APPENDIX Falling off in Rural Population for the Decade 1900-1910 by Per Cents Table showing (1) total increase in population of each State; (2) total increase in urban population for each State; (3) total increase or decrease in rural population for the State as a whole; (4) decrease in rural population in certain counties. Any place having fewer than 2,500 inhabitants is called "rural." This table shows that of our 48 States, only 6 show no decrease in rural population for the decade. These 6 States are Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island. (NOTE. This table is to be completed by the student by adding statistics for the remaining 45 States. Also construct a similar table for the decade, 1910-1920.) CHAPTER VIII AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND THE TRUST QUESTION Agricultural labor, as we have seen, is scarce, and growing scarcer. Keeping pace with this growing scarcity of labor is an increase in labor-saving machinery on the farm. Testifying before the Industrial Commission in 1900, a Georgia planter said that now one man and "a McCormick reaper and two mules do the work of eight good men." The same changed condition was pictured by M. F. Greeley of South Dakota, in these words: "When I first worked out it took five binders to follow a machine, one man to rake off, and one to carry the bundles together. Now the hired girl frequently drives a machine that does the whole business." Without accepting the literal truth of this rhetorical statement of Mr. Greeley's we can safely believe the basic fact that there has been a tremendous increase in the use of agricultural machinery in recent years. Industrial Revolution in Agriculture. The "Industrial Revolution in Agriculture" has come about one hundred years behind the revolution in the manufacturing industry. Since the Civil War we have witnessed a great increase in the use of farm machinery. The following interesting table shows the change in three decades: Value of Agricultural Machinery Per Acre of Farm Land A calculation made by the Department of Labor in 1899 showed that improved agricultural machinery had reduced the labor cost of corn per bushel from 35.77 cents to 10.57 cents, or 70.5 per cent, and had reduced the time of human labor from 274 minutes to 41.3 minutes, or 84.9 per cent. David A. Wells estimated that the labor of three or four men in the Dakota wheat fields would annually produce 1,000 barrels of flour, delivered at the seaboard, or enough flour to furnish bread to one thousand persons for one year. Effects. Investing more money in agricultural machinery has made this industry more "capitalistic." There is now less of drudgery in farming and more of business. The capital investment of the farmer must now be rightly apportioned to each of the four factors, such as land, buildings, machinery, and livestock. The management of "capital," therefore, rather than the management of land, becomes the uppermost consideration, and in that sense, agriculture becomes "capitalistic." Among the beneficial effects of improved machinery are two very important ones, namely, increased yields and lessened cost of production. Crude implements admitted only of crude tillage (Fig. 14). With improvements in tillage tools came increase in yields. An increase in the yield of the products of the farm, without an increase in the demand for such products, would of course, merely result in FIG. 14.-Evolution of the reaper. Cyrus Hall McCormick's first successful reaper, invented in 1831 and patented in 1834. lowering their price, and hence, in lowering the rent of the land or in putting the poorer grades of land out of use altogether. It is of course true that the consumer's demand for bread and meat may increase or decrease from decade to decade. Or the increase in production is disposed of by way of the foreign markets. Thus our great staples-wheat, meat, and cotton-feed and clothe many people in many foreign lands. These products in turn are exchanged in part for food products, in part for other things. But the result of increased production at home, therefore, is seen to be an increase in food consumption, but food of many varieties from many corners of the world. Tropical fruits that were once a luxury for the rich are now a commonplace on the tables of the working man. THE PURCHASE OF FARM MACHINERY 117 The Purchase of Farm Machinery. Since the industrial revolution in agriculture, the farmer normally buys most of the tillage tools used on his farm. This fact is best appreciated when we contrast the situation to-day with that of the time of George Washington, when tillage tools and household supplies were made on the farm. For instance, a neighbor of Washington's has left us this description of the work done on a farm near Mount Vernon: "My father had among his slaves carpenters, coopers, sawyers, blacksmiths, tanners, curriers, shoemakers, spinners, weavers, and knitters. His woods furnished timber and plank for the carpenters and coopers, and charcoal for the blacksmith; his cattle killed for his own consumption and for sale, supplied skins for the tanners, curriers, and shoemakers; and his sheep gave wool and his fields produced cotton and flax for the weavers and spinners, and his own orchards fruits for the distillers. His carpenters and sawyers built and kept in repair all the dwelling houses, barns, stables, ploughs, barrows, gates, etc., on the plantation, and the outhouses of the house. The blacksmiths did all the iron work required by the establishment, as making and repairing ploughs, barrows, teeth, chains, bolts, etc." As described elsewhere in this book, the division of labor between town and country has taken away from the farm most of the processes of manufacture. This has given rise, at frequent periods, to chafings and mutterings of discontent on the part of the farmer, particularly as to the quality and cost of the implements purchased by him, and the high cost of repairs. As described elsewhere, the farmers, through the National Grange actually contemplated entering upon the manufacture on a large scale of farm implements, placing the factories near the centers of farm crop production. This scheme however, finally fell through. The manufacture of most forms of farm machinery has therefore come to be in private hands. The exception to this rule may be found in those States where prison labor is used for making certain farm machinery. The sale of farm implements is chiefly in the hands of private dealers. However, the purchase of farm machinery collectively by organized groups of farmers, through various forms of coöperative associations, is gradually increasing. The outlook is very favorable for the use here of coöperative purchases by the combined farmers in dealing with the manufacturers or the distributors. Since farmers are slower to form combines than are manufacturers, the problem which has for some years confronted the farmer is this, namely: What is the correct economic policy for the scattered, unorganized farmers to adopt towards the combinations of manufacturers of tillage tools? Shall farmers combine and deal with the combined manufacturers on a basis of equality? Or shall farmers, through the processes of the courts, seek to dis solve the combines of manufacturers? Since this question is one of fundamental economic and social significance, it is here considered at length. And furthermore, farmers are now combining in large groups, and wisely so, for the purpose of collective activities, and hence this question has more than academic interest for them. The "Harvester Trust."-Every farmer who uses tillage tools is interested in the so-called "harvester trust." No large industrial corporation has been more discussed in the farm press than the International Harvester Company. But a small part of this discussion has shed any light on the subject. Yet there are literally thousands of pages of sworn testimony available, setting forth the history and methods of this company in the minutest detail. The history of this company has wide economic and social implications. Its History. The International Harvester Company was organized in 1902 as a consolidation of five manufacturers of harvesting machines in the United States, namely, the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., Deering Harvester Co., Plano Manufacturing Co., the Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co., and the Milwaukee Harvester Co. The companies thus consolidated had in 1902 about 90 per cent of the total production of grain binders in the United States and about 80 per cent of the total production of mowers, the two chief kinds of harvesting machines. The interests included in the combination had previously been in keen competition. An attempt made in 1890 to establish a general consolidation of makers of harvesting machines was a failure, and from that time on until the merger, competition was severe, resulting in costly duplication of sales agents and traveling salesmen. After its organization, the International Harvester Company at once began to acquire competing makers of harvesting machines. In January, 1903, it acquired control of D. M. Osborne & Co., its chief competitor. By 1904 control had been secured of several other concerns, including the Minnie Harvester Co., the AultmanMiller Co., and the Keystone Company. From manufacturing harvester machines the company pushed on into new lines. Among the most important of such lines were tillage implements, manure spreaders, farm wagons, gasoline engines, tractors, and cream separators. In order to obtain its raw materials more economically, efficiently and promptly, and to save the margins taken by useless middlemen, the company entered the fields of raw material and transportation. It secured control of ore lands in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, coal lands and coke ovens in Kentucky; blast furnaces for the production of pig iron, steel mills and rolling |