244 
MARCH 28 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
“governor” on a steam engine, the price of store stock 
depends at present almost entirely on the number we 
breed at home. 
So far, the importations of store stock into the British 
Islands have been comparatively insignificant in compari¬ 
son with importations of fat stock and dead meat, and 
hence it has so far followed that breeding has been profit¬ 
able whenever the numbers have run down to a pbint 
which denotes a scarcity. On the 4th of June in each year 
are collected by the Agricultural Department of the Privy 
Council, returns relating to the numbers of different kinds 
of live stock, of the area of land under different crops, also 
now of different kinds of poultry,and supplemented by sum¬ 
maries of colonial and foreign agricultural statistics, im¬ 
ports and exports of agricultural products, etc. The returns 
as to live stock and area of land under different crops, are 
obtained directly from farmers throughout the British 
Islands, and though they are not absolutely exact, and 
cannot possibly be so under such circumstances, they are 
sufficiently so for all practical purposes, and form each 
year a set of comparisons which are found to be extremely 
useful to farmers who will be at the pains to study them. 
When first they were collected, about a quarter of a cen¬ 
tury ago, these returns were regarded by our farmers with a 
feeling of misgiving, and even of suspicion, as if they were 
to prove a basis for taxation, or some other fell and cruel 
thing ; even yet some little of this misgiving exists, for it 
takes some of our old-fashioned people half a lifetime to 
understand and appreciate an economic innovation. The 
returns, however, have now established their reputation, 
and all our leading men, as well as those who follow, look 
forward to the publication of these agricultural statistics. 
The following table shows the fluctuations of numbers 
which have occurred in 10 years inclusive, in cattle, sheep, 
and pigs 
1R80.... 
1881_ 
1882_ 
1888.... 
1884.. .. 
1885.. .. 
1886.. .. 
1887.. .. 
1888_ 
1889.. .. 
1890.. .. 
Cattle. 
...9.871,158 
...9.905,018 
...9,832,417 
..10,097,913 
. .10,422,762 
..10.868.760 
..10,872.811 
. .10.689,960 
..10,268,600 
..10,272,765 
..10,789,858 
Sheep. 
30,239,620 
27,896,273 
27,448 220 
28,347,560 
29,316,787 
30.(i86,200 
28,955,240 
29.401,750 
28,938,716 
29,484,774 
31,667,195 
430 
3,149,173 
8,956,495 
8,986,427 
3 906,205 
3,686,628 
3.497,165 
3,720,957 
3.815,643 
3,905,865 
4,362,040 
The average annual number of cattle of all ages for this 
period is 10,349,277; of sheep, 29,258,394; and of pigs, 3,703,644. 
It will be noticed that while our number of cattle in 1890 
was smaller than in 1885 and 1886 by some 80,000, it was 
greater than in 1880 by no fewer than 918,000 ani¬ 
mals. During the 11 years under notice, our corn crops— 
cereals we mean by this term, and not maize—decreased 
from 10,672,086 to 9,574,249' acres; our green crops from 
4,746,293 to 4,534,145 acres; our clover, sainfoin and grasses 
under rotation, from 6,389,232 to 6,097,210 acres; and our 
flax, hops, bare fallow, etc., from 1,061,997 to 747,457 acres ; 
all these showing a decrease in cultivated land of 1,926,547 
acres, or something like 10 per cent of the whole. Mean¬ 
time our area of permanent grass land, exclusive of heath 
or mountain land, has increased from 24,717,092 to27,115,425 
acres; and if we compare this increase of grass land with 
the decrease of cultivated land, it will be seen that nearly 
half a million acres have been brought in, either for grass 
or crops from their pristine desert condition. 
It will be noticed in the table that since 1885 there have 
been considerable fluctuations in the numbers of cattle and 
sheep, and that while we have more sheep now than in any 
preceding year of the series, we have also more cattle than 
in any except two. The year 1883 found us with herds 
and flocks seriously diminished ; and stock-raising, which 
had become much less profitable in the three preceding 
years, again became profitable as before. It will be no¬ 
ticed, too, that the number of cattle of all ages went up at 
a bound more than half a million in the year ending June 
4 , 1890. Yet again, this year, are our farmers aiming to 
raise as many calves as they conveniently can, so that the 
returns of next June will probably reveal a larger number 
of stock than any given in the table. It is obvious, how¬ 
ever, that this increase consists of an unusually large pro¬ 
portion of calves and yearlings, and these cannot influence 
the market for adult cattle for some time to come. In 
two years’ time, and still more in three, the calves of this 
year and last will probably cause a sensible reduction in 
the price of grazing cattle, in which event graziers’ profits 
will once more cease to be microscopically small, as they 
were last year and are likely to be in this one. 
Meantime the demand for American beef will increase 
rather than slacken, for trade is improving in the land, 
and we have a thousand more people to feed each succeed¬ 
ing day. On the quantity of beef which you can spare to 
send to us will depend the price of it and of our own, but 
there is no probability of your being able to send enough 
to cause current rates to recede. Your cattle are increas¬ 
ing rapidly in number, no doubt, but your population is 
increasing, too, along with our own, but much more rap¬ 
idly than ours, and it may be taken for granted that in 
both countries the people are eating more flesh meat than 
they formerly did. If the trade and the manufacturing 
industries of this country go on improving, as we hope 
and expect they will, the masses of our people will earn 
more money and eat more beef; this was the case in the 
last decade but one, and probably will be so again before 
long. Lean cattle for grazing are at the present time 
worth from $60 to $80, and while beef remains at 12 to 14 
cents per pound there is not much profit in fattening them 
for the butcher. What our graziers want is cheaper store 
stock, but this would scarcely suit the breeders’ notions. 
The Canadians are sending us a few store cattle to be fat¬ 
tened here, and reports as to their suitability are so far 
favorable ; and if you could dump us half a million graded 
steers and heifers on our shores next month and in May, 
we should be prepared to pay you satisfactory prices for 
them—satisfactory at all events to us, if not to you. 
Surry, England. [prof.] j. p. sheldon. 
Farm Politics. 
Here It is proposed to discuss with freedom and fairness, ques¬ 
tions of National or State policy that particularly concern farm¬ 
ers. The editors disclaim responsibility for the opinions of cor¬ 
respondents. The object is to develop a true and fair basis for 
organization among farmers. Let us think out just what we want 
and then strive for it. 
KANSAS POLITICS. 
EDGKRTON. 
Who causes many blades of grass 
To grow where there was one ? 
Who turns the stubborn subsoil up 
To mellow in the sun ? 
Who feeds the hungry millions 
By his labor and his toil ? 
The noblest man amongst us, 
The tiller of the soil. 
Ho ! Let honor and preferment 
Be accorded, full and free, 
To him who feeds the hungry 
And provides for you and me. 
May his life flow calm and peaceful, 
May his lot forever fall 
In pleasant places only, 
For the farmer feeds us all! 
Since he’s proved himself so worthy 
In the big-boy spelling bout, 
And so nicely turned down others, 
Who had dubbed him “country lout,” 
Like Miss Columbia, Kansas 
Has smiled and klndlj said : 
“ Good boy, Franklin Farmer, 
As the brightest, go up head.” 
WESTERN FARM MORTGAGES. 
There has been a great deal of talk and some legislation 
in Kansas and other Western States this winter concern¬ 
ing farm mortgages. The evil, however, has not been 
remedied to any great extent. The trouble lies in the fact 
that laws enacted now can affect only mortgages made in 
the future. It is not future, but present mortgages that 
are worrying us. There is hardly one farmer in a hun¬ 
dred who can not make a fair profit on money lent at 
seven per cent; but we have to pay 12 per cent on most of 
the loans ; that is, seven per cent goes to the Eastern len¬ 
der and five per cent, in the form of notes, goes to the 
loan companies. Even at this rate, complaints are few 
in years when the crops are good. That five per cent takes 
most of the profit, and when crops fail the farmer has no 
reserve fund to draw upon. 
There is no desire on the part of our farmers to repudi¬ 
ate their debts; the present outcry is simply due to their 
inability to pay now because they have nothing to pay 
with. What we need is a closer relation between the bor¬ 
rower and lender. If our farmers could obtain the money 
at the Interest the Eastern man gets for it, they could and 
would pay interest promptly. I believe that there is a 
plan which, If followed, would afford a great measure of 
relief to those whose homes are now in danger. If the 
parties holding mortgages on Western land would do busi¬ 
ness directly with the mortgagor without the intervention 
of the loan companies, the change would save the five per 
cent to the mortgagor, and enable him to pay the interest 
promptly when due. Of course this method could not be 
used in making new loans: for it would be necessary to 
have a trusted agent to examine the land to see if the se¬ 
curity was good. But where persons now hold mortgages, 
they could renew them without the intervention of the 
loan company just as well as with it. This would save a 
great many thousands of dollars to the Western farmer 
that now go into the pockets of loan agents. It would 
not be advisable for the mortgagee to increase the loan, 
but the same amount would certainly be as safe as it Is 
now, and the farmer could much more readily pay 7.than 
12 per cent. It would be necessary for the mortgagee to 
begin this “ reciprocity ” work ; for he has the address of 
his “tenant,” while the tenant does not know who or 
where his “ landlord ” is. The loan companies never per¬ 
mit the purchaser’s address to be known when they sell a 
mortgage. If no Kansas farmer had to pay over seven per 
cent for the money he uses, the cry of hard times in Kan¬ 
sas would cease forever. w. v. jackson. 
Comanche Co., Kan. 
GREAT INTEREST IN THE SINGLE TAX. 
Another Man “Wants to Know.” 
“ Uber ” and Wm. T. Croasdale, Editor of The Standard, 
have spoken on the single tax question, on page 145, in 
the issue of February 21, 1891. I am far from either, and 
have never heard of either before, so I shall just write en¬ 
tirely free from bias. 
“ Uber ” writes for information. So far as I can under¬ 
stand the answer, Croasdale fails to give any. That which 
he puts as an answer reminds me of him “ who for want 
of better argument fell to swearing ”—abuse. I am like 
“ Uber.” I would like to know why this property I have 
“appropriated” came to belong “to the community as a 
whole.” It was paid for at $1.25 per acre, as a just equiva¬ 
lent for the expense of surveying, mapping, recording, 
deeding, etc., the unimproved land being estimated worth¬ 
less, payment being required only for labor and its pro¬ 
ducts. Since 1840 there has been expended on improve¬ 
ments—fencing, buildings, orchards, drains, etc.—over 
$15,000. It is now assessed at $3,000, which is all it would 
sell for at a bona fide cash sale. 
Cost of 150 acres for surveying, etc., at $1.25. $187.50 
The Improvements thereon . $15,00i .00 
Total. $15,187.50 
Deduct present cash value. $3,000.00 
$12,187.50 
I would like to know whether “the community as a 
whole” is the owner of this place, having already taken 
$12,187.50 to itself, and whether I am only a charity occu¬ 
pant, having given all these]years with much means from 
other sources to the improvement of that which “ the com¬ 
munity once deeded away.” Here Croasdale asserts all 
this loss and that what is left belongs to “ the community 
as a whole.” 
The conclusion seems to be that “ the community” sold 
and did not sell. It only made a pauper slave to it, and 
left him no means to get out of the bondage except to be 
dispossessed and become an utter vagrant at its sweet will; 
then those who supposed they did own something in, 
about or on the land purchased, cleared, cultivated and 
improved to, and quite often, beyond their ability, are only 
defrauded paupers, made and held so by “ the community 
as a whole ” 
Will Mr. Croasdale tell us farmers something that will 
cheer us, not cast us further down; something our 
“ stupidly ignoring” sense can be made to know with re¬ 
gard to what we have for years stupidly regarded as our 
own private property, not the public property of the com¬ 
munity. We have generally supposed that a Supreme 
Creator was ours and we His, and that the community as 
a whole never created the land. We supposed that the 
latter could regulate its parceling out de novo and there 
rest. But here is a suggestion that there is no rest to the 
holder of land. It may be true; yet how are we to be 
taxed for land when it is without value ; its improvements 
only giving value? The natural fertility in the soil, the 
ore in the mine, the building materials in hills, the timber 
in the forest, the wool on the sheep’s back, all, and 
each are without value except as a product of labor. The 
infant intuitively knows this. A babe knows air is value¬ 
less except it labors to use it. The babe knows food is 
worthless except it labors to use it. Is there any value to 
anything except through labor ? The thief confesses it 
when he labors to appropriate the results of the labors of 
others. If this single tax is anything more than the 
vagary of a crank, please let it be known. Please do not 
hide the light or the truth because too immense. 
Steuben Co., N. Y. geo. c. mott. 
R. N.-Y.—Mr. Croasdale was asked to reply because, in 
the absence of Henry George, he is considered about the 
best authority on “ The Single Tax,” having succeeded 
Mr. George as editor of the paper advocating this system 
of taxation. The R. N.-Y. prefers to go to headquarters 
when information is called for. 
The Single Tax In Japan. 
The Rev. Chas. E. Garst—see page 64 of The R. N.-Y.— 
is no doubt an able, honest, benevolent, and faithful 
Christian missionary, who loves God and desires to pro-, 
mote the happiness of his fellow men; but as he declares 
that the single tax on land values “ is as much a moral 
and religious question as the freeing of the slaves was, or 
as the temperance question is to-day,” he shows that he is 
a prejudiced witness, and in a court of justice, if he had 
been equally free in discussing a murder case, he would be 
challenged from the jury for having expressed an opinion 
on the case. He says: “ The statistics (in Japan) show 
that about 85 per cent of the taxes of the country for the 
year 1875 were on land values.” Then most assuredly they 
had the single tax on land values to the extent of 85 per 
cent, and it only required the remaing 15 per cent to be re¬ 
moved from tariff duties or personal property, and placed 
upon the land to abolish poverty and make Japan the 
paradise of plenty and happiness which the single-tax ad¬ 
vocates claim would be the certain result of such a mode 
of taxation. Henry George says, in the Century Maga¬ 
zine, page 394, July, 1890: “ All that is new is the single. 
To make it the single tax, we have only to abolish other 
taxes.” Mr. Garst qualifies his statement by saying that 
the tax on land values in Japan “ is not as understood by 
single-taxers, because but little over one-tenth of the land 
is in use.” It is not easy to see what difference that makes. 
A good thing is good as far as it goes. A half loaf is better 
than no bread. But why is the land not in use ? There 
can be no doubt that the government would be glad to 
have it used, because the greater the number of tax pay¬ 
ers, the lighter the tax burden on each. 
Mr. Garst says the land is not bought “ because the price 
Is too high, and it will be highly taxed if improved.” As 
he does not state the price at which it is held, we have a 
right to conjecture that the true and only reason for its 
lying unproductive is not the high price of the land, but 
the high taxes the purchasers would incur by becoming 
farmers. People do not like to put their necks into a yoke 
if they can keep them out. He says most of the cultivated 
land “ is in rice fields and it is taxed, not at its value in its 
natural state, but as it is improved.” If all the taxes were 
put on land values, it would not make any difference 
whether the valuation was high or low, provided land of 
the same quality and productiveness in the same vicinity 
was valued at tbe same figure. When a certain amount 
of revenue is to be raised, the lower the valuation the 
higher must be the rate of taxation. Those rice fields are 
undoubtedly worth more than other land because they are 
better for the purpose of raising the principal crop of the 
country. Good rice lands must have a rich soil and a loca¬ 
tion where they can be flooded with water at certain 
seasons. No genuine single tax advocate would object to 
the best land being taxed the highest. That is the life, 
soul and embodiment of the single tax theory. 
He says: “ The poor farmer in Japan is ground into the 
dirt. He cannot eat the eggs his two or three hens lay ; he 
can scarcely eat any of the rice he raises.” The unfortu¬ 
nate condition of the farmers may be due to the fact that 
they are now paying but 85 per cent of all the taxes col¬ 
lected in the empire; let the remaining 15 per cent be put 
on their land, and perhaps they can then afford to live on 
wheat bread, roast turkey, and ice cream. 
Mr. Garst says : “ I rented a house and put up a shed for 
my cow ; the tax collector came round and said the taxes 
would have to be raised, as the land from a garden had 
