FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS 2$ 



borne by the people of small means, among whom we must/ 

 certainly class the agricultural population. 1 [ 



In the raising of state and local revenue, the farmer fared 

 somewhat better, for here practically the whole reliance was 

 placed on direct taxation, mainly in the form of a tax on the 

 valuation of real and personal property. The complaints of\ 

 the farmers in regard to state and local taxation were that 

 their property, being principally in real estate and other readily 

 discoverable forms, was sure to be assessed and usually at its 

 full value; while other property, particularly that of dwellers 

 in urban communities and of corporations, being largely personal 

 and difficult to get at, often escaped taxation altogether. 2 The 

 farmers also maintained that their real property was assessed 

 higher in proportion than that of the other classes, and partic-y 

 ularly was there complaint about the assessment of uncultivated! 

 land or land held for speculative purposes at a lower rate thanlj 

 that of equal quality which was under cultivation. 3 In some 

 parts of the country there was also considerable outcry against 

 the assessment of growing crops, which the farmers preferred 

 to look uponas prospective property only. 4 



It is evident then that the financial condition of the country 

 at this time as it affected the agricultural population was 

 far from satisfactory: many farmers were burdened with large 

 private debts, on which they were paying high rates of in- 

 terest; the condition of the currency, because of its depre- 

 ciation, of its fluctuation, and especially of its subsequent 

 contraction, affected them adversely, in common with many 

 other classes; and the system of protection to American manu- 

 facturers also operated to their disadvantage. The enormous 



1 Spahr, Distribution of Wealth, 133-146; Elliot, American Farms, 156-162; 

 Peters, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, iv. 23 (October, 1889) > Flagg, in Illinois 

 State Grange, Proceedings, iv. 64, 67-70 (1875); an< i ' m American Social Science 

 Journal, vi. in (July, 1874). 



2 Cloud, Monopolies and the People, 149-153; Flagg, in Illinois State Grange, 

 Proceedings, iv. 64, 67-70 (1875); Peters, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

 iv. 22 (October, 1889); Resolution of Bethel Grange, in Prairie Farmer, xliv. 187 

 (June 14, 1873); United States Industrial Commission, Reports, xix. 



3 Elliot, American Farms, 163-169. 



4 California Patron, July n, 1877, p. 5. 



