WHY BOYS LEAVE THE FARMS. 
The True Story of a Family Settlement. 
It seems to me that we are giving ourselves a great 
deal of needless concern over the fact that a smaller 
proportion of country children now remain on the 
farms than was formerly the case. The situation is 
very easily explained, and is the result, to a very large 
extent, of conditions which very few of us would 
care to change. Among these are the increased price 
of farm lands, the larger average size of country than 
of city families, and especially the fact that the farm 
usually represents the entire accumulation of the life¬ 
time of the owner. In the days of cheaper lands the 
prosperous farmer acquired as much as he wanted— 
enough to give each of his numerous family at least 
a small farm upon which to begin independent opera¬ 
tions. If there was not enough in the home farm 
there was plenty of cheap land to be had in the 
vicinity, and the boys 
needed only a small 
amount of help from 
their parents in order 
to establish them¬ 
selves on independent 
holdings. To-day this 
condition has totally 
changed. Land is com¬ 
paratively high in 
price, and the machin¬ 
ery and equipment of 
a good farm often 
represents as great an 
outlay as would have 
been required to buy 
the land itself a gen¬ 
eration ago. Many i 
men now living re¬ 
member the day when 
any energetic young 
man could buy land 
practically w i t h o u I 
capital, go upon it 
with his wife, rear a 
family, and pay for 
his property out of 
what he could pro¬ 
duce upon it. These 
men say that boys of 
to-day are lazy, that 
they will not work 
and deny themselves 
as their fathers did, 
but if they will reflect 
a moment on the 
changes in conditions 
they will admit that the undertaking is far more for¬ 
midable now than formerly. With the higher labor 
cost of producing crops the boy cannot accumulate 
stock enough on his land in five years’ time to pay 
for the farm, and even at present farm wages, which 
are high enough to limit production in many sections, 
he cannot expect to earn and save enough as a farm 
worker to enable him to buy very much land. 
“But,” says the pessimist, “the boys will not stay on 
the farms which their fathers own.” True, perhaps, 
and why should they? Suppose there is an old-fash¬ 
ioned family of four sons and four daughters and a 
comfortable, prosperous farm worth $8,000, which has 
furnished a living for all in return for their labor. 
The parents have invested their all in the property. 
It, and the children, represent their life work. 
Now the eldest son approaches maturity. He looks 
forward to the day when he can have a wife and 
home. How shall it be? Shall he bring her to the 
family home—his father’s house? Certainly not. 
The young wife and her children are entitled to more 
independence and privacy than such a home can afford. 
He thinks of asking for a few acres of land and build¬ 
ing on it, but at the modest wages which his father 
feels able to pay him, when can he ever build a house? 
Not for years. But he may go in debt a little for his 
home and work for a share on the home place. What 
share? He cannot ask for half when he has so much 
smaller needs than his parents. He thinks of asking 
for a third, but he soon figures that he will be earn¬ 
ing less than the tnotorman on the neighboring trolley 
line. He is handy with tools, and knows that in a 
year or two he can earn journeyman’s wages as car¬ 
penter or machinist Underlying all is the dim con¬ 
sciousness that in the end he has only $1,000 of own¬ 
ership in the home farm, and must raise somewhere 
$7,000 more before he can own it. The prospect looks 
rather hopeless, and he will not hurt his parents’ feel¬ 
ings by enlarging upon it, but says he thinks the 
“ALL FARMERS EXCEPT TPIE MINISTER.” A CENTRAL NEW YORK GROUP. Fig. 382 
younger boys ought to have a chance to see what they 
can do on the farm, and off he goes to town, and his 
decision is wise, for he has taken the short cut to 
independent home ownership. If he has “the root of 
the matter in him” he will own the farm quicker by 
leaving it than by staying on it. 
So one by one the boys go, giving various reasons, 
but all moved by the consciousness that their indi¬ 
vidual interests in the old home are really very small. 
Now only the youngest boy remains. Duty compels 
him to stay and make home happy for his parents in 
their declining years. His sisters have married and 
moved away, each with a vague sub-consciousness 
that some day her share in the old home will make 
her new home very comfortable. All the children say 
that John ought to stay on the farm; they are all tak¬ 
ing care of themselves, and the home place will fur¬ 
nish a good support for him and the old folks, and he 
can bring a wife there if he chooses. So John stays. 
He finds, however, that with his father no longer able 
to do much work, and with his brothers all gone, he 
must hire much more labor than in earlier years, and 
it is not so efficient as the family labor, nor does it 
willingly keep such long hours in busy seasons. His 
sisters, as they grew up, had kept the house much 
more elaborately furnished than it was when they 
were children, and many hands made light the house¬ 
hold work. His wife, with young children, cannot 
keep the house as his mother has become accustomed 
to seeing it, without hiring household help, and thus 
on every hand John finds himself running a more ex¬ 
pensive establishment than his father had at his age. 
Soon the parents are gone and the children gather 
for a friendly family settlement. The farm stock has 
increased about one-third since John took the place, 
so all agree that only two-thirds belongs to the estate. 
There is a suggestion from a brother-in-law about 
rent for the place all these years, but this is over¬ 
ruled, for they all want to make a “liberal” settlement 
with John. He must 
have one-third the 
personal property and 
his share in the land 
and whatever he has 
made. He has cash 
enough to pay off the 
sister with the un¬ 
thrifty husband; he 
will borrow enough 
to pay off the other 
girls, too, and his 
brothers will let him 
mortgage the place to 
do it and take his per¬ 
sonal notes, at inter¬ 
est, for their shares, 
for this is a liberal, 
friendly family settle¬ 
ment. So now John 
has, after the sale of 
the personalty of the 
estate, an $8,000 farm 
on which he has paid 
or owns $2,000. It is 
mortgaged for $3,000, 
and his brothers hold 
his notes for $3,000 
more, and the place 
is now quite insuffi¬ 
ciently stocked. He 
must now distribute 
to his sisters more 
than half of all the 
old home furniture, 
and many of the 
newer articles which 
they were instrumental in securing for the home, or 
which mother long ago promised to give them. 
Now John and his wife begin anew, crippled in the 
house and in the barn, loaded with debt beyond rea¬ 
sonable hope of delivery, facing—shall we be honest? 
—the possibility of success, but the probability of a 
tragedy. No one has dealt unjustly with them. They 
are simply the victims of changed economic condi¬ 
tions, and of a false idea of duty to John’s parents. 
Any one of John’s brothers who has carried the 
habits of the farm into his city business is better able 
to buy the old place than is John. They are about 
to buy other farms, and move their families out of 
town. They have taken the short road to the end- 
home ownership; he, poor boy, stayed at home only to 
find it the longest road to the same goal. Now had 
John been an only son, or had he inherited even one- 
third of the property, he might as easily own it as a 
mill or store, or any other form of property. 
Virginia. w. a. shermah. 
