gain financially by coöperation in any case, he nevertheless desires his complete freedom of action, even at the risk of some loss. The psychology of the American farmer is in the end the determining factor.
In other countries, this may not be so true, and particularly not when the farmers live under such a condition of peasanthood (or do not comprise a middle class) that no one of them in a community is able independently to buy his tools or his live-stock, or to secure sufficient funds to provide a small working capital, when both sales and purchases are very small, and when the entire community is practically subjugated by a political system. The big people are more likely to combine than to coöperate. Close coöperation naturally works best in a peasantry and under a paternal government; it becomes a means of bringing up the peasantry, of relieving them of oppression, and of giving them the rights that should be theirs as a part of their citizenship.
In Denmark, the coöperative movement has been one means of the salvation of the country, following the disastrous German war. The movement in some parts of the world is really a culture movement, having for a background the general good of society.
The American white farmer is not a peasant; he is not submerged in a hopeless political and economic slavery; he has his vote, his free school, his fee to hold property without let or hindrance, his full right to make the most of himself, his "rights" (pages 100 and 65). I think it will be possible for him to exercise these privileges and at the same time to share the benefits of coöperation; but coöperation is not necessary to win him these privileges. It is not the unit in his life, not the nucleus out of which all other agencies must evolve, or the leaven that will raise the lump: it is itself one coördinating part in a program of evolution. We do not have the problem of peasant proprietorship. For the most part, the American farmer has already won his economic independence, if not his just rewards.
We should not be impatient if our farmers do not organize themselves coöperatively as rapidly as we think they ought to organize.
Economic personal coöperation may be expected to thrive best in a community of small farmers. It is a question whether we shall develop the strongest leaders in a condition of more or less uniform small farms. There is much to be said in favor of rather large farming (say 500 to 1000 acres), for a business of this proportion demands a strong man. This does not mean landlordism, which is a part of a political and hereditary system, but merely large and competent business organization. Such farmers, if they are so minded, can accomplish great things for their fellows.
I am looking for some of the best results in coöperation to come from the establishment of field-laboratories and demonstration farms, to which the farmers of the locality contribute their personal funds in the expectation of an educational result. The best results to country life cannot possibly come by the government continuing to take everything to the farmer free of cost and without the asking. Disadvantaged or undeveloped regions must be aided freely, but as rapidly as any localities or industries get on their feet, they should meet the state part way, and should assume their natural share of the expense and responsibility. This form of coöperation is already well under way; and I suspect that in many localities that have been dead to all forms of coöperative effort, this idea will afford the starting-point for a new community life.
From this form of education-coöperation, it would be but a step to a neighborhood effort to introduce new crops and high-class bulls, to undertake drainage enterprises and reforestation; and to unite on business matters.
It is possible for a national organization movement to come out of the existing agricultural institutions in the United States.
We may picture to ourselves a perfectly coöperating rural society that will have all the means of its salvation within itself. Even if we accept this picture, we cannot say that the structure will rise out of one seed or starting-point, or that one phase of coöperation is of necessity primary and another final. Our theoretical structure will arise from several or many beginnings; it will be a complex of numberless units; whatever range of coöperation is found, by investigation, to be now most needed in any community, must be the one with which we are to set that community going.
17. In the end everything depends on personal gumption and guidance. It is not strange that we have lacked the kind of guidance that brings country people together, because we have not had the kind of education that produces it; and, in fact, this kind of guidance has not been so necessary in the past as it is now. A new motive in education is gradually beginning to shape itself. This must produce a new kind of outlook on country questions, and it will bring out a good many men and women who will be guides in the country as their fellows will be guides in the city. They will be captains because they will perform the common work of farming regions in an uncommon way.
I think we little realize to-day what the effect will be in twenty-five years of the young men and women that the colleges of agriculture in these days are sending into the country districts.
In conclusion, let us remember that everything that develops the common commercial, intellectual, recreative, and spiritual interests of the rural people, ties them together socially. Residing near together is only one of the means of developing a community life, and it is not now the most important one. Persons who reside close together may still be torn asunder by divergent interests and a simple lack of any tie that binds; this is notably true in many country villages.
Community of purpose and spirit is much more important than community of houses. Community pride is a good product; it produces a common mind.
It is a general complaint in the United States that there is scarcity of good labor. I have found the same complaint in parts of Europe, and Europeans lay much of the blame of it on America because their working classes migrate so much to this country; and they seem to think we must now be well supplied with labor. Labor scarcity is felt in the cities and trades, in country districts, in mines, and on the sea. It seems to be serious in regions in which there is much unemployed population. It is a real problem in the Southern states.
While farmers seem now to complain most of the labor shortage, the difficulty is not peculiarly rural. Good farmers feel it least; they have mastered this problem along with other problems. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful whether there is a real labor shortage as measured by previous periods; but it is very difficult to secure good labor on the previous terms and conditions.
The supposed short labor supply is not a temporary condition. It is one of the results of the readjustment and movement of society. A few of the immediate causes may be stated, to illustrate the nature of the situation.
(1) In a large way, the labor problem is the result of the passing out of the people from slavery and serfdom,—the rise of the working classes out of subjugation. Peoples tend always to rise out of the laboring-man phase. We would not have it otherwise if we desire social democracy.
(2) It is due in part to the great amount and variety of constructive work that is now being done in the world, with the consequent urgent call for human hands. The engineering and building trades have extended enormously. We are doing kinds of work that we had not dreamed of a half-hundred years ago.
(3) In some places the labor difficulty is due to the working-men being drawn off to other places, through the perfecting of industrial organization. The organization of labor means companionship and social attraction. Labor was formerly solitary; it is now becoming gregarious.
(4) In general, men and women go where things are "doing." Things have not been doing on the farms. There has been a gradual passing out from backward or stationary occupations into the moving occupations. Labor has felt this movement along with the rest. It has been natural and inevitable that farms should have lost their labor. Cities and great industrialism could not develop without them; and they have made the stronger bid.
(5) In farming regions, the outward movement of labor has been specially facilitated by lack of organization there, by the introduction of farm machinery, by the moving up of tenants into the class of renters and owners, by lack of continuous employment, by relatively low pay, by absence of congenial association as compared with the town. Much of the hired farm labor is the sons of farmers and of others, who "work out" only until they can purchase a farm. Some of it is derived from the class of owners who drift downward to tenants, to laboring men, and sometimes to shifters. We are now securing more or less foreign-born labor on the farms. Much of this is merely seasonal; and when it is not seasonal, the immigrant desires to become a farm owner himself. If the labor is seasonal, the man may return to his native home or to the city, and in either case he is likely to be lost to the open country.
There is really no "solution" for the labor difficulty. The problem is inherent in the economic and social situation. It may be relieved here and there by the introduction of immigrants or by transportation of laborers at certain times from the city; but the only real relief lies in the general working out of the whole economic situation. The situation will gradually correct itself; but the readjustment will come much more quickly if we understand the conditions.
As new interest arises in the open country and as additional values accrue, persons will remain in the country or will return to it; and the labor will remain or return with the rest. As the open country fills up, we probably shall develop a farm artisan class, comprised of persons who will be skilled workmen in certain lines of farming as other persons are skilled workmen in manufactures and the trades. These persons will have class pride. We now have practically no farm artisans, but solitary and more or less migratory working-men who possess no high-class manual skill. Farm labor must be able to earn as much as other labor of equal grade, and it must develop as much skill as other labor, if it is to hold its own. This means, of course, that the farming scheme may need to be reorganized (pages 86 to 90).
Specifically, the farm must provide more continuous employment if it is to hold good labor. The farmer replies that he does not have employment for the whole year; to which the answer is that the business should be so reorganized as to make it a twelve months' enterprise. The introduction of crafts and local manufactures will aid to some extent, but it cannot take care of the situation (page 115). In some way the farm laborer must be reached educationally, either by winter schools, night schools, or other means. Every farm should itself be a school to train more than one laborer. The larger part of the farm labor must be country born. With the reorganization of country life and its increased earning power, we ought to see an increase in the size of country families.
It is doubtful if city industrialism is developing the best type of working-men, considered from the point of view of society (page 59). I am glad of all organizations of men and women, whether working-men or not. But it seems to me that the emphasis in some of the organizations has been wrongly placed. It has too often been placed on rights rather than on duties. No person and no people ever developed by mere insistence on their rights. It is responsibility that develops them. The working-man owes responsibility to his employer and to society; and so long as the present organization of society continues he cannot be an effective member of society unless he has the interest of his employer constantly in mind.
The real country working-men must constitute a group quite by themselves. They cannot be organized on the basis on which some other folk are organized. There can be no rigid short-hour system on a farm. The farm laborer cannot drop his reins or leave his pitchfork in the air when the whistle blows. He must remain until his piece of work is completed; this is the natural responsibility of a farm laborer, and it is in meeting this responsibility that he is able to rise to the upper grade and to develop his usefulness as a citizen.
It is a large question whether we are to have a distinct working-class in the country as distinguished from the land-owning farmer. The old order is one of perfect democracy, in which the laboring-man is a part of the farmer's family. It is not to be expected that this condition can continue in its old form, but the probability is that there will always be a different relation between working-man and employer in the country from that which obtains in the city. The relation will be more direct and personal. The employer will always feel his sense of obligation and responsibility to the man whom he employs and to the man's family. Persons do not starve to death in the open country.
Some persons think that the farming of the future is still to be performed on the family-plan, by which all members of the family perform the labor, and whatever incidental help is employed will become for the time a part of the family. This will probably continue to be the rule. But we must face the fact, however, that a necessary result of the organization of country life and the specialization of its industries, that is now so much urged, will be the production of a laboring class by itself.
It is doubtful whether we shall extend the industrial organization of labor to the open country, and yet there should be some way of administering farm labor. The growth of the tendency to coördinate farming industries, in order to overcome the disastrous effects of much of the competitive farming, will allow for supervision of labor, however, and will make for efficiency. The standardizing of agricultural practice will also do much to produce the community mind that is so much desired (p. 97). On this line, Dean H. E. Cook, who has given much thought to labor questions, writes me as follows:
"The production of iron, paper, and manufactured products generally has been standardized, and the cost laid down in the market is well known, and therefore placed squarely on a cash basis. Directly the opposite is the case in the manufacture of farm crops, and so we find the family to be the farm crop-producers. The wife and the children are a part of the working force of the farm, which is not found in any other industry. In fact, our laws are very rigid in preventing the employment of women and children in nearly every class of work, except on the farm. We find no provision by statute or moral sentiment which says that the farmer must not employ his eight- or ten-year-old boy, as is very often the case, in most laborious tasks. This state of affairs is not the desire of the farmer, but has become a necessity because of the very low prices for his products, occasioned by the intense competition of the rapidly extending area. Our government has taken every means within its grasp to populate these large areas of cheap rich land. Of course it meant wealth to the nation, but it meant poverty to those who had established homes and investments in the older sections.
"Our methods, unlike other manufacturers and producers, are not standardized. That is, we find in every community persons having each his own conception of soil-handling, crop-growing, and marketing. In a single locality can be found an endless variety of corn, as an illustration. Especially is this true in the East. Surely corn growing fourteen feet high and corn growing six feet high are not calculated to bring the same results. The farmers themselves are unlike. I suppose we are distantly removed from the time when we shall have a uniform type of men and women bred for the farm. It seems to me that methods which would unify or standardize our practices and prices—within certain limitations, to be sure—would tend to unify the tendencies and the type of the people.
"In our present state of undevelopment or adjustment, I do not think it is possible profitably to pursue the production of crops with employed labor, such as we find in our manufacturing establishments; and it may be debatable whether that plan would be an improvement, so far as the social life is concerned, over the present family-plan, although I firmly believe that the time is approaching when the profits of the business will warrant a cash payment for everything done on the farm. As a connecting link between the family-plan and the future cash-plan, it seems to me we ought to take on in each neighborhood the same methods of supervision that are now employed in the factories. One man of skill and adaptability supervises the work of many. In agriculture we have but one illustration of this principle, namely, our butter and cheese factories, where one man has in charge the manufacturing of the milk of many. I think we could profitably use a similar agency in trucking, soil-handling, crop-growing, animal-feeding, and general farm-management. Furthermore, we are more in need, as the writer sees it, of this standardizing or coöperation in farm-management, than we are in the manufacture of milk products. This plan would use the family as a unit of labor on the farm, with the attendant light risk, or no risk at all; and in case of failure of crops of having to pay cash for the labor.
"The cow-test association is a part of this general plan of local supervision. I can foresee how there may come out of this cow-test movement, a growth which will mean just what I have tried to outline. The man who does nothing now but the testing of the milk from each cow may develop into an expert who will give advice on soils, crops, cow-feeding, and other things (page 123).
"When the communities around certain natural centers, as the cheese factories or creameries in dairy sections, perhaps a small hamlet in trucking sections, have become thoroughly organized or, more properly speaking, standardized, we shall find it comparatively easy to bring a number of these local units together, because the individuals who form a part of the movement have learned the true principles underlying coöperation. Until these local units are worked out, in my opinion we shall never be able to form any great coöperative movement which will not break of its own weight, because of a lack of annealing processes."
"How may I secure labor?" is probably the most persistent question now asked by farmers; but it is a question that cannot be answered, any more than one may tell another what crops he shall grow, what markets he shall find, or what manner of house he shall build. This is one of the great problems of farming, as it is of engineering, of the building trades, and of factories. Each farmer must work it out for himself, as he works out the problem of fertility and machinery. He must work far ahead, and consider it as a part of all his plans.
In many or most cases, it resolves itself into a question of personality,—of making a place that is worth while to a good man and then of the farmer interesting himself in the man. One can now hardly expect to secure labor on demand for brief periods, for the scheme of things is more and more in the direction of continuous employment; and the old range of prices cannot hold. If the farmer's scale of business is small and operates only for a part of a year, he cannot expect to secure the best and most reliable help.
The farmer will find increasing aid from public labor-distributing bureaus, for these agencies must extend with the extension of population and the complexity of industry. In time, the state and nation will provide competent machinery for placing working-men where they can best serve themselves and society, thus relieving both employer and employed from much waste of effort. As farm labor is not a separate difficulty, the problem will tend to better and better solution along with the rest. If the distributing agencies are not now wholly satisfactory, the farmer must recognize that they are only beginning, and that he should coöperate with them. The problem of utilizing the immigrant, for example, is one of distribution; but distribution is really not accomplished merely by sending a certain number of immigrants to a certain number of places,—immigrant and employer must find the situation to be mutually satisfactory.
Any effort which assumes that labor must necessarily come to the old-type farm, is only temporary. The farm must readjust itself to meet the labor problem. In the meantime, through the labor bureaus, by looking long ahead, by organizing a labor club in the community, by some person acting as a labor agent and supplying farmers as they need, by trying to make a year-round activity in the neighborhood, the situation may be met more or less.
To make farming profitable is no longer a question merely of raising more produce. We have passed that point. We now have knowledge and experience enough to enable us greatly to increase our yields, if only we put the knowledge into practice.
But the farmer, speaking broadly, does not get his share of the proceeds of his labor, notwithstanding the increase in the price of farm products. A few farmers here and there, producing a superior article and favored by location or otherwise, can be quite independent of marketing systems; but the larger number of farmers never can be so situated, and they must grow the staples, and they are now at the mercy of many intermediaries. The farmer's risks, to say nothing of his investment and his labor, are not sufficiently taken into account in our scheme of business,—risks of bad years, storm, frost, flood, disease to stock and crop, and many things over which he has practically no control.
A merchant in a small city may want as much as twenty per cent commission to sell produce, and then retain the privilege of returning to the grower all the product that spoils on his hands or that he is unable to sell; he invests little capital, takes no risk, and makes more than the man who buys his land, prepares the crop months in advance, and assumes every risk from seed-time to dinner-table. I am citing this case not to say that it is a subject for public control nor even to assert that the merchant's commission is intrinsically too great, but only to illustrate the disadvantage in which the farmer often finds himself; and the farmer may even have no escape from this disadvantage, for all the merchants within his market region may agree to sell his produce only on such terms, and he may be obliged to accept these terms or not to sell his wares.
The manufacturer knows the cost of his products and charges his price. The farmer usually does not know the cost, and in general he makes no selling price; the prices of his staple produce are made for him.
That the producer does not secure his proportionate share of the selling price in many products is a matter of the commonest knowledge, and much study has been made of the question. If the question is put in another way, the consumer pays too great a margin, in great numbers of cases, over the cost of production. The following press item, coming to my hand as I write, is an example (given for what it is worth), although not extreme: "The government of New York, and not the government in Washington, is where the people of this city must look, if they expect to see reduction in living expenses. A bushel of beans, for which the producer in Florida receives $2.25, with the transportation 50 cents for the 800-mile haul, should not cost the New York consumer $6.40 a bushel. The producer receives 35 per cent of the final price, the transporter 8 per cent, and the dealers 57 per cent. This is not a fair division. The problem is not one of trusts, tariffs, and other Washington matters, but simply one of providing straight and cheap ways open from all gardens and farms to kitchens and tables."
The poorer the country or the less forehanded the people, the harder is the pinch of the usurer and the trader, and all the machinery of trade is likely to be manipulated against the defenseless man who stands stolidly between the handles of the plow.
Of course, such conditions do not obtain with all products. In some of the great staples, as wheat, the cost of transportation and commissions is often reduced by competition and scientific handling to probably its lowest terms. But that there are abuses and extortions, and remediable conditions, in the middleman system—by which I mean collectively all traders between producer and consumer—no one will attempt to deny. The farmer cannot rise to his proper place until the stones are taken off his back.
The abuses must be checked and discriminations removed, whether in the middleman trade itself, rates of express companies and other carriers, or stock-market gambling. The middleman system has had a free field to play in, the wealth of the country to handle; it has exercised its license, and in too many cases it has become parasitic, either protected by law and custom or unreachable by law or custom. It is a shame that our economic machinery is not capable of handling the situation.
It is customary just now to attribute the high cost of living to lessened production due to a supposed decline of agriculture, and to advise, therefore, that more persons engage in farming for the purpose of increasing the product. This position is met by an editorial of the New York Tribune, which holds that intermediary trading combinations are responsible:
"It is true that the raising of cattle for the market has almost ceased in the East and that agriculture generally has not kept pace with the demand for food products. Yet it is hard to believe that agriculture in any part of the Union would steadily decline in the face of an enormous appreciation of the cost to the consumer of all farm products, were there not some powerful disturbing factor operating to deny the farmer the benefits of that appreciation. If the Eastern farmer could have reaped a legitimate share of the increase in the price of farm produce which has taken place in the last twenty years, he would certainly be in position to command all the labor he needs and to develop resources now neglected because it does not pay to develop them. Under normal conditions economic law would certainly drive labor and energy into a field of production in which there had been the greatest relative expansion in the selling price of products.
"Yet economic law has not operated to stimulate agriculture, because the returns from steadily mounting prices have not really reached the producer. Thirty years ago the fattening of steers for the local markets was common in the East. But when the vast Western ranges were opened, and the great packing houses were established, the cheapness of range beef, refrigerated and delivered in Eastern cities, was used as a weapon to kill off the cattle industry of the East. When the Eastern cattleman was driven out of business, the price of beef rose, but virtually all the increase has gone to the packing combinations, which fix their own price to the Western range man and their own price to the consumer and artificially control the supply so as to discourage increased production in the West and to prevent a revival of production in the East. The country is growing in population at the rate of twenty to twenty-five per cent each decade. But Secretary Wilson has shown that the supply of food animals is not being maintained in proportion to population. In the last decade cattle have remained about stationary in numbers, swine are actually decreasing, and, while more sheep are available, the supply has diminished relatively to population.
"It can hardly be contended that with steadily diminishing supplies and steadily increasing prices the law of supply and demand would not work out a new balance, stimulating production through easy profits, were there no artificial interception of the producer's normal share of the advance in price. Were there a free market for the Eastern raiser of stock, milk, and food products generally, with the middleman's commissions properly restricted, Eastern farming would probably be profitable enough to hold its own against manufacturing and to compete successfully with the manufacturer for labor."
Of course, it is necessary to teach every farmer how to grow more crops, for this is his business, and it also enlarges his personal ambition and extends his power and responsibility; but merely to grow the crops will not avail,—this is only the beginning of the problem: the products must be distributed and marketed in such a way that the one who expends the effort to produce them shall receive enough of the return to identify him with the effort. Thereafter, social and moral results will follow.
I recognize the service of the middleman to society. I know that the distributor and trader are producers of wealth as well as those who raise the raw materials; but this is no justification for abuses. I know that there are hosts of perfectly honest and dependable middlemen. We do not yet know whether the existing system of intermediary distributors and sellers is necessary to future society, but we do not see any other practicable way at present. In special cases, the farmer may reach his own customer; but this condition, as I have suggested, is so small in proportion to the whole number of farmers as not greatly to affect the general situation. We do not yet see any way whereby all farmers can be so organized as to enable them to control all their own marketing. Therefore, we must recognize middleman-practice as legitimate.
But even though we yet see no way of general escape from the system, we ought to provide some means of regulating its operation. The present method of placing agricultural produce in the hands of the consumer is for the most part indirect and wasteful. Probably in the majority of cases of dissatisfaction, the person whom we call the middleman does not receive any exorbitant profit, but the cost of the commodities is piled up by a long and circuitous system of intermediate tolls and commissions.
It is commonly advised that farmers "unite" or "organize" to correct middleman and transportation abuses, but these troubles cannot be solved by any combination of farmers, because this is not an agricultural question. It is as much a problem for consumers as for producers. It is a part of the civilization of our day, completely woven into the fabric of our economic system. The farmer may feel its hardship first because he must bear it, while the consumer, to meet higher prices, demands more pay of his employer or takes another stitch out of somebody else. But it is essentially a problem for all society to solve, not for farmers alone, particularly when it operates on a continental basis. This also indicates the futility of the arbitrary control of prices of the great staples by combinations of farmers (page 126).
Of course, temporary or local relief may be secured by organizations of producers here and there, or of consumers here and there (probably consumers can attack the problem more effectively than producers), and by the establishment of public markets; but no organization can permanently handle the question unless the organization is all the people.
The present agitations against middleman practices and stock-market gambling ought to compel Congress to pass laws to correct the evils that are correctable by law, and the organizations then should keep such touch on the situation that the laws will be enforced.
It has been suggested that the superabundant middlemen go into farming; but no one can compel them to go to farming, and they might not be successful farmers if they should attack the business, and the farming country might not need them or profit by them,—for it is not demonstrated that we need more farmers, although it is apparent that we need better farmers.
It is the business of any government to protect its people. Governments have protected their countries from invasion and war, but the greatest office of government in modern times is to develop its own people and the internal resources of its realm. We are beginning to protect the people from the over-lording of railroads, from unfair combinations in trade, and from the tyranny of organized politicians. It is just as much the business of government to protect its people from dishonest and tyrannous middlemen lying beyond the practical reach of individuals. The situation has arisen because of lack of control; there is no conspiracy against the farmer.
It is said that competition will in the end correct the middleman evil, but competition does not correct it; and competition alone, under the present structure of society, will not correct it in most cases because "agreements" between traders restrict or remove competition: the situation does not have within itself the remedies for its own ills.
When we finally eliminate combinations in restraint of trade, the middleman abuses may be in the process of passing out. It is to check dishonesty on the one hand and to allow real competition on the other that I am now making suggestions.
I have no suggestion to make as to the nature of the laws themselves. There are many diverse situations to be met; and I intentionally do not make my remarks specific. Of course, any law that really attempts to reach the case must recognize the middleman as exercising a public or semi-public function, and that, as such, he is amenable to control, even beyond the point of mere personal honesty. The licensing of middlemen (a practice that might be carried much further, and which is a first step in reform) recognizes this status; and if it is competent for government to license a middleman, it is also competent for it to exercise some oversight over him. It is not necessary that government declare an agency a monopoly in order to regulate it. Commercial situations that unmistakably involve service to the public are proper for governmental control in greater or lesser degree. The supervision of weights and measures is a good beginning in the regulation of middleman trading.
But the enactment of laws, even of good laws, is only another step in the solution. A law does not operate itself, and the common man cannot resort to courts of law to secure justice in such cases as these. There must be a continuing process of government with which to work out the reform and to adjust each case on its merits. Whatever the merits of the laws, their success lies in the continuing application of them to specific cases by persons whose business it is to discern the facts rather than to prove a case.
There are three steps in the control of the middleman: (1) an aroused public conscience on the question; (2) good fundamental laws for interstate phases and similar state laws for local phases; (3) good commissions or other agencies or bodies to which any producer or consumer or middleman may take his case, and which may exercise regulatory functions. The interstate commerce commission has jurisdiction over so much of the problem as relates to the service and rates of common carriers; no doubt, its powers could be extended to other interstate phases. Perhaps departments of agriculture, in states in which public service commissions have not been established, could be given sufficient scope to handle some of the questions.
Of course, some of the middlemen and associated traders will contend that all this interferes with business and with private rights, but no man has a private right to oppress or defraud another or to deprive him of his proper rewards; and we must correct a faulty economic system. There is little danger that the legitimate business of any honest middleman will be interfered with.
I know that commissions and similar bodies have not always been wholly successful. This is because we have not yet had experience enough, have not consciously trained our people for this kind of work, and have not been able to make water-tight laws. Neither do older systems now prove to be adequate. New economic conditions must bring new methods of regulation and control.
I have no desire that society (or government) engage in the middleman business or that it take over private enterprise; but no government can expect to throw back on the producer the responsibility of controlling the middleman. I look for the present agitation to awaken government to the necessity of doing what it is plainly its duty to do. In future, a government that will not protect its people in those cases in which the people, acting to the best of their individual and coöperating capacity, cannot protect themselves, will be known as either a bad government or an undeveloped government.