ture. The Department of Political Science offers courses in American state governments, municipal government, international and administrative law, jurisprudence, constitutional law, corporation politics, and Roman law. The Department of Sociology offers courses both in the philosophy of society and in concrete social institutions and movements for amelioration; in charities, criminology, programs of reform, modern cities, and social movements of rural communities.

"The university publishes the Journal of Political Economy and the American Journal of Sociology, and the American Journal of Theology will give space to practical church work.

"The University Extension Division provides courses in each department mentioned above, and it has three methods of instruction: by lectures, by class work, and by correspondence. It may be added. that women are admitted to all the work and honors of the university on equal terms with men, without special favors and without patronage."

VARIOUS MATTERS.

CENTENARY OF THE FAREWELL ADDRESS.-Menibers of the American Institute of Civics, and all readers of THE MAGAZINE OF CIVICS are urged to coöperate in arrangements for the suitable commemoration of the issue of Washington's Farewell Address. It is entirely practicable to carry into effect, in the smallest communities, some of the proposals made in the article on this subject in the April issue of this magazine. The officers of the Institute will be glad to correspond with any who may be disposed to assist in arrangements for local observances.

C. F. A. Zimmerman, principal of one of the public schools in Milwaukee, is among the first to announce his intention of thus cooperating. On Memorial Day, Flag Day, and on September 15, the occasion will be commemorated in his school.

At a well-attended meeting of a general committee of citizens of New York, composed of A. I. C. councilors, held April 8, a special committee was appointed to arrange for observances in New York City, with members as follows: Gilbert Ray Hawes, Edward Hageman Hall, E. E. Hitchcock, James Cruikshank, LL.D., William Abbott, A. B. Woodford, Ph.D., and Henry Randall Waite, Ph.D.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.--Andrew D. White, ex-president of Cornell, and ex-minister to Germany and Russia, is probably as well posted in regard to the foreign diplomatic service of the United States as any one in the country He believes that Great Britain's success in foreign lands and her preeminence among European nations is due as much as anything to the fact of her having trained diplomats and men who understood their business at every point where English interests are involved. Dr. White in his address at the Johns Hopkins University banquet at Baltimore remarked: "What is it that we need? Is it a man to be sought and selected and passed upon and haggled with and sent across the ocean to see if perhaps he can mitigate serious and even disastrous

international trouble after it has got under full headway? Is it not rather to have a thoroughly trained man on the spot, who shall foresee trouble, prevent it, attenuate it, disperse it, be acquainted with the right men, know the right means, speak the right word at the right moment in the right quarter?"

Regarding war with Great Britain, Dr. White then said: "For all calamities to the world which one can imagine there could hardly be anything more fearful than a war between the two great English-speaking nations. Nothing should be spared to avert such a war, save international righteousness, the just position of our country."

Dr. White believes that American diplomats should be better paid, in order that more respectable establishments may be maintained abroad. He wants the merit system adopted for all the minor positions, and the system placed under civil service rules. He would not make a foreign consulate the reward for political services, and claims that many foreign countries imbibe very poor opinions of the power and greatness of the United States through our poorly paid and often inefficient representatives in the seaport cities.

AN INDISPENSABLE PUBLICATION.-The Jewish Messenger in a recent number says: "At a time like the present, when the public mind is agitated by questions of vital public concern, a publication like THE AMERICAN MAGAZINE OF CIVICS is almost indispensable to the intelligent American citizen." Sincere and encouraging words like these are an inspiration to efforts calculated to make this magazine even more deserving of them.

GOOD READING FOR CONVICTS.-Some time ago the American Institute of Civics asked the coöperation of the readers of these pages in efforts to provide wholesome literature for the multitudes confined in American jails and penitentiaries. It offered to furnish the addresses of prison officials and others to whom prepaid packages may be sent, and who will be glad to see that their contents are made use of to the best possible advantage.

Good results have already followed this proposal, as indicated by the following letter:

THE INSTITUTE'S GOOD work.

The appeal in behalf of the convicts laboring on Col. T. L. Fairris's farm, Alto, Cherokee Co., Texas, has met with an almost phenomenal response. Books, papers, magazines, money, and other things have been sent. The object of this note is to solicit additional and continued effort along the same line. Address all articles "For Convict Farm." THOS. WARD WHITE, A. I. C.

New Birmingham, Texas.

THE AMERICAN MAGAZINE OF CIVICS.

JUNE, 1896.

H

WHY THE FARMER DOES NOT GET RICH.

BY NELSON BALDWIN.

OWEVER much the American people may differ as to the

causes of the depressed condition of agriculture, there is substantial agreement as to the existence of the fact itself. It appears to be conceded, with practical unanimity, that the American farmer has "a hard row to hoe"; that he has had little to encourage him for the past ten or fifteen years, and that there is not a promising prospect of a change for the better in the near future. The farmer is loud in his complaint that he is not fairly compensated for his labor, to say nothing of the lack of dividends on his invested capital, and the press and public have settled down to the conclusion that his complaint is well-founded.

I concur in the general sentiment, with perhaps some reservations. I am inclined to the belief that while the American farmers as a class do not receive as great a reward as they are fairly entitled to, that which they do receive does not fall so much below the general average as is popularly supposed. Farmers, mechanics, merchants, professional and business men, are all alike in one respect: a very large majority of them have an exaggerated idea as to the amount they would have if they were to secure all that justly belongs to them in the distribution of the aggregate wealth produced by the whole body of producers in a given period of time.

The fact has often been stated that it is a very rare occurrence for a farmer to get rich. But failure to acquire riches is the

fate of a vast majority of mankind. I believe the most reliable estimates of the proportion of merchants who go into bankruptcy at some period in the course of their business careers place it at not less than ninety-five per cent of the whole number. Manufacturers do better, but of them it is the few and not the many who accumulate wealth. Well-to-do, and even wealthy farmers are to be found in the country to-day, but none of them ever became rich from their own labor. One may have been enriched by an increase in the value of his land, resulting from the rapid growth of the adjoining city; another by the construction of a railroad through his property; another by the discovery on his farm of mineral wealth. The farmer, like other fortunate people, owes his wealth, when he has it, to what is termed in modern political economy the "unearned increment"; and if men of wealth are less numerous among the agricultural class than among persons of other callings, it is because agriculture affords fewer opportunities for getting possession of and enjoying a share of this "unearned increment," without which little more than a comfortable living, with possibly a modest sum laid by for old age, can be secured by the most industrious citizen.

The census statistics furnish the most reliable information as to the condition of American agriculture, and I think a study of them will show, with a reasonable approach to accuracy, what is the American farmer's share of the yearly increase of wealth; will show whether he is getting his share, and if not, will give us some idea as to how much he falls short of it.

The increase of wealth in this country during the decade from 1880 to 1890 is stated by the census to have been about twenty-one billions of dollars. The figures are so vast that the mind cannot comprehend them; yet stupendously large as was the increase of our aggregate wealth, it represented an addition to the wealth of 1880 equivalent to only four per cent per annum, compound interest. The fact should not be overlooked in our calculations-because it has a bearing on the question of each individual's share of the increase-that during the same period of time our population increased twenty-four per cent. A part of that increase of wealth represented the earning capacity of an

The increase in per capita

increased number of producers. wealth during the ten years was only $168 (from $870 to $1,038)

-a yearly increase of less than two per cent. No one will dispute the fact that the increase of population is a large factor in the creation of wealth. This is especially true in the addition of value to city and suburban real estate. The nation would, however, have grown richer had the population remained stationary, but how much richer? Taking into consideration the increased aggregate earning capacity resulting from the addition to the army of workers, and the increased value which the mere fact of an addition to population gives to land, I regard three per cent of the value of all property as a fair estimate of the actual yearly earning capacity (in excess of consumption) of the existing population at a given period of time. The average per capita yearly addition to the wealth of the nation, as the result of labor, is much less than the majority of people imagine.

Does the tiller of the soil get a fair proportion of this small increase? Let us take the case of the average farmer with a family of five, about the average number. In 1880 the average farmer's possessions (his land, buildings, fences, implements, stock, etc.) were valued at $3,019. If the year's addition to the national wealth (exclusive of the part which was due to the growth of population) had been divided pro rata among those who were already possessors of property, the average farmer's share would have been $90.57. But the distribution of wealth is not made on such a basis, and the fact that it is not enables us to make a little better showing for the farmer. It is divided between capital and labor-exactly in what proportion we do not know, but we shall not be far out of the way if we assume that capital secures half of it. This would have given the average farmer about $45 for his share as a capitalist; then if the other half had been divided per capita (which is about as liberal a distribution of it as we can make) our average farmer would get about $15 additional for each member of his family-a total, say, of about $120. He would have been entitled to a good living for himself and family, good schooling for his children, a moderate share of the luxuries of life, and been enabled to "lay