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 diminishing 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 circumstances 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 institutions 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 principal 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 institutions 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 associations 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 membership 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 membership; 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 principal 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 Institute of Agriculture[215] analyses the total working capital of the rural banks of Germany for the year 1909 as follows: