330 x READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



railroad where supplies might be secured, or the roads were good 

 from the farm to the city or to the railroad, or the farm was 

 advantageously situated with reference to large population centers 

 and good markets. Because of an advantageous situation freight 

 rates on supplies to the farm were low, as also were freight rates 

 on the products from the farm. Thus the farmer had a larger 

 surplus from his products and paid a lower price for supplies 

 purchased than otherwise would have been the case. The surplus 

 was attributed to the farm, and higher land varies resulted. In 

 addition to these reasons for differences in land values in the past, 

 a fourth reason must never be lost sight of. This fourth reason 

 may well be referred to as the variations in Nature herself. Some 

 land is most useful for the production of wheat, some for the 

 production of cotton ; and some land is naturally more fertile than 

 other land. This natural adaptability has been capitalized and will 

 be capitalized in the future. All of these reasons for wishing to 

 own land, and added to these the desire for a home and a capitali- 

 zation of the possiblities of the future, have become stronger in 

 recent years. 



Going one step further, I believe that the statistics collected by 

 the Bureau of the Census in 1900 and in 1910 give a basis for 

 deciding whether the higher value of crops per acre devoted to 

 crops was due to the fact that more goods were produced on the 

 land in use, or to a higher price paid for the goods which were 

 produced. No prior census reports give a basis for such a study, 

 and even the reports for 1900 and 1910 do not give a basis for a 

 complete analysis of this subject, nor is the basis sufficient to state 

 absolutely the" extent to which each of these forces was an in- 

 fluence. I believe, however, that figures can easily be presented 

 which show that the movement during the last decade has been 

 almost entirely a change in the price received by the farmer for 

 his goods rather than an increase in the quantity of goods pro- 

 duced. This is an important feature of the new-century movement. 



What I have shown has been in the nature of an explanation 

 of the rapid increase in the value of land and farm property 

 generally. So far, no attempt has been made to prove that the 

 increase in the average value of crops per acre was due to a 



