Address. 9 



This surely is not a bad showing. In spite of the disadvantages 

 which I have enumerated, if the census tables are to be trusted, and 

 I believe they are, the farmers of Massachusetts have averaged more, 

 per person employed, than those in Indiana in value of production, 

 and Connecticut farmers better than those of either Ohio or Indiana, 

 and both States much better than the average for the whole country. 

 I have not considered the amount spent on fertilizers in this item of 

 cost, the western States would have an advantage. 



If next we divide the "'value of all farm productions" by the 

 number of acres of improved land," we get average value produced 

 per acre, and the figures are : 



Whole United States. $7 77 Indiana, $8 24 



Connecticut, 10 97 Massachusetts, 11 34 



Illinois, 7 81 Ohio, 8 66 



Here we see that the figures for both these New England States 

 are far above the average for the whole country, and far above even 

 the States used in comparison ; the figures of this comparison of 

 " barren New England" with the {i fertile West," are sufficiently 

 eloquent. We hear much of the " enterprise" and " go aheaditive- 

 ness of the Great West," contrasted with the dull plodding ways of 

 the New England farmers, but it seems that the latter have sufficient 

 energy and pluck left to grow from their " barren acres" an average 

 25 to 45 per cent more than their western competitors. It has, how- 

 ever, been attended with more expense for manure, and probably 

 somewhat harder work. 



Again the New England farmers are often spoken of as " poor,' 

 in contrast with their wealthy western competitors. Let us study 

 the figures again, to see how they run as a whole, not one rich man 

 here and another there, but the average for the whole class. If we 

 add together the "value of the farms," the "value of farming imple- 

 ments and machines," and " value of live stock," we get the capital 

 employed in farming, and if we divide this by the number of " per- 

 sons employed in Agriculture," we evidently get the average amount 

 of capital used by each man, and the figures in even dollars, are : 



Whole United States, $1,578 Indiana, $2,195 



Connecticut, 3,070 Massachusetts, 2,529 



Illinois, 2,688 Ohio, 3,496 



In this list, Ohio leads, but it seems that the " poor Connecticut 

 farmer" has more capital than his rich competitor in Illinois ; the 

 Massachusetts farmer nearly as much as him in Illinois, and more 

 than his average Indiana brother. Extensive calculations, based on 



