-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 10. #Difficulty of cooperation among farmers#. Rural communities are proverbially conservative; the American farmer is proverbially an individualist. No wonder, then, that the new ideas and plans of cooperation 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 cooperative 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 cooperate 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 cooperation among farmers sympathetic critics are forced to say: "Many students of rural economics assert that cooperation 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 cooperate."
-- 11. #Rapid growth of farmers' selling cooperation#. Despite what has just been said, cooperation among farmers now is more developed and is growing faster than all other kinds of cooperation 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' cooperation.
The most notable developments were those of the California Fruit Exchange and of cooperative 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 cooperative associations of various kinds are multiplying all over the country, for shipping live stock, fruits, butter, cheese, and other farm products. Cooperation 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.
-- 12. #Some economic features of farmers' selling cooperation#. This type of producers' selling cooperation is proving in America to be far more successful than producers' cooperation among workingmen;[3] and certain important economic features in it should be noted. The local producers' selling cooperative 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 cooperation with the related form of consumers' cooperation 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.
-- 13. #Cooperation in buying.# Cooperative buying (called also consumers' cooperation or distributive cooperation) 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 cooperative 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 cooperative buying has increased in agriculture in connection with selling associations. Since 1890 the growth of consumers' cooperation 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 cooperative 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' cooperation 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.
-- 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]
-- 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
-- 1. Rise of the corporation concept. -- 2. The modern era of corporations. -- 3. Beginning of corporation problems. -- 4. The era of canals. -- 5. Rapid building of American railroads. -- 6. Reasons for governmental aid. -- 7. Kinds of governmental aid. -- 8. Emergence of the railroad problem. -- 9. Discrimination as to goods. -- 10. Local discrimination. -- 11. Personal discrimination. -- 12. Economic power of railroad managers. -- 13. Political power of railroad managers, -- 14. Consolidation of railroads. -- 15. State railroad commissions. -- 16.
Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. -- 17. Working of the Act.
-- 18. Public nature of the railroad franchise. -- 19. Other peculiar privileges of railroads. -- 20. Private and public interests to be harmonized.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.