THE DKMAXD FOR CITEAP FOOD 



613 



self for the moment with a reference to an 

 interesting discussion of the importance of 

 importing Chinese labor to reduce the cost 

 of food, appearing lately in a magazine. It 

 is rejiresentative of a class. We may lay 

 aside the agricultural misconceptions of this 

 and similar articles. "A million such labor- 

 ers," the article says, "distributed through- 

 out the country would so increase the food 

 supply and so lower the cost of the neces- 

 saries of life that the laborer who now earns 

 $3 a day would then be able to buy for $3 

 more food than he can get for $5." I do not 

 think any such result could be attained; but 

 even if so, is it safe and worth while (except 

 possibly as a war ex])eriinent) to produce 

 food in North America on a Diiiiese scale of 

 living.' It assumes that "tlu> average Amer- 

 ican does not like farming. The sons of the 

 ])rosperous farmers do not take kindly to the 

 tilling of the soil with their own hands. 

 They prefer the excitement and the diver- 

 sions and the stimulus of the life of city 

 and town, and they leave the farm for the 

 office and the factory. The average Amer- 

 ican laborer also finds the occupation of the 

 city and town more congenial than farm 

 labor. . . . The same reasons that have de- 

 nuded the farm of labor have denuded the 

 household of servants." Labor goes where 

 it is best paid and most secure. It is not 

 controlled very much by sentiment. It 

 would go from city to country if the induce- 

 ments were sufficient. And as for servants, 

 it is the hope of democracy that all persons 

 may better themselves. This writer affirms 

 that the Chinese laborers would relieve the 

 native laborers, allowing them to find em- 

 ployment elsewhere. This statement of the 

 case is its condemnation. We cannot have 

 a democracy with two very unlike standards 

 of living in the producing populations, — an 

 American standard for the industrial work- 

 ers and a Chinese standard for the agricul- 

 tural workers. 



And now I come to the most dangerous 

 fallacy of all, — to the notion that food pro- 

 duction is only an economic question, and 

 that our problem is to produce the greatest 

 quantity at the least cost. Human success 

 and democracy require the best development 

 of the individual as a starting-point. The 

 first crystallization of democracy is in the 

 home. Without the training, free coopera- 

 tion, and discipline of the home, there is no 

 democracy. Farming is preeminently the 



occupation of home making. The home is 

 l)art of the farm. We speak habitually of 

 the "farm home." The workingman does not 

 domicile in the shop nor does the manufac- 

 turer live on the factory premises. The pur- 

 chaser of a farm looks always at the resi- 

 dence as ])art in the valuation. The pur- 

 chaser of a factory or a steamboat does not 

 inquire about the residence of the owner: he 

 may not know where the residence is; it may 

 be in another city, or the owner may live in 

 a flat where it is agreeable to neither the 

 landlord nor the janitor that he have a fam- 

 ily large enough to constitute a school in 

 democracy. No public action is justifiable 

 that so lowers the standards of income on 

 the farm as to lessen the fullness and the 

 protection of the home. N'erily, these homes 

 are of the liackgroinnls. All tlie responsi- 

 bility anil the })ermanence of the occupation 

 enter into the farm home. 



The service of the farmer to society is not 

 merely as a producer of supi)lies. The rural 

 range is a type of life, and one of the seed- 

 beds of citizenship. It is our nearest ap- 

 proach to a permanent society. It does not 

 move itself in search of work, nor ever find 

 itself out of employment, nor is it ever 

 closed by strikes or lockouts, not even tem- 

 porarily suspendeil by commercial conditions. 

 It is as much a part of the order of things 

 as the face of nature against which it works. 

 The standard of living maintained in these 

 backgrounds is therefore an elementary con- 

 sideration in the welfare of society. 



We are to be convinced, therefore, that it 

 is at least as important to maintain stand- 

 ards of income in the open country as in the 

 industrial pursuits. It is the public temper 

 to blame the farmer himself if his standards 

 of living or his efficiency are not high in any 

 case, saying that he is ignorant and ambition- 

 less. We do not say it in the same way of 

 the industrial workers. This assumption 

 that the fault lies with the farmer is really 

 at the bottom of much of our legislation and 

 is responsible for a wide extent of loose 

 thinking. Certainly we must make better 

 fanners. All progress rests on personal 

 excellence. Certainly also must we not make 

 farmers the wards of society as we seem to 

 be doing with the workingmen and for which 

 the workingmen themselves will suffer in the 

 end. But we must be ready and glad to pay 

 for food what it costs to produce it plus a 

 good living margin. 



