AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 719 



This line of thought has been forcibly summarized in the 

 following language : 



The important truth concerning debts is, that the poorer and more purely 

 agricultural portions of the country are not those where mortgage indebtedness 

 on farms and homes is the greatest. Debts abound where there is wealth and 

 industrial opportunity, and because there is industrial opportunity. New York 

 State with 6,000,000 inhabitants, Pennsylvania with 5,000,000 and Illinois 

 with 4,000,000 have each of them a larger mortgage indebtedness than all the 

 Southern States taken together, with a population of 22,000,000 and over. 

 The six states in which the indebtedness is above $100,000,000 contain only 

 a third of the people of the United States, but their people have borrowed 

 more than half the total amount loaned on mortgages. 



This same explanation of the increase of mortgage debt is set 

 forth by the commissioner of labor of Minnesota : 



The years 1869, 1870, and 1871 witnessed a great increase of mortgages 

 placed on record against acre property. These were years of great farm pros- 

 perity, and lands were mortgaged to secure money to improve the same. . . . 

 Farm disasters always lead to decreased mortgages on farm lands. . . . The 

 wheat crop of 1877 was equal to that of 1875 in the state, although an almost 

 total failure in certain counties. In the counties with a failure the growth of 

 mortgage debt was checked, but the good prices for wheat and the constantly 

 increasing wheat production of Minnesota led to a great increase in mortgage 

 debt in the state as a whole. . . . Years of disaster in any given county are fol- 

 lowed by decreased relative amounts of mortgages, showing that farm mortgages 

 in Minnesota are the results or accompaniments of prosperity and not of disaster. 



* * * * * *'* * * Mf 



The further question, whether the income of farm land now sub- 

 ject to mortgage has been maintained at the point which the borrower 

 expected, is obviously of paramount importance. The proximate 

 causes of any decline of farm income, other things being equal, 

 are lower prices for agricultural produce and crop failure. 



In regard to prices, it is noteworthy that many of the products 

 of the farm have in recent years most seriously declined. For 

 example, the average farm price of wheat during the four years, 

 1888-189 1, was 82 cents per bushel ; while during the following 

 four years, 1 892-1 895, the price averaged but 55 cents, a de- 

 cline of 33 per cent. That is, to pay off a debt of ;^iooo during 

 the latter period would have required on the average about 600 

 bushels more of wheat than during the former. The average 



