Statement showing higher land values in manufacturing counties. FIRST GROUP. Variation by States and Groups. These States aggregate the value of $5,336,465,954 in products of manufactures, the grand aggregate in 1880 being $5,369,579,191 for all the States and Territories of the United States. Now the eighteen States and one Territory in the group which has the least manufactures, produce a value of $676,427,860, or 12.6 per cent of the total for the United States, a fraction of 1 per cent for each State. These may well be considered The third group includes four States, also essentially agricultural - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and California-in which there is a quite general determination not to remain in the category of one-idea communities in industrial development. They have $391,585,577 in manufacturing production, or 7.3 per cent of the grand aggregate for the whole country. The second group is rounding into symmetry in industry and realizing the benefits farm products, and rapid increase in wealth | any other, which make more than half the and culture. This class includes the States industrial production of the United States, north of the Ohio River-Ohio, Michigan, worth $3,021,405,831, or 56.3 of all. These Indiana, and Illinois-and also Northern are found in Southern New England and the New England. These seven States return a Middle States, and may properly be grouped production of $1,247,046,686, which is 23.2 together. per cent of the whole. These may be deemed industrial as well as agricultural. But there are seven other States in which the industries are more equally balanced than They include all manufacturing production except six-tenths of one per cent, scattered through two States and nine Territories. The tabulation by States is as follows: Aggregate value of products of agriculture by States, acres of land in farms, and value of farm lands, by States and groups of States. PART VII. The Farmer's Income - Values of Farm Products Enhanced by Increase of nonAgricultural Workers-Comparative Tables. In the last part it has been shown that the higher the proportion of non-agricultural population, the greater the value of the land to its owner. We shall now find from the same authority, in following tabulations compiled in his December, 1883, report, from the census of 1880, that in the cultivation of the soil, the farmer, even though he be not the land-owner, obtains an annual product of higher value where the proportion of nonagricultural workers is greater than that of agricultural workers. Comparison by States. First class.... Third class... Fourth class.... States and Territories with less than 30 per cent of their total workers engaged in agriculture. 2d Class- States and Territories with 30 and less than 50 per cent of total workers engaged in agriculture. 3d Class-States with 50 and less than 70 per cent of total workers engaged in States with over 70 per cent of total workers engaged in agriculture. STATES. ..... Arkansas Full acceptance of the truth that increase of non Two or In commenting on the latter table, Statis-ness of the productive system, and as a forceful illus. tician Dodge makes some remarks which the tration of the solidarity of the industries. South would do well to heed. "In the agricultural workers enhances values in agriculture, almost exclusively agricultural States," says as proven by this grouping of facts, has been nearly he, "the range of income per man is quite universal. three objections have been uniform, from $140 in South Carolina to obscurely hinted, and may be easily answered. If it should be objected that production on high$202 in Arkansas, the average of all being priced lands requires expenditure for labor, let us be $160. It may be claimed that labor, from thankful that the laborer shares the advantage of the climatic or race considerations, is less effi- farmer, and that higher values of products admit of cient than in other States, but it is evident cost money and reduce profits, it should be rememhigher wages of labor. If it be said that fertilizers from the small areas planted, except in bered that some States which use the largest proporcotton and corn, and the small products tion of fertilizers are in the list of lowest incomes, and gathered, that the lack of diversity in indus- exclusively agricultural districts. It may be said that try, and even of variety in agriculture, is the States of large incomes have the largest expenditure for agricultural implements. The difference is a dwarfing the magnificent productive re-trivial one, and yet it is one of the evidences of thrift sources of this great belt of States. The and progress, and one of the means of enlarged prowisest and brightest of these farmers have duction. All of these aids to production are abundant reiterated this sentiment for a generation, scarce in those where a worker produces less than in thriving and prosperous districts, and ominously and many are acting on it; but the reflex $200 per annum, or else absent altogether. There is influence of manufactures and mining would no money for hired labor, for fertilizers or farm imaccomplish more for agriculture than the plements, in many a district exclusively agricultural. But suppose some objector should cap the climax most persistent direct efforts for the im- of absurdity by hinting that the interest on $40, or provement of agriculture." $2.40 per acre, is too great a burden to be borne in comparison with 30 cents on land worth $5 per acre. The small boy of the farm would say at once that his father and grandfather had always lived on it and paid ne interest, but that the value it represented had accrued under their good management and the stimulous of diversified industry about them. He would say that 160 acres and the stock upon it would command $10,000 at any time, while the owner of the $5 land could not get $2,000. One has had comfort and culture, and the other deprivation - facts which tell the story of superior profit with a clearness that no sophistry can obscure. In his report of February, 1884, Mr. Dodge makes the following comments touching the farmer's income: The fact that the group of States where industry is most diversified (those having only 18 per cent of all workers engaged in agriculture) afford $457 per annum to each one, while the agricultural States, having 77 per cent in agriculture, allow an annual income of only $160, is too significant to be explained away, too convincing for pretence of cavil. It stands PART VII. The Farmer's Income - Values of Farm Products Enhanced by Increase of nonAgricultural Workers — Comparative Tables. In the last part it has been shown that the higher the proportion of non-agricultural population, the greater the value of the land to its owner. We shall now find from the same authority, in following tabulations compiled in his December, 1883, report, from the census of 1880, that in the cultivation of the soil, the farmer, even though he be not the land-owner, obtains an annual product of higher value where the proportion of nonagricultural workers is greater than that of agricultural workers. States and Territories with less than 30 per cent of their total workers engaged in agriculture. 2d Class-States and Territories with 30 and less than 50 per cent of total workers engaged in agriculture. |