~~ 
SETTLEMENT AND COLONIZATION IN GREAT LAKES STATES 13 
from Chicago and Milwaukee run northwest through Minneapolis 
and St. Paul and thus leave this region off to the right of the main 
current of traffic, except to the extent that Duluth and Superior serve 
as an outlet for this region during the eight months of lake naviga- 
tion that one line cuts across the main line of traffic to Sault Sainte 
Marie. The upper peninsula of Michigan and the unsettled part 
of the lower peninsula therefore have somewhat the transportation 
economy of a large island that is icebound for a third of the year. 
A region of this sort needs railroads, but is likely to be slow in ob- 
taining them. The backwardness of the Door peninsula of Wiscon- 
sin illustrates this point. It is therefore safe to say that location 
has been one of the factors retarding the agricultural development of 
this region. It has always been to one side of the current of traffic. 
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND 
This land was originally acquired for lumbering and consequently 
its ownership was greatly concentrated. In 1914 the United States 
Bureau of Corporations published a survey concerning this point.? 
The report shows that 212 timber holders owning over 60,000,000 feet 
each somewhere in the 19 States surveyed, owned in the Lakes States 
alone nearly 12,000,000 acres of land, one owning 1,553,000 acres 
mostly in Michigan, another 808,000 mostly in Minnesota. Table 4 
gives these results in more detail. The concentration is greatest in 
the upper peninsula of Michigan and least in Minnesota. A more 
detailed analysis of the upper peninsula of Michigan showed that 
90 holders owned 56.2 per cent of the whole area, 32 owned 47.1 per 
cent of it, 12 owned 22.6 per cent of it, and one company owned 14.2 
per cent of it. 
TABLE 4.—Large landholdings in timbered parts of the cut-over area of the 
Lakes States of timber holders of over 60 million feet each* 
(Quantities in table are in thousands of acres) 
{ 
| | 
Group 2,|Group 3,|Group 4, |Group 5,,Group 6, Group 7, 
Total | ,FTUP_| “500,000 | 300,000 '| 150,000’ | 75,000 '| 37,500 | 18,000 |Group 8, 
to 
1, ?0ver S 
States all ? to to to to to 
groups |» 590, 000! 599, 90] 500,000 | 300,000 | 150,000 | 75,000 | 37,500 | 18,000 
acres <= s acres 
acres acres acres acres acres acres 
(212) 8 (1) (1) (7) (12) - (23) (39) (53) (76) 
The Lakes States____| 11,917] 1, 553 gos} 2,066| 1,551] 2,111] 1,695] 1,331 802 
Michigan.________- 6,841 | 1,515 171} 1,261 952 | 1, 280 654 662 346 
Wisconsin_.._....__. a7 ae 2 294 434 739 922 556 397 
Minnesota....-_.._. 1, 802 38 635 511 165 92 119 113 129 
1 From The Lumber Industry, Part III, p. 170, with a slight change in tabular arrangement. 
2 Groups according to size of holdings in all the 19 States to which the study applied (only holders of fee 
included). ; : 
3 Figures in parantheses indicate number of holders in the group. 
In Minnesota large land jobbers have been active in transferring 
the ownership of considerable land from the lumber companies, rail- 
ways, mining concerns, and other large holders to numerous small 
absentee speculators, land companies, and other holders. To deter- 
mine the effect on ownership of land in northern Minnesota, four 
counties were studied in detail as part of the work of the present in- 
SE ee Ne ne UESEEE Ser immmaaae 
2U. S. Bureau of Corporations. The Lumber Industry, Parts 2 and 3. 1914. 
a a - ——— Ee 
