The Tariff and the Farmer. 29 



000,000; New Jersey from $200,000,000 to $2,733,000,- 

 000 ; Ohio from $504,000,000 in 1850 to $5,019,000,000 in 

 1904. Yet in this latter State the vahie of average farm 

 buildings in 1900 was less than $800. And while there 

 was a gain in valne of farm land and buildings of $319,- 

 000,000, or 89%, from 1850-60, the census shows a loss in 

 such property of $90,000,000 from 1880-1900. 



In 1850 the wealth of the non-agricultural classes of 

 the United States was $3,168,000,000 ; by 1900 it had risen 

 to $73,860,000,000, or twenty-two fold increase, while 

 the wealth of the agricultural classes for the same tune 

 increased but four-fold. 



(d) Labor and capital invested in agriculture paid 

 about half what it receives in manufacture (see chap- 

 ter X). 



In agriculture almost all the work is done by the farm- 

 er, assisted by his family. How does the pay received 

 for this compare with the value of the wages of the work- 

 man's familv^ 



We think it will not be questioned that the net income 

 of the average Massachusetts farmer is at least equal to 

 that of the average United States farmer ; it is probably 

 more. No doubt his farm expenses are larger than those 

 of the United States farmer. But, then, the gross income 

 of the former is much larger than that of the latter. The 

 Massachusetts farmer is credited with an annual gross 

 value of products of $1122; the other of $822. The 

 average gross income (to find net, deduct business 

 expenses, interest and tax from gross) received by the 

 farmers of the richest agricultural section, the .North 

 Central, is $1074. 



As near as could be figured out from the rather blind 

 Massachusetts state census of 1895, the net value of the 



