by borrowing money to do ditching, as well as to build gravel roads where gravel is to be had. There would be no cause for serious apprehension if the interest rate went up to eight or even nine per cent. This would bring back to Chicago the loan agents who have gone to Indianapolis, or to points further west or northwest. If Indiana farmers have found it profitable to borrow money to build roads and put in ditches, surely those of Illinois, with a superior soil, can be running no risk.

The old West has little to fear from reckless methods of loaning; and if the new West can be saved from being thus brought into disrepute, the outlook is encouraging alike for both sections. The movement to help the distressed mortgagor by taxing mortgages is uncalled for as well as unwise. The burden of such a tax would fall ultimately on the borrower, this result being attained either through a rise in the rate of interest or through direct contract, the mortgagor binding himself to the mortgagee to pay the tax levied on the mortgage. Oregon passed a law taxing mortgages, but it was soon discovered that the lenders made the borrowers carry the burden.

The number of foreclosures rather than the number of mortgages furnishes the best basis on which to ground a judgment whether farmers are becoming embarrassed. But even foreclosures, within a moderate limit, work beneficially in so far as they weed out shiftless farmers. A mortgage foreclosure may be reckoned as equivalent to a failure in farming. The percentage of such failures is much less than that of the business world. Against the 43,079 mortgaged farms reported by the Michigan bureau (1888) there are only 1667 foreclosures. Of this number it is fair to infer that many were against parties who mortgaged their land and put the money into business

ventures.

The Nebraska labor-bureau report (1887-88) contains a chapter (page 205) on the causes of the farmers' failures, based upon the answers obtained from farmers to inquiries addressed to them by the bureau. Among the evils repeatedly mentioned is the acquisition of more land than can be properly cultivated. That is to say, the opinion prevails among farmers themselves

that the most favorable conditions of success are those of the small farmer, whose fields are of such a size that he can carefully till them.

A classified enumeration of the reports gives the following results:

6

88 reply Too high rates of interest.1 76 reply: Too high rates of freight. 55 reply: Carelessness about going into debt.3 51 reply: Buying too much machinery.* 50 reply: Low price of produce. 49 reply: Poor crops. 49 reply: Monopolies. 35 reply: Mismanagement. 32 reply: Living beyond income. 28 reply: Too much loafing. 21 reply: No organization. 19 reply: High taxes. 19 reply: Do not take care of machinery. 18 reply: Loss of stock. 16 reply: Too much drinking. 12 reply: High price of fuel. 11 reply: High price of lumber.8 10 reply: Too many mortgages. 7 reply: Overproduction.

These farmers, speaking of their own business, certainly speak with knowledge; and they seem also to have spoken with candor. It will be noticed that "high rates of interest" heads the list. It is well to bear in mind that this is not farm-mortgage interest (which ranges from six to eight per cent), but interest drawn by short time loans obtained of banks or individuals. The amount of indebtedness which the farmers

1 "Borrowing money on chattel security, and then paying two and three per cent a month." (Page 210.)

2 "The government should take steps towards establishing a special rate on lumber and coal to Nebraska." (Page 207.)

3 "Going in debt for a great many things that could be done without, and depending on the next crop to pay for them; then, if the crop fails, they have to borrow money at a high rate of interest, and once in debt it takes a long time to get out. Some never do without selling their farms." (Page 214.)

4" Paying a large interest on machinery bought on time, and then letting it stand in the field and rot." (Page 214.)

5 "What we want is anything to lessen freight rates and give us a better market." (Page 215.)

6 46 Drought is a serious cause of failure, causing short crops, necessitating the running in debt perhaps at the banks with interest at two per cent a month, which soon swamps the farmer." (Page 207.)

7 "A majority of the farmers are poor when they begin their work, and have to borrow money at a high rate of interest in order to get a start in the manner they imagine they should begin." (Page 209.)

“Lumber is one of the main wants in this country for the protection of our stock industry; and the price is so high that we cannot afford to purchase the amount necessary to shelter our stock." (Page 207.)

throughout the West are thus carrying in addition to the land mortgages is very great. The drain of this indebtedness upon the resources of the people, at two and three per cent interest per month, is so heavy that, comparatively considered, it is a privilege and a blessing to pay the land-mortgage interest. That farmers attribute little of their misfortunes to the latter is evident from the small number (ten) who reply: "Too many mortgages."

Whatever may be the ground for ominous predictions in regard to the future of the workingman in trades and manufactures, the outlook for the small farmer is most encouraging. His day is rapidly approaching. He can now easily cultivate twice as much land as he could twenty-five years ago. Being his own employer, he reaps the benefit of every improvement made in implements and machinery. He does not, like many factory wage-workers, regard the mechanical progress of the age as detrimental to his interests. He has no fears such as haunt those who apprehend being made slaves to vast manufacturing corporations. Nor has he any fear that a monopoly of production will drive him from the field. Nature is his best friend. The shoe manufacturer may double his force and run extra hours summer and winter, thus throwing on the market double the usual stock. Nature in its rotation of seasons compels an entire suspension of agricultural operations every winter. She says: "One crop a year and then a long rest." Thus she co-operates in promoting the small farmer's interests. He knows that the capitalist farmer cannot, by doubling his working force or by spending any amount of money for improved machinery, so push his crops that he may have two in one season. When his day's work is accomplished, the small farmer can lie down and sleep contentedly, knowing that, if he has done his duty in cultivating his fields, the growth of his crops will keep pace with that of the richest landholder.

Probably the most encouraging outlook for the small farmer lies in the growing tendency to emphasize the importance of close farming. Those who study most carefully the progress of agriculture in the United States, tell us that one of its most

alarming features is the steady degeneration of the soil. In New York the wheat crop went down in twenty years from thirteen bushels per acre to ten bushels. Sweeping around southward through the states as far as Texas and then northward, one meets with the same decline, though not always to a uniform extent. Ultimately soil deterioration will be to the small farmer's gain, for the day is coming when the conviction will generally prevail that close farming gives the best profits. President Smart of Perdue university says:

Close farming will never be done under the landlord and tenant system. The best results will be secured by small owners who, with their sons and daughters, have an interest in the soil and a taste for the business.

Besides the advantage in prospect for the small farmer from the reaction against soil degeneracy, it is necessary to note also, if we would have a full survey of his economic environment, a manifest reaction against moral degeneracy. It will be sufficient to cite a piece of evidence which comes from Washington county, Georgia. During three years of license, the number of small farmers among the colored people stood each year 5,886, 6,001 and 6,046 respectively. One year ago the county voted "no license." The report just made is that the number of small farmers (colored) has been nearly doubled, going up at one bound to 11,690.

Evidently the enemy most dangerous to the prosperity of the small farmer, white or black, is not the mortgage.

W. F. MAPPIN.

Ν

THE GUILFORD MILLER CASE AND THE

RAILROAD INDEMNITY LANDS.

IN many of the land grants made by Congress to railroads —

the grand aggregate of which amounts to about 155,000,000 acres - we find so-called "indemnity provisions." Some of the larger grants contain no such provisions, but the two largest of all and most of the minor grants contain them. These indemnity provisions designate, in addition to the land grant, so-called "indemnity belts," and allow the companies, if any of the granted lands prove unavailable under the terms of the grant, to select from the indemnity belt enough land to make good the deficiency. In many of the grants the indemnity belt is fifty per cent wider than the granted belt; in other words, for a thousand acres of grant there are fifteen hundred acres of indemnity lands.

As regards the conditions under which indemnity may be claimed, the later granting acts are much more liberal than the earlier ones. In the grants in aid of railroad construction to the states of Arkansas and Missouri in 1853, to Michigan in 1856, to Wisconsin in 1856, to Iowa in 1856 and to Minnesota in 1857, the only deficiencies for which indemnity was promised were those resulting from sales or the attachment of preemption rights to the granted lands. But the grant to Wisconsin in 1864 promised to make good losses of lands sold, reserved or otherwise disposed of; the grant to Iowa in 1864 promised indemnity for any granted lands sold, pre-empted and reserved for any purpose whatsoever; the grant to Minnesota in 1864 promised indemnity for granted lands sold, appropriated, reserved or otherwise disposed of, or to which pre-emption rights had attached.

The railroad companies were expected to build their roads with all possible expedition, to ascertain whether any of the granted lands were unavailable under the terms of the grant