Readings in Money and Banking Part 69

Although the farmers in any section of the country may not resort to the banks for short-time credit it does not follow that they are not receiving such credit. As a matter of fact they are often receiving it on a considerable scale and in the most expensive way. _i. e._, in the form of book credits with merchants. It is a common practice throughout the country for farmers to run up book accounts with local merchants during the spring and summer to be paid in the fall when the crops are sold. When this is done on any considerable scale the farmer probably pays more than bank interest under the guise of prices; and this is particularly true when he obligates himself to sell his crops to the creditor merchant. In the South this practice is carried to the extreme in the familiar "store-lien" system which holds many farmers in the cotton belt in a condition bordering on perpetual servitude. The custom is for the farmer to buy supplies of the local general store on credit for the year, agreeing to sell to the merchant his cotton crop in the fall, thereby cancelling the debt. A crop lien is generally given, and the merchant often dictates the character and the amount of the planting. The prices paid for cotton under this system are liable to be exceptionally low, and the prices paid by the farmer for his supplies exceptionally high. The system has proven a curse to many sections of the South. Witnesses before the United States Industrial Commission estimated the interest rates imposed by this system at from 20 per cent.

upwards. Mr. George K. Holmes of the United States Department of Agriculture testified:

The rate of interest on the liens on the cotton crop of the South, it is safe to say, probably averages 50 per cent. a year. All cotton men will agree that it is at least that.

The store system of the South is a sort of peonage; that is what it amounts to with the cotton planter.[202]

Since the Industrial Commission's report was published the banking facilities of the South have been greatly increased, and the banks are coming into closer touch with farmers, with the result that the store-lien system is gradually breaking down.

Another form of credit to farmers is that obtained from dealers in farm implements and machinery which the farmers frequently buy on time, paying interest during the credit period.

One informant, who has been a bank examiner, writes from California--and his testimony is applicable to many other sections of the country:

The new generation of merchants is not disposed to carry the farmer as of old and insists that overdue accounts be covered by promissory notes which are in turn hypothecated with their bank. In other words a clearer demarcation of function is being gradually brought about to the best interests of all concerned.

Such in general is the present situation in the United States in the matter of short-time agricultural credit as evidenced by the very indefinite and scant information available. What are the causes? Perhaps in them will appear some suggestions for the remedy.

The chief reasons for the backwardness of the United States as compared with Europe with regard to agricultural credit may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) Our wonderful agricultural domain where good land could be had almost for the asking, and where for generations land was so cheap and labor and capital so dear that intensive cultivation was generally unprofitable. (2) The prosperity of our farmers who have not been forced by dire necessity to resort to credit as were the farmers of Germany at the middle of the last century when the Raiffeisen co-operative banks were first organized. (3) The nomadic character of a considerable part of our agricultural population as it has moved continually westward in taking up of new lands, and more recently as it has been retracing its steps or moving northward. (4) The isolation of our farmers in this country of large farms and "magnificent distances."

(5) The rapid growth of the manufacturing and commercial business of the country--and that largely in the hands of the same cla.s.s of people who control the bulk of the banking business.[203]

Add to these circ.u.mstances the obstacles which farmers always encounter in the matter of credit, as compared with manufacturers and merchants, obstacles such as the uncertainty of crops and the strongly seasonal character of the farmer's credit demands, and we have a sufficient explanation for the backwardness of agricultural credit in this country.

To emphasize most of these causes, however, is to brand oneself as belonging to a past generation. Our domain of free arable land is practically gone; good farms must be bought, and for them ever increasing prices must be paid.[204]

The era of hand cultivation is giving way to that of farm machinery propelled by horse-power and even by steam, gasoline, or electricity, with its resulting great increase in the efficiency of labor. Eleven years ago the editor of _The Dakota Farmer_, in his testimony before the United States Industrial Commission, put the matter tersely, and with little exaggeration, as affecting his own section of the country, at least, when he said: "When I first worked out it took five binders to follow a machine, one man to rake off, and one to carry the bundles together. Now the hired girl frequently drives a machine that does the whole business."[205] Some idea of the extent of this increase may be obtained by reference to the following figures compiled from census reports:

VALUE OF FARM IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY IN THE U. S.[206]

_Year_ _Value_ _Per Cent.

000,000 Increase_

1910 $1,265 69 1900 750 52 1890 494 22 1880 407 50 1870[207] 271 10 1860 246 62

The increase in the value of farm implements and machinery per acre of land in farms from 1900 to 1910 was from $0.89 to $1.44, or 61.8 per cent.

An a.n.a.lysis of the figures for farm machinery by geographic divisions shows a marked difference in the rates of increase, but the tendency in all sections during the last forty years has been decidedly upwards, the greatest growth having been witnessed in the decade ending 1910. During that decade the lowest rate of increase in any section was that of New England, 39 per cent., and the highest that of the Mountain States, 163 per cent.[208]

Another development which is making larger demands upon the farmer for working capital is the increasing use of artificial fertilizers, the expenditure for which in the United States approximately doubled from 1880 to 1900.

As the result of such tendencies and of the rapid depletion of our free domain, farming in the United States is losing its old-time kins.h.i.+p to mining and becoming more like manufacturing. More and better machinery and more power are needed on most farms in the interest of efficiency.

This calls for short-time credit. But a supply of good machinery requires a fair sized farm for its efficient utilization--hence the need for larger farms and for mortgage credit to make their purchase possible. Upon this subject there are some very illuminating data in Warren and Livermore's _Agricultural Survey_ of four towns.h.i.+ps in Tompkins County, N. Y., from which the following is quoted:

The value of farm machinery increases rapidly with the size of the farm.... Any one who has ever made a list of the necessary farm machinery will see at once how inadequately these small farms are equipped. Yet their machinery costs nearly twice as much per acre as that on the larger farms that have nearly three times as much machinery. Machinery can be used more effectively on large farms. One mower, one hay rake, one tedder, one hay loader, one corn harvester, one grain harvester, one grain drill, one manure spreader, one potato digger, one potato planter, can do their work on a 250 acre farm as readily as on a small farm. Few of the small farms have half of these tools. If a small farm does have nearly all the list, it cannot use them enough to pay for the investment. The more efficient and numerous machines become, the larger our farms should be. It is interesting to notice how many of the tools are of very recent development.

Almost half of the value of farm machinery on a well-equipped farm is invested in machinery that has been perfected in the last few years.

Much the same situation exists in regard to an adequate equipment of horses.

Three or four horses are the smallest number that can be used efficiently with modern machinery.... The small farms have not enough horses to make efficient teams and yet they are over-supplied with horses compared with their area. On these farms there are only 15 acres per horse. On the largest farms, one horse farms three times this area, with no resulting decrease in crop yields.... When we consider the cost of keeping a horse we see what a great advantage the larger farms have.

Forces like these are counteracting what is commonly thought of as the normal tendency of agriculture to move toward more intensive cultivation _on small farms_, with the result that the average amount of improved farm land per farm actually increased instead of diminis.h.i.+ng in the United States during the last decade. This does not mean less intensive cultivation, in fact quite the contrary; it means more intensive cultivation, but by the efficient utilization of good machinery and of power. It means further, as said above, a demand for mortgage credit for the purpose of enlarging farms--and that, at rapidly increasing farm prices.

The farming population is becoming more settled now that the free lands are practically gone and the frontier has disappeared.[209] The isolation of the farmer is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, with the advent of rural free delivery, rural telephone, the automobile, and the parcels post. The farmer no longer buys gold-bricks nor is duped by fraudulent lightning-rod schemes except in the pages of the comic supplements.

When seeking credit the farmer can offer better security than ever before. His markets are larger, better organized, more certain, and more accessible. The risk of crop failure is less, thanks to the wonderful progress of scientific agriculture. There are few pests which cannot now be readily controlled by the intelligent farmer, who takes time by the forelock. The problem of moisture is growing less serious every year with the improvements in irrigation, dry farming, and the more scientific diversification of crops.

Conditions then point to an increasing need for agricultural credit, and to improving circ.u.mstances for its safe development.

If the time is ripe for a greater use of bank credit in agriculture, how is that credit to be obtained? Broadly speaking, four methods may be mentioned, only the last two of which are deserving of much attention at the present time. They are: (1) Establish government agricultural banks; (2) adopt the Egyptian plan of a government guaranty to an agricultural bank established with private capital; (3) encourage the farmers to organize co-operative credit societies on some such plan as the Raiffeisen or Schulze-Delitzsch banks of Germany; (4) utilize more effectively in the interest of the farmer our present banking machinery, and improve it where it is defective.

The suggestion of an agricultural bank owned and operated by government, either state or federal, is not worthy of serious consideration in this country at the present time. The history of such banks both in Europe and America has generally been a disastrous one, although a few have succeeded. Some exist to-day which are performing useful services to farmers, notably in the line of mortgage credit, among which may be mentioned those of the Australian States and New Zealand,[210] and the recently established one in the Philippine Islands. The success of such inst.i.tutions is not such as to justify any attempt to establish them in the United States, at least until every reasonable effort has been made to solve the problem by means of private and co-operative effort.

The other plan, commonly known as the Egyptian plan[211] from its most important example, seeks to eliminate the evils of a purely government bank and to take advantage of its meritorious features. In Egypt the agricultural bank is owned and financed by private capital; it enjoys, however a government guaranty of princ.i.p.al and of 3 per cent. interest.

Its administrative expenses are kept low by an arrangement with the Egyptian Government by which the Government tax collectors make collection of instalments on the Bank's loans at the time of the collection of the regular land tax, for which the Bank pays a small commission. The Agricultural Bank of Egypt has had a phenomenal success, rendering an invaluable service to the Egyptian fellaheen, and at the same time yielding good profits to its owners. It was this type of bank that the United States Government authorized established in the Philippines by the act of March 4, 1907, but the interest guaranty of 4 per cent. has so far proved too low to attract capital into the enterprise.[212]

A bank organized on the Egyptian plan is well adapted to do pioneer work among ignorant farmers, where the apparent risks and heavy administrative expenses prevent private capital from entering the field.

A government guaranty, however, hardly seems necessary in the United States, and our people would probably look askance at any proposal for a great agricultural bank or banks of this type with branches scattered throughout the country. It is contrary to our banking traditions, and, like the plan for a strictly government bank, should not be thought of until plans for meeting the need by private initiative have been fairly tried and found wanting.

When one considers the question of the improvement of agricultural credit in the United States one instinctively thinks of the co-operative credit banks of the old world, because of their phenomenal success for a half century and more, the simplicity of their structures, the ease with which they may be established, and their ready adaptability to the widely varying conditions found in a great country like the United States. The description of the wonderful success of these inst.i.tutions as told by Henry W. Wolff in his _People's Banks_ reads like a fairy story. Although the success of co-operative banks has been great in nearly every country of Continental Europe, nowhere else has it been so great as in Germany, the country of their origin, and it is to Germany one naturally turns first for suggestions. There we find four types of co-operative credit banks, Landschaften, Ritterschaften, Schulze-Delitzsch banks and Raiffeisen banks. The first two are co-operative a.s.sociations loaning money on land mortgages, and securing funds largely through the issue of bonds against the collective mortgages. Being concerned with long-time mortgage credit they do not fall within the province of this paper. The other two types of banks deal especially with short-time credit, the one chiefly in the towns and cities, and the other with farmers in the rural communities. It is with the latter that we are most concerned. Let us therefore consider briefly the essential features of the Raiffeisen system.

These features are: (1) Organization on the strictly co-operative principle, none but members having the right to borrow, although non-members may make deposits. (2) Limitation of loan operations to a very small area in which all farmers are acquainted with each other. A bank's field of business, the founder believed, should not cover a parish of less than 400 people nor of more than 1,500. The banks were to be, therefore, purely neighborhood affairs. There is a sympathetic but well-informed neighborhood opinion which prevents the squandering of loans. (3) Unlimited liability of all members for the debts of the bank, a necessary corollary of which is the provision that members.h.i.+p is obtained only by election by those already members. (4) The working capital of the bank is obtained chiefly from the following sources: (a) Small savings "drawn, either from within the area covered by the bank, in which case it comes both from members and non-members, the former being rewarded where possible at slightly higher rates in order to encourage members.h.i.+p; or from without the area, in which case it of necessity comes from non-members."[213] (b) Loans from the provincial bank of the district, or more importantly from the central bank of the Empire at which the local bank keeps a current account and with which it may rediscount its paper. Funds are also sometimes obtained from other banks or from private individuals. (c) A purely nominal share capital which the banks did not originally have, and which they have been forced against their will to issue. The requirement is now usually met by the issue of a few low-priced shares of which no member can hold more than one and upon which no dividend is paid. (d) Two surplus funds called reserve funds; one used exclusively to cover losses, and the other being the princ.i.p.al reserve fund (_Stiftungsfund_), commonly used for "positive improvements, such as the extension of the premises or the establishment of a burial fund."[214] In this fund must be placed two-thirds of the annual profits. The fund cannot be distributed among the members, even though the bank be dissolved. In such a case it is held in trust for a time for a new bank, should one be established, and if no such bank is established it must be used for some work of public utility. A recent publication of the International Inst.i.tute of Agriculture[215] a.n.a.lyses the total working capital of the rural banks of Germany for the year 1909 as follows:

_Amount Percentage in Marks 000,000_

Share capital 22.4 1.2 Reserves 51.0 2.6 Deposits on current account 189.1 9.8 Savings deposits 1,455.6 75.2 Other liabilities[216] 217.5 11.2 Total working capital 1,935.5 100.0

The striking fact brought out by these figures is that out of nearly two billion marks placed at the disposal of farmers, less than[217] 11.2 per cent. was furnished by outsiders, while more than 88.8 per cent., was provided by the savings and other deposits of the farmers themselves and of the local public. (5) A fifth feature of the Raiffeisen system is that the bank's administrative organization is simple and democratic.

Final authority on local questions resides in the general meeting in which every member has one vote. There is elected annually a committee of management consisting usually of five or six directors who meet weekly. As a check upon this executive committee there is also elected annually a council of supervision consisting of from six to nine members. A biennial audit is made of the accounts of each bank by an accountant employed by the district or central union. The books of the bank, except the individual deposit ledger, are open to the inspection of all members. Officers of the local banks serve without compensation, except the treasurer who has no vote in the making of loans.... (6) Advances take two forms: the ordinary loan (of which the name is sufficiently descriptive), and the current account which is similar to the Scotch cash credit. The latter const.i.tute about a third[218] of the total and show a tendency to increase in proportion to the ordinary loans. The period of the ordinary loan varies from six months to three years; and in exceptional cases it may be even longer.[219] Loans are repayable in instalments covering interest and part of the princ.i.p.al, or in lump sums. Banks reserve the right to call a loan on four weeks'

notice. The average credit advanced per member is 500 marks, and the average interest rate probably somewhere between 4 and 5 per cent.

Although mortgage and other collateral security is sometimes accepted, the banks' chief reliance is personal security, and the great bulk of the loans are made on two-name paper.

The Raiffeisen banks are organized into provincial federations with provincial banks at their head, and these in turn into a national federation with a central bank at its head. These provincial banks and the central bank "equalize the need of credit of the individual banks, supplying them with money when required and employing their surplus funds."[220] A large proportion of the German co-operative banks and other co-operative agricultural societies are federated in a single national organization, the National Federation of Darmstadt.[221]

Such are the leading features of the greatest agricultural credit system of the world. To the American the surprising thing about it all is that such co-operative credit banks are practically unknown in the United States, although there has been a remarkable development here in recent years of other forms of co-operation among farmers.[222] This surprise is the greater when one bears in mind that "whole counties have been populated in the Northwest by European agriculturists who came from neighborhoods where they were familiar with agricultural co-operative credit, and yet not a society of co-operative credit for these immigrants has been established from the beginning to the present time."...[223]

What is needed now--and possibly about all that will be needed in the future--is a campaign of education among the farmers themselves rather than one of legislation; although the development of such societies will doubtless be furthered in many states by legislation, such as was recently enacted in Ma.s.sachusetts (ch. 419, Acts of 1909), freeing them from some of the hampering provisions of the general banking act of the state. Conditions are so widely different in different sections of the country, and among different cla.s.ses in the same section, that co-operative agricultural credit societies will need to be given a fairly free hand in such matters as limited or unlimited liability, the amount of share capital, receipt of deposits, etc., so that they may adapt themselves to local needs. A reasonable amount of government supervision on the part of the banking departments of the states seems desirable.

Pa.s.sing now to the question of the better utilization of our existing banking machinery, we may consider it first from the standpoint of the Government, then from that of the banks, and finally from that of the farmers themselves.

The provisions of the national banking act _(Revised Statutes_, Sec.

5137) are too rigid in the matter of loans on real estate security.[224]

National banks are, of course, intended to be banks for business men, and their a.s.sets should be quick a.s.sets in so far as their liabilities are quick liabilities. But it should not be overlooked that the modern farmer is a business man, that he needs active credit for the efficient conduct of his current business, and that land is the only kind of collateral many farmers can give that is acceptable to bankers. Many worthy farmers are not willing and some are not able to secure satisfactory endorsers to their paper. Crop liens, except in the South, are not usually very acceptable to banks. The ability of the farmer to give mortgage security to national banks in case of need would often prove a great help. Furthermore, now that a majority of our national banks have savings departments, and that savings deposits might wisely be made withdrawable subject to advance notice, it is not unreasonable that these banks should be permitted to invest at least a substantial part of their savings funds in the same kinds of mortgage securities that are open to the investment of funds of savings banks; provided, of course, that due care be taken to prevent the juggling of accounts between the commercial department and the savings department of the bank.

Another form of desirable legislation in the interest of the farmer consists in the abandonment of our unscientific bond secured bank-note circulation for a scientific system, and in the rendering of our deposit currency more elastic. The more the farmer resorts to bank credit as a means of financing his current business the more will he suffer from the seasonal inelasticity of our bank-note and deposit currency. Farming business is pre-eminently seasonal in character; the farmers over the greater part of the country need funds most at about the same times of the year, _i.e._, the fall and spring. A great increase in the demand for currency and capital, say in the fall, under an inelastic currency and credit system like our own, means to the farmer, highest interest rates at just the time when he needs most to borrow, greatest scarcity of cash at just the time when his need for cash is the most urgent, and prices depressed by a tight money market at the time of the year when he has most to sell. It is doubtful if any cla.s.s of people in the country would benefit more from a thoroughgoing reform of our banking system than would the farmers.

The apportionment of responsibility between farmer and banker for their not having gotten together better is an impossible task. Although some exceptions must be made, particularly in the Middle West, as a general proposition neither has appreciated the opportunity which the other offered.

The banker must be brought to realize that one of the best kinds of paper in the world is short-time business paper bearing the names of two responsible farmers. He should be an adviser and friend to the farmer as much as to the city customer. He should make the farmer feel that a productive loan to him is not of the nature of a favor reluctantly granted--as so many farmers complain--but rather a business proposition profitable to both, as gladly given as it is received. He should further co-operate with the local business men in preparing financial ratings of farmers, to fill the gap left by the inability, to be hoped temporary, of mercantile credit agencies to rate farmers as extensively as they do other business men of like capital.