Sec. 15. Population and militarism. In view of the recrudescence of the spirit of armed national aggression evident of late, and especially in the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the military aspect of the population question deserves serious consideration. The growth of savage and barbarian tribes in numbers, so that their customary standards of living were threatened, frequently has led to the invasion and conquest of their richer neighbors.[18] To-day nations on a higher plane of living are probably repeating history. The nation with an expanding population is tempted to seek an outlet for its numbers and for its products by entering upon a policy of commercial expansion, which in turn has to be supported by stronger military and naval establishments. It is led by primitive impulses that to it carry their own moral justification, to possess the territory of its neighbors. The immediate occasion is probably some matter of internal politics, such as growing discontent and democratic sentiment among the people. Nations with slowly growing populations, and still possessed of ample territories to maintain their accustomed standards of life, naturally favor the status quo, and are pacifist or nonmilitarist. If they arm it is for their own safety. In this view, militarism is seen to consist not in having drilled soldiers and stores of munitions, but in the national state of mind that would use these for aggression, not merely for defense. When, therefore, a powerful nation has reached a certain stage in the relation of its population to resources, limitation of population not limitation of armaments is the real pacifism; and increase of population, not increased military training or a larger navy, is the real militarism.

Sec. 16. Problem of maximum military power. It is a grave question, however, whether a nation with a comparatively sparse population, high wages, and great wealth can safely limit that population in the presence of a capable, ambitious, and efficient rival that covets such opportunities. On the one hand, a population may be so sparse that it has not soldiers enough to defend its territory against a numerous enemy; on the other hand, it may be so dense, and consequently average incomes be so low, that it cannot properly train, arm, and support its population of military age. The recent developments in the art of warfare call for great use of the mechanical industries, for great power to endure taxation, and for great financial resources, conditions found only where the average of national income is high. The point of maximum military power must be far short of the maximum possible population. It would seem that a nation of 100,000,000 inhabitants favorably situated to resist aggression, well supplied with the natural materials for munitions, and well equipped to produce them, might safely limit its numbers so as to ensure a high level of popular income. This safety would be greatly increased by permanent alliance with other peoples likewise limiting their numbers and, therefore, interested in maintaining the peace of the world. In this way it would be possible for them all to maintain a standard of popular well-being even higher than is fully consistent with the maximum military power, even in the presence of prolific and aggressive rival nations.

[Footnote 1: Even more important than these is the relative decrease of the successful strains of the population, briefly treated in Vol. I, ch. 33. This is the problem of eugenics, the choice and biologic breeding of capable men to be the citizens of the nation, and broadly understood, it includes both the negro and the immigrant problems.]

[Footnote 2: See Vol. I, p. 430, figure 58, showing the fall in the decennial rate of increase of negroes compared with whites; and see comment in accompanying note.]

[Footnote 3: See above, ch. 20, sec. 11, and references in note.]

[Footnote 4: See below, sec. 12.]

[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, p. 221, on non-competing classes.]

[Footnote 6: The latest and best statement is that of H.P. Fairchild, "Immigration," pp. 215-225, citing various opinions, and accepting the view of Walker. But he says (p. 216): "It must be admitted that this is not a proposition which can be demonstrated in an absolutely mathematical way, which will leave no further ground for argument."]

[Footnote 7: See Vol. I, p. 429, for figures of population and of decennial rates of increase.]

[Footnote 8: The effect of the growth of cities is discussed in the "American Journal of Sociology," Vol. 18, p. 342, in an article on "Walker's Theory of Immigration," by E.A. Goldenweiser.]

[Footnote 9: See Vol. I, p. 420.]

[Footnote 10: See Vol. I, chs. 34 and 35.]

[Footnote 11: E.g., see above ch. 14, sec. 11 on the prodigal land policy.]

[Footnote 12: See Vol. I, p. 436 ff.]

[Footnote 13: See Vol. I, ch. 36, on machinery and wages.]

[Footnote 14: For analysis of the available statistics bearing on the subject, with conclusions that real wages are no longer rising, see H.P. Fairchild, in "American Economic Review" (March, 1916), "The standard of living-up or down?"]

[Footnote 15: Peter Roberts, in "The New Immigration," 1912, preface, p. viii, and p. 47.]

[Footnote 16: See above, sec. 7; also ch. 21, sec. 9.]

[Footnote 17: See above, sec. 2, note; also Vol. I, p. 422.]

[Footnote 18: See Vol. I, p, 412, on war and the pressure of population.]



PART VI

PROBLEMS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION



CHAPTER 25

AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL POPULATION

Sec. 1. Agriculture and farms in the United States. Sec. 2. Rural and agricultural. Sec. 3. Lack of a social agricultural policy in America. Sec. 4. Period of decaying agricultural prosperity. Sec. 5. Sociological effects of agricultural decay. Sec. 6. Fewer, relatively, occupied in agriculture; use of machinery. Sec. 7. Transfer of work from farm to factory. Sec. 8. The rural exodus. Sec. 9. The farmer's income in monetary terms. Sec. 10. Compensations of the farmer's life. Sec. 11. Ownership and tenancy.

Sec. 1. Agriculture and farms in the United States. There were nearly 12,400,000 persons in the United States gainfully occupied in agriculture in 1910, this being 32.5 per cent of all in occupations. These, together with other family members not reported as engaged in gainful occupations, constitute the agricultural population, and comprize more than one third of the total population of the country. "Agriculture" is here used in a broad sense, including floriculture, animal husbandry (poultry, bee culture, stock raising), regular fishing and oystering, forestry and lumbering. Agriculture thus produces not only the food but (excepting minerals, including coal, stone, natural gas, and oil) the raw or partly finished materials for all the manufacturing and mechanical industries.

With the exception of areas devoted to forestry on a large scale and to fishing, the industry of agriculture is pursued on the 6,400,000 farms, covering 46 per cent of the total land area of the country. Of the land in farms, a little over half is classified as improved. The estimated value of farm property, including buildings, implements, machinery, and live stock, was, in 1910, about $41,000,000,000, somewhere near one fourth of the estimated wealth of the country at that date.[1]

Sec. 2. Rural and agricultural. The adjectives rural and agricultural are often used loosely as synonyms. Agricultural refers primarily to the occupation of cultivating the soil, and is properly contrasted with other occupations, as mechanical and professional; whereas rural refers to place of residence outside of incorporated places of a specified minimum population (of late, 2500), and is properly contrasted with urban, applied to those living in larger population groupings. In 1910 the rural population comprised 53.7 per cent of the total population. It is true that the two groups of the agricultural and the rural populations are largely composed of the same persons, but to a considerable extent they are not. Many farm houses, together with part or all of the farm lands, lie inside urban boundaries, and, besides, some persons engaged in agriculture reside in urban places. On the other hand, any one acquainted in the least with a rural district (in the statistical sense) can at once think of many persons living there that are not engaged in agriculture; they may be merchants, warehousemen, railway employees, physicians, handicraftsmen, teachers, artists, retired business men, and others. The percentages given in this and in the preceding section indicate that about two fifths of the rural families are not engaged in agriculture.

It is often important to make this distinction, tho it is difficult to do; for some of the much-discussed rural questions are of a broad social nature, are matters of rural sociology, relating pretty generally to the rural population; while other questions of "rural economics" are more strictly matters of agricultural economics and relate to the farm as a unit of industry, or to agriculture as an occupation.

Sec. 3. Lack of a social agricultural policy in America. It is a common remark that the farmer lives an independent life. This develops in him a self-reliant spirit. He readily gives and takes simple neighborly help in informal ways, but he does not readily turn to government for aid. While every influential urban group, organized or unorganized—manufacturers, merchants, wage-earners—has sought and obtained special protective social legislation, the farmer has, from choice or necessity, usually had to work out his economic problems unaided. The exceptions are few and of small importance. For example, the prodigal land-policy of the state and national governments encouraging the settlement of the frontiers was not a farmers' policy. It was originally inspired by the larger political purpose of extending the bounds of the nation; later it was advocated and fostered by a land-speculating element, linked with bad politics, in the frontier states, and not by farmers as such. It in time greatly injured the farmers of the eastern states. The "Granger legislation," to regulate railroad rates, was so called by the East in a spirit of derision because it began in the distinctively agricultural states of the Northwest; but it had neither the aim, nor the result, of obtaining especially for farmers any rates that were not open to every one on the same terms. The tariff rates on American agricultural products, placed in the acts as a matter of form, have, with minute exceptions, been ineffective to favor farmers, as the shipments were all outward and none inward, while heavy and effective rates were placed on most things that the farmers had to buy.[2]

In part the explanation of the lack of legislation favoring farmers is to be found in their small part and influence, as a class, in political affairs, outside of minor executive offices in township and county governments. In the state legislatures farmers are few relative to their numbers in the community, and still fewer in either House in Washington. Among the real exceptions to the otherwise fair record of the farming class in this respect is the tax on oleomargarine and the special favor accorded to farmers' associations in the Clayton Act. It might be cynically said that the farmer has not been "sharp" enough to get his share of the "good" things" that the business classes were passing around in protective legislation. But farmers have, as has every economic group, interests which may legitimately be the subject of social legislation; whereas they have limited their attention to their private affairs at home and have been prone to vote patiently and proudly the "straight ticket" to elect business men and lawyers to office.

Sec. 4. Period of decaying agricultural prosperity. Despite the facts just stated, every campaign orator admits that there is no other occupational class of the nation of greater importance to the nation than the farmers, or more deserving of prosperity. Every other part of the industrial organization of a nation is interrelated with its agriculture. Great changes, in respect to growth of population, immigration, exhaustion of natural resources, mechanical inventions, scientific discovery, and many things more, have been occurring, which have altered and, in some communities, have destroyed the very foundations of agricultural enterprise in America since the close of the Civil War in 1865. But the farmers have been left to struggle individually with their individual difficulties, tho the outcome was of the gravest portent to the whole social economy. Such was the case in the period of agricultural depression from 1873 to about 1896.[3] Multitudes of ancestral homesteads were then left behind by the last farmer-descendant of the old line. No longer able to make a living on the soil, he took up an urban occupation.

Sec. 5. Sociological effects of agricultural decay. Such changes caused a relative decline in the birthrate of the old American stock. The places of many of these long-settled families remained unfilled as thousands of abandoned farm houses testified. The places of others were taken by a tenantry, white or black, lacking the thrift of ownership; the lands of others passed to new owners of alien races. The populations of many rural neighborhoods thus became heterogeneous, with results calamitous to the social life. Once prosperous schools declined, once thronging country churches were deserted, and much of the old neighborhood democracy disappeared. When, about the year 1900, prosperity began slowly to return to the American countrysides in the form of rising prices of farm produce, it was in large part too late to remedy the evil, except as it may be done by generations of effort under more favoring conditions. There are merely suggested here some of the complex sociological effects of past economic changes in American agriculture. It is certain that in the future also the economic changes in this field will be related closely to social and political changes of a fundamental character.

Sec. 6. Fewer, relatively, occupied in agriculture; use of machinery. Probably ever since the first census in 1790, the relative number of agriculturists in this country has been decreasing. Beginning in 1880, the numbers of those occupied in agriculture for gain have been reported at the census dates in a form that makes them fairly comparable.[4]

The explanation of this decrease in the proportion of the population that is engaged in agriculture is twofold; the first is the real increase in the productive output per person in agricultural industry. In larger part this is due to the increasing use of machinery in place of simple hand tools, and the substitution of horse-, hydraulic-, windmill-, steam-, and gasoline-power for human labor. This change has been made readily in the regions of level fields, but of late has been made possible to a greater extent in hilly country, by rearranging and combining the old irregular fields into regular fairly level rectangular fields easily tillable, while turning the rougher lands and hillsides into wood lots and pastures.[5] One man, thus, driving three or four or more horses, can do the work formerly done by two or more men and do it just as well. The farmers' incomes in different parts of the country vary pretty nearly with the amount of horse-power used per man. Economies equally great are made in the work done in the barnyards and barns. In most parts of the country only a beginning has been made in these ways, and in future the census will continue to reflect the progress in these directions.

Sec. 7. Transfer of work from farm to factory. The other part of the explanation of the decrease in the proportion of the population that is engaged in agriculture is that many operations are, step by step, being transferred from the farm to the factory. "Agriculture," we have observed, is a great complex of industries, in which many different products are taken from the first simplest extractive stage, and then put through successive processes to make them more nearly fitted for their final uses. Not so long ago grain cut in the field was threshed, winnowed, shelled, made into flour, and baked on the farm, as it still is in many places. Logs were cut into boards, planed, and made into houses or furniture by the farmer. The old-time farmer made by hand a large number of his farm implements—rakes, ax handles, pumps, carts, and even wagons. Until a generation ago all butter, cheese, and other dairy products were made on the farm. Now these things are being done in steadily increasing proportion by workers classified as in the manufacturing industries, and agriculture contains fewer separate industries and processes. Of course there is economy of labor in nearly all of these changes, but the number occupied in agriculture is greatly reduced. Many farmers and more farmers' sons are moving from agriculture into occupations of manufacturing, trade, transportation, and the professions, and are becoming more narrow specialists.

Sec. 8. The rural exodus. The percentage of persons in the rural population changes at about the same rate as does that of the persons occupied in agriculture. In 1890 it was 64, in 1900 it was 60, and in 1910 it was 54 per cent. The percentage of the population in cities of 8000 or more has steadily increased. This phenomenon has been marked in all of the countries that have been developing along industrial lines. It has been variously described as "the rural exodus," "the abandonment-of-the-farm-movement," and "the city-ward drift."[6] It is only in part explained by the change from agriculture to other occupations; perhaps even in greater part it is due to the decline and disappearance in many rural places of small manufacturing and mercantile businesses before the competition of large business in the cities. In much of the long-settled area of the country every hillside stream once turned a little mill to saw timber, grind corn, forge iron, or weave cloth. Most of these mills are now deserted. In countless villages the old blacksmith shop, once a center of business, is abandoned. Here and there a patriarchal smith still serves a dwindling group of customers and speaks with mingled pride and pathos of his sons, now in the automobile business in the city.

The movement away from the countryside has been but little counteracted as yet, but may be more in future, by the growing enjoyment of rural life, by the back-to-the-land movement, by interurban railways, by improved roads, and by automobiles.

Sec. 9. The farmer's income in monetary terms. Census figures and some additional investigations have led to the estimate of the average real income of the farmers of the United States in 1909, expressed in monetary terms, as $724. The estimated value of all products, whether sold or used by the farmer, plus the value of his house rent and fuel consumed by family, was $1236, from which expenditures of $512 are deducted for outside labor, and for materials used for operating and maintaining the farm. Of the $724 the sum of $402 is estimated to be the labor-income of the family and $322 is estimated to be the wealth-income (at 5 per cent of the capitalization of the farm). This was in a period of rising values in farm lands, averaging about $323 per farm annually, and this to most farmers was equivalent to so much monetary savings. The main items of net income, therefore, are as follows:

Rent $125 Food from the farm 261 Fuel 35 Cash 303

Total $724 Increase in value of farm 323

Total estimated monetary income $1047

Of the total, $422 is a labor-income, and $645 is a wealth income.[7]

It would be difficult, even if the available statistics were much more exact than they are, to compare exactly the farmer's income with those of urban classes. Averages of such large numbers and over such a wide area have a limited significance in the specific case; and living conditions and the purchasing power of money are so different in country and city and in different parts of the country.[8]

Sec. 10. Compensations of the farmer's life. In bare monetary terms the average farmer's family gets a labor-income less than that of the ordinary wage-earner in a factory, and it is only by the aid of the wealth-income that it appears to fare as well or better. Even the few largest incomes made in farming are small in comparison with many of those made in commerce, transportation, and manufacturing. The great mass of farmers of the nation are hard-laboring men, poor in the eyes of the city dwellers.[9]

But this much is certain: the farmer's income in monetary terms has on the average much larger power to purchase the main goods of life (material and psychic goods) than it would have in town. Equally good house usance would cost more in nearly all towns, and much more in larger cities. Retail prices of the same food and fuel even in small towns would be much greater. The necessary outlay for clothes to maintain the class standard is much less for farmers than for city dwellers. Moreover, in the use of horses and carriages, and now of automobiles, and in the free control of his own time—in many elements of psychic income—the farmer is on a parity with men in other occupations of double or quadruple his income expressed in monetary terms.

Tho the farmer's working day in the busiest season of summer is very long compared with that of factory or office workers, his working day at other seasons is usually much shorter than the average urban worker's day. The farmer's life is nearly always free from the excessive pressure, haste, and competition of city life, and the value, to many a man, of the more natural and wholesome conditions of outdoor life and outdoor work are hardly to be measured in terms of even the most untainted dollars.

Sec. 11. Ownership and tenancy. Since 1880, when the first figures on farm tenures were collected, the proportion of farms operated by owners has steadily decreased.

Percentage of farms operated by Owners Cash tenants Share tenants

1880 ............ 74.5 8.0 17.5 1890 ............ 71.6 10.0 18.4 1900 ............ 64.7 13.1 22.2 1910 ............ 63.0 13.0 24.0

These statistics arouse fears that the class of independent farmers operating their own farms is gradually giving way to a tenantry in America. But in some respects the figures are misleading unless carefully interpreted. The increasing proportion of tenants is due not so much to owners falling into the class of tenants as to the hired laborers rising into the class of tenants. The number of male operating owners compared with all male workers (not merely with all farms) has remained almost constant at about 42 per cent; while the per cent of hired workers has decreased from 43.3 (in 1880) to 41.4 (in 1890) and to 34.6 (in 1900). Most hired men on farms are farmers' sons; the city boy does not adapt himself readily to farm work. Most hired men of native stock become tenants, and finally owners. Only 11 per cent of the hired workers in agriculture (in 1900) were over 35 years of age.

The landlord of a farm let to a tenant, especially to a share tenant, is still to a large extent the general manager, controlling in a large measure through the renting contract and by his oversight, the operations of the farm. Older men find that letting the farm to a share tenant is easier for them and gives better results than continuing to operate the farm with hired labor. And it evidently gives a man a somewhat higher status to become a tenant than to continue to be a hired laborer. In the South this movement has taken on large proportions in the breaking up of large plantations once operated by the owner with hired labor, and now let in smaller lots to operating tenants. Yet such a change appears, statistically, as a decrease in the proportion of farms operated by owners. Despite these somewhat reassuring facts, the problem of maintaining and increasing operating ownership of farms in America is one deserving of the most earnest thought and efforts. The best form of farm tenure is not necessarily that giving the best immediate economic results. Politically in a democratic nation, and sociologically in its effects upon the size of families and the raising of healthy children, the preservation of an independent American yeomanry is of fundamental importance to the nation.

The problem is as difficult as it is important, and becomes more difficult with the rise in the acreage value of lands and with the economical size of farms, both calling for a larger investment to become an owner. Changes in the system of taxation should be made with reference to this object; the system of agricultural credit should be developed and administered to assist; special efforts in agricultural education should be made and active administrative efforts should be directed, toward this important end.

[Footnote 1: See above, ch. 1, secs. 7 and 8.]

[Footnote 2: See ch. 14, sec. 5.]

[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, p. 437.]

[Footnote 4: It must be observed in studying these figures, that farmers' wives and children, working at home, are not reported as gainfully occupied. But a widow or a spinster owner, if herself acting as the enterpriser, is reported as "occupied" in agriculture. The increasing number of such cases in the past generation in part explains the growing number and percentage of females in agriculture.

Number occupied in agriculture Per cent of all persons occupied Males Females Both sexes Males Females Both sexes

1880... 7,068,658 594,385 7,663,043 47.9 22.5 44.1 1890... 7,787,539 678,824 8,466,363 41.4 17.3 37.2 1900... 9,272,315 977,336 10,249,651 39.0 18.4 35.3 1910...10,582,039 1,806,584 12,388,623 35.2 22.4 32.5 ]

[Footnote 5: See further, ch. 26, secs. 1 and 2 on the size of farms as an economic factor.]

[Footnote 6: See above, sec. 2, on the distinction between rural and agricultural. In part the change here noted results from increases in the population of towns and incorporated places from a little below 2500 to something about 2500. For example, if there were 2499 persons in a town in 1900 they would all be classified as rural; if in 1910 there were 2500 or more they would all be classified as urban.]

[Footnote 7: Sec Vol. I, p. 225, and note 11.]

[Footnote 8: See Vol. I, p. 206.]

[Footnote 9: See Vol. I, p. 227, note, for figures on owners and farm laborers.]



CHAPTER 26

PROBLEMS OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Sec. 1. Size of farms, and total farming area. Sec. 2. Influences acting upon the size of farms. Sec. 3. Self-sufficing versus commercial farming. Sec. 4. Farming viewed as a capitalistic enterprise. Sec. 5. Diversified versus specialized farming. Sec. 6. Conditions favoring diversified farming. Sec. 7. Intensive farming in Europe and America. Sec. 8. Prospect of more intensive cultivation of land in America. Sec. 9. The new agriculture. Sec. 10. Difficulty of cooeperation among farmers. Sec. 11. Rapid growth of farmers' selling cooeperation. Sec. 12. Some economic features of farmers' selling cooeperation. Sec. 13. Cooeperation in buying. Sec. 14. Need of agricultural credit. Sec. 15. Recent provisions for farm loans.

Sec. 1. Size of farms, and total farming area. The average area of farms has varied from a maximum of 203 acres, in 1850 (the first figures), to a minimum of 134 acres in 1880, being 138 acres in 1910. A better index, perhaps, is the average improved area per farm, which has been more nearly stationary, varying from a maximum of 80 acres in 1860 to a minimum of 71 acres in 1870 and 1880, being 75 acres in 1910. Here again the statistics require interpretation, for in the spread of the frontier the addition of large farms in the arid and semi-arid regions may raise the average, or the breaking up of large plantations in the South may decrease the average, without this indicating any essential change in the technical conditions of farming in the country generally. Since about 1900 the total area in farms has increased very slowly. Between 1900 and 1910 the increase was only 4.8 per cent; whereas a larger increase occurred in the area of improved land, 15.4 per cent, and the unimproved area in farms decreased 5.6. Future changes of farm areas may be expected to be of this same nature, mainly in the improvement of rough pastures, swamps, partly cleared woodlands, and desert lands awaiting irrigation. An increasing population will have to be provided with food and other products of agriculture on a farming area that henceforth will be increasing less rapidly than it has in the past and than the population increases.

Sec. 2. Influences acting upon the size of farms. In these averages for the whole country many conflicting influences unite and neutralize each other. Making for smaller farms is the breaking up of large grazing areas in the West into smaller general purpose farms or irrigated fruit districts, and of larger general farms in the North and East into small poultry, flower, and fruit farms. Opposed to this is a movement toward the merging of farms of 50 to 100 acres into larger farms of 300 acres, more or less. The economic cause of this movement is interesting and important. The typical and economic size of farms when the Atlantic states were settled, was determined by the use of hand tools, which permitted a man and his family to operate a farm of about 75 acres of which about half was tilled and the rest was in permanent pasture and woodland. The fields were small and were laid out irregularly, which was no disadvantage for hand cultivation. But for the most economic use of land in field crops and under more modern conditions it is necessary to have pretty level fields, of regular rectangular shape. The farm unit should be of such extent as to permit of the proper use of the soil by rotation of crops, and to employ fully the best modern labor-saving machinery for each purpose. Numerous recent agricultural surveys point to the conclusion that for general farming this unit is a comparatively large area of about 300 acres.

These conditions offer a reward to those agricultural enterprisers who can purchase lands at a price based upon the high costs and lower yields of the older methods and cultivate them at the lower costs and with the larger yields of the newer methods. This movement, therefore, toward the consolidation of smaller into larger farms is likely to continue in many communities for several decades. This is likewise an advantage to the community in increasing the production with less labor. But the net effect upon the social life of the countryside is more doubtful, and calls for careful consideration.

Sec. 3. #Self-sufficing versus commercial farming. The typical American farming family once produced nearly everything it used, and used nearly everything it produced. It was very nearly a self-sufficing economic unit, "a closed economy," as it sometimes called. Food, clothing, fuel, lumber, houses, furniture, tools, were on the farm carried through the various processes from the first gathering of the raw materials to the finished product. They were then consumed by the farm household. It is true that even in the first settlements there were some craftsmen, cobblers, millers, weavers, blacksmiths—whose services and wares were got by trading some of the surplus products from the farms—butter, cheese, eggs, wool, hides, furs, live stock, grain lumber. A few rare commodities of foreign make found their way to the farm through peddlers and merchants; but altogether the goods produced outside the farm were a small fraction of the family's consumption, and were exchanged for but little of the farm's production. Most farmers tried to produce for themselves, as far as possible, everything their families needed, when the soil and situation were poorly suited to the purposes. True, there were early some exceptions to the general rule, where only one kind of crop was taken from the land. Such was the forest product of masts, shingles, lumber, and turpentine, and the great southern staple, tobacco, and later, cotton. The exceptions have been tending to become the rule in more and more communities. Farmers have been specializing more and more in the kinds of products to which their farms are adapted in respect to soil, relation to market, and otherwise. These products are taken to market and sold for money with which are bought the things needed for use on the farm.

Sec. 4. Farming viewed as a capitalistic enterprise. Thus the farm comes to be looked upon more and more, not just as a home, but much as if it were a commercial enterprise or a factory, by which products are made for sale. This change, to be sure, is far from complete, as the figures for the average farmer's income show that a large share of the family living still comes from the farm. It has gone on much further in some districts than in others, as is indicated in the types of farming discussed below. But just to the extent that the farmer grows crops to sell, his outlook on his work undergoes a change. He is less exclusively a farmer, concerned with the technical processes of farming; he must be more largely a business man. Like a manufacturing enterpriser, he buys the factors of production, combines them into new products, and sells them again. He becomes interested in market conditions and prices. He grows more commercially-minded. He views the farm no longer as a fixed area, but one that may be enlarged by purchase or by rental, and that may be reduced by selling or letting the less needed parts. One-fifth of farm owners now rent additional land. In commercial farming the land is not contrasted with capital as something apart, consisting of the value of the equipment and stock; but the whole complex of land and other goods is thought of as a capital-investment. The greater ease of transferring landed-property in America and the greater mobility of our population have always made it more natural here than in Europe to look upon land as a capital investment. This view is now becoming more general as a result of the commercializing of farming enterprise.

This change has been favored by other influences. Particularly has the use of machinery and of other equipment, calling for a larger investment per man and per acre, been making agriculture, in its form of enterprise, more and more like manufacturing and commercial undertakings.

Sec. 5. Diversified versus specialized farming. To be self-sufficing a farming family must carry on general farming, that is, must produce a diversity of products. As farming becomes more commercialized it necessarily becomes somewhat more specialized, and produces a smaller variety of products. In some parts of the country and on particular farms this specialization is extreme: in California, citrus fruits, or prunes, or beans, may be the only crop raised; wheat in Kansas and the Dakotas, and dairy products in thousands of farms surrounding the great cities, are the main, tho not the exclusive products. Many farmers in these districts have no gardens or orchards, keep no cow, and buy much or all of the grain for their horses, as well as milk, butter, vegetables and fruits for their own use. Poultry and eggs are shipped in trainloads two thousand miles from the Middle West to California to be consumed by orange growers. Many farmers in the East no longer keep sheep, pigs, or beef cattle, and they buy out of the butcher's wagon all the meat except fowls used by their families. This partly explains the decrease of live stock in the whole country in recent years and the increase in the price of meat.

Sec. 6. Conditions favoring diversified farming. There are, however, limits to the net advantage of specialization in crops, and competent authorities on agriculture question whether in many cases that limit has not been readied and passed. Most farms have a variety of soils and of conditions—hilltops, slopes, bottom lands—which are suitable for different purposes. A rotation of crops is necessary to get good yields. Live stock must be kept to maintain the fertility of the land, which deteriorates fast if hay and grain are continually sold. Some live stock can be kept on every farm very cheaply with the food that would go to waste otherwise. The specialization in stock raising in the prairie states ceased to be profitable when lands became more valuable. Specialization in wheat production in the states just west of the Mississippi is possible only so long as wheat will grow on the virgin soil without costly fertilizers. The cotton farmers of the South, especially the negro farmers, have been forced by debt and thriftlessness into a one-crop policy that is now seen to be wasteful in the long run. A variety of production is necessary to employ labor somewhat regularly on a farm throughout the year. These and other conditions will make most farming always an industry of comparatively diversified products. Only 1 per cent of the farms get as much as 40 per cent of their receipts from fruit; 2 per cent get that much from tobacco; 3 per cent from vegetables; 6 per cent from dairy products; and 19 per cent from cotton. The remaining 60 per cent of receipts were in most cases from various sources, and these figures did not include the value of produce consumed by the farmer's family.

Sec. 7. Intensive farming in Europe and America. No other farm problem interests the city man so much as that of increasing the production of the land. To most city men farming hardly seems to be an occupation giving livelihood and life to the farmer; it seems rather to exist for the sole purpose of feeding men living in cities. The city man, therefore, measures the success of farming not by the farmer's income, by the level of countryside prosperity, but by the number of bushels per acre raised to ship to town. Every city newspaper and magazine contains articles pointing to the fact that larger crops per acre are raised in Europe than in America, and broadly suggesting that the American farmer could do as well, if only he would. Foreign travelers comment in like vein on the wasteful use of land in America as compared with farming methods in Europe.

Land is used most extensively, with respect to labor, when it is in forests; somewhat less so when in pasture as care must be given to the live stock; and still less when used for hay, grain, and other crops. But the use of machinery in large fields is far more extensive than the patient work of peasants with their hand tools. The more labor or the more equipment (or both together) that is put upon an acre, the larger the product, but the larger the cost per unit. It is a familiar economic principle.[1] It would bankrupt any farmer, excepting the millionaire amateur, to farm in America by European methods. American farmers, at least many of them, could raise as many bushels per acre and keep their farms as thoroly cultivated as do the European peasants, if wages were as low here as are the peasants' incomes.

Sec. 8. Prospect of more intensive cultivation of land in America. As the aggregate need for food increases in America there must come a steady pressure upon our stock of land uses, resulting in decreasing returns to labor in agriculture, unless this movement can be counteracted by the spread of better methods in agriculture—not European peasant methods, but new American methods consistent with high labor-incomes. A good deal of our farm land is undoubtedly too intensively used now in view of present and prospective commodity prices and wages. Maladjustment of land uses has resulted from mistaken judgment, from changing conditions as to prices, transportation, and markets, and from loss of soil fertility. There are thus, on nearly every old farm, some fields that would better be in pasture and much hillside pasture that would better be woodland. It is often declared extravagantly that our country could support easily the total population of China, or as great a population per square mile as that of Italy. If it did so it would be only on the penalty of lowering wages toward, if not quite to, the level of the Chinese coolie or of the Italian peasant. Great metropolitan dailies gravely present as an argument in favor of unrestricted immigration, the proposition that "if" the cheaper immigrants would but go upon our "waste" land (which they refuse to do), and raise food by European methods the problem of the rising cost of food in the cities would be solved. This urban ideal of a frugal, low-paid agricultural peasantry can hardly be adopted in America as the national ideal. Rather, it would seem, any movement toward more intensive agriculture that necessitates a lowering of the standard of living of the masses of the American people will, when it is recognized, be condemned and opposed.

Sec. 9. The new agriculture. Agricultural method, the technic of farming, has been constantly progressing for two hundred years in Europe and in America, Were it not for this, the great growth of population on this combined area would have been quite impossible. But the betterments since about 1890 in America have been especially great. They are mostly the first large fruits of the scientific study made possible by the land-grant colleges and agricultural experiment stations fostered by state and national, legislation. These many diverse improvements are grouped under the general title of "the new agriculture." Its chief features are: new machinery and other labor-saving methods; better methods of cultivation of the soil; better selection of seed; introduction of new plants and trees from abroad to utilize low-grade lands; plant-breeding to develop new varieties of better quality, heavier bearing, or immune to disease; more efficient and economical ways of maintaining soil fertility; better methods of marketing; and better technical education of the individual farmer. Each of these topics, and a number of other minor ones, would require a chapter in a complete treatise on agricultural economics. Here this mere enumeration must be allowed to convey its own suggestion of far-reaching results for the whole political economy of the nation and of the world.

Indeed, so much has been written in a Barnumesque way of the wonders of the new agriculture, that its actual results and further possibilities are in many minds absurdly exaggerated. It has not as yet been potent enough to prevent diminishing returns in respect to the great staple foods and raw materials obtained by agriculture. It apparently has barely kept pace with the needs of the growing population of Christendom. It has enabled a larger population to exist in about the same, if not in a worse condition, on the same area, while progress in cheapness of goods has come almost entirely from the side of the chemical and the mechanical industries. It does not give the promise of an indefinite amelioration of the lot of an indefinitely multiplying population. But to a population slowly increasing, a new and ever newer agriculture, utilizing constantly the achievements of the natural sciences and the mechanic arts, ensures the possibility of a steady betterment of the popular welfare in city and in open country alike.

Sec. 10. Difficulty of cooeperation among farmers. Rural communities are proverbially conservative; the American farmer is proverbially an individualist. No wonder, then, that the new ideas and plans of cooeperation in business matters have made headway in agriculture slowly and with difficulty. The need of mutual aid among American farmers is especially great, for, as has often been, said, isolation is the problem of the farm as congestion is that of the city. On the frontier a cooeperative spirit manifested itself frequently in mutual helpfulness, in house raising bees, husking bees, threshing bees, and other similar gatherings.

But this spirit seems to have almost disappeared in the older communities, the more rapidly doubtless in the period of decaying agricultural prosperity.[2] To-day, for example, it is impossible on a certain Pennsylvania road for one more progressive farmer to get his neighbors to cooeperate in so simple a matter as hauling their milk cans to the creamery, and so every day in the year ten horses are hitched to ten delivery wagons carrying two or three milk cans apiece, and driven by ten drivers along the same road to and from the railroad station. One driver and two horses could easily carry as much or more, as is done now in many other dairy districts. Even of successful cooeperation among farmers sympathetic critics are forced to say: "Many students of rural economics assert that cooeperation as applied to the distribution and marketing of farm products is not very successful unless it is founded upon dire necessity. When the records of the organizations of the country are analyzed it becomes almost necessary to accept that statement. So long as farmers do fairly well in their own way they are not inclined to cooeperate."

Sec. 11. Rapid growth of farmers' selling cooeperation. Despite what has just been said, cooeperation among farmers now is more developed and is growing faster than all other kinds of cooeperation in America. This is most marked in farming communities in the West, especially in California and in the Middle Western or Northwestern states (e.g., Minnesota and Wisconsin). There the farmers are younger, and many have been educated in the state agricultural colleges. They all produce nearly the same kinds of crops of staple produce which must be shipped to distant markets. The need of uniting to get what they thought would be fair treatment from the railroads, and to protect themselves against the abuses of the competitive commission salesagents, seems to have given the first impetus to farmers' cooeperation.

The most notable developments were those of the California Fruit Exchange and of cooeperative societies of the Northwest for marketing grain. The membership of the former is made up entirely of the local citrus growers' associations in California. It has a complete organization of selling agents in the Eastern cities and a remarkably efficient, tho simple, system of equalizing and expediting shipments. Now the agricultural cooeperative associations of various kinds are multiplying all over the country, for shipping live stock, fruits, butter, cheese, and other farm products. Cooeperation for these purposes called forth new activities; packing houses were built, and grain elevators and creameries and dairies, and now a goodly number of the simple manufacturing processes are undertaken by these societies, now numbering thousands.

Sec. 12. Some economic features of farmers' selling cooeperation. This type of producers' selling cooeperation is proving in America to be far more successful than producers' cooeperation among workingmen;[3] and certain important economic features in it should be noted. The local producers' selling cooeperative society is composed of farmers who as enterprisers own and carry on their own separate businesses; they are not, as in the other case, wage workers. Any productive processes undertaken by this kind of society are subordinate to the main business, being such as picking, packing, drying, preserving, and making boxes for packing. This form of cooeperation with the related form of consumers' cooeperation that is fostered by it, promises to have a wide extension.

Some of these societies, as those dealing in citrus fruits, regulate with some success the picking and the marketing so as to distribute them more evenly throughout the year. They watch the markets and direct their agents by telegraph to divert cars en route away from markets that are glutted with products and into markets where prices are higher. They take some of the products, as eggs in the spring at the period of low prices, and pack or refrigerate them, to be sold when prices are higher. For thus withholding the supply they are said by some to exercise a monopolistic power. But this is a more than doubtful view. So long as only the seasonal variations are equalized and the total supply of the year is not reduced it is, on the marginal principle, an economic service to the consumers, comparable to insurance in its utility. Any reduction of the area planted or of the entrance of others into the industry would be a monopolistic act but this as yet has not occurred.

Sec. 13. Cooeperation in buying. Cooeperative buying (called also consumers' cooeperation or distributive cooeperation) has had a large growth in the British Isles, since 1844, when the society called the Rochdale Pioneers was founded by a group of factory workingmen. The cooeperative stores, both in Great Britain and on the Continent, have continued to develop mainly among the industrial classes in urban centers. However, this has not been exclusively the case, and particularly in Denmark and Ireland cooeperative buying has increased in agriculture in connection with selling associations. Since 1890 the growth of consumers' cooeperation among European industrial wage-earners has been phenomenal, especially in Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. American wage-workers, however, have made few and feeble efforts in this direction.

In the period beginning 1867 many cooeperative stores were founded in America by farmers in the Grange movement, who operated also grain elevators, warehouses, and steamboat lines. But the movement failed about 1877. This result is easily explained by lack of commercial knowledge and lack of harmony among the members, selling on credit, and inefficient management. A new era in consumers' cooeperation for farmers began about 1900 and now in several widely separated parts of the country—Minnesota, Kansas, California, Washington, and elsewhere—the movement is spreading rapidly, supported in large part by the same persons who are members of the selling associations.

Sec. 14. Need of agricultural credit. Banking originated in cities and for the use of the merchant-class. It still retains pretty faithfully its commercial character. The change of farming toward a more commercial form[4] has been little aided by banking credit. National banks and many others were forbidden in their charters to lend on the security of real-estate, the farmer's one business asset.[5] A great number of farms are always in course of being purchased, the balance of purchase money being borrowed by the purchaser. A group of private agencies such as life insurance and mortgage loan companies and local money lenders has supplied in somewhat costly ways the need of farm credits. Tho rates of interest have become more equalized throughout the whole country, they still range between 7 and 10 per cent in the Southern and Western states, averaging 7 per cent in the whole country for interest and commission. The need of better opportunities for credit in the agricultural districts has long been recognized. The high rate of interest for borrowed money necessarily placed a limit on improvements in equipment and methods of farming.[6]

Sec. 15. Recent provisions for farm loans. The Federal Reserve Act made two important changes to improve agricultural credit.[7] Soon afterward some of the states took more vigorous action to provide a special system of agricultural credit, especially New York and Missouri. In the latter state, on the initiative of a public-spirited citizen of St. Louis, was passed in 1915 a notable act of legislation known as the Gardner State Land Bank Act (effective December 1, 1916, provided a constitutional amendment is adopted in November, 1916). This authorizes the establishment of a land bank, with power to lend on the security of farming lands, for buying farms and for productive improvements, and to issue bonds to be sold to investors.

Following this general plan the Federal Farm Loan Act became law July 17, 1916. It authorized the establishment of twelve Federal Land Banks, each with a capital of not less than $750,000 to make loans through national farm loan associations organized somewhat after the model of the building and loan associations. The bonds issued by these banks are to bear not to exceed 5 per cent interest. It is hoped that they will have the high credit of municipal bonds so that they may be sold at parity, bearing interest at 4 or 4.5 per cent. The loan is repaid by the farmers under a regular plan of amortization. The practical results of these measures are yet to appear. They are expected to give to loans that are made on the security of farms as wide a market and as high credit as state and municipal bonds now have. They bid fair to bring the rate of interest on long-time loans to farmers down to 5 per cent or less in the remotest parts of the land. This will stimulate agricultural improvement, and facilitate the purchase of land by tenants. Where the interest rate has been the highest it should raise the value of farm lands as it brings them within the circle of a lower-interest-rate economy. This may hasten the transfer of the lands from less provident to more provident owners, who are willing to take the land at a higher capitalization. But the system of loans will probably help to develop greater thrift in the younger farming population.

[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, chs. 12 and 13 on proportionality and usance.]

[Footnote 2: See ch. 25, secs. 4 and 5.]

[Footnote 3: See above, ch. 19, secs. 13, 14, 15.]

[Footnote 4: See above, sec. 3.]

[Footnote 5: See ch. 8, sec. 8.]

[Footnote 6: See Vol. I, pp. 495-497, on the relation between lower interest rates and productive processes.]

[Footnote 7: See ch. 9, sec. 7 on time deposits, and sec. 9 on farm loans.]



CHAPTER 27

THE RAILROAD PROBLEM

Sec. 1. Rise of the corporation concept. Sec. 2. The modern era of corporations. Sec. 3. Beginning of corporation problems. Sec. 4. The era of canals. Sec. 5. Rapid building of American railroads. Sec. 6. Reasons for governmental aid. Sec. 7. Kinds of governmental aid. Sec. 8. Emergence of the railroad problem. Sec. 9. Discrimination as to goods. Sec. 10. Local discrimination. Sec. 11. Personal discrimination. Sec. 12. Economic power of railroad managers. Sec. 13. Political power of railroad managers, Sec. 14. Consolidation of railroads. Sec. 15. State railroad commissions. Sec. 16. Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. Sec. 17. Working of the Act. Sec. 18. Public nature of the railroad franchise. Sec. 19. Other peculiar privileges of railroads. Sec. 20. Private and public interests to be harmonized.

Sec. 1. Rise of the corporation concept. In the legal systems of primitive people and long afterward, only natural persons had legal rights, could make contracts, have property, and carry on a business. But in a number of cases, very early, groups of men came to have certain interests in common and certain possessions. Gradually some such groups gained more or less of legal recognition, with certain political and economic rights as a body and not as individuals. Thus evolved the conception of a "corporation" (body) having men as "members," an artificial person, yet not the same as any one or as all the individuals together, and legally distinct from the individuals. A group of burghers obtaining a charter from the lord of the realm became a municipal corporation; a group of teachers, a collegium, became the corporation of the college or a university (a number of persons united into one association); a group of craftsman became a gild-corporation. Each corporation had certain rights, privileges, and immunities, and used a corporate seal as a signature. All of the early corporations had some economic features that were incidental to the main purposes, which were political, ecclesiastical, educational, and fraternal. Toward the end of the Middle Ages groups of traders obtained charters to act as corporations permanently for business purposes, such as foreign trade, colonization, and banking. These increased in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in the eighteenth century this form of organization was adopted also and parliamentary charters obtained, by groups of men for building turnpikes and canals and for carrying on other kinds of business.

Sec. 2. The modern era of corporations. The great era of the corporations did not begin, however, until well on in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Then, both in Europe and in America, the corporate form of organization was extended to a greater number, and to other kinds, of enterprises. It proved itself to be well adapted to enterprises for the construction and operation of canals and railroads, requiring a larger amount of capital than usually could or would be risked by one person. The investor in a corporation bought shares, and his liability for debts and losses was limited by charter to his share capital. It is an advantage that permanent enterprises of that kind are owned by corporations with charters perpetual or for long periods. It is possible for corporations to make investments running for longer periods than would be safe for individuals. The corporation with an unlimited charter has legally an immortal life. Sale and change of management are not necessary on the death or failure in health of any one owner. As the factory system and large production developed, the corporate form of organization was found to have these same advantages in manufacturing. It appeared in textile, iron, mercantile, and other industries. After 1865 the corporate form of organization increased at a cumulative rate, until now it is applied to many enterprises of small extent and local in operation. There are 300,000 corporations making returns to the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[1] There were 70,000 manufacturing corporations, which were 26 per cent of the whole number of manufacturing establishments, but which employed 76 per cent of all wage earners and turned out 79 per cent of the whole product.

Sec. 3. Beginning of corporation problems. With the corporations came "the corporation problem," a single name for a complex of problems—legal, political, moral, and economic—which arise out of the relations of corporations to their individual stockholders, to their employees, to the state, to the general public, and to their competitors in business. The problems differ also in corporations of different sizes and in different businesses. We shall discuss in this and succeeding chapters but a few of the larger aspects of the corporation problem, the railroad, the industrial trust, and certain other kinds of monopolistic industry.

Of the various forms of corporations, banks first presented problems calling for economic legislation and regulation. This is explained by the fact that it was the first kind of business corporation to become important, and further by the fact that its work was in various ways closely connected with the coinage and regulation of money, which had already become a governmental function. The railroad was the form of corporation next in point of time to become a great problem; this because of the peculiarly vital and far-reaching effects that such railroad transportation has upon all other kinds of business in the community, as appears in what follows.

Sec. 4. The era of canals. Canals were used in the ancient empires for irrigating, for the supplying of cities with water, and for navigation. In the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries they were rapidly built in England and America. Six canals had been built in the United States before 1807, but the "canal-era" in America dated from the beginning of work on the Erie canal in 1817, and continued until about 1840, when nearly all new work ceased; over 4000 miles of canals had been built at a cost of $200,000,000.

The great advantage of canals is cheapness of operation due to the simplicity of the machinery needed and to the great loads that can be moved with small power. A cent a ton-mile proved to be a paying rate on a small canal. For heavy, slow-moving freight, a railroad can even now barely rival a parallel canal at its best. As canals, however, can be built only along pretty level routes and where the water supply is at high level, their construction is limited to a small portion of the country. The principle of diminishing returns applies strongly to the construction of canals; the first canals in favored locations are easily constructed and economically operated, but it is only with greater cost and difficulty that the system can be successively extended. In temperate climates the use of canals is limited by ice to a part of the year, and by the summer's drought sometimes still further. At its best, therefore, the small land-locked canal is fitted only to be a supplementary agent in the system of transportation wherever another transportation agency of higher speed and greater regularity is possible. Far different is the case of the oceanic canal in a tropical climate.

Canals do not appear to have developed any serious problems calling for public regulation of rates. A first simple legislative act fixing the rate of tolls for boats was sufficient. Charges were made by distance as on a toll road and the boats were owned by different private shippers or by common carriers among whom competition prevailed.

Sec. 5. Rapid building of American railroads. The canal was just reaching the peak of popular favor when the railroad in 1830, after a half-century of slowly accumulating technical improvements, burst into view as a demonstrated success as a means of transportation.[2] The railroad excels in adaptability any other agent of transportation; it can go over mountains or tunnel through them. It is markedly superior in certainty; it may be blocked for a day or two by floods and snows, but it suffers no seasonal stoppage of traffic. In speed, even the early railroad so far excelled that the canal could survive only by dividing the traffic, taking the lower grades of freight, and leaving to the railroad the passenger traffic and fast freight. Even in respect to cheapness, the unique virtue of waterways in favored localities, the railroad made rapid gains. Improvements in roadbed, rails, cars, engines, and other equipment soon reduced greatly the cost of conducting traffic on the main lines of roads. Because of these qualities railroads soon surpassed in importance every other agency of internal transportation. The miles constructed and miles in operation in the United States, by decades since 1830 were as follows (route mileage, not counting double tracks and sidings):

Miles constructed Total route miles in decade. in operation.

1830 ........................ 23 23 1840 ........................ 2,795 2,818 1850 ........................ 6,203 9,021 1800 ........................ 21,605 30,626 1870 ........................ 22,296 52,922 1880 ........................ 40,345 93,267 1890 ........................ 73,924 167,191 1900 ........................ 31,773 198,964 1910 ........................ 51,028 249,992 1915 (5 yrs.) ............... 13,555 263,547

The extension of railroads was so rapid that there was not time for a gradual adjustment of industrial conditions. In many places the resulting changes were revolutionary. The building of railroads in the Mississippi valley in the seventies lowered the value of eastern farms, ruined many English farmers, and depressed the condition of the peasantry in all western Europe.[3] With the lower prices that resulted when the fertile lands of the western prairies were opened to the world's markets, the less fertile lands of the older districts could not compete. Many other changes, of no less moment in limited districts, resulted from the building of railroads. Local trading-centers decreased in importance. Villages and towns, hoping to be enriched by the railroads, saw their trade going to the cities. Commerce became centralized. Enormous increases of value at a few points were offset by losses in other localities.

Sec. 6. Reasons for governmental aid. The growth of railroads in America was more rapid than in any other part of the world, but it did not occur without much help to private capital from governmental agencies. The railroad enterprise was uncertain, the possibilities of its growth could not be foreseen, and private capital would not invest without great inducements. In European countries the railways were built through comparatively densely populated districts to connect cities already of large size. Yet railroad extension was very slow there, even tho the states in many ways aided the enterprises. America was comparatively sparsely populated, and most of the railroads were built in advance of and to attract population, business, and traffic. In many cases railroad building in America was part of a gigantic real-estate speculation undertaken collectively by the taxpayers of the communities.

Sec. 7. Kinds of governmental aid. American states recklessly abandoned the policy of non-interference, and vied with each other in giving railroad enterprises lands, money, and privileges, in loaning bonds, in subscribing for stock, and in releasing from taxation. These fostering measures were expected to increase wealth and to diffuse a greater welfare through the community. Many states were forced to the point of bankruptcy by their reckless generosity, and some states repudiated the debts thus incurred.

The national government then took up the same policy and granted lands to the states to be used for this purpose. The first case of this kind was the grant to the Illinois Central road, in 1850, of a great strip of land through the state from north to south. Grants were made in fourteen states, covering tens of millions of acres of land. Then the national government, between 1863 and 1869, aided the building of the Pacific railroads by granting outright twenty square miles of land for every mile of track and by loaning the credit of the government to the extent of fifty million dollars,—a debt which was settled by compromise only after thirty years.

Counties, townships, cities, and villages then entered into keen competition to secure the building of railroads, projected by private enterprise. Bonds, bonuses, tax-exemptions, and many special privileges were granted. To obtain this new Aladdin's lamp, this great wealth-bringer, localities mortgaged their prosperity for years to come. The promoters bargained skilfully for these grants, playing off town against town, cultivating the speculative spirit, punishing the obdurate. Not the civil engineer, but the railroad promoter determined the devious lines of many a railroad on the level prairies of America. The effects of these grants were in many cases disastrous, and after 1870 they were forbidden in a number of states by legislation and by constitutional amendments. But before this era of generosity ended, probably the railroads in America had received more public aid than has ever been given to any other form of industry in private hands.

Sec. 8. Emergence of the railroad problem. In most charters and laws authorizing the building of railroads, either nothing was specified regarding rates, or maximum rates were fixed which proved to be so high that they were of little, if any, practical effect. But very soon began to appear some serious evils in the policy of railroads toward the shipping and traveling public in matters of rates and of service.

As the ownership of the wagons, ships, and canal-boats of a country is usually divided, ocean ports and points along the lines of turnpikes and canals enjoy competition between carriers. In the early days of the railroads it was believed that a company or the government would own the rails and charge toll to the different carriers, who would own cars and conduct the traffic as was done on the canals. Experience soon showed the impracticability of this scheme and the need of unified management. An operating railroad company, therefore, has a monopoly at all points on its line not touched by other carriers. This, like any other monopoly, is limited, for the railroad, to secure traffic, is led to meet competition of whatever kind—that of wagons, canals, rivers, or of other railroads—wherever it occurs. The railroads in private hands early began to "charge what the traffic would bear," high where they could, and low where they must, to get the business. Thus developed the various forms of discrimination which are now to be described.

Sec. 9. Discrimination as to goods. Discrimination as to goods is charging more for transporting one kind of goods than for another without a corresponding difference in the cost. When reasonably understood, this proposition does not apply to a higher charge for goods of greater bulk, as more per pound for feathers than for iron, the "dead weight" of car being much greater in one case than in the other. It does not apply where there is a difference in risk, as between bricks and powder, or coal and crockery; nor where there is a difference in trouble, as between live stock and wheat. Any difference that can reasonably be explained as due to a difference in cost is not discrimination; on the other hand a difference in cost without a difference in rate is discrimination. Discrimination as to goods may be by value, as low rates for heavy, cheap goods, and high rates for lighter, valuable ones. Coal always goes at a low rate as compared with dry goods, and sometimes more is charged for coal to be used for gas than for coal to be used for heating purposes.

Railroad discrimination so frequently has resulted in injustice to the shipping public that the term has taken on an evil significance. But it is well to observe that the word discrimination is not derived from crimen (crime), but from discernere (to discern). There are both reasonable and unreasonable forms of discrimination. In general discrimination as to goods more often appears, under certain conditions and made with due regard to the public interest, to be reasonable; less often to be justified is the form of local discrimination, next to be described; and least often of all to be justified is the last named form of personal discrimination.

Sec. 10. Local discrimination. Discrimination between places (called also local discrimination) is charging different rates to two localities for substantially the same service. This occurs when local rates are high and through rates are low; when rates at local points are high and at competing points are low; when less is charged for shipments consigned to foreign ports than for domestic shipments; when, more is charged for goods going east than for goods going west. The causes of local discrimination are: first, water-competition, found at great trade centers such as New York and San Francisco; second, differences in terminal facilities, making some places better shipping-points than others; third, competition by other railroads, which is concentrated at certain points, only one tenth of the stations of the United States being junctions; fourth, the influence of powerful individuals or large corporations and the personal favoritism shown by railroad officials.

The effects of local discrimination are to develop some districts and depress others; to stimulate cities and blight villages; to destroy established industries; to foster monopolies at favored points; and to sacrifice the future revenues of the road by forcing industry to move in the competing points to get the low rates. The power of railroad officials arbitrarily to cause rates to rise or fall is happily limited in practice by the need of earning as large and as regular an income as possible, but even as exercised it has been at times as great as that possessed by many political rulers.

Sec. 11. Personal discrimination. Discrimination between shippers (personal discrimination) is charging one person more than another for substantially the same service. This most odious of railroad vices, rarely practised openly, is done by false billing of weight, by wrong descriptions or false classification to reduce the charge below published rate-sheets, by carrying some goods free, by issuing passes to some and not to all patrons under the same conditions, or by donations or rebates after the regular rate has been paid. In some cases a subordinate agent shares his commission with the shipper, and the transaction does not appear on the books of the company. In other cases favored shippers are given secret information that the rate is to be changed, so that they are enabled to regulate their shipments to secure the lower rate.

One group of reasons for personal discrimination is connected with the interests of the road. It is to build up new business; it is to make competition with rival roads more effective by favoring certain agents, as was very commonly done in the Western grain business; it is to exclude competition, as by refusing to make a rate from a connecting line or to receive materials for a new railroad which is to be a competitor; and it is to satisfy large shippers whose power, skill, and persistence make the concession necessary. Another group of reasons has to do with the interests of the corporate officials. It is to enable them to grant special favors to friends; or it is to build up a business in which they are interested; or it is to earn a bribe that has been given them.

The evils of personal discrimination are great. It introduces uncertainty, fear, and danger into all business; it causes business men to waste, socially viewed, an enormous fund of energy to get good rates and to guard against surprises; it grants unearned fortunes and destroys those honestly made; it gives enormous power and presents strong temptations to railroad officials to injure the interests of the stockholders on the one hand and of the public on the other.

Sec. 12. Economic power of railroad managers. Other evils of unregulated private management of railroads appeared. When the railroad was a young industry, it was thought to be simply an iron-track turnpike to which the old English law of common carriers would apply. This and similar notions soon, however, proved illusory. It was seen that the higher railroad officials had, in the granting of transportation service and the fixing of rates, a great economic power. They had complex and sometimes conflicting duties to the stockholders and to the shipping public. They wore their conscience-burdens lightly, before the days of effective regulation, and frequently made little attempt to meet the one and no attempt whatever to meet the other obligation. The opportunities for private speculation brought to many railroad managers great private fortunes. There were no precedents, no ripened public opinion, no established code of ethics, to govern. It was a betrayal of the interests of the stockholders when directors formed "construction companies" and granted contracts to themselves at outrageously high prices. It was an injury not only to shippers, but also to the stockholders, when special rates were granted to friends and to industries in which the directors were interested. In general, however, the interests and rights of the stockholders were more readily recognized than were those of the public. A railroad manager is engaged by the stockholders, is responsible to them, and looks to them for his promotion. Hence their interests are uppermost whenever the welfare of the public is not in harmony with the earning of liberal dividends. The managers long felt bound to defend the principle of "charging what the traffic will bear" in the case of each individual, locality, and kind of goods, even if this ruined some men and enriched others, and if it destroyed the prosperity of cities to increase the earnings of the road.

Sec. 13. Political power of railroad managers. Likewise in various ways railroad managers may exercise great political influence and power. Some writers maintain that the power to make rates on railroads is a power of taxation. They point out that if rates are not subject to fixed rules imposed by the state, the private managers of railroads wield the power of the lawmaker. By changing the rates on foreign exports or imports, the railroads frequently have made or nullified tariff rates and have defeated the intention of the legislature. High rates on state-owned roads in Europe have been used in lieu of protective duties. These facts go to show that a change of railroad rates between two places within the country is similar in effect to the imposing or repeal of tariff duties between them.

The wealth and industrial importance of the railroads soon began to give them widespread political power in other ways. It was commonly charged in some states that the legislature and the courts were "owned" by the railroads. The railroads, in part because they were the victims at times of attempts at blackmail by dishonest public officials, declared that they were compelled, in self-defense to maintain a lobby. The railroad lobby, defensive and offensive, was, in many states, the all-powerful "third house." Railroads even had their agents in the primaries, entered political conventions, dictated nominations from the lowest office up to that of governor, and elected judges and legislators. The extent to which this was done differed according as the railroads had large or small interests within the state. These statements can with approximate truth now be made in the past tense, as was not possible a few years ago. A better code of business morality has developed, and the railroad management's relationship of private trusteeship toward the shareholders and of public trusteeship toward the patrons of the road is now much more fully recognized. The change was not brought about without long and strenuous agitation and effort, educational and legislative, as is in part described below.

Sec. 14. Consolidation of railroads. Gradually the consolidation of the railroad mileage into larger units put into fewer hands greater and greater economic power. The early railroads, many of which were built in sections of a few miles in length, have been slowly welded into continuous trunk lines with many branches. The New York Central between Albany and Buffalo was a consolidation, by Commodore Vanderbilt, of sixteen short lines. The Pennsylvania system was formed link by link from scores of small roads. In the decade of the nineties the growth of consolidation went on more rapidly than ever before. In 1903 it could be said that 60 per cent of the mileage of the United States was under the control of five interests; 75 per cent was controlled by a group of men who could sit about one table. The country was being divided territorially into great railroad domains, within each of which one financial interest was dominant. Since that time the policy of the leading roads has been still further unified by great financial alliances and by the method known as "community of interests."

Toward this result strong economic forces have been working. Consolidation has many technical advantages: it saves time, reduces the unit cost of administration and of handling goods, gives better use of the rolling stock and of the terminal facilities of the railroads, and insures continuous train service. It has the advantage of other large production and the possible economies of the trusts. Most important, however, from the point of view of the railroads, is the prevention of competition and the making possible of higher rates and larger dividends. The statement that competition is not an effective regulator of railroads often is misunderstood to mean that it in no way acts on rates. It is true that competition between roads does not prevent discrimination and excessive charges between stations on one line only; but competition usually has acted powerfully at well-recognized "competing points." The larger the area controlled by one management, the fewer are the competing points; the larger, therefore, is the power over the rate and the more completely the monopoly principle applies. It is a grim jest to say that consolidation does not change the railroad situation as regards the question of rates.

Sec. 15. State railroad commissions. When it became evident that public and private interests in the railroads were so divergent, it still was not easy to determine how the public was to be safeguarded. At first, some general conditions such as maximum rates were inserted in the laws and charters; but these were not adaptable to changing conditions and, for lack of administrative agents, could not be enforced. Some early efforts at state ownership were disastrous. The old law of common carriers gave to individual shippers an uncertain redress in the courts for unreasonable rates; but the remedy was costly because the aggrieved shipper had to employ counsel, to gather evidence, and to risk the penalty of failure; it was slow, for, while delay was death to the shipper's business, cases hung for months or years in the courts; it was ineffectual, for, even when the case was won, the shipper was not repaid for all his losses, and the same discrimination could be immediately repeated against him and other shippers.

In the older Eastern states, attempts to remedy these and other evils by creating some kind of a state railroad commission date back to the fifties of the last century. Massachusetts developed in the seventies a commission of "the advisory type" which investigated and made public the conditions, leaving to public opinion the correction of the evils. A number of the Western states, notably Illinois and Iowa, developed in the seventies commissions of "the strong type," with power to fix rates and to enforce their rulings. The commission principle, strongly opposed at first by the railroads, was upheld by the courts and became established public policy. By 1915 every state and the District of Columbia had a state commission. In Wisconsin and in New York, in 1907, in New Jersey, in 1911, and in many other states since, the "railroad" commissions were replaced by "public utilities" or "public service" commissions, having control not only over the railroads but over street railway, gas, electric light, telephone, and some other corporations. The state commissions have found their chief field in the regulation of local utilities, and they fall far short of a solution of the railroad problem. Altho they from the first did much to make the accounts of the railroads intelligible, something to make the local rates reasonable and subject to rule, and much to educate public sentiment, on the whole their results have been disappointing. It was difficult to get commissioners at once strong, able, and honest; the public did not know its own mind well enough to support the commissions properly; and the courts decided that state commissions could regulate only the traffic originating and ending within the state.

Sec. 16. Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. Public hostility to private railroad management was greatest in the regions where the most rapid building of roads occurred from 1866 to 1873. One center of grievances was in "the granger states' of Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota; another center was in the oil regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Eastern states were not without their troubles, for the report of the Hepburn Committee of the New York legislature in 1879 showed that discrimination between shippers prevailed to an almost incredible degree in every portion of New York state. When the courts, in 1886, decided that the greater portion of the railroad rates could not be treated by state commissions, national control was loudly demanded. Scores of bills were presented to Congress between 1870 and 1886, and, despite much opposition, the Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887.

The act laid down some general rules: that rates should be just and reasonable; that railroads should not pool, or agree to divide, their earnings to avoid competition; that they should, under similar conditions, and, unless expressly excused, fix rates in accordance with the long- and short-haul principle (to charge no more for a shorter distance than for a longer one on the same line and in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer). The act provided for a commission of five men, to be appointed by the President, which might require uniform accounts from the railroads, and which should enforce the provisions of the act.

Sec. 17. Working of the Act. The commission in its earlier years gave promise of effectiveness, but its powers, as interpreted by the courts, proved inadequate to its assigned task. The railroads in many cases refused to obey its orders, and court decisions paralyzed its activity. Competent authorities declared in 1901, after fourteen years of the commission's operation, that discrimination never had been worse, and a series of exposures of abuses strengthened the popular demand for stricter legislation. The result was first the Elkins' Act of 1903, aimed at discrimination and rebates, and then the Hepburn Act Of 1906, which marked a new era in railroad regulation in this country. The commission was increased to seven members, its authority was extended to include express, sleeping car, and other agencies of transportation, and it was given the power to fix maximum rates, not to be suspended by the courts without a hearing. It became thus unquestionably a commission of "the strong type." It began to exercise its new powers with vigor, and the carriers reluctantly accepted its authority. Responsive to a calmer but insistent popular demand further amendments were made by the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, which strengthened the long-and-short-haul clause, and gave to the commission, among other new powers, that of suspending new rates proposed by carriers. A special Commerce Court of five judges was created with exclusive jurisdiction in certain classes of railroad cases, but this was abolished after a short trial.

It cannot be said that a final satisfactory solution of the railroad problem has been attained; indeed, in most human affairs such a thing is unattainable. But it can be said that there is no considerable sentiment anywhere in favor of reversing the railroad policy that has been developed, as here briefly outlined. Certainly the public has no such sentiment, and the railroads, which for many years opposed the progress of strong federal control, are now foremost in advocacy of a policy of exclusive national regulation, to remedy the evil of "forty-nine masters."

Sec. 18. Public nature of the railroad franchise. A pretty definite public opinion regarding the nature of the problem has emerged from the nearly half-century of experience and discussion, since the first vigorous agitation of the subject in the seventies of the last century. Railroads in our country are owned by private corporations and are managed by private citizens, not, as in some countries, by public officials. They have been built by private enterprise, in the interest of the investors, not as a charity or as a public benefaction. Railroad-building appears thus at first glance to be a case of free competition where public interests are served in the following of private interests. But, looked at more closely, it may be seen to be in many ways different from the ordinary competitive business. Competition would make the building of railroads a matter of bargain with proprietors along the line, and an obdurate farmer could compel a long detour or could block the whole undertaking. But the public says: a public enterprise is of more importance than the interests of a single farmer. By charter or by franchise the railroad is granted the power of eminent domain, whereby the property of private citizens may be taken from them at an appraised valuation. The manufacturer, enjoying no such privilege, can only by ordinary purchase obtain a site urgently needed for his business. Why may the railway exercise the sovereign power of government as against the private property rights of others? Because the railway is peculiarly "affected with a public interest." The primary object is not to favor the railroads, but to benefit the community. These charters and franchises are granted sparingly in most European countries. In this country they have been granted recklessly, often in general laws, by states keen in their rivalry for railroad extension. When thus great public privileges had been granted without reserve to private corporations, it was realized, too late in many cases, that a mistake had been made and that an impossible situation had been created.

Sec. 19. Other peculiar privileges of railroads. Further, do the various grants of lands and money to the railroads make them other than mere private enterprises? One answer, that of those financially interested in the railroads, was No. They said that the bargain was a fair one, and was then closed. The public gave because it expected benefit; the corporation fulfilled its agreement by building the road. The terms of the charter, as granted, determined the rights of the public; but no new terms could later be read into it, even tho the public came to see the question in a new light. Similar grants, tho not so large, have been made to other industries. Sugar-factories were given bounties; iron-forges and woolen-mills were favored by tariffs; factories have been given, by competing cities, land and exemption from taxation; yet these enterprises have not on that account, been treated, thereafter, in any exceptional way. So, it was said, the railroad was still merely a private business.

But the social answer is stronger than this. The privileges of railroads are greater in amount and more important in character than those granted to any ordinary private enterprise. The legislatures recognize constantly the peculiar public functions of the railroads. In other private enterprises, investors take all the risk; legislatures and courts recognize the duty of guarding, where possible, the investment of capital in railroads. Laws have been passed in several states to protect the railroads against ticket-scalping. Whenever the question comes before them, the courts maintain the right of the railroads to earn a fair dividend. Private enterprise has been invited to undertake a public work, yet public interests are paramount.

Sec. 20. Private and public interests to be harmonized. If an extremely abstract view is taken there is danger of losing sight of the real problem, which is that of harmonizing these two interests in thought and in public policy. Yet the extreme advocates of the private control of railroads for a long time resented indignantly any public interference with railroad rates and with railroad management as an infringement of individual liberty. Before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, in 1887, this position was inconsistently taken by those in whose interests free competition had been violently set aside at the very outset of railroad construction, and for whom governmental interference had made possible great fortunes. It has become generally recognized that the railroads ought not to be allowed to change from a public to a private character just as it suits their convenience. True, they are private enterprises as regards the character of the investment, but they are public enterprises as to their privileges, functions, and obligations.

Finally, it might be said that if there were none of these special reasons for the public control of railways, there is an all-sufficient general reason in the fact that a railroad is always, in some respects and to some degree, a monopoly. Therefore, the railroad problem may be viewed as but one aspect of the general problem of monopoly. To other aspects of this problem we are now to turn our attention.

[Footnote 1: Returns for 1915. The following figures are from the census taken in 1909.]

[Footnote 2: See A.T. Hadley, "Railroad Transportation," pp. 10, 32.]

[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, pp. 437, 438, 443.]



CHAPTER 28

THE PROBLEM OF INDUSTRIAL MONOPOLY

Sec. 1. Kinds of monopoly. Sec. 2. Political sources of monopoly. Sec. 3. Natural agents as sources of monopoly. Sec. 4. Capitalistic monopoly; aspects of the problem. Sec. 5. Industrial monopoly and fostering conditions. Sec. 6. Growth of large industry in the nineteenth century. Sec. 7. Methods of forming combinations. Sec. 8. Growth of combinations after 1880. Sec. 9. The great period of trust formation. Sec. 10. Height of the movement toward combinations. Sec. 11. Motive to avoid competition. Sec. 12. Motive to effect economies. Sec. 13. Profits from monopoly and gains of promoters. Sec. 14. Monopoly's power to raise prices.

Sec. 1. Kinds of monopoly. Monopolies may, for special purposes, be classified as selling or buying, producing or trading, lasting or temporary, general or local, monopolies. The terms selling or buying monopoly explain themselves, tho the latter conflicts with the etymology.[1] Under conditions of barter the selling and the buying monopoly would be the same thing in two aspects. A selling monopoly is by far the more common, but a buying monopoly may be connected with it. A large oil-refining corporation that sells most of the product may by various methods succeed in driving out the competitors who would buy the crude oil. It thus becomes practically the only outlet for the oil product, and the owners of the land thus must share their ownership with the buying monopoly by accepting, within certain limits, the price it fixes. The Hudson Bay Company, dealing in furs, had practically this sort of power in North America. Many instances can be found, yet, relatively to the selling monopolies, those of the buying kind are rare.