172 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Jan. 



ural value ; there are others that may have or may not have 

 a high money value, according to the farmer who tills it. 



Let me illustrate my meaning by citing a case described 

 in the " Maryland Farmer," last year. It is the story of a 

 farm near the city of Baltimore ; it was well fenced, but 

 was poor and run down. Its proximity to Baltimore gave 

 it some value, and an enterprising farmer bought it for 

 twenty dollars per acre, lie took hold with a will. He 

 raised such crops as he could market in Baltimore, and 

 always took back a load of manure which he could get 

 cheap. In a few years his farm was as fertile as a garden, 

 and his crops of vegetables brought him in a nice income. 

 He was a prosperous man, and was repeatedly offered two 

 hundred dollars })er acre for his farm, and once as high as 

 three hundred and fifty dollars ; but it was his home as well 

 as his capital in business, and he kept it until he died. His 

 heirs sold it for two hundred and twenty-five dollars per 

 acre, and moved away. It fell into the hands of a careless 

 man, who thought the farm should support him; he did 

 little himself, but let his hired men do the work. The farm 

 of course deteriorated. He was ofiored a hundred dollars 

 per acre, and refused ; he thought it worth more, and it 

 certainly had been worth much more until recently ; so, 

 rather than sell at that price, he rented it. The tenant 

 cropped it hard. In the end it was sold at auction for 

 twelve dollars per acre. 



This is a fair and typical illustration of the actual source 

 of value in most agricultural land. Tilled soil is not a 

 natural but an artificial product. It is something that is 

 made, and its value depends on the skill, brains and industry 

 of the man who manufactures it. 



I have said that capital in agricultural land is never entirely 

 lost. This is true simply because, if it ever had agricultural 

 value, it may have it again so long as the market endures. 

 In the case cited this great decline in the value of the land 

 was not because of competition or loss of market. We hear 

 much of the decline in the value of farm land in New Eng- 

 land ; many farms have declined in value, l)ut others have 

 increased. Some have declined because of new compe- 

 tition, some because of decrease in the density of rural 



