alive to changing conditions and the exigencies of the situation, is hard to find. They cultivate from 10 to 40 acres of ground only. They sow by hand, reap by hand, and thrash with a flail. Plowing is poorly done, fertilizer is scantily applied, and meager crops are gathered from the stony fields. There has been little attempt to introduce new crops or new methods of culture. The old-time methods of tillage are still retained. In any comparison with the native and New England farmer the Hebrew suffers, but chiefly perhaps for the reason that the best lands have been retained by the American owners, who, owning their farms, buildings, and equipment are content to glean a mere living from the ancestral acres. They raise better produce and more of it than the Hebrew. Their farms are more neatly kept, more orderly, in better repair. It is not hard to pick out the Hebrew and immigrant farms as one drives through the county. There is seldom a clean, tidy, unlittered yard, a wellpainted house, a carefully kept lawn, or many of the evidences of thrift and prosperity that make New England homes pleasant to look upon, whether they really return a profit to the owner or not. Very rarely is there found a Hebrew who takes pride in the appearance of his place; shabbiness is all-pervasive. Most of the homes are dilapidated, the stone fences in poor repair, the tools and implements sky sheltered and rusty and weather beaten; few seem to acquire the knack of farming well, and only one farmer in a long journey seems to consider that a good appearance is a valuable asset. The aim is to get money out of the farm with the least possible outlay; in other words, to exploit the land. As a rule the American farmers consider themselves far above the Hebrew in point of intelligent farming and in the disposal of the products of the farm. MARKETS AND MARKETING FACILITIES. Marketing facilities are very meager, and perhaps no other handicap militates more against prosperous farming. There is a railroad branch line running into Colchester, a ferry across the Connecticut at East Haddam, connecting with the railroad north and south, but all other outlets are by wagon road to New London, Willimantic, and even to Hartford. Some truck is still sent over to Hartford by wagon from near Colchester, about 25 miles distant. There are two or three good roads through the towns under consideration, but all roads other than the main or state roads have very steep grades, are very winding, and while fairly kept up are not suited for heavy loads. The cost of marketing any produce that must be taken to a city market is excessive, but there are occasional traveling peddlers who exchange cheap dry goods, groceries, tinware, and the like for poultry, eggs, hides, rags, and sometimes butter. Some of the peddlers do a fair business in barter with the foreigners. SUMMER BOARDERS. The keeping of boarders or lodgers during the summer from the Fourth of July to Labor Day is, as has been said, an established institution, that had its inception several years ago and doubtless grew out of the customary and prolonged visits of friends who came from New York during the hot weather. In many ways the summers on the Connecticut hills are delightful, and soon there were many calls for board and lodging for a few weeks by well-to-do urban Hebrews. As a rule the farmhouses are not well suited to the accommodation of summer boarders and at times they are overcrowded. Near Holliston, Mass., and in New York State a good many "summer hotels," with small, ceiled, bare-walled rooms are provided for the guests, of whom there are sometimes more than a hundred on a single farm. But in Connecticut there seem to be very few Hebrews who have built rooming houses of this type. Occasionally one finds a dancing pavilion constructed for the pleasure of the guests, and hammocks, swings, croquet grounds, etc., are frequently provided. At Colchester about half of the Hebrew farm households accommodate several boarders yearly-from 5 or 6 to 50 or more each. The boarders remain about a month, perhaps, but some stay longer, the first coming about the end of June and the last departing early in September. A great many come for the week end only. The rates for board and room vary a little, but ordinarily range from $7 to $10 per week for adults and from $4 to $6 for children. The gross incomes are of course rather large, but as few farmers are eble to supply meat and eggs sufficient for the tables and are often obliged to hire additional help in dining room and kitchen to wait on the increased household, the net returns are seldom more than $400 to $500 for the season. The boarders furnish a use for milk, vegetables, and poultry products raised on the farms and add a great deal to the social life of the community. In the Chesterfield district a variation of the boarding plan is encountered. Here are found many "lodgers"-people who rent rooms from the farmers, then buy raw materials from them and do their own catering. The market prices of produce sold to the lodgers are high, and perhaps there is more profit in the lodgers than in summer boarders, everything considered. But boarders and lodgers are more numerous at Chesterfield than at Colchester; at least the summerboarder industry is more universal. Almost every Hebrew family has at least a few guests and some have 25 or more all told. The boarders are all Hebrews and appear to be of a well-to-do class, neither wealthy nor poor. Socially and economically the summer boarder has been a great help to these Hebrew communities. They have broken up the monotony of hill country life, brought in city manners, fashions, and an urban atmosphere to the isolated countryman, turned the thoughts of the young people away from farm duties to wholesome amusement and reaction and-cityward for a little time at any rate. The joy and jollity and care-free spirit of the city youth are of great benefit to the plodding plowboy and the bashful country girl. Some evils come, of course, for not all boarders are desirable, but, generally speaking, "summer-boarder agriculture" is beneficial in almost every way on the Connecticut highlands. FARM EXPENDITURE. The principal expenditures of the Hebrew farmer are for labor and for feed and forage. The Hebrew, unlike the Italian or the Pole, is likely to hire some outside help to assist him on his farm. Farm hands are employed by the day at $1 to $1.50 and board, or by the month at $18 to $26. Of the 22 farmers who gave information with regard to farm expenditures, 4 reported none, all their work being done by their families; 5 spent less than $75 a year, 4 between $75 and $150, 6 between $150 and $250, and 3 between $250 and $350 yearly for hired labor. Practically no families hired persons for domestic service, except occasionally in the summer-boarder season. Nearly all the Hebrew farmers use fertilizer, but only 4 of the farmers visited used more than $75 worth in 1909. Of expenditures for feed, seed, and forage, 4 of 22 farmers reported none, 2 reported less than $75, 6 between $75 and $150, 8 between $150 and $350, 1 between $350 and $500, and 1 more than $500 for a year. None of these farms showed an average of more than 40 acres under cultivation; but 4 farmers cultivating 32.25 acres each reported expenditures averaging more than $500 per farm, or fully $16 per acre cultivated. Nine farms, with about 20 acres each in tillage, report total annual expenditures of $75 to $250 a farm, and 7 farms, with 25 to 40 acres cultivated, from $250 to $500 each per year. Few of the expenditures can be readily reduced. It seems very difficult to raise enough hay and grain for stock feed, and feed and forage are likely to remain fixed charges on all dairy farms. PROPERTY OWNED AND INDEBTEDNESS. As usual, the greater part of the property owned is in real estate, whose market value is rather difficult to arrive at. Assessed valuations are confessedly low and there is reason to believe that some of the owners' valuations are much too high. Farms vary so much in soil, improvements, location, tilled area, ease of culture, and other characteristics, and on each farm there is place for so many desirable and so many undesirable qualities that true average values are almost impossible to determine. The widest discrepancies appear when one takes into consideration the values fixed by the assessor as against those given by the owners, especially in the strictly Hebrew townships. The average farm owned by the farmers interviewed contained more than 160 acres and was valued at about $20 an acre, improvements and improved and unimproved land all included. The net value of individual property owned by 20 families in the two districts is perhaps best studied by noting the economic progress of those families as exhibited in the typical family tables at the close of this report, where the items of property and indebtedness are set forth in detail. There is little doubt that the items of property owned are as large as they should be and that the debts are reduced to the lowest terms. With these qualifications the reports show something of the financial condition of some of the most recent and some of the oldest Hebrew residents. More indebtedness was reported near Colchester than around Chesterfield, but in both places nearly every farmer has some debt-much or little on his land. Seventeen of 23 farmers admitted a total indebtedness of $31,741, or $1,867 per farm, on a net valuation of $95,472 on the 23 farms, or $4,340 per farm; that is to say, the indebtedness is about one-fourth of the gross value of the property and about one-third of the net value in the instances cited. Following is a general summary showing the financial condition, etc., of the 24 farms included in the Commission's detailed inquiry: Farms leased and owned: Total farms investigated. Median farm (acres).. Kind of farms, general.. Farms now leased.... Total number of acres Number of acres cultivated Number of acres not cultivated. Total value of personal property. Average value of personal property per farm... First purchase of land and improvements: Total number of acres Average acres per farm. Average value per farm. Total number of acres Number of acres cultivated Number of acres not cultivated.. Present value of farms now owned: Land and improvements... Average value of land and improvements per farm. Average value of land and improvements per acre Number of farms showing indebtedness.. Total indebtedness. Average indebtedness per farm. Gross value of all property Net value of all property. Average net value of all property per farm 24 155. 63 150 24 1 15 2 13 $350 $350 2,903 126. 22 $37,847 $1, 646 $13 23 3, 720 619 3, 101 $71, 907 $3,126 $19 17 $31, 741 $1,867 a $127, 213 a $95, 472 a $4, 340 The table which follows shows the value of all farm property as reported by 22 of the 23 land-owning farmers under consideration. While the bulk of property is in real estate, the equipment of live stock, implements, and machinery is greater than would be supposed. This showing is probably too high and represents purchase prices rather than auction values in individual cases, but the live stock, especially dairy cows, are responsible for by far the larger part of this investment. Nearly 90 per cent of all farmers declare an average total net value of property owned amounting to more than $1,500; nearly half of all farms reporting fall in the "$2,500 to $5,000" class, and four farmers report property whose net value is more than $5,000 per farm. These are good showings when compared with the values reported by immigrants elsewhere and by other foreigners on Connecticut farms. • Not including 1 farm not reporting complete data. TABLE 6.-Net value of property now owned by 22 Hebrew farmers, Chesterfield and Colchester, Conn. In this connection, a summary of the assessed valuations of nearly 200 Hebrew farmers in the townships near Colchester, Chesterfield, and East Haddam for the year ending October, 1908, is of interest as giving comparative figures. The percentages of the total valuations and of the real estate valuations exclusive of building and improvements are given. TABLE 7.-Percentage of Hebrew taxpayers with specified amounts of taxable property, Connecticut, 1908. These figures show that as a rule the assessor's valuations are far below those reported by the 24 farmers interviewed by the Commission's agents, but owing to the fact that the assessed valuations undoubtedly are low, and the number of farms represented in the table is much greater than the number included in the Commission's inquiry, a comparison of the two in this regard would be of little value. According to the table 81 per cent of the holdings lie between $500 and $2,500, 5.6 per cent are between $2,500 and $5,000, and only 2 per cent are assessed at more than $5,000 each. On the other hand, the values of bare land exclusive of improvements lie largely between $250 and $1,000 per farm. Eighteen per cent of the holdings are assessed for less than $250 each, and only 18.3 per cent for $1,000 or more; none are valued as high as $5,000, and but 1.3 per cent for $2,500 or over. |