The Matter With Us

‘WHAT is the matter with us?’ is, in effect, the question which has been asked many times of late in the Halls of Congress and in thousands of homes in the cities and towns of the United States.

This query does not relate to our external affairs, nor to any failure to achieve material success at home, but primarily to our daily experience, in the course of which the dwellers in all larger communities (forming a decided majority of the American people) find themselves so heavily penalized by the advancing cost of the necessities of life, especially food-supplies, that much of the advantage of increasing prosperity — perhaps all of it — is sacrificed.

The most reasonable answer to this inquiry carries us back from theorizing to a common-sense point of view; it compels us to remember that at length the United States has emerged from national childhood and arrived at a considerable degree of maturity. We endured our ’growing pains’ with complacency, realizing their cause. Having grown so rapidly, however, we seem not to appreciate that our national ailments are no longer the mere aches of youth. In reality we are now subject to the graver distempers which afflict the full-grown state. ‘The matter with us’ is principally population,— an ailment of national maturity.

When the federation of states adopted the Constitution and founded a nation, the republic possessed a large geographical area and a meagre supply of inhabitants. During the period which has elapsed since that date, the increase in number of inhabitants has far outstripped increase in territory. In 1790, when the first census of the United States was taken, the density of population was but 4.8 inhabitants per square mile (computing total area). In 1900, it was 25.1. In 1790, the density of population in the settled area was 9.4 per square mile, but in 1900 in the same area it was 80.4. In short, in number of inhabitants we have expanded rapidly into a huge nation, but thus far we have failed to realize the limitations which of necessity accompany immense increase. In this census year 1910, the population of the United States approximates at least eightynine million souls. How many have awakened to the fact that this republic is now the fourth largest nation in numbers upon earth?

Moreover, the three nations which are more populous than the United States are significant: Russia, with one hundred and thirty million inhabitants, composed principally of a densely ignorant, agricultural peasantry; India, with three hundred millions, of whom much the greater part are ignorant human beings subsisting upon the equivalent of a few cents per day; and China, with possibly three hundred and fifty or four hundred millions of persons who maintain their existence only by methods of living undreamed of and utterly impossible in Western lands.

It appears not to have occurred even to thoughtful Americans who have observed the conditions which prevail in overpopulated countries that some of the symptoms there noted are likely to develop in the near future in our own land, and are possibly even now beginning, since everywhere the struggle for existence becomes fiercer as population grows more dense.

Such change, indeed, is inevitably attended by decreased individual freedom of action. In densely populated countries, whether large or small, it is recognized that great density of population carries with it definite limitations upon the individual. In France, a property-owner is not permitted to cut down a tree upon his own land; he may, however, climb his tree and snip off twigs and small branches for firewood. In consequence, in large areas many of the trees are disfigured, but they still remain standing and form a part of the national resources. In Japan, human beings do most of the work which in less densely populated countries is performed by beasts of burden. In a country so densely populated as Japan, this work is required for the support of a large element of the laboring class. In this sense, therefore, Japan literally cannot afford to breed and maintain many horses and other beasts of burden.

If a traveler asks for accommodation in a hotel in which there are but few other guests, a generous landlord may assign him even more liberal accommodation than he requires; but if the hotel be crowded, the newcomer will be compelled to share a bed with a stranger, or perchance to sit up in the office. Again, if a man’s house is located upon a ten-acre lot, he is at liberty to act as riotously as he pleases at any hour of the day or night, with little danger of annoying others; but if a citizen elects to occupy quarters in a city apartment house, liberty to do as he pleases is at once restricted, and those actions or sounds will not be tolerated which interfere with the convenience or comfort of others. These illustrations in a way suggest the curtailment of individual freedom which must necessarily attend great increase of population in the United States.

In developing the resources of this continent, the pioneers and their descendants speedily forgot the frugality and the economical methods of Europe which had been developed there by the stern necessity for preserving soil and forest and mine. Not only have the citizens of the United States by inheritance been reared in an atmosphere of individual extravagance, but they early summoned the world to migrate to America to aid them in exploiting their resources. Our case, in fact, resembles that of a poor man coming suddenly into a great inheritance.

Confronted at length by an increasing tendency to dense population, we still seek means of continuing the same wasteful methods of living which have prevailed in the past. Nothing, however, is more certain than the law that dense population can be successfully and comfortably maintained only by strictest frugality, proper distribution, and with a reasonable adjustment of callings. The abject poverty and suffering of great numbers of persons in England at the present time in all probability largely result from disregard of the altered conditions caused by dense population.

It is frequently urged that the United States is capable of supporting a vastly greater population than at present lives within its borders. This assertion may be admitted as true solely upon one condition: that the agricultural areas shall be fully peopled and intensively cultivated by inhabitants contented with reasonable returns. In that event, immense increase might occur without economic revolution; in fact, it might thus have been possible, so vast is our area and so great are our resources, to have reached our present population and to have materially exceeded it, without curtailing to any marked degree our inherited extravagance of living. But normal distribution of population between town and country would have been absolutely essential.

To the best of our present knowledge, ninety per cent of the population of the United States in 1790 was engaged in or supported by some form of agriculture. This means that of approximately three millions of people, two million seven hundred thousand derived their support from the soil, and three hundred thousand from other callings. In 1900, the agricultural element represented about one third of the total population, and the remaining two thirds were engaged in industrial and other occupations.

It is possible to imagine the proportion of 1790 as in existence in 1910. Upon such a supposition the United States of course would be a distinctively agricultural nation. In that event, our eighty-nine millions of inhabitants would be divided in the proportion of eighty million one hundred thousand persons engaged in agriculture, and eight million nine hundred thousand persons otherwise occupied; but, on the other hand, observe that it is not practicable to apply the proportions of 1910 to the population which existed in 1790. If it were, the spectacle would have been presented in that year of two millions of persons crowded into the cities, shops, and mines of the young nation, with but one million persons living upon the farms to produce the food-stuffs and other material required for the support of two thirds of the population. It is safe to assert that at that period so small an agricultural element as one third of the total number of inhabitants could not have produced the food-stuffs required for the support of the remaining two thirds.

These comparisons not only suggest the degree to which the elements inherent in the population of the nation have been adjusted during the century which has elapsed since the Constitution was adopted, but clearly indicate the real problem that the people of this republic are now confronting.

If the crowd on an excursion steamer moves to one side, the steamer lists to that side on which the human freight is massed. For years the people on the good ship United States have been hurrying in increasing numbers to one side. They have been transforming themselves from country-producers to city-consumers, but the extent of the change which for a long period has thus been in progress has not been fully realized. The signs of this change, however, manifesting themselves in our present-day problems, have at length arrested our attention. Hence we now observe the increasing list of our ship of state.

‘ The matter with us ’ is the immense increase which has occurred in the population of this country without the maintenance of normal proportions in the number of persons engaged in agriculture as compared with those engaged in other callings. Moreover, we must not ignore the fact that, while mere increase in population of itself creates new conditions calling for many economic readjustments, when increase occurs abnormally, as in one sense it is now occurring in the United States, the result must of necessity be disastrous; and the only element of doubt is the degree of the distress which results.

During the ten years from 1890 to 1900, we added thirteen millions of human beings to our numbers, and from 1900 to 1910, we have again added at least as many more. In each decade this increment is composed principally of two elements: young children who could not be producers of food if they would; and immigrants, who for the most part remain in cities and towns. Therefore, whatever ultimately becomes of these citizens, almost the entire increase shown at each census over the population reported at the previous census, must be regarded as simply an additional drain on the agricultural resources of the nation.

It should be remembered that thirteen millions of persons are equivalent to more than four times the population of the entire United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This decennial addition to our numbers in 1900 and 1910 is exceedingly important, for it necessarily increases the cost of living, unless the population is normally distributed. Thirteen million human beings, unheard of and unaccounted for in our affairs when the census enumerators made their rounds in 1900, have arrived among us with appetites and daily wants to be supplied; and if the national resources of food in 1910 are no greater than they were in 1900, or if they have increased but not proportionately, it is clear that our individual share must be decreased in order to contribute toward the need of our thirteen million new fellow citizens, or else that we must pay an additional sum to continue to obtain the share which was formerly ours. This fact is so significant that illustrations are important.

In 1890, there were 57,649,000 neat cattle in the United States, if the census figures are to be accepted. In 1900, the number was but 52,489,000. Thus an actual decrease in cattle of over 9 per cent occurred while the population increased 20.7 per cent. To have kept pace with increase of population the number of neat cattle in 1900 should have been 17,200,000 greater than it was. It appears, therefore, that so far as cattle were concerned, the food-supply failed to keep pace with our increase of population. If this decrease has persisted from 1900 to 1910 (while we have been adding another thirteen million persons to our numbers), it is to be expected that the price of fresh meat will have materially advanced.

No less suggestive are the changes which have occurred in the proportion of swine to population. The number of hogs reported at each census from 1850 to 1900 bore the following relation to each one thousand inhabitants: —

If the decrease here indicated continued from 1900 to 1910 we should now be nearing the proportion of hogs to population which prevailed at the first census after the Civil War, 1870. It is significant that the market-price for hogs recently current was practically the same as that quoted in 1865, although we now possess approximately forty million more hogs than were found on American farms in 1870. The matter is population. The American citizen has increased more rapidly than the American pig.

The change in the proportion of sheep is even more striking: in 1850, there were 924 to each 1000 inhabitants; in 1900, but 525.

In 1899, the American hen laid eggs in sufficient numbers during the calendar year to amount to seventeen dozen for each inhabitant of the United States. Omitting all thought of adding a single egg to the individual share of eggs, but merely to maintain the 1900 proportion, the hens of the United States in 1910 must be laying annually 221,000,000 dozen more eggs than they laid in 1899. The per capita product of milk in the year 1899 was 95.6 gallons per annum. To maintain this per capita for the benefit of our increment of population, the milk-supply in the year 1910 must exceed that of 1899 by 1,242,800,000 gallons. To maintain butter, of which the per capita amount produced in 1899 was fourteen pounds, at the same per capita in 1910, the aggregate production must exceed the former figure by 182,000,000 pounds. Of potatoes, that other staple of human consumption, the per capita product at the last census was about four bushels ; hence in 1910, to maintain the potato supply for our newcomers, but not to increase it for the rest of the community to the extent of even one potato each (one potato each means approximately 180,000 bushels), there must be raised 52,000,000 bushels more of this homely but useful vegetable than were reported in 1899. What this demand means is best noted by observing that to supply it would consume the entire potato crop, as reported at the last census, of the states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, and North Carolina.

It must be evident that to meet all the requirements of our fast-growing population, there should be an equally fast-increasing farm population, since we cannot assume that those persons now engaged in agriculture will advance with sufficient rapidity in knowledge of agricultural conditions and of intensive farming to keep pace with the increasing demand. What are the facts concerning the farmer?

From 1890 to 1900, the number of males engaged in agriculture in the eleven North Atlantic states, extending from the Canada line to Virginia on the south and to Ohio on the west, decreased 2.7 per cent.

The number of farmers in the group of populous Middle Western states comprising Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan increased but little more than 6 per cent. The population in 1900 of these two groups of states was nearly half of the population of the United States; stated exactly, it was 34,963,234. This total represented an increase of 5,771,339 in ten years, or 19.8 per cent. In this area the males engaged in agriculture numbered, in 1900, 2,605,136, an increase during the decade of 55,662, or about 2 per cent. If the farm element had increased as rapidly as the total population, the number of persons engaged in agriculture in the group of northern states extending from St. John’s River to Virginia and the western boundary of Illinois would have been greater by 450,000 persons than the number actually so occupied. As a matter of fact, the tendency of the population to abandon agriculture and drift into other callings was so pronounced that the number of persons engaged in farming in every thousand of the total population residing in the area above noted, shrank from eighty-seven in 1890 to seventy-four in 1900.

While the total value of all farms in the United States increased 27.6 per cent from 1890 to 1900, it is significant that the increase in value reported in the group of states above specified, comprising more than one third of the total farm valuation, was but 9 per cent. Furthermore, the average value of all farms in the United States was less in 1900 than it was in 1860, and the average value per acre decreased about 6 per cent during the decade from 1890 to 1900.

It should not be overlooked that the movement of population from farm to city also tends to augment the influence of corporations and aggregations of capital. The farmer owes allegiance to no one; as a class he possesses or may possess a greater degree of personal independence than any other class of citizens.

The intense desire for self-government characteristic of the Revolutionary period no doubt had its origin in the fact that almost every household was an independent self-thinking unit which was almost wholly self-sustaining. Nearly the entire population lived on farms, and each farm family raised on its own land most of the food-stuffs and raw material required for support.

In the matter of personal independence the change from farm to city so long in progress must have wrought a far-reaching change in the body politic. In almost all cases the citizen who abandons the farm for city or town life, exchanges the farmer’s independence for support secured by hiring out to others. Hence we have been transforming ourselves into a larger and larger proportion of wage-earners, or persons dependent upon employers. The shift from farm to shop and factory has in consequence proportionately increased corporate influence in daily life and politics. The immense present-day power of corporations and combinations is thus derived largely from the voluntary concentration of immense numbers of persons into these classes of employment.

Do not these facts suggest clearly the problem before the American people? It will be conceded that there must come a time when the farms of the United States as at present operated, even with the assistance of the most improved machinery and with all the advantages of agricultural science, either cannot adequately support an undue proportion of population entirely divorced from the soil, or, if support is accorded, must charge enhanced prices for farm products.

The most pronounced movement in population which has occurred during the past two decades has been abandonment of farm life by persons seeking the excitement and activity of urban communities. Every time a citizen leaves the farm and seeks residence in a town or city, he ceases to be a producer and becomes a consumer of the products of those who remained upon the farm. Obviously this process must have an end, or the national equilibrium will be unsettled.

The conditions here noted are not peculiar to the United States. The tendency to migrate from the country to the town is also noted in other countries, But the laws of nature, although their operation may be postponed by our increasing knowledge of related laws and by other scientific discovery, cannot be permanently set at naught. Obviously a point will be reached at which, in the United States and elsewhere, the conditions prevailing in the three most populous nations of the world will begin to become operative; and either much privation and suffering will result, with a consequent decrease of population, or else the United States and all other nations which confront these problems must effect a readjustment by which a larger proportion of inhabitants will be contented to remain as tillers of the soil and with restricted ambitions. The alternative is immigration to newer lands.

It is not to be expected that the people of the United States, who have been educated to believe that opportunity is open alike to every citizen, will voluntarily turn back to quiet, uneventful, and unambitious lives in country districts. But from this time forward increase of population without corresponding soil-cultivation and individual frugality must inevitably force continual consideration of this problem. Serious social unrest and final revolt are possible but exceedingly dangerous methods of attempting to secure readjustment of the unsatisfactory conditions now prevailing; emigration in increasing volume is another expedient. But it is to be hoped that the problem of living now before us will be settled by a healthful change of public and private sentiment, creditable to an eminently common-sense nation like the United States. Viewed from any standpoint, however, the increase and unequal distribution of population is ‘the matter with us.’