Dear Hope: While scrubbing away with a hand power washer on my weekly laundry I was wondering why a farmer's wife has to do so much more real physical labor than the city man's wife.

The thought came to my mind of how the hard working farmer raises his grain, then who sets the price? We hear how it is controlled by the supply and demand, but in reality isn't it the speculator who sets the price? Of course the farmer does not receive a fair price for his grain, but the consumer pays enough for it, and if the government wants to help the farmer, why not abolish the speculator and then the middle men will only be those who are necessary to handle the grain, thus bringing the producers' and consumers' price closer together. There certainly is too wide a margin between the producer and consumer and where does it go?

A lot of it goes into the hands of the speculator who happens to be the lucky one. Wouldn't it be better if it were divided between the producer and consumer?

Much of our grain lies hoarded in the store house, benefiting no one except the speculator, and when our new cops come on this stored grain plays havoc with the prices.

I do not relish the idea of the farmer being referred to as a "down and outer" or "broke and don't know it." when the fact is he is the most independent and essential man in the world.

Of course, this is too big a question for a farm's wife to tackle, but I'm certainly anxious to see an improvement in farm conditions and it does seem to be a mistake to have our grain turned loose into the hands of the speculator. It's like throwing a bone to a pack of hungry hounds the way they grapple over it. Yes, I've watched "the pit," and it is one grand mass of scrambling, roaring, deafening excitement.

Hard work? Yes, mentally, but is it a legitimate business? And isn't it a detriment both to the farmer and to many a small speculator?

I enjoy your column. Some of the wives' troubles do seem trivial, but no doubt many of them will realize this as they grow older and have bigger trials come to them. I say just be thankful if you have good health and plenty of substantial food for your family and a comfortable home.

Best wishes to all. --M. E. H., Illinois.

None Too Big for Sincere

Too big a subject? There is no subject too big for any sincere person to tackle, and in this matter of the welfare of the agricultural population certainly the women not only have the right to express themselves but should consider it their duty. In no other business is the wife so intimately a part of the "firm." And in deciding what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct any existing evils, we need to take another of those "far looks." We need to look at the matter not only from an individual standpoint, not even from a class standpoint, but from the point of view of the whole nation. We must admit that middlemen fulfill a necessary function in such a complex civilization as ours. We must admit that even speculation (that is, dealing futures, taking a risk or making a gamble on the future) serves a legitimate and worthy purpose. If it were not for some form of speculation we could never hope to stabilize prices. But it is obvious that much of the speculation indulged in nowadays, both in farm products and in stocks and bonds, is only a mad orgy of buying and selling phantom values, resulting in bitterness of feeling and inequalities. Neither the profits nor the losses in such dealings are in proportion to the effort involved, nor to the value of the service. But just where to draw the line between helpful speculation (a wholesome risk on the future) and between pure gambling (an attempt to win at someone else's expense) is the problem which has never yet been solved. We hope that the new federal farm board, by building up co-operatives powerful enough to influence the market will be a solution. Only time will tell. Certainly the farm board is is functioning as actively and definitely as any federal board has ever done in its first half year.

Real Work Yet to Be Done

It is all very well to say that no legislation will be effective. It is true that we cannot expect legislation to solve the problem, and now that we have the legislation creating the farm board, the real work is still to be done. However, this much legislation was needed; for neither individual farmers nor small co-operatives were powerful enough to accomplish anything -- just as local option was not powerful enough to conquer the liquor evil. And with farm relief, as with prohibition, we must expect a long period of experimentation even after the law is passed. In both matters we may eventually have to "back track" (we hope not!), but it is only by trying out the experiment on a national scale that we can hope to make progress. Except for minor corrections in the operation of the board, we should not look to further legislation to solve our problems, except for a law modernizing our tax system to equalize the burden.

The individual farmer must still carry his own responsibilities. No law and no co-operative organization can make a shiftless farmer into an industrious one, nor turn a poor farm into a productive one. The inefficient farmers cannot expect to be carried long by the workers, but must turn to other occupations. The poor or marginal lands (that is, those which even with good management can barely pay their way) may need to be bought up by the government and re-forested, or in some other way withdrawn from competition. And new lands should not be opened up until they are needed.

But in other respects each farmer must work out his own salvation, and that means he must bring himself and his farm to the highest point of productivity. With the help of his big marketing co-operatives and the farm board, he can then demand an equitable reward for his efforts and his produce. The old law of supply and demand has been too many times manipulated to get desired effects for us to accept it as our fate. Any talk of a "farmer's strike" or arbitrary limitation of acreage is not only unwise but impracticable. Here is the straightforward way in which this principle was expressed by E. E. Stevenson, the president of our own country farm bureau at its recent annual meeting:

"Surplus Matter of Imagination"

"The farm bureau and the Illinois Agricultural association, officered as they are from the bottom to the top by actual farmers and producers, are lending valuable assistance to the co-operative societies for the handling and marketing of farm products...

"It is not the province of the farm bureau to encourage a decrease in production. With the best that we have been able to do, we are within six months of starvation. The surplus with which we are confronted is largely a matter of imagination and is but seasonable at the most.

"A plan of orderly marketing by which the price of a commodity may be stabilized throughout the year will do much more to settle the question of the surplus than a program of decreased production, which is to begin with, impracticable and could only result in great suffering to those least able to t stand it. Efficiency in production has been and must continue to be the watchword of the farm bureau. The fertility of the soil must at least be maintained or increased if possible. We have no moral right to burden the generations yet to come with a depleted soil in order that we may enjoy a temporary benefit in increased prices for our products."

(As space is running short we will conclude this discussion tomorrow with an article written by our own Faith Feigar a little over 10 years ago.)

"The Lord helps those who help themselves" is not an idle saying, and no where is it more applicable than in this matter so much before the public eye just now, farm relief. In the dairy business particularly, in which it seems there is more grief in surpluses and marketing than in any other branch of agriculture, the principle holds good. In our locality butter fat is now at the lowest figure it has been for years for the month of January, thirty cents a pound. The season of heavy flow has not even begun and yet the market price is perilously near the cost of production. It is generally agreed that one of the causes of this situation is the tremendous increase in the consumption of oleo.

The manufacturers of that product have improved their technique and advertised the product and they sell it at a figure which makes it a serious temptation to substitute oleo for butter. Present-day oleo is a palatable, fine-textured, attractive-looking fat, but it does not contain the vitamins and minerals essential for health, as butter does. A producer of butter fat who sells milk and cream and buys oleo for home use is not only injuring his business from an economic standpoint, but is depriving his family of necessary food elements to which they have a greater right than any one else. It is to be hoped that every reader of this paper will consider carefully before he trades his butter fat for oleo. At first thought, he may think he is saving money or making money by the practice, and of course we have all sympathy for those who must make every penny count.

But in the long run, if all the farmer who need to save money are selling cream and buying oleo, the market will be so glutted with milk products that the price will be forced down and down until it meets the price of oleo. And every farmer knows that it is impossible to produce high class butter fat cheaply. It should be the principal of every farm home to select form the produce of the farm all that can be used to further the health and well-being of the family, then to sell the rest. Many farm families are necessarily deprived of many modern comforts and conveniences of city life. At least give them their fill of wholesome and healthful food; the best the farm affords, not the culls and left-overs and substitutes. --Hope.

Dear Hope and Household Folks:

This morning my mind is a medley of thoughts. Tonight we are to present our home talent P.T.A. play. It has been my privilege to direct it, and I am proud of our home folks. Our dress rehearsal last night was perfect. It is wonderful what talent there is in every community if only we take the pains to search it out and develop it. We are giving the same play that "Molly Manning" and her church society put on earlier in the year, and we want to thank "Molly" for her part in helping us with our play by sending us suggestions.

Yesterday afternoon the county home and community chairmen of the state extension work met for their monthly round table. We discuss all our problems with each other, our home demonstration agent and a worker from the state university. Yesterday we had a 4-H club leader with us and our discussion centered around the boys' and girls' club work for this summer. Our home demonstration agent pointed out the need of more and better home economics project and less of calf and pig clubs for our girls. The state representative said we should not neglect the calf and pig clubs too much as farm girls needed to be trained to be helpful farm wives in the future. We had a long debate over this question. It was about 50-50, as the saying goes. How I wished Hope and "Ruth Vernon" were with us, for I knew each one had a decided opinion and would express herself sincerely. We need to discuss this problem more now than ever, when agriculture is in the "limelight" and conditions are changing so rapidly.

About half of the women there yesterday said they would soon have to help with the chores, especially when the men start working in the field, besides, their own work would be heavier, with garden and chickens, house cleaning and what not. The question is -- should the women be expected to help with the chores just because the men have to get the crop in? Of course, it is imperative that the crops get into the ground at the proper time, especially if the season is already late or rains hinder the progress of the work.

Considers Her Dignity

Our county chairman of the women's work said she would not go to the barn for any man, no matter what happened. She contended that her place was in the house, even though there would be losses outside if she did not help out occasionally. She did not even believe in giving assistance if any of the stock was sick and no other man could be had to help. She would rather see the animal die than lower her dignity to go out and help. Just then I wished Mrs. Simmons were with us. I am sure she could have given us a splendid talk. Then our former township chairman spoke up. She said: "I have run the farm of 80 acres myself while my husband was sick and we could not afford a man. I learned to love the stock and became so interested I took up dairying and now have a fine herd of dairy cows. It was through my help we were able to send out seven children through high school and university, and now see them in good farm homes of their own. I do not feel that I am less a lady than I was before I did this, and I admire any woman who will help her husband when necessary." She also said that her husband loved and respected her as much as ever and was always willing she should have any modern convenience in the home that owuld lighten her work.

Just to cite a few of my own experiences: A few years ago we lost a very good dairy cow because I did not take time to go out when I heard unusual noises in the near-by pasture. I can never forgive myself for this neglect. Not because of the loss in dollars as much as the terrible suffering I could have spared this poor dumb creature, for hours upon hours. Just this very morning I heard a noise in the barn. The men were not yet up (it is my custom to rise when I awaken, even if the hour is early). So I went out and discovered a cow had broken through the barn floor and was standing with her hind legs down through the floor. I at once called the men and they went to help her out. Brother said he had noticed the bad place in the floor a few days ago, but just did not take time to fix it then. Now, that cow could have broken her legs by trying to get out alone. And so it is with many other things. I believe a woman should take interest enough to at least notice if anything seems unusual, even though she cannot go out to help with the work.

A few more words to answer the questions of so many. Thanks so much. Father is in his usual good health, not even having had a cold this winter. To several who asked about my son: He is at St. Stanislaus seminary at Florissant, Mo., just out of St. Louis. He is preparing for the mission field, be it in this country or foreign lands, wherever he is needed. Yes, he is the only child I have. No, he does not come home for vacation. It would break too much into the routine of the work and studies. It requires a period of from 12 to 15 years before the men are finished. They study and teach by turns. My boy, although only 21 years old, has been sent to a negro mission for practice work and ha also preached several sermons. Now he is back in the seminary digging out Latin and Greek and other languages. Best wishes to all. Sincerely -- Pep.

Two Things Enter In

We have a daughter who has been in home economics projects for two years and who is taking up a poultry project in addition this year. She summed the matter up pretty neatly, I thought, when she explained why she took both. "I love the sewing and wouldn't give it up, but I'd like to work part of the time with something alive and something outdoors. And, besides, the sewing project doesn't bring in any money!"

As to the outside work by farm women, it seems to me the most satisfying philosophy is to meet the situations that arise, never being hampered by an ironclad rule of conduct, "I will do this," or "I will never do that." In many cases the housewife would have neither time nor talent to contribute to the outside nor would there be need for her to undertake it. Whether or not she should habitually help with the farming depends altogether on the circumstances and the ambitions of the couple concerned. It is a pity for any woman habitually to work beyond her strength or to neglect the house and children to save a man's wages; but since most of us do more than tend a house and children nowadays, if we are real partners and want our husbands to succeed, we have the privilege of a choice in selecting the ways in which we shall help. It is no more demeaning to do farm work than to tend garden or raise chickens, or bake or sew or write books, and many women really enjoy it more. Some couples work side by side in everything they do; both help outdoors, both help about the house, and each enjoys both phases. In other households the lines of work run parallel and are mutually sympathetic, but they seldom need to cross.

Willing But Awkward

My husband and I, for instance, would be entirely willing to help one another out if occasion should arise. Willing, but awkward. For myself, I know enough about the theory of farming to be interested in every operation and to keep in touch with all the plans; but for me actually to harness a horse would require literally a feat of imagination. It is not that I have refused to do such work, but that the days have been full and that particular thing I have never needed to know. My husband, on the other hand, lends a sympathetic ear to the theory of housekeeping, but would far rather pay what wages it takes to hire a helper for me than to be obliged to handle the practical details himself.

If the time should come when he had to prepare a poached egg for me, for example, it would seem to me a more touching tribute of devotion than a box of American Beauty roses, for it would represent the humble and courageous effort to accomplish a difficult feat, for my sake. And so I say that it all depends on the persons concerned. It is no more nor less of an aspersion to say of a woman, "She never helps outside," than to say, "She always helps outside." There is no glory in doing such work when it is not needed; and there is certainly no glory in refusing to do it when it is needed. --Hope.

Dear Household:

Come, "Missouri Mule," let us reason together! Your letter about smoking was fine, but why give all the virtues to the women! The men in our family have been just as virtuous as the women. If our daddy smoked I would not try to keep Jimmy from using the filthy weed. Women have not smoked until recently. A few have begun to "tag" the men. I predict this will open the eyes of the men smokers as nothing else could, and they will lead these foolish ones out of their folly. Few men want their mothers, wives or daughters to smoke, and I have never heard a woman say, "I'm so glad my husband smokes and chews!"

"Pep," you knew I just couldn't keep still when a discussion of outdoor work for women was on. I remember years ago, when I had promised to become a farmer's wife and realized just how little I knew of farm life. I begged my parents to let me go to K.S.A.C. to learn how to make butter and raise chickens! They consented, and I went in perfect confidence that I'd learn all a farmer's wife should know. But to my dismay I found that butter-making was taught in the animal husbandry course and poultry raising was also relegated to the boys. So it isn't entirely my fault that I have the ideas I have on this vital subject.

I learned in my own home to make butter, and still make all we use. But the chickens are beyond me.

What do you do with a setting hen that eats all her eggs (Peg says to wring her neck!)

"Them's My Sentiments"

Hope wrote my sentiments exactly, and, like you, Pep, I have no patience with any woman who would not help a domestic animal if she could. But when I hear trouble at the barn, or even the chicken house, I get the "good man" up instead of investigating myself. Just one question, Hope. You say Ruth is taking up a poultry project. Now, will Wilbert, Sonny and Jo take up sewing projects? I fear we'd have a bit of trouble getting Jimmy to either sew or can.

I have known women who were so proud of the money they made raising chickens, pay out much more on ready-made clothing which they should have made themselves. Nothing wrong with the chicken raising, but why the pride? Isn't there greater glory in a girl or woman designing and making her own clothing than raising chickens, pigs, and calves? Which would you rather your son do -- a man's or a woman's work.

So many times I've wanted to write to Mrs. Simmons and tell her how very much her "home" articles have helped me, but fearing she is too busy to bother with letters with nothing in them about chickens, I've never said thank you! Since reading her article, "An Attempted Plea for Tolerance," I must tell her that we all didn't misunderstand, but since it brought forth an even better article, I'm not very sorry that some did.

Weeks later! I put this away in a drawer and forgot it, even wondered why Hope had cast it all in the waste basket! Reading "Molly Manning's" delightful letter made me want to assure her I feel the same responsibility in regard to my children's conduct. Whenever they have made mistakes I feel that I should have prevented that, and if they ever do a grave wrong I will be mostly to blame, or rather their parents. I've known so many parents who would accept the compliments their children brought them, but not the condemnations. But isn't Hope's thought that a child learns the good characteristics as well as the bad ones from parents comforting? -- Ruth Vernon.

No Law Against It

Question always welcomed here! If Wilbert, Sonny and Jo do or do not take up sewing projects, it will not be because there is compulsion either way. I'm sure the club would be open to them, but from the present indications they decidedly will not want to enter. However, I would not forbid Ruth her poultry work on that account, any more than I would say to Sonny, "You can't be a doctor, because Wilbert wants to be a farmer." Our daughter, like her maternal parent, has a bit too strong a taste for books, and we encourage any taste for handicraft, as a balancer.

Housework, it is true, provides handicraft of various sorts, and we encourage that. But Ruth is learning to cook and sew and clean, and enjoys them all. But, having grown up as a bookworm, I have made the discovery in comparatively recent years that no individual tastes the fullness of life without some form of outdoor manual labor -- in plain English, nice dirty work. It is both a sedative and a stimulant. It touches life with serenity and wholesomeness, and it is hard for one who does his own hoeing and digging to be a radical or a fanatic.

It is true that too severe and too prolonged manual labor, especially if performed under great economic stress, wears down courage and tangles nerves just as badly as strenuous mental work. If i could arrange the lives of us humans I would choose that every one should alternate days of gorgeously grubby work with days of interesting mental exercise. Workdays would be long enough and hard enough to bring real fatigue and luxurious rest. On the alternate days I would like for every human being to enjoy leisurely well served meals, baths and clean clothes, every mechanical device to make life comfortable, work of an interesting and stimulating but not physically tiring kind, and ample time for recreation and the amenities of life. Since this is only a pipe-dream, anyway, we need not figure out who would perform those necessary services which are menial but not necessarily grubby; but perhaps we would find a group of persons who would be willing to forego the sweaty days of hard labor for the lighter, if inferior, tasks.

And if I could order the development of my children I would like nothing better than for them to happen casually, as the years go by, onto craftsmen of various sorts who could show them the delight there is in any occupation for a master-craftsman, for one who loves his work, whether that work is sawing wood or managing a colossal organization. Then my girls would not be housewives nor my boys farmers, for the reason that they knew nothing else, but because in those occupations they found their best satisfaction in life. Their farther and I find what we want in farming. Our children may not. They shall be free to choose, and I hope we shall be able to provide them sufficient experience on which to base their choice. Man's work or woman's work -- there is no sharp dividing line any more. In the home, baking is woman's work; in commerce, it is often men's. All I ask is that whatever they choose, they try to do it to the best of their ability -- and enjoy doing it. --Hope.

Not So Easily Settled

You are right in saying that laughter and love are more effective tools for child training than switches and scolding. But of course the question is not quite simple even after we accept that fact. In "Homebird's" case, for instance, she has not only the children and her work to consider, but the matter of pleasing an unsympathetic husband. We are all of us torn by many desires, of course; we not only crave to satisfy our housewifely instincts and mother our children in the best possible way, but we want the approval of our husbands, we must cater to the requirements of hired help, we want to ward off the barbed criticisms of neighbors and relatives, we want to earn money, we want time for pleasure and diversion. How to maintain a wholesome balance between all these demands is a problem which is hard to solve. Suppose we just shut our eyes to the mess, and pick up the stubborn little rebel and love him back to sweetness.

There is not a doubt in the world that it is the logical, wholesome things to do, both for his sake and his mother's. But noon comes and the head of the house is surprised and displeased that the house is not in order and dinner not on the table. "You should have done the work first," or "You ought to just make the children mind, or better still make them help you with the work," is his comment. And the hired man doesn't like to wait for meals. And the neighbor on one side disapproves of your pampering the children while your work waits, while the neighbor on the other side thinks you are too strict with them. Your own mother perhaps thinks you have far too much to do, while your mother-in-law thinks you don't do enough. The missionary society thinks that if you had any religion you would arrange to get out to the meetings, while Mrs. Stick-to-Work looks with a coldly disapproving eye on any jaunts away from home.

It takes a brave and philosophical soul to disregard all such criticisms. So the greatest problem in child training, after all, is not training the children, but training ourselves to accept the frictions of life as wholesomely, gently and generously as we may. If we could be left alone with our children, with nothing but motherly affection to guide us, we might not be any more successful with them than we are in the midst of skimped and strenuous lives. But as "R.G. K." remarks, "if you can't do everything, keep smiling anyway." --Hope.

Once upon a time I heard a story of a politician who disappointed many of his constituents by voting contrary to their expectations on some matter dealing with the welfare of young people. When these constituents called him to account for the change in his attitude, his explanation was, "The outside pressure was so strong!" The answer of one of his constituents was "Where were your inside braces?"

This story comes to mind in connection with the current discussion in these columns of those two perennial bones of contention, dancing and smoking. And once more I am impressed, as I have been so many times, with the fact that the greatest protection against any poor habit or any wrong-doing is the "inside braces" set up during childhood. The braces must be in place, sound and permanent, well before the "outside pressure" is brought to bear.

And when it comes to establishing the "inside braces" we must decide the method which is best to use. It seems to me the emphasis should be positive, whenever possible. First of all, parents should set the examples of temperance and tolerance which they expect their children to follow. Example is a great positive force, you realize, when you compare its influence with the power of mere words. If you speak quietly to a child you will get a quiet answer. If you shout angrily, "Be still!" you get an echo of your own tone in the retort. If you say to a boy, "Better not smoke," while you have a cigar in your mouth, he will draw the natural conclusion that you do not mean what you say. If you say to a baby, "Don't touch that!" you leave him bewildered, without direction. But if you say, "Take this!" you can give him a harmless object while you quietly remove a hurtful one.

So, as a child grows up, if the emphasis is placed on what to do, the matter of what not to do will largely solve itself. Proper activities will crowd out the temptations for improper ones. If we emphasize strong bodies, good health, sound teeth, steady nerves, firm muscle, interesting work, happy play, we shall have less difficulty with the problems of smoking, drinking and bad companionship. Every lever we can provide our children for developing the best they have in them is a protection against evil, as is pointed out in the following letter from Radical of Iowa.

One lever she mentions having provided for her boys is athletics; another is saving for college. One we have given our boys -- I mention it not because it is the strongest or the most important, but because it is one example of setting up plenty of braces before the outside pressure comes -- is that they are each promised $100 on their 21st birthday if they have used neither tobacco nor liquor up to that time. It is not likely that a time will come when one drink or one smoke will seem worth $100, and if they do not take the first, they are safe. We have not put the proposition to them as though drinking and smoking were the greatest evils, and if they avoid them they will have no faults. We have merely pointed out that it is hard, almost impossible, for young boys and men to be moderate in the use of drink and tobacco if they once acquire the habit; and with the habit they will not attain quite the size and strength and character that they can without. We have laid down no commands; but the boys know how we feel about the matter, and their voluntary choice is supported and influenced by our general attitude and by the regard. So calmly do they assume that they will fulfill the conditions of that reward, that Sonny remarked the other day, when I told him we couldn't afford to get him something he wanted, "You can take it out of my hundred dollars if you want to." We make no stipulations about their behavior after they are 21, but we hope they will have acquired reason and judgment enough to manage their lives suitably after that.

Ruth Vernon, please don't feel, because of several of us do not agree with you on this subject, that we do not appreciate your sturdy defense of your side. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on too many subjects, we know each other too well to let a difference of opinion divide us. There is nothing more honorable than honest opinion, honestly expressed. As you say, your prejudices are colored by your upbringing. So are all ours. I believer all of us who have taken part in the discussion agree with the famous Voltaire, who said: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Hope.

Prolonged and excessive drought is the most important element of our welfare here in northern Illinois. It is so pronounced that fields and gardens are drying up. Corn is already seriously damaged -- and there is still no relief in sight. Letters from some of you in Nebraska and other states indicate that you have at last had relief, probably in time to save the crops. For you we are glad, and for those who are still worse off than we are (as is true farther south in our state and farther east than Illinois), we are sorry. But all in all, farmers are a philosophic lot. They continue harvesting and threshing and storing grain, even in the face of discouraging weather and low prices.

Threshing is going to be over before we can turn around, with straw so dry and not even dew to hinder an early start each morning, the work is booming along. Small grain with us is of exceptionally good quality and in many cases the yield is good.

Getting threshing done early is going to leave us more time than we sometimes have to work at odd jobs of building and improving the farmstead. Now is the time when many of us would delight in transplanting and sowing seed for perennials were it not for the excessive dryness of the hard-baked soil. We can at least make plans and hope for rain. And if rain doesn't materialize , we can still devote our extra hours to the school sewing, curtain making and furnishing up the house. Speaking of perennials, I want to share an interesting flower letter which I have just received from an expert and an enthusiast in answer to some of my amateur questions. It was a personal letter, but I am sure the writer will not object to passing on any information she has given. --Hope.

Are Not in Despair

A lot of talk going around these days about hard times, isn't there? Drouth, short crops, unemployment, stock market crashes, and so on. Threshing was completed in our vicinity without the shocks ever having felt a drop of rain. Fine quality grain we had, too -- what there was of it. And now we are all wondering whether the rain which is bound to come some time can possibly save the later crops -- corn and soy beans. Lots of talk, lots of figuring, lots of difficulty -- but in the main I believe our farmers, and I suppose it is about the same with all you readers, are by no means in despair. We are old friends with adversity. Now that other classes are beginning to feel the pinch, we can sympathize. Trouble isn't half so hard to bear when it is spread out among so many. In fact, when it begins to assume the proportions of a country-wide disaster, much of the sting is removed. A great calamity puts us on our mettle, binds us together for mutual protection and help. It may be that we Americans are destined to go through some grievous economic difficulties, but we are not likely to be oconfronted with such calamities like famine and earthquakes, as many sister-nations have gone through and survived.

Other classes are beginning to be bewildered by conditions. Crashes in values disturb them more than they do farmers, for they have nothing so tangible to hold on to. Wages fall, work lets up, business slackens, the wheels of industry hesitate, and what substantial footing is left? Values are in a turmoil. But farmers have their old stand-by -- work that needs to be done regardless of rates of interest and agitation at the pit. It is up to the farmers now to uphold the morale of the whole country. We are all in a slough of despond together, but we'll clamber out, and the first ones out must help to pull the rest. I dare say the farmers will be the first ones out.

Passed Prosperity On

Back in 1912, in those incredible years of prosperity before the great war, the editor of our paper described the "horn of plenty" of that season -- bumper crops and good feeling all around. He said, "Everybody looked to the farms rather than the politicians to give progress a little boost, and the farms have made good...Providence passed prosperity around to the farmers, and the farmers helped it along by putting in a busy season...Greater agricultural wealth will mean an era of unbounded general prosperity...Do not envy the farmer's affluence. He makes prosperity's wheels spin for all the people." Even in this year of threatened crop shortage, if the farmer is just a little better off than the rest he can start the wheel to moving. Let's try!

I have just been reading a new book called "Prosperity, Fact or Myth," by Stuart Chase. I was particularly interested in the chapter on farming prosperity, and was encouraged and cheered to read what the author had to say. After painting the darkest side of the picture by statics showing how little of the vaunted national prosperity had reached the farmers, he said:

Can Forget Rules

"In the face of this depressing testimony it is pertinent to inquire how farmers continue to exist at all. As a matter of fact many of them have ceased to exist -- as farmers.

"For agriculture to show a profit and loss account in red figures may be sad, even tragic, but it is not evidence of extermination...The farmer is carrying on a job far older than the money and credit system. He is handicapped seriously by its rules, but in a pinch he can still defy them. No penalty of sudden extermination hangs over him. If his books do not balance, if his debits exceed his credits, he can throw his books out of the window and go out and pick a mess of peas, or milk the cow. He has a roof over his head, food in his fields, fuel in the wood lot. He can stand a financial siege if he must.

"Farming is a career, not a business. Its roots are very ancient and run profoundly deep. In the face of plowed earth, flowing stream, hillside, meadow, orchard, woodland, all the figures which I have spread upon the record suddenly grow dim...Red figures or black figures, the farmers have gone on plowing and sowing and harvesting.

"Theoretically millions of them are bankrupt, actually most of them have not shared in American prosperity -- but they continue to exist, strong, hardworking, reasonably health. Because they are farmers. Their strength lies in the soil, not in engraved figures on pieces of paper.

"I am sorry for them, but I do not pity them -- sometimes indeed I envy them." --Hope.

System Not Perfect

Not many of us feel that the present school system is perfect. We are all wiling to experiment with the hope of improving. The question of winter is a most interesting one, for it is so complicated and so involved with other factors of child welfare. I imagine the first argument against school in summer would be "It's too hot for the children to study," but that might be open to argument. Children as a rule are not as sensitive to heat as older people; that is they are not conscious of it making them uncomfortable. For that reason they often overdo in hot weather and exhaust themselves at active play, unless restrained. The lessons and the routine of school might protect them from that danger.

But a more vital argument against summer school occurs to me; whether it is valid or not I leave to you. It is is that the school would interfere with a very important part of a country child's education; that is, contact with the farm work. A vacation in the winter would give the children delightful chances for outdoor play and exercise, even in bad weather, for moderately rugged children can stand much bad weather if they are properly clothed. But the farm activities are not so varied nor so interesting during the winter; and isn't it decidedly worth while for the child to get a goodly proportion of his "education" from practical contact with the affairs of life? The modern tendency is more and more toward just that practical point of view. Children are taught less by rules and printed directions and more by actually doing.

In some advanced schools, the children even learn how to figure wallpaper problems by actually papering small play-houses, which have previously been constructed by children who were working other arithmetical problems in this practical way. Such problems are artificial and may easily be overdone, but the country child's summer life is not artificial, and from it he learns many valuable conceptions of life. I imagine most country boys at least, would make a great outcry if they had to miss hay-making, threshing, silo-filling, and all the miscellaneous adventures of boyhood associated with them. --Hope.

Memory Gem

I live for those who love me,
Whose hearts are kind and true;
For the heaven that smiles above me.
And awaits my spirit, too;
For all human ties that bind me,
For the task by God assigned me,
For the hopes not left behind me
And for the good that I can do.

-- Banks

Memory Gem

"Suppose that this vessel," said the skipper with a a groan,
"Should lose her bearing, run away, and bump upon a stone.
"Suppose she'd shiver and go down, and save ourselves we couldn't.".
The mate replied, "Oh, blow me eyes, suppose again she shouldn't."

-- Selected