Master of Arts. for the degree of

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

GRADUATE SCHOOL

Report

of

Committee on Thesis

The undersigned, acting as a Committee

of the Graduate School, have read the accompanying

thesis submitted by George Casper Haas

They approve it as a thesis meeting the require-

ments of the Graduate School of the University of

Minnesota, and recom►nend that it be accepted in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Laster of Arts.

Chairman

ci/4414

I

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

GRADUATE SCHOOL

Report

of

Committee on Thesis

The undersigned, acting as a Committee

of the Graduate School, have read the accompanying

thesis submitted by George Casper Haas

for the degree of Master of Arts.

They approve it as a thesis meeting the require-

ments of the Graduate School of the University of

Minnesota, and recommend that it be accepted in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of !.aster of Arts.

ct-~~~;···-··-... !!.~ ... /A!._~········ ······-··

REPORT

of

COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION

This is to certify that we the

undersigned, as a Committee of the Graduate

School, have given _George_Cmer_l!fAa____

final oral examination for the degree of

Master of _Arts We recommend that the

degree of Master of Arts be conferred

upon the candidate.

J 3

19Z a

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Chairman

6 C 2

.. .J ::> .,,

REPORT

of

COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION

This is to certify that we the

undersigned, as a Committee of the Graduate

School, have given ... G.earge ... C~p.B.r ... He~~ ........ . .

final oral examinaticn for the degree of

aster of ... Arts .. ........ . ,e recommend that the

degree of aster of .. Arte..... be conferred

upon the candidate.

Minneapolis, innesota

·~-·~············-·····192. 2. ~ "h~ 4 ···-· ......... -·-·-·-... /:_~ . .., ..

Chairman

.. L~.i!!.~

.. ~ -~ -·-·-·-·-···· .. ·--~ ........ _ -·-·- ····-·-·

01·· 2

A STATISTICAL AYALYSIt OF

FA2T: SALES IN BLUE. EARTH COUNTY, 1,fINNEF .:;TA,

A7 A BASIS FOR FAR LAND APPRAISAL

By

GEORGE CASPER HAAS •

A Thesis submitted to the

Crauate Sahool of the University of liLnesota

in Lartial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

'aster of Arts

ilaroh, 1922

in

12 21·•

A A "A Y~ ro o-'""'A ' A E~ .1. 'I

,... F A.1. A RA .... AL

y

GEO G CA~P

A Th0 sie su

~r ua.t c .. ool of t" e

r• ial fulfil~ t ..

t

,

itte

r .uir

of rt

c .... , 1922

to t

it

6

L ... sot

or t.

C DI;T: :TS Page

CHAPTER I. Introduction 1

CHAPTER II. The Land Market 3

CHAPTER III. Factors to be Considered and the

Method Employed in Determining their Relationship

to Market Price.

CHAPTER IV. Description of Elue Earth County and 16

How the Data were Secured.

CHAPTER V. Compilation and Analysis of the Data. 27

CHAPTER VI. Conclusion 45

Appendix

Bibliography

t

c 0 e

CHA T"'""'R I. I tro uotion 1

CHAPT R II. The an r t 3

CHA T-R III. F ct or to b Con i ... r an tH j

ett.od 1 ye - in Det r Lin t ir 1 tionshi

to r t Frie .

CHAPT ~v. De cr1 ion o ..:t. Cou. ty 16

He t•. D t r ur

o: PT- Co. i tic ly .c c e .. t . c.7

Hp I. Co cu ion 5

12 21·•

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is to present a statistical

investigation of farm land sales in Blue Earth County, Minnesota,

which has revealed certain relationships with such definiteness

as to lead the writer to believe that they constitute a basis for

a scientific appraisal system of farm lands.

By a ppraising farm lands is meant forecasting or predict

ing what they would sell for if sold on the basis of the present

market. The values predicted are therefore actual market values,

a nd not what any one, no matter how good his judgement, thinks

they should be worth. These market values are facts resulting from

the judgments of the land market composed of buyers and sellers of

the general type of intelligence. It is these facts for which we

seek and not any ideal value, notwithstanding how much more con-

sistent with high intelligence the latter might seem to be.

By a scientific system, we mean one which is based on

induction, experiment or observation;-- one in which the facts are

weighed with precision and not by a more or less loose application

of judgment guided only by general principles.

Practically all farm land appraisal systems in use today,

at least all that the writer could find, are based on this latter

principle. That a system with more scientific precision and accur-

acy is needed almost goes without saying. One need only look over

list of farm malty transfers and compare the sale prices with the

full assessed values to note the discrepancies. If a tax is to be

12.21-6m

- 1 -

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is to present a statistical

invest igation of farm land sales in Blue Earth County, Minnesota,

which has revealed certain relationships with such definiteness

as to lead the writer to believe that they constitute a basis for

a scientific appraisal system of farm lands.

By a ppraising farm lands is meant forecasting or predict

ing what they would sell for if sold on the basis of the present

market . The values predicted are therefore actual market values,

a nd not what any one, no matter how good his judgement, thin

they should be worth. These market values are facts resulting from

the judg~ents of the land .. arket co posed of uyers an sellers of

the general type of intelligence. It is these facts for which e

seek and not any ideal value, notwithstanding ho . oh reore con­

sistent with high intelligence the latter might seem to be.

By a sci entific syste , ~e mean one whic is based on

inductio , experiment or observation;-- one in which th~ facts are

weighed with precision and not by a more or less loose application

of judg ent guided only by general principles .

Practically all farm lan appraisal systerrs in use today,

at least al that the riter could find, are based on this latter

principle. That a system 1th more scientific precision and accur­

acy is needed alrr.o t goes without saying . One need only look over a

list of farm r~al ty transfers and col!lpare the sale prices with the

full assessed values to note the discrepancies. If a tax is to be

- 2

based on the farm value and the value is erroneously determined,

then surely the tax is not just to all.

Special assessments are based on the assumption of the

relationship of the increased value of the adjoining real estate

and value of the improvements. A scientific appraisal system should.

prove or disprove wholly or partly this assumption.

Accurate valuation has an important bearing on the ques-

tion of loans, the security of which is based on the value of farm

real estate. If values could be determined more accurately, more

money could be loaned on the same farm than is consistant with

safety at the present time. The mortgage bonds could perhaps be

sold to the investing public at a lower rate if the public was con-

fident the loans weresecured by farms scientifically and accurately

appraised.

Bond houses could market improvement bonds, which are base

on special assessments, to a better advantage when the relationship

between the value of the improvement and the increased value of the

adjacent or assessed property is known.

Public utility commissions are in need of scientific val-

uation systems in order that they may fix accurate and just rail-

road and other rates.

The successful operation of a farm realty and brokerage

business is dependent on how accurately land values can be determin

It is therefore evident that information along the lines

of scientific land appraisal is very much needed at the present

time and will help in the handling of many important econorLic and

administrative problems.

11111111111M.

- 2 -

based on the farm value and the value is erroneously determined,

then surely the tax is not just to all.

Special assessments are based on the assumption of the

relationship of the increased value of the adjoining real estate

and value of the improvements. A scientific appraisal syste shoul

prove or disprove wholly or partly this assumption.

Accurate valuation has an important bearing on the ques­

tion of loans, the secul'ity of which is based on the value of far

real estate. If values could be determined more accurately, more

money could be loaned on the same farm than is consistant with

safety at the present time. The mortgage bon s could perhaps be

sold to the investing public at a lo er rate if the public as oon­

f ident the loans weresecured by farms scientifically and accurately

appraised.

Bond houses could market i mprove ent bonds, hich are base~

on special asses ments , to a better advantage when the relationship

between the value of the improvement and the increased value of the

adjacent or assessed property is known.

Public utility co~~issions are in need of scientific val­

uation syste s in order that they ay fix accurate and just rail­

road and other rates.

The successful operation of a farm realty and brokerage

business is dependent on how accurately land values can be determin

It is therefore evident that information along the lines

of scientific lan appraisal is very much needed at the present

time and will help in the handling of many irr..portant econon.ic and

administrative problems.

-3

Chapter II

THE LAND MARKET

In thinking of the land market we have the general

commodity concept of market in mind; that is,-"the totality con-

stituted by a group of competing sellers over against a group of

competing buyers concerned in exchanging the same commodity".

Probably the best method of presenting an analysis of a

problem of this sort is by first projecting an ideal illustration

based on hypothetical assumptions, drawing our conclusions there-

from and later making the necessary modifications so as to slake

our analysis fit the actual circumstances.

The assumptions of an ideal market 'are; first, that

each man taking part in the exchange process is an ideal economic

man. He is motivated only by economic forces, that is, getting

the maximum of satisfactions for himself. Such motives as charity

and sympathy are excluded fros his make-up. His decisions are

M F. U. Taylor. Principles of Economics page 210 5th Ed. 1915.

0 "Economists understand by the term market, not any particular marl et place in which things are bought and sold, but the while of any region in which buyers and sellers are in such free intercourse with one another that the prices of the same goods tend to equality easily and quickly". Cournot. "Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses".

3 "Originally a market .sas a public place in a town where provisions and other objects were exposed for sale-; but the word has been generalized so as to mean any body of persons who are in intimate business relations an=1 carry on extensive transactions in any commodity. A great city may contain as many markets as there are important branches of trade, and these markets may or may not be localized. The central point of a market is the public exchange, mart or auction rooms, where the traders agree

12-21-6se

I

- 3 -

Chapter II

THE LAND ARKET

In thinking of the land market e have the general

corri;r.odity concept of uiarket in mind; that is,-"the totality con­

stituted by a group of competing sellers over against a group of me~

COP-peting buyers concerned in exchanging the same commo i ty".

Probably the best method of pres enting an a alysis of a

proble~ of this sort is by first projecting an ideal illustration

based on hypothetical asqumptions, drawing our conclusions there­

from and later making the necessary wodifications so as to Uiake

our analy s is fit the actual circu-1stanc3s.

The assumptions of an ideal market 'are; first, that

each man ta~ing part in the exchange process is an ideal economic

man. He is motivated only y eoonoinic force , that is, getting

the maxia:um of satisf -ctions for himself . Such motives as charity

and sympathy are excluded from his ~e-up. His decisions are

\

- -

to meet and transact business. In London the Stock Market, the Corn Market, the Coal Market, The Sugar Market, and many others are distinctly localized; in Manchester the Cotton Market, the Cotton Waste Market and others. But this distinction of locality is not necessary. The traders may be spread over a whole town, or region of country, and yet make a market, if they are, by means of fairs, meetings, published lists, the post office or otherwise, in close communication with each other". Jevons "Theory of Political Economy. Ch IV.

made unerringly and his. knowledge of market conditions

is perfect. Secondly, we assume perfect marketing conditions ex-

isting between the buyers and sellers, which means essentially that

every buyer is aware of every seller's particular

every seller has similar knowledge of the bids of

Finally, the economic man is supposed to continue

offerings and

all the buyers

to ccp:loete so

long as there is a surplus of im-nediate economic advantage over

the s-!.crifices made, but no longer.

To make sure that we understand the situation in the

land market perfectly, let us take the conventional hypothetical

illustration and explanation of the equation of supply and demand 4 and see how it fits the present case.

M "Let us then turn to the ordinary dealings of modern life, and take an illustration from a corn market in a country town, and let us assume for the sake of sim-plicity that all the corn in the market is the same quality. The amount which each farmer or other seller offers for sale at any price is governed by his own nee for money in hand, and by his calculation of the presen and future conditions of the market with which he is connected. There are some prices which no seller would accept, some which no one would refuse. There are othe intermediate prices which would be accepted for larger or smaller amounts by many or all of the sellers. Ever one will try to guess the state of the market and to govern his actions accordingly. Let us suppose that in fact there are not more than 600 quarters, the holders of which are willing to accept as low a price as 35 13.. but that holders of another hundred would be tempted

12-21•414

- 4 -

to meet and transact business. In London the Stock Market, the Corn Market, the Coal M~rket, The Sugar Market, and many others are distinctly localized; in 1tfa.nchester the Cotton Market, the Cotton aste Ms.rket and others. But this distinction of locality is not necessary. The traders may be spread over a whole town, or region of country, and yet make a market, if they are, by means of fairs, r..eet'ngs, published lists, the post office or otherwis~, in close comrrunication with each other". Jevons "Theory of Political Econo~y. Ch IV.

m~de unerringly and his . knowledge of market conditions

is perfect. Secondly, we assume perfect marketing conditions ex­

isting between the buyers and sel1 ers, which meanses~ent ially that

every burer is a are of every seller's particular offPrings and

every seller has si~ilar knowledge of the bids of al the buyers.

Finally, the econorr. ic man is supposed to continue to co pPte so

long as there is ~ surplus of irn"· diate econo:..J ic advantage o er

the s ~crifices ma1e, but no longer.

To make sure that we understan the situation in the

land market perfectly, let us ta~e the conventional hypothetical

illustration and explanation of the equation of supply and d mand G

and see how it fits the pre ent case.

12-21-IM

ID "Let us then turn to the ordinary dealings of modern life, and. t ake an illustration from a corn mar Ket in a country town, and let us assume for the sake of sifu­plicity that all the corn in the market is the same quality. The amount which each farm er or other seller offers for sale at any price is governed y his o n nee< for money in hand, and by his calculation of the presen1 and future conditions of the m~rket with which he is connected. There are S'.:r:1 e prices which no seller would accept, some which no one ould r fuse. There are otheJ intermediate prices which would be accepted for larger or smaller amounts by many or all of the sellers. Ever~ one will try to guess the state of the market and to govern his actions accordingly. et us suppose that in fact there are not more than 600 quarters, the holders of which are iVilling to accept as low a price as 35 s.; but that holders of another hundred would be tempted

-5_

by 36s.; and holders of yet another hundred by 37s.. Let us suppose also that a price of 37s. would tempt buyers for only 600 quarters; while another hundred could be sold at 35s.. These facts may be put out in the table thus:---

: At the price : Holders would be : Buyers would be : willing to sell : willing to buy

. . • 37s • 1000 quarters • 600 quarters . . • 36s • . yoo quarters • . 700 quarters

• . • 35e : 600 quarters . 900 quarters . . . .

Of course some of those who are really willing to take 36s. rather than leave the market without selling, will not show at once that they are ready to accept that price. And in like manner buyers will fence, and pretent to be less eager than they really are. So the price may be tossed hither and thither like a shuttlecock, as one side or the other gets the better in the "higgling and bargain-ing" of the market. But unless they are unequally matched; unless, for instance, one side is very simple or unfortun-ate in failing to gauge the strength of the other side, the price is likely to be never very far from 368.; and it is nearly sure to be pretty close to 36s. at the close of the market.

The price of 36s. has thus some claim to be called the true equilibrium price; because if it were fixed on at the beginning, and adhered to throughout, it would exactly equal demand and supply (i. e. the amount which buyers were willing to purchase at that price would just be equal to that for which sellers were willing to take at that price." Marshall "Principles of Economics" 6th Ed. pg 332.

12-21.13m

' - 5 -

by 36~; and holders of yet another hundred by 37s .. Let us suppose also that a price of 37s. would temp t buyers for only 600 quarters; while another hundred co ild be sold at 35s •. These facts ray be put out in the table thus:---

.......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . : At the price : Holders would be

willing to sell Buyers would be willing to buy . . . . . . . .................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... .

37s 36s 35s

1000 quart era 700 quarters 600 quarters

600 quarters 700 quarters 900 quarters

.......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................. .

Of course some of those who are really willing to take 36s. rather than leave the arket ithout selling, ill not sho at once that they are ready to accept t hat p rice. And in like manner buyers will fence, and preten~ to be d less eager than they really are . So th price ay be tossed hither and thither like a shuttlecock, ~s one side or t he othe.r gets the better in the "higgling and bargain­ing" of the market. But unless they are unequally to ed; unless, f or instance, one side is very sic:ple or unfortun­ate in failing to gauge the strength of the other side, the ! price is liKely to be never very far fro 36s.; and it is nearly sure to be pretty close to 36s. at the close of the market.

The price of 36s. has tlru some claiffi to be called the true equilibrium price; because if it were fi ed on at the beginning, and adhered to tb.rou ghout , it ould eY-actly equal demand and supply ( 1. e. the B.I!lount hich uyers ere illing to purchase at that price would just be equal

to that for which sellers were willing to t~ ro at that pr ice." Marshall "Principles of Eoonomica" 6th Ed. pg 332.

Units of SiiPP II

- 0 -

In the following diagram DD, note that as the price goes

down, more is taken off the market.

Line SS represents the supply,--as the price goes up, more

s offered.

0--represents the point where the supply and demand equal

each other.

OP is the selling price, which when read on the price

scale, is about 32.

In this ideal market, the difference between the price

of the marginal buyer and the marginal seller due to the large

number of buyers and sellers is assumed to be infinitesimally small,

so that bargaining necessary to determine exactly where the price

will fall is reduced to a minimum.

Keeping in mind this ideal market which our analysis

Postulates, the same thing sells in the same market at the same price

at the same time. Interpretated in the diagram, all units of the

stock which are sold, sell at about 32.

12-21-6M

I

- 6 -

In the following diagram DD, note that as the price goes

down, more is taken off the market .

40

.Jo

~ . \.) 1.0 .......

¢ to

~ 0

10 0 0 4-0 s o 0 0 I 0

lf n; f.s of 5urt1; Line SS represents the supply,--as the price goes up, more

is offered.

0--represents the po int here the supply and demand equal

each other.

OP is the selling price, which when read on the price

scale, is about 32.

In this ideal market, the difference et een the price

of the rginal buyer an the 1arginal seller due to the l ar e

number of buyers and sellers is assumed to be infinitesimally s .all,

so that argainin~ necess ry to deterruin exactly wh r th pr ice

ill fall is re uced to a mini um.

Keeping in ind this ideal market hie our analysis

postul9..tes, the same thing sells in the sa e arket at the sar..e ric

at t he same tin".e . Interpreta.ted in the di gram, all units of the

~stock hich are sold, sell at about 32 .

indicates that such sales are not common. It may be said, therefore

that the land market tends to operate so as to have the same grade

of land sell in the same market at the same time at like prices;

but that the adjustment is never perfect and there is always some

variation in the market price cf the same grade of land. But such

variation as there may be is of much importance in the operation of

a system which aims to predict the market price of land, and the

reader's attention will be called to their real significaeoe later o

in the treatise.

This lack of perfect competition in the land market is due

to many causes. The land market is not organized. There are not

any extensive and efficient means of gaining information and disAem-

inating it among buyers and sellers. There may be comparatively

few buyers and. sellers competing at any one sale. Conditions are

-7

How does our land market compare with this hypothetical

illustration? Are similar or practically identical farms selling

at the same time in the same market for the same prices? In prac-

tice we know that all sellers are not able to put their offerings

before all the purchasers and also that every buyer does not have

a chance to provide every seller with an opportunity to sell to him;

but the general tendency on the part of both the buyers and sellers

is to investigate the market rather thoroughly, the buyers seeking

for the best bargain, and the sellers seeking for the purchaser

offering the highest price. Those who do not deal cautiously and

with discretion are known in the land market as "suckers" and the

sale resulting is known as a "sucker sale". The price made in such

oases of course is not a market price. The mere use of the term

12-21-em

- 7 - =i I

How does our land market compare wit t is hypothetical j

illustration? Are similar or practically identical far s selling

at the same time in the same market for the s~ e prices? In prac­

tice ~e know that all sellers are not a le to put their offerings

before all the purchasers and also that every buyer does not have

a chance to provide every seller ith an opportunity to sell to him. II

but the gen~ral tendency on the part of both the buyers and sellers' !

is to investigate the ~arket rather thoroughly, the buyers seeking

for the best bargain, and the sellers seeking for the purchaser

offering the highest price. Those who do not deal cautiously and

with discretion a re kno n in the land 1arket as ttsuck rs" an the

sale resulting is Y-nown as a "sucker sale". The price ade in such

I ca es of course is not a market price. The mere u of the t r 1

II indioat s that such sales are not oomr;on. It y be said, th ref ore

that the land market tend. to operate so as t o have the safue grade

of land sell in th sam ~rket at th sa e time at like pric

II but that th aJju tment is n ver pE"rfect an there is al ays so ... e

variation in the inar! et price of the S 'l ..,e gr1. e of land. But such

variation as there ma be is of ffi ch irwport~nce in the operation of

a system which aim to pre ict th rr~r t price of land, an the

re1der 1 s attention ~ill b called to their r ea si~ ifica 3 ~ter o

in the tre· tise.

This lack of erf ct competition in the land .arket is due

to any caus es . The land market is not organized. Ther are not

any extensive an:i efficient ;ieans of ga ning · nfor G.t ion and. dis em­

inating it a ong buyers and s 0 llers. There rray be corz;paratively

few bu. era an1 sellers competi~g at any one sale. Coniitiona are

---;l~Z-2~1~~M:----"'-'===========================-=-===-======-~~~~~---'===-~-=::::J

not al ways favorable for allowing men to act rationally on infor-

mation received. Also dany buyers and sellers are frequently in-

fluenced by non-economic motives. such as home ties, caprice, pas-

sion, and prejudice. Professional land salesmen have more than

average knowledge concerning the land market and usually have the

advantage when it comes to baz•gaining and of course succeed in

making many sales cf the same grade of land at different prices.

The extent to which the same grade of land does not sell for the

same price depends upon the presence or absence of any or all of

these condtions.

In snits of these circumstances, however, for the purpose

in hand we can assume that the same grade of land tends to sell at

the same price. Then the problem of appraising land values con-

sists of determining what factors the sellers and buyers consider

in making their bidding and offering prices and what is the rela-

tion between these factors and the market price. The following

chapter will discuss these factors and present a statement of the

method employed in determining their relation to :;.arket price.

------------~----~

not al·vays favorable for allowing .. en to act raticnally on infor­

mation received. Also n.any uyers an sellers are fr quently in­

fluenced by non-economic otives , such as home ties, caprice, pas­

sion, and prejudice. Professional land sales .en have ore than

average knowledge concern·ng the and market an ~sually h1ve t e

advantage \Vhen it con.es to b3.rgaining an of course succeed in

making many sales of the a~ .e grade of land at J.iffere t prices.

The extent to which the sa.~ gra e of land do s not sell for the

a~ price depends upon the Jresence or absence of any or all of

the: e condt ions .

In spite of the P circ st~nc~ , however, for the ~urpose

in hand we can as ume tha the ame graie of land tends to sell t

the sam~ price. Then the pro len cf a r ising land values oon­

sists of determining hat factors the sellers an yer consider

in making their bidding and offering ric s and hat is the r a-

t ion et pen these factors an the market price. The follo i g

chs.pter will iscuss thes factors an pr sent a st tement of the

method mployed in determining their relation to .nar t price.

Chapter III

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE METHOD EMPLOYED II

DETERMINING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MARKET PRICE. (6)

Land has value because it i)roduces an income,( or mater-

ials, services and forces which satisfy human wants. The income

from land may fall in any one or in all of the three following

categories:(1) Material or physical income, the seasonal product

of land in the form of farm produce, etc. , (2) Psychic income, which

is exemplified in the pleasure a man derives from being an owner of

his own home, by living in a favorable neighborhood, by being lo-

cated in proximity of city or villa7e where he can participate in

the villaze social activities, attend church with ease, and associ-

ate with. the townsmen,(3) Incomes which the owner of land expects

to receive in the form of land value appreciation or increase in

the land value. Future inc-:des and present incomes of like amount

have different values placed upon them is the land -ar:7et. Incomes

are always valued in terms of their present worth or are discounted

back to the present date. For example, 31000 of income due today

and $1000 due a year from today will not be given equal values.

The income due today will be valued at .11000, but the income due

on. year from today, discounted at 4 eercent, will be worth (7)(5)

(6)

(7)

"The rate of interest acts as a link between income-value and capital-value, and by means cf this link it is possible to de-rive from any given income-value its capital-value, i.e. "to capitalize" income. Irving Fisher. The Nature of Capital and Income p 202. "Te assume that the expected income is foreknown with certain-ty, and that the rate of interest (in the sense of an annual premium) is foreknown, and also that it is constant during successive years. With these provisos it is very simple to derive the capital-value of the income to be yielded by any

1.2-21-Ssi

....

Chapt er I II

FACTORS TO BE CO.SID RED AD THE TROD E 1P OYED :r

D T R_!fINI G THEIR RE ATI~ SHIP TO A T PRICF. (6)

Land has vale because it produces an incor.e, or mater-

ials, services and forces which satisfy human wantR . The income

frot land may fall in any one or in all of the three f ollo ing

categories: (1) _Jaterial or physical income, the s e aonal product

of land in the form of farm produce , etc .,(2) Paye ic inco~e, hich

is exe~plif ied in the pleasure a n derives from b ing an o er of

his o vn heme, by living in a favora le neigh orhood, by b ng lo­

cated in proxi Lity of city or vil a~e here he can participate in

t_P, village soc ial activities, attend church t ea , an associ-

ate wit:- the to nsmen,(3) Incomes r1hich the oner of land ..,xp cts

to receive in the f orrn of land val e appreciation or increa e in

. the lanl value. Future inc""m s and present incomes of li"·e a. nt

have if f 9r .... nt value lace·i up-:m t .• ~L i t . an .1ar et. Inc :. e

are al e.ys val, ed ir.. terms of their pre "'Ilt or th or are i counted

ack to the pr sent dat . For ex al'.llP 1 e, l"!"IQ of i"'cc::-.e uo t ay

an lCOO due a year fro"" t i n t be g en equal l a.

The inco e due toda will be va_ ed at 10 0, but the nco .e (7)<('!)

one year from t day, discounted at 4 roe_ , i e r rit,,.., ---------------------------------------------------------------- . (6)

12·21·8M

"The rate of interest cts ~s a li · bet ee inco c pital-value, and ,,y r .. eans cf this link it i ossi le to de­rive fro· any given inco~e-value its capital-value, i.e. "to ca i t~liz e" inco1 ... e. Irving Fis er. T~e Nature of Capital an1 Inoo e p 202. n 1e Q.SSU ue that the xpecte inCOi. e is f-:>reknown . ith cer ai:l­ty, an tat t, e r~te of interest (in th~ sense of an a.nual premi ) is fore'nown, ~n ~lso that it is constant dur ing successivJ years. ith these provisos it is very simple to derive the capital-value of the inco e to be yielae by any

— 10 —

article of wealth or item of property; in other words, to de-rive the value of that wealth or property. That value is sim-ply the present worth of the future income from the specified capital. This is true whether the income accrues continuous-ly or discontinuously; whether it is uniform or fluctuating; whether the installments of income are few or infinite in num-ber. We begin by considering the simplest case, that, namely, in which the future income consists of a single item accruing at a definite instant of time. If, for instance, one holds a property right by virtue of which he will receive, at the end of one year, the sum of 41'04, the present value of this right, if the rate of interest is 4%, rill be $100. If the property is the right to $1 one year hence, its present value is eviden ly 1/104th or $0.962, and if the sum to which the property en-titled the owner is any other amount than $1, its present val-ue is simply that amount divided by 1.04 or multiplied by .962 Thus the present value of $432 due in one year is 432 or 432 x .962, which is X416. 1.04 If the future sum is due in two years, and the rate of inter-est is still 4%, it is evident that $1 today is the present value of $1.04 next year, which in turn (by compoundiv) will then be the present value of $1.04 x 1.04 i.e. (1.04)-, or 1.082 at the end of the second year. The :;1.082 is called the "amount" of $1 at the end of two years, and $1.04 is the amount" of $1 in one year.

Similarly, in three years (1.04)3 is the "amount" or sum worth $1 in present value; and so on for any number of years." Irving Fisher. "The Nature of Capital and Income". p 202.

(8) "The simple mathematical method of finding this "sum" is to ,divide the annual value, that is, the net rent, by the rate which "reflects the prevailing premium on the present". If the net annual income derived from a piece of land is six dol-lars per acre, and the rate of discount is five per cent, the present capital value of the land would be one hundred and twenty dollars per acre. One hundred and twenty dollars is, then, the amount of money which, if lent at five percent, would yield an annual income of six dollars. This is usually spoken of as the capital value of land. That this simple method of dividing the six dollar net rent by the prevailing rate of discount to find the capital value of a piece of land is equivalent to finding the sum of an infinite series of prospective net annual three dollar rents discounted at the same rate may be demonstrated as follows. The present value of A dollars due in T years if the interest

be compounded at the rate R would be A since X dollars (11-R)T

compounded at rate R would give X(1+11)T, and if X(11-R)T A

then X. (1fR)T

. If then the net income of a farm be A dol-

lars a year its value would be expressed by the equation: /T2 A 4_ A ,,, A _2+ A 4_ ad inf .

I*11 (11.P.)''77TT, (1+R)' :2-11-em

( 8)

- 1

article of ealth or it ~ of property; in other or , to de­rive the value of that wealth or property. Tat value is si~­ply the present worth of the future i~co1 e frow thP s ,cif ie o pital. This is true whet~er the inco~e ecru s continuous­ly or discontinuously; hether it is uniforw or fluctu~ti g; w h ether the ins tall en ts of inc oi. e ar P f e71 or infinite i .. u... ber .

11

e begin by considering the si pJest o~se, tat, na~ely, in which the future incoi~e c01isists of single itPn. ace.ruing at a definite instant of tin.e. If, for inst nee, o e holis property rig t by virtue of 'hich e ill receive, at t:1e en of one year, the sur.1 of 104, the r resent value of t hi ri 3ht, if the rate of interest is 4%, ill be 100. If the property is the rig~t to $1 one year hence, its present value is eviden -ly l/104th or ~0 . 962, an if the su. to w ic the ro erty en­titled the owner is any other a.mount th~n 1, its present val­ue is sim ly that amount divided by l.~ or Lulti lied by .962 Thus the present value of 432 due in one year i ~ or 432 x .962, which is 416. ~ If th~ future sum is ue in t o years, and the rate of inter­est is still 4%, it is evident that $1 today is the present value of $1 . 04 next year, which in tur (by co ~ounding) ill then be the present valu of 1. 04 x l.o4 i.e. (1.04) 2 , or 1.082 at the end of the second year. The 1.082 is call 4

the "amount " of l at the en of two years, and 1.04 is the "amount" of 1 in one year. Si .ilarly, in three years (l.o4)3 is the "amount " or sum orth ~1 in present value; an so on for any n er of years." Irving Fisher. "The ature of Cap·tal and Inco .e" . 2 2. "The simple wathe atioal r...ethod of finding thi'"' " u." is to

,divide the annual value, that is, the net rent, y the rate ~hich "reflPcts the prevailing re iun.. on the pre ent • If the net annual incone derived fro a iec e of lan is six dol­lars per acre, a. t .. e rate of i3cou t is five r cent, the present capita valua of tre lan O' ld e one hundred an twenty dollars per aore. One hundred and t enty dollars is, then, the cunt of oney :rhich, if lent at five eroent,

ould yield an annual inco e of six ollar • This is us ~lly spo en of as the cauital value of land. Tha~ this si .ple method of dividin the six dollar et re t by the pr evailing rate of iiscaunt to find t.e capital value of a piece of land. is equivalent to fin ing the SU-• of an infinite series of ~respective net a:~ual three ollar rents discounted at the aall'e rate may be demonstrated s.s follows. The present value of A doll ar due in T years if the intere t

be cornpounded at t ra~e R f!O ld be (l+-~)T sinoe X ollars

compoun ed at rate R would give X(l+ R)T, an if X(ltR)T A

then X= (l+~)T • If then th~ net income of a farm be A dol-

lars a y ear its v'l.lue would be expressed by the equation: V - A +- A A + A , +- ~ · f - lR (1 R) 2"(1 R)3 (ltR) 4 a.~ in ·

This is an infinite "geometrical" progression with first term

14_A

R and ratio14-1 R .The limit of the sum of such a series A is 14Aa which reduces R to . We have then the

Having decided that it is inconie which determines the price decisions, we must next analyze the problem of how the buyers

and sellers of land aperoximate the income.

I believe it can safely be said that in no case does the

buyer or seller have the exact income data before him. He may :7now

with a fair degree of accuracy what the physical income or the land

product is for one year or past years but he does not know it for

the succeeding years, nor does he know exactly what to exect from

increased value of the land. He may, however, have a fairly defi-

nite idea of what the psychic income is worth to him.

I believe the buyers and sellers analyze the income prob- (9)

lem by means of comparison and analogy. Assume they are prospect-

ive buyers of a farm: the question to be solved is what is its in-

c;onle or its discounted income, or in other words, its value. They

compare this ner farm with other farms of which they know the ais_

counted income or value. All factors on the new farm which may

influence incore are compared with known cases where they can ap-

proximate their effect.

Thus each farm then is a combination of factors which

affect income or value. ApTraising farm lands, therefore, is a

question of deteriAning the weight, the importance and significance

1-1-R

formula for the value: of capitalizing rent." H C Taylor. "Agricultural Economics" p 206.

which is the ordinary method A R

- 11 -

This is an infinite "geometrical" regression v ith first ter A l

l+ R and ratio l+-R ·The li it of the su of such a series A

1 + R which reduces to A Ir is e have then the

1 l- l+R

formula for the value: V= -i- which is the ordinary et hod of capitalizing rent." H C Taylor. "Agricultural Economics" p 206.

--------------------------------------------------------------------Having decided that it is inco. e 11hich d 0 terll.ines the

rice decisions, we ust next analyze the proble of how the yers

and sel ers of land ap~roximate the income.

I believe it o~n s~fely e said that in no case does the

uyer or seller h3. •e the exact inco e data efore hi . ....e ay ··now

with a fair degree of a~curacy at the ph sical inco .e or the land

pro uct is for one ear or past ye r but he oes not ·no it for

the succeeding years, nor oea he know exavtly what to ex ect fro

increased value of the land. He ~ay, ho ever, hav a fairly efi-

1 ni te i e9. of ri at the ... s chic inco.,e is orth to i!!:.

I bel ieve the uyers and s llers analyze the inco e prob-( 9)

e~ns of comparison an analogy . AssW!ie •h y ara roa ect-ler .. by

II ive buyers of a far : t e question to b solv J i bat is it i -

j co_e or its discounted inooine, or in other ords, its value. Tuey

c pare this ne far with other far s of ich they ·nowt e is-

oounted income or valu . All factors on the new farm hich ay

influence incor .. e are compared ith ·no n cases h re they o n ap­

roximate their effect .

Thus each farm then is a co bination of factors hich

aff ct inco~ or valu . A ~raising far 1 land , therefore, is a

question of deter.ining the weight, the i~portance and significance

- 12-

) "The skillful employment of this substitutive process enables us to make measurements beyond the powers of our senses. No one can co-nt the vibrations, for instance, of an organ pipe. But we can construct an instrument called the siren, so that, while producing a sound of any pitch, it shall register the number of vibrations constituting the sound. Adjusting the sound of the siren in unison with an organ-pipe, we measure indirectly the number of vibrations belonging to a sound of that pitch. To measure a sound of the same pitch is as good as to measure the sound itself." VT. S. Jevrens Principles of Science p 10.

of these factors on value. Having once o'!Dtan,?c.: their significance

or relationship in the form of numerical co-efficients, we can then

go to a farm and measure each factor and apply the coefficient of

relationship or its weight and predict the probable selling price

of the farm.

In every territory the factors which influence value are

somewhat different. In the section studied, the following factors

were considered;--(1) the 1919 depreciated cost of buildings per

acre, (2) land classification or the amounts of the different trade_

of lands, (3) productivity cf the soil represented by relative crop

yields, (4) distance to market, (5) type of road, (6) size of marke

town. These factors will be given a detailed explanation in a suc-

ceeding chapter.

The general methods used to determine the effect of the

various factors mentioned on land value are 'flown in statistical

Parlance as tabulation, partial and multiple correla ticn.

The tabulation methods used are quite simple and their

explanation will be reserved to the chapter on compilation where

the presentation can be given most satisfactorily. Partial and

multiple correlation, however, involve complicated statistical

12-21.5m

a

- 12 -

( 9) "The skillful employment of this subst · tutive procPss P.nables us to !Lake measurenient eyond the po ere of our s nses . No one can o~·nt the vi rations, for instance, of an organ ipe. But e can construct an instru ent called the siren, so that, while producing a soun of any pitch, it shall re~ister the nu~b r of vibrations constituting the sound. Adjusting thP 30und o the siren in unison with an or~n- i e, we .. e ~sur~ indirectly th_ nulli~er of vi~ratione belonging to a sound of hat ~itch . To Leasure a so·nd of tte sa~~ pitch is as geed a to merysure the so nd itsg f."

. s . Jevons Principles of Science 1 . --------------------------------------------------------------------of these factors on value . Ha ing once obta:n .d their significance

or relationship in the form of nun.erical co-effici nts, .e can then

go to a farm and t. e3.sure each factor an ppl y t' coeffici nt of

relationship or its eight an ~redict the ro able sell ng pri e

of the far •

In every territory the factorQ hich influenc val e are

son.ev:hat different . In the s ction stud.ied, t~ e follo i g factors

were consi ered; --(1) th 1919 epr c i at d cost of uildin s er

acre, (2) lan cla"'sif -iation or tl: anlOU ta of the ifferent r

of lands, (3) produoti ity cf the soi l repre~ente b re ative cro

Yiel s, (4) istance to ar:.et, (5) ty e of road, (6) size of lar~ et

town. T esP factors ill e gi en a detailed xplar.o.tion in a sue-

c ee ing cha pt er .

T e general ethods u ed to etermi 1e t e effect of the

variou factors entione on an value re no~n i . st~tistical

arlance as ta ulation, rtia.l an~ ulti le corr la ticn.

The ta~ulation methods u~ed are uite si ~le an· tr ir

e 'P nation ill be reserved t th chapter on co :pi tio : ere

the pr sent~t icn can be given ~ost s~tisf ctorily. Partia an

ultiple correlation, however, i volve cc licated statistical

- 13 -

analysis. Although it is not the province of this treatise to ex-(10)

plain the theory of multiple or partial correlation, some dis-

cussion of its use is needed at this point.

If in two series of variables, for example, in this case,

cost cf buildings per acre and value per acre, a high value pf one

tends to be associated with a high value of another, the varie.bles

are said to be correlated and the correlation is positive; while

if a high value of one is associated with a low value of another

the correlation is negative, as in the case of distance to market

and value per acre. The best numerical measure of the amount of

correlation is called Pearson's coefficient of correlation. The

algebraic formula for this is: /Liz JE 71- Ai& dy N Tx 6y

In a problem in which more than tw factors are concerned,

the simple or gross correlation may be an expression cf an aprarent

relationship and what we _ust determine is the net relationship of

one factor with another. The apparent correlation may be due to the

fact that each of the two variables or factors is correlated with

another cr several variables. For example, as-ume in this case

that distance to market and value per acre show a negative correla-

tion. But as distance from town increases, the percentage of land

of desirable grades decreases, or there is also a negative correla-

tion between distance to market and the percentage of land of desir.

able grade. Ze also find value per acre and the percent of land of

desirable grades are positively correlated. Thus the gross or ap-

parent negative correlation of distance to market and value per acre

--12_EaSI1Y _ 1122 _ 12 _ 11 2 _ _ _ 22 _ _ 11.2I2ES2 _ _ L2-E11-2I _ 12: _____ (10) See bibliography on partial ani multiple correlation.

- 1) -

analysis . Although it is not th0 rovince of this treatise to ex­(10)

pl ain th~ theory of multiple or partial correlation, so e dis-

cussion of its use is ne~ded at this oint.

If in two series of variabl~s, for xamp e, ir. this cas ,

cost of buildings per acre ani value Pr acre, a igh value of one

tends to be associated ith a igh va "e of anot .. l!!r, th v r ~ 1 s

are said to be correlated an the corr, ticn is ositiv while

if a high value of one is associated ith a lo value of anot er

t~e corr3_ation is Lega~ive, a in tb 0 ca c of distance to ~ar~et

and value per acre. The best nw:.. 0 rical ea ure of the amount of

correlation is calJed Pearson's coeffici 0 nt of correlation. The

alge raic for , la for this is: /l /· 1. i.(71-Afdx dy · Nrrx6

In a pro le in ~hie· _ore than t factor are concer .. ed,

t e s'tple or grosc corre ation ay be an e. ression of an a ~arent

relatio ship and what e ust det r fl ne is the et r"' ationshi of

o.n° factor with another. The apparent correlation may be due to t

fact that each of the two varia es or factors is correlat ith

ano~ .e:- or severa varia lAs. For e a.._l .... e, a ""Ul!le in this cas e

t. at distance to L.ark an ~lu p 0 r acre s~o. a ative orr"'la-

tion. But as istanc e frot. to n increases, t .. e -srcen~age of lan

of desira e grades decrea es, or t her is so ne~a ive ccrrela-

tion bet·een dist1nc~ to rk t and t percentag of an

a'"'l gra ~, also fin value per aor an t percent f lan of

desir~ble grades are positi ely correlate . T s t. gr oss or ap-

parent negative correlation of iis t ance to ar• t an alue p r ,:}r

is -----(10)

~rtlv Ju~ to t he fact that 1s the distance fro . . ar._et in-----'---------------------------------------------------------See bibliography on partia a."'11 r.iul tt ~ correlation. __ _J

creases, the the percentage of land of desirable grade becomes smaller,

this operating to make the farms further distant from market sell

cheaper, not due to distance alone as the simple coefficient might

lead one to believe.

In a problem of the type that land appraising presents,

where we must consider simultaneously the relationship between sev-

eral variables or factors, we calculate a coefficient of net or

partial correlation. Thus if we are considering four variables,

1, 2, 3, and 4, the partial coefficient of correlation r12.34

means the net relationship between variables 1 and 2 when the ef-

fect of factors 3 and 4 are held constant.

When three variables are considered the partial correla-

Y777;: 1 1- 4 7- a3

By further expansion, the formula for five variables as used in

this problem is:

_ /5. 3,9 - 2.3 7•5:,-3

Y/-4tja.3d VI- 7.4-.34L /

From the coefficients of correlation, we can determine

the coefficients of relationship expressed in absolute units, known

as coefficients of regresoicn: for example, b13.234 (6- representing standard dtviation.)

.z.34

The forecasttng formula is readily arrived at when once

the regression coefficients are known.

(11) G. U. Yule Introduction to the Theory of Statistics.

ticn r12.3 may be calculated from the formula:

- 3 • z3 AL/4.3-

- 14 -

creases, the ercentage of land of desira le grade becomes s aller,

this op~ratiilg to . akP the faro furth r d' stant fret:. narket sell

chea er, not due to dis tance alone as the s · mple ooef!ici~nt n,ight

lead one to believe .

In a pro le cf the ty~e that lanj ap raising presents,

where we st consider si~ruJtaneously the relationshi b~t een s v-

eral varia )les or factors, we calculate a coefficient of net or

partial correlation. Thus if 'e are consi ering four varia les,

1, 2, 3, and 4, the partial co~ffioient of correlation r 12.34

-eans the net re ationship betw en varia~ es 1 an 2 ~ er. the ef-

fect of factors 3 an 4 re held constant.

hen three varia')les are considere the partial correla-'

tion r 12 . 3 may be calculatej fro~ th for~~la :

A.l.k - ~ ,,, . /t :< 3

Y1- lt~_; Y1-/'C;J By further expansion, th0 forL la for f iv0 varia 1

this pro . .,1 e.. s:

Jt - //.. JS. 3,t/ - Jt I). ·J ~ . -It "".J 'I IS.).34 -

y,_l(;-::1. .:U/. y I- /{ ;S .. ,¢

(11)

a u ed in

Fr . th coeffici 0 nts f correla.tio , we can ter ine

t e cceff icients of relations ip expre s in a· solute unite known

as coef! icients of r ep- s~io : for exa=.plJ, b15.234 C ~- representing standar iviation.)

J.,s . ~3'f -:::./r.1s.w'f 61 ... u.~1 Os.1 i J 'I

The forecast4n forLula is rea ily arriv at •. hen once

the regression coefficients re ·.no n. --------------------------------------------------------------------(11) G. U. Yule Introaucticn to t. ~ Theory of Statistics.

- 15 -

X . 8.4. b X 4_13 X 4-b X 4 b X 1 12.345 2 13.245 3 14.235 4 15.234 5

Xi represents value per acre in this case, and X2 , X3' X4 , x5 the other factors considered.

The probable error involved in predicting X, from the

other factors is expressed in the formula:

' 2 61.2345 = 61 (1-rid (1-4.4.4 (1-r12.34)

Probable error = 61.2345x o.6744a9

The only object in presenting the above symbols a nd

equation is so that a person may at least know what they represent

when they are used later on in solving the land appraising problem.

An explanation of how the equations are dtrived andhow the calcula-

tions are made involves a considerable portion of G.U.Yule's "An

Introduction to the Theory of Statistics". Persons interested in

the technique of the method are referred to this book or to

G.U.Yulels "On the Theory of Correlation for Any Number of Varia-

bles Treated by a New System of Notation" Proc. Roy. Soc. Series

A. Vol LXXIX 1907, p 182.

12-21-11m

- 15 -

X1 represents value per acre in this case, and x2 , x3,

X4 , X5 the other factors considered.

The p .roba.ble error involved in predicting X, frow the

other factors is ex reseed in the f ornmla :

6 1 . 2345 = 61 (1-ri5) {1-rf4. J} {1- r£3.45) (1-ri2.3. ~ Proba Jle error = 6 1. 2345 x 0.674-489

The only object in pr senting the above sy ·bols and

equation ia so that a erson nay a t least kno hat they re resent

when the• are used later on in solving the lan appraising roble •

An explanation of how the equation are d~rived andho the calcula­

tions ar~ made involves a considera le portion of G.U . Yu e ' s "An

Introduction to the Theory of Statistics" . Persons nteres ted in

the technique of the method are ref erre tc th's boo1 or to . G.U .Yule ' s "On the Theory of Correlation for A y u er of Varia­

bles Treated by a . ew System of otatio "Proc. Roy. Soc. S ries

A. Vol L.XIX 1907, p 182 .

- 16

CHAPTER IV

DESCRIPTION OF BLUE EARTH COUNTY AND HOW THE DATA

WERE SECURED.

Location. Blue Earth County, one of the second tier of counties

from the northern line of Iowa, is situated in the central part of (12)

southern Minnesota. Its northern boundary ls indented by the

great righta ngle bend of the Minnesota River which is the southern-

most point of the stream. Mankato, located at the vertex of this

angle, is about 150 miles west of Winona on the ilississippi River

and nearly 90 miles southwest from Minneapolis and St. Paul. The

length of the county from east to west is 30 miles, and its breadth

from north to south varies from 21i miles in the middle to 29 miles

along the wsstern boundary.

Land area and surface features. The land area of the county is

approximately 71.9 square miles or 479,104 acres. About 22,000 acres

more a re included in water systems. The percent of improved land (13)

in farms in 1920 was 90.3 percent. y

The surface features of the county vari from flat to

hilly, but by far the larger part is flat to gently rolling. In

general, the area is a flat gently rolling expanse with an imper-

ceptible slope from east, south and west toward the central northern

Part of the county, which direction to the stream courses.

The entire county lies within the drainage basin of the Minnesota

River, a tributary of the 7-lississippi. Almost the whole area is

drained by the Blue Earth River 7ith its tributaries, the

; 12) U.S.D.A. Soil Survey of_ Blue Earth County_ Minnesota.__________

‘13) 1920 Census, Agriculture of Minnesota.

111.1111

12-2t .41,4

- 16 -

CHA TER IV

DESCRIPTI -r, OF D U"' EA TH CO'J.TTY At.D H01 TH D TA

l'rERE SECURED .

Location . Blue Earth County, one of the second tier of counties

fro .. the northern line of Imva, is situated. in the central part of (12)

southern Minnesota. Its northern oundary s indented by the

great righta ngle bend of the innesota River hich is t .... e southern­

most point of the stream. Mankato, locate at the vertex of this

angle, is about 150 iles west of inona on the ississi pi River

and nearly 90 ,iles south est from I inneapolis and St. Paul. The

leneth of the county fro east to west is 30 .il s, and its readth

from north to south varies fro 21.1 rr. iles in the .i ddle to 29 _,iles

along the WPs tern ounda.ry.

Lanl ar ea an surface features. The land area of the county is

approximatel 749 square mil s or 479,1o4 acres. About 22,000 aor a

more a re included in ater s~steffis. The p re nt of i ~roved lan (13)

i n f a r s in 1920 was 90.3 percent . 'I

The urface eatures of the county v r r o. fl1t to

... ill ' t y far t ~ ar er rt is flat to gently rol ing. In

general, the are~ is a flat gent roll ng pans i th an i per-

ceptible slope fro . east, south an w st to ar t central nort h rn

Part of the county, hie ives dire:ti il t c t':a stre cour es .

The entire county lie within the :ir ins. e b 1 o t .. e inn ot

iver, a tributary of the ··1ssiss i pi. Al o t the hole area. is

draine by the Blue Eart Riv r ~ith its tri~utarie , the ~ le,

I~~l-~~~bD~!::~~~1:~~~:~!:B~~;-~:~!~:~~~t;--~1~~~~~t~~----------

7

and the Big and Little Cobb Rivers, which converge within a radius

of 10 miles from the point of confluence of the Blue Earth with

the Minnesota River.

The country in the neighborhood of streams, where erosion

has been most active, is always more or less broken and rolling.

Some of this is too rough for profitable cultivation. The land

surface is interrupted here and there by glacial lakes varying in

size from those too small to be represented on a map- to bodies of

2 square miles in extent. The principal laes in order of size

are Jackson, Madison, Eagle and Loon. About five-sixths of the

area was originally prairie. The streams and lakes were fringed

with a narrow strip of timber.

Markets, etc. Mankato, the county seat, with a population of 12,46• (14)

in 1919, is an important railroad and manufacturing center. The

only other important towns are Lake Crystal, Vernon Center, Garden

City, Air oy, Mapleton, Good Thunder, Madison LaEe, and Eagle Lake,

with populations ranging from 300 to 1200. The transportation and

market facilities are good. Only a small proportion of the county

is situated more than 10 miles from a shipping point. The Chicago,

Great Western, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha, the

Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, and the Chicago and Northwestern

lines enter the county. There are grain elevators and cattle yards

at convenient points along these lines throughout the county, and

flour mills at various towns with outputs of 50 to 1,000 barrels

a day. Thus, with moderate freight rates, secured through keen

railroad --competition —ard with rapid service to Omaha, Minneapolis, ------------------ ( 4) 1920 Census. 12-21-6.

4 •

$

- 17 -

an the Big and Little Cobb Rivers, which converge within a rad us

of 10 .iles from the oint of c nflu nee o the Blue Earth with

the .innesota River .

The country in the neigh orhood of stre3.ms, where erosion

has been .ost active, is al ays more or les broken and rolling .

So e of this is too rou h for profita le cultivati on . The land

surface is interrupted her an there glao 3.l lakes varying in

size fr or .. those too s .all to be re_ resented on p to bodies of

2 sq~3.r~ r..iles in ext ent . The I;rincipa a~es in orde= of size

are Jae: son, '.1adison, ..... .'l7le an Loon . A out five- s i xths of the

area w s origi~ally prair i e . The stre .s an la1

with a narro strip of ti~ er .

;;sr fr n

(arkets, etc . Mankato , the cont ( 14)

eat , ith populat i on of 12,469

in 1919, is an important railroad and ~anufao t ring cent~r. The

only other i mportant towns are Lake Cry tal, Vernon Center, Gar e

City, A u:boy, liapleton, Good Thu • ..::.:3r, :.: ... 1 c 1 Lal , an Ea -1e

ith populations rang ng fro. 300 to 1200. T ... e tran portatio a

arket facilities a~p ~OOu. • O.ly a a 1 ·o orticn of th G nty

ia situated . ore t an 10 iles fror.: a a.ii --in- n .I:' • i .t . T .... e c ica o,

Gre3.t es tern, the Chicago, St . Paul, . ' i nea. olis ' I"\ • ,J~.n.na, t.ae

c· ic go, ·a1 au~~ee a • St . Paul, the C ic go and ·orth e te n

lines enter t e connty. Ther are gra n elev tors c ttle y rds

at convenient points al ong the~e ine3 t roughcut th county, anu

flour zt ills at various to .. s ith out uts of 5 to 1, "'arr els

a day. Thus, with oderat e freig t rat ~ , s cure th.roug Keen

~~!!~~~- c0rrpetition, and ith_r~E~~-~~E~~~~-~~-~--E~~--!EE~~E~!~~~----------------------- -(1 ) 192 Census.

- 18 -

(15) Population. The population of the county in 1915 was 31,477

This was made up of Americans, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, and

Velsh, named in order of relative numbers. There are many Telsh

in the Lake Crystal neighborhood, while the section southwest of

Vernon Center is largely settled by Germans. The population is

cosmopolitan throughout the county,--it was not uncommon to hear

several lanquages spoken in almost any small oommunity.

As a rule, the farmers are a sturdy, hard working, broad-

minded class, who on account of differences in nationality have not

been drawn off into closed communities with set ideas and practices.

Prosperity is nearly universal. Many of the farmers have acquired

considerable wealth and now live in towns and rent their farms.

Generally, the farm houses are neat and substantial, while barns,

granaries, and other buildings are commodious and comfortable.

------------------------- (15) 1520 Census, Agriculture of linnesota.

St. Paul, Chicago, and other large cities, there is no trouble in

finding outlets for any kind of produce. Telephones, rural free

delivery of mail, and cooperative creameries are found in all sec-

tions. Churches and good comfortable schools are everywhere con-

venient. The roads are good in the summer and fall, but are apt

to become badly cut up or even impassable in ma ny low places dur-

ing the spring thaws.

112-21-C,

- l

t. Paul, Chicago, a~ oth~r largP cities, t ere is no trou le i

finding outlets for any "- ind of reduce. Te e hones, rural free

delivery of 1 .. ail, and cooperative cream ries are fo' n in all sec­

tions. Churches and good cor:.fortable schools are every here con-

venient. The roads are good in the .. er an i f111, •;u t 3.re apt

to become badly cut u or even i assa le in

ing the s ring thaws.

ny loi la.c es ur-

Population. The population of the county in 191? a 31, l. 77 (15)

This was ma,le up of Au.;ericans, err-ans, Swedes, ·or. egi ns, and

el sh, na ed in or er of relative urt"t; rs. T er re c.any 'ielsh

in the Lake Crystal aigh,"'orhoo , hile the s ction south e t of

Vernon C~nter is largel~ ttle by Ger ans. T e opulat i on is

cos·11opoli t ~n throughout the county ,--it as not u co ...,on to : ear

several languages spoken in alr.ost a y s :sll oou . .iu ity.

As a rule, t· e farmer e.re a stur""'y, h rd or i g, roa ·­

inded class, l'lho o account of di f ere ces i • !B. tic 11 ty have ot

been dra n off into clos 4 o ..... unities 1th set ideas

Prosp rity is nearly universal. · ny of t. f-r •0 rs

• ractices.

a.c ired

considerable we~lth an' no Jiv in towns and rent thei .rs.

Generally, the far ouses are eat an su sta ti 1, · ile barns,

granari~s, an other buildin ~ are co o ious ani co..:fort 1 ·

-------------------------------------------------------------------~ (l5) 192 Census, Agricultur of ~innesota.

12 21- 1 ...

- 19 -

Agriculture.

Table I 1920 Census Blue Earth County Agricultural Statistics.

Number of farms 2,954 Percent of land area in farms 50.3 Percent of farm land improved so.7 Average acreage per farm 149.1 Average improved acreage per farm 120.3 Percent of farms operated by owners 66. Percent of farms operated by tenants 30.8 Livestock Total Number

Horses 17,476 Beef Cattle 19,365 Dairy Cattle 32,470 Sheep 7315 Swine 61,313

Crop Acreage Corn

Acres 70,325

Oats 42,265 Wheat 66,227

Rye Bar

3,462 ley 3,620

Hay and Forage 76,625

The system of agriculture practiced is general farming

in connection with dairying and stock raising. Exclusive stock

and dairy farms are few in number, but the increase in dairying

has been rapid in recent years. Hog raising is proving quite

profitable. Present indications are that this industry will con-

tinue to increase and proba171y in the near future will be one of

the most important enterprises on every up-to-date farm. Sheep

raising is a raying induitry, especially on those farms adapted

to grasses or infested with quack grass. The principal crops

raised in order of acreage are hay, corn, wheat, oats, barley

.1) N- y rye.

Soils. "chile one frequently hears that one soil is more productive

than another, very fen of the soils of Blue Earth County are

r ri==========================================================:i - 19 -

Agriculture .

Table I 1520 Census Blue Earth County Agricu tural 8t~tistivs •

Number of far ·s Percent of land area in farms Percent of farm land i.1 roved Average acreage per far 1

Average iwproved acreage ~er farm Percent of far~s operated by owners P~rcent of fu.rms operated by tenants LivestocK

Horses Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Sheep S :vine

Crop Acreage Corn Oats heat

Barley Rye Hay n Forage

2, 954 9 . 3 g • 7

149 .1 120. 3 66. 6 3 .

Total ·u b Jr 17,4-76 19, 365 32, 4-7 7, 319

61 , 31& Acres

1.0, 325 ~2,265 66, 227

3, 62 3, 4-62

76, 625

The systew of agricu ture racticed i gener far ·n

in connection ~~ th J.airyi g 1 · ~tock r~ising . Exclu ive stoc

an_ · iry far s are fe inn bar, ~ut t~P i.creas in iryi g

.a ~ e n rapid in recent ye~rs. og raising is .ro·ing

Profitable . Present indications are th~t t i :n u try ill c

tinue o i crease and proba~ly in t ~ ea= utur~ il en of

the .. ost i .. :porta.nt enterprises on ev ry u ... - to-d t f ... rm .

raising is a paying industry, espec ially on those far~s da.pte

to grasse or · nfeste i th u~ck gr~ s . The princi al crops

raised in order of acreage are hay, corn, w.eat, cats, barl Y

and rye .

§..oi ls . hile one frequently hears that one so 1 is .. ore ro uotive

than another, very few of the soila of Blue Earth ou t y are

- 2Q -

reputed as being especially adapted to any one crop. Generally

the organic matter content of the soil is so high that in favorable

years fairly good yields of general farm crops can be secured even

from the lightest types. Again, a very large proportion of the

cultivable area embraces clays and heavy clay loams having such

narrow textural differences that agricultural methods have been

quite uniform and differences in crop adaptation have received but

little attention. However, it is pretty generally understood that

the heavier, better-drained types are better suited to wheat than

ato fins sands or fine sandy locus. Some recognize that rye does

best on Marshall loam and the lighter phases of the Marshall silt

loam.

It is generally conceeded that Fargo Clay loam, when well

drained, is a most excellent corn soil, but that wheat and oats

planted on this soil are inclined to go too much to straw. Most

of those familiar with the Wabash fine sandy loam class it as a

good oat, corn and potato soil.

Rotation is very effective on soils of this section.

"'Nile systematic crop rotation has been neglected sadly, the pro-

ductivity of many fields has been maintained fairly well simply

through an occasional change of crops. Occasional pasturing of

land has been invaluable in maintaining good soil conditions on

m any farills. The naturally high productive soils have given such

good yields from year to year that the farmers have not until re-

cently been brought to see the dangers of continuous cultivation

to one crop.

I2-21 GM

- 2Q -

reputei as being especially adapted to any one crop . Generally

the organic .t..atter content of the soil is o h i gh that in f vorable

years fairly good yields of general farr .. crops c n · e 0 ecured even

from the lig tes t types . Again, a very large roportion of th

oultiva~le urea embraces clays and heavy clay loa .a ving 3UC

narrow textural differences that agricultural ethods have be n

quite unifor, and differences in crop adaptat i on have received but

little attention . However, it is pretty generally un Prstood that

the heavier, better-drained ty~es are bPtter s ited to he~t t~a

axe fine san~s or fine sandy loar~s . So .e recognize t•at rye does

est on l.iarshall loar and tre lighter phas s of the arshall silt

loam.

It is gene ally oonoeede that Fargo Clay lo !:en ell

dra ned, is a most excellJnt corn soil, ·ut t t t n~ c ts

Planted on this soil are inclined to go too ~uc to etra · o t

of those familiar i th t 19 abas f · n~ san y oa .. class it a a

good oat, corn and pot to soil .

Rotation i s very ef ective on oils of this s ctio .

nile s ste .a.tic crop rotation s e n ne lee~ ..... y, he ro-

ductivity of nany fiel s has b =?n waintai e f~irly ell si ly

through an occasional change of crcps . Occ sional a turin o:

land has been invaluable i .aintaining ~oo~ soi con i•ions o

•any far~s . Th . natura ly high product i ve soils ha e ~ive. ~uc

good Yields from ye,3.r to year t .at th J far ... r v ot until re-

cently bepn brou~ht to se the 0

ngers of c .tinucus cultiv~tio

to one cron ... .

- 21 -

In general, the soils of Blue Earth County are naturally

very productive. They are as eood as those of northern Illinois,

where the same types are held at a much higher price per acre.

They equal in fertility and eaee of cultivation any soils of the

prairie States. While the yields have in some cases been lowered

by continuous wheat cultivation, and while noxious weeds have wade

their appearance, the inherent productiveness of the soil has not

been.•.wteriallyaffected.

HOW DATA WERE "ECURED

Land Sales. The farms which were considered are those which have

actually been sold during the four year period, 1916 to 1919 in-

clusive. The sale prices which were used are the ccnsiderations

which were given when the transfer of deed was recorded. The sale (16)

data were collected by the Minnesota State Tax Co.:_ission. All

sales considerations which did not seem to the Tax ComA.ssion to be

representative, as not being bona fide, were discarded. After the

Tax Comwission had thus revised the sales data, they were turned

over to real estate men and ban'eers in each community, who also

Teeded out some which appeared fictitious to them.

As a result, the sale prices used in the study represent

boni fide sales as nearly accurate as it is possible to obtain themt

The following is a specimen of the information on hand

before visiting the farm- - -------------------------------------------

(16) Access to sales data files of the Minnesota State Tax COMM188i0 * was given us through the courtesy of the Tax Commission.

We also asked each farmer t7-ie purchase price of his farm as an additional check. In only two instances did the purchase price given by the farmer disagree with the sale price on rec-ord. The difference in these two oases was only about $200 on

etalAct

- 21 -

In genera , the soils of Blue Earth County re ~tural y

very productive, They are as goo as thos e of northern Illinois,

where the same types are held at a n.loh hi her r ce er acre.

They equal in fertility and ea e of cultivation any soils of the

prairie 8tat 0 s . hi le the yields have in so e cases been lowered

by continuous wheat cultivation, and while o. ious ~eeds h9.ve ua e

their appearance, the irJlerent productiveness of the soil ~as ot

been i ... a terially affected.

HO DATA rrRE cECURED

Land Sales . The farms which were c n "der 0 _re th se hie"

actually been sold durin the four year ericd, 1916 to 1919 in­

clusive. The sale prices hich were usei are the cc. i e= tions

hich ··1 re given when the transfer of (16)

data w~re collected by the in esota

eed w recor e . T ale

tate Tax Co ... iesion. All

sales considerations w_ ch did not s~e tot~ Ta· Cow• is ion to be

representa tive, as not :e ·ng ona fi1e, er discarde • Aft r the

Tax Co .... ission had thus revised tte sa-e ta, the ere t rn

over to real estate men an~ ban er in each c unit , .. o also

~ ed C. out s'"'~ b ch pe~re f ict tio s to th

As result, the sa e prices use i • t tu y repr ,..n

sales as near ~ccurate as it is i 1- too tain

The following is a sp ~~irren of e nfor .. at ion on an

_:fore vi it nz the f r~. (16)-~~~~;;-~~-~~1-~-~~~-f1-~;-~f-~~--------~~~-s~~~:-T~~-a~--~~~1~ "' was giv ,n us throu 7h the courtes Tax Cou ission.

e also aa·.ed each farr..er t -e re se r c .Jf is far a an a di ti on c ,,.0 ,. . In only t o in"'tances i the • urchase pr ice gi en _ the farr.1er i agre~ it the sale price o re~­

The iff erence in these two cases ·. :..s onl a out 200 on 12.21-e..,

- 22 -

Date of Mar. 1, 1919.

eller: A. Churchill

Buyer: W. J. Rothrock

Legal description:—

of Ni of ST1

Mai of Si of SW1

Section 32 Twp 108 Ra nge 26 Acres SO

Consideration: .1'12,400

Assessed value land and brildings: 33,053 (Assessed value at 3313 f'dfo. of full value)

Assessor's estlrate of full value of land: 38,160 W rt n "bldgs: 1̀ 1 OCO

Each farm was then visited by the writer, or by

E. W. Gaumnitz who helped with the field survey. The schedule

used in the field survey follows, also an explanation of how it --as

used. (See schedule on next page.)

INSTRUCTIONS COYCERNING THE USE OF TFE SCHEDULE.

1. Nun:her each schedule with the number which appears

on the county Lap and sales transfer card.

2. Check the "acres in purchase" against the seven

classes of land listed, raely, woods not pastured, woods pastured,

other non-tillable pasture, tillable pasture, wild hay land, other

tillable land, and waste land.

3. The classification is so arranged that tillable land

can be separated fro:.. all non-tillable land; also pasture land from

crop land and woods. These totals can be worked out later.

4. Under "non-tillable pasture" indicate a check whether

farm: t71-7615

12-21-6m

- 22 -

Date of Sale: r. 1, 1919· Seller: A. Churchill

Buyer: . J. Rothrock

Legal d . scri tion:--l

~-? of N of sv;-&-I of si of swk •2

Section 32 T\vp 108 Ra nge 26

Consi eration: 12,4-00

Assessed valuP lan an ,. 1ings : (Assess d value at 331/3 '% of ful

As(:!essor ' s esti .1at of full value It " " " " " " " " "

Acres 0

3, 0~3 v'l ue

of land: g,160 "bldgs: 1 ~ oco

far . <'(9'150 . Ea.ch far a then visit d •y the riter, or by

•r . E. W. Gaum itz who hel ~d :ith the field survey . The sctedule used in the field surve, follows, also a. exp la.. tio .. oI o it as use . (See soh~ ule on n x pa e.)

1. ..Tu. .. ber each sohedu e with t,,.e u •• :~e:r hie·

on the co nty ~ap an ~les transfer ciri. 2. Checl- the acre in pure ase" a.ga." n ... t th seve.

~lasses of la. li.,,tei, na.i-ely, oo s not p st r d, oo a re ,

oth~r non-tilla le aetu e, til a·le -a-tur - i~..: :....... !an , ot er

3. The cl~ssifio tion is so arrange that tillale la~ ca be ~apar~te fro~ all ncn-til a~ e lan; also asture la.1 frc crop lan1 ni wood.s . T. ese totals can · e "1or'·e ut te ... .

4-. Under "non-til a le a ture" in icate a c eo hetler

Remarks LIND IMPROVEIENTS:

'Am :Condition' (Only if unusual)

• Type : :Reproduc- :Construe- .

• • made -tion value-tion cost • • Tells :

1918: 1917: 1916:

1919:

Young stock Livestock pastured year of purchase: Mature stock Remarks:

LAND:

Adbob in purchase Woods not pastured •

Potentially tillable ocx=c: Woods pastured.. •

Potentially tillable :r100.2:xxic: Other non-tillable pasture •

Rough Wet Stony Tillable pasture • Wild hay land( Other tillable land Taste land( ) :

of farm

Name of owner Date of purchase 4

Distance to market Name of market Type of road Rods frontage Topography

: Soil types

Remarks

I

BUILDINGS :

'Dimensions "men :Reproduc-:Construc-:

Dimensions Condition: Type of :

: b 'lt.tion value:tion cost: : ul • :construction: Dwelling : Darn..:„: Hog barn : `'en house: :

Granary...: Corn crib:

3bncing: Tiling :

CROPS: Yields :C6RN:Silage:02.td:Barlev:S.Whe1.t:W.Wheat: Rye :Potatods:Wild

hay:Tame hay:

1920:

Remarks

4

• • • • •

,

•

LAND:

Ao~es in purchase \loods not pastured .••.•••.••••• . : ----

Potentially tillable :xxx:,xc::x:

·:1oods pastured • .•••.•• , • . ••••••• : ___ _

Potentially tillable ::iooo~::Y..xx:

Other non-tillable pasture •••••• : Rough ~ife t St onY. :----

~i llab le pasture •••••• • ••••. ::-:-:-: /lild hay land ( ) =----Other tillable land •••••• ., • • ••. : 'aste land( ) :----

•0'0• ····· 1 0 .. .. ..... ,;;.....·----

BUILDINGS:

·No . of farm=-------

1'Tame of owner:. __________ _,11r---Da te of pu~chase, _______ --\--t-~--

Distance to m~rket'--------+--­Name of market

------------+--~ Type of :road.:,_. __________ ....;..... __ Rods :rontage, __________ -.-__ _ Topography ___________ __,_ __ ~

·-+-­r r . '

. :D. . :1.'1hen :Reproduc- :Construe-: . . : Type of :

: imensions:built : tion value:tion cost:Condition :construction: i Remarks

.. ... ______ _:_ __ .:__ ____ .:_ ____ :_... ____ __; ______________ _ ·oo~~~, o: _____ _:_ __ .:__ ____ .:_ ____ :_... ____ __;_

0 - • 0 •

Granary~.: -----------------·------=----'------'----------

Corn crib:. _____ _:_ ___ .:_ ____ -=-------=-------~:__------~--~-----

_L_ • ....::m:__::n::..:il'::..R:::.0:::..1~m:!!,!:.::EN~T~S~: -~(~O=n~l&" if ·nusual ) Type \"v'hon :Re:produc- :Construe- =condition=

made :tion value:tion cost Remarks

!ells :; _______ _;_ __ __!. _____ .!__ ____ _:__ ____ _:_ _____ -....-----~

~ncing: _______ ..:_ __ __:__.:.-_ ___ :.._ ____ _.:_ ____ ...:_ __________ _

Tiling :; ________ :__ __ _;_ ____ ~ ____ ._..!,. ____ __:_ _________ ~

CR PS: Yields - : C6.mI:Silage:Oats:Barley:S. ~Vneat: 1V.\fheat: Rye :Potato~s:Wild hay:Tame hay:

1920 : : : : : : :

1919 : _ ___:~~__2_~_!_..~--~~~__:_~~-=-~~.!__~~--!..~~~..:._~~~~~-

1918; 1917 : ____ __;:..__

1916:

Livestock pastured year of purchase: Mature stock~~-~-~Young s ock:...--~~~~­

Rcll!arks:

"

- 23 -

it is rym-tillable because of rouglinesg, •,tness, or stones, If it

is due to two or more reasons, indicate the number of acres due to

each.

5. "Tild hay land" will include meadow too wet to be

plowed, and in some cases, land too rough to be plowed. Indicate

in the parenthesis following the reason the land is kept in wild

hay.

Indicate in the parenthesis after "waste land" the

nature of the waste land. The part of the waste land which is due

to roads can be estimated from thertrods frontage" listed in the

next column.

7. No place is provided in the schedule for listing the

purchase price of the land. The reason for this is that the owner

must not know that you hav-this information. If he knew that you

had obtained this information from the Tax Co=ission, he would be

Very gree,tly alarmed in any oases and would conclude that the

Purpose of your visit was to check up on the local assessor's work.

You can not be too particular in this Latter. Ordinarily a sched-

ule should be such that the person interviewed could read it with-

out being alarmed.

g. Fill in the name of owner and late of purchase before

visiting the

9. In a few oases you will find that the farm you visit

has been sold since your last record of transfer. If you can get

him to tell you the amount of the transfer, it will be worth while

for you to take the record as of the latest date.

- 23 -

it is non-till~ble because of roughness, -etness, or stones If it

is dul'3 to ti'VO or Lor13 :r .::..9ons, i ndica ts th.o nm:, er of acres due to

each.

5. " ild bay land" will include ,.,e3.do too wet to e

plo ei, and in some cases, land too rough to be plo~ed. Indicate

in the parenthe~i follo ing tha re~son the lan. i ke tin wild

hay.

6. Indicate in the p~.r~nth .sis ttf'.:;er " aste land" the

nature of the waste land. The part of the waste lad w~ ic is ue

to roais can be esti~Pt

next column.

f rorr th od.s frontage" listed in the

7. No place is provided in the schedule fer isting the

purchase price of the land. The reason for this is that th .. a:··nsr

ust not lmow that you hav 0 this infor ation. If he kne.1 t at you

had or-ta· ned this informat ion fro. the Tax Co .. i 0 sion, he would be

v~ry greatly alar ed in ~any oases and .oul oonclu e that the

_urpo~e of yo r visit •as to check up on the local a~se or 's or· .

You can not be too particular i n this iatte= · Or _n_rily ache -

u e should be such that th . person inter ie d co 1 read it with­

out being alarmed.

8 . Fill in the na e of o ner and

vis· ting the far1 .•

te of uroh3.se b fore

9. In a f e ·1 ca e. you wil fine that the ar~ you visit

has een sol since your last record of transfer. If you ca et

hi to tell you the amount of the transfer, it ill e or th hile

for you to take the record as of the latest te .

12-21-IM

— 2 —

If

10. Under "rods frontage" count up the number of rods of

road taken out of the farm. If the road passes thru the farm, the

roads will need to be doubled, because in this case four square

rods will be taken out for each rod of road in place of two square

rods.

11. Under "soil types" indicate the soil type as describ

in the soil map of Blue Earth County. If a farm has more than one

soil type, indicate the relative proportions of each..This will

require that the farm be located rather definitely on the soil map.

This can probably be done by matching the soil map against the plat

book map. This worlc can be done mostly after you get home. I ex-

pect, however, that the soil map will need checking as to details.

12. Under "remarks" mention any unusual circumstances,

such as stony land, floods, poor drainage, run-down soil, etc.

13. Under "reproduction vale of buildings" get the best

estimate you can of what it would have cost to have erected the

buildings at the t ire the place was purchased. You can afford to

spend considerable time talkinT with the farmer about this, because

the accuracy of this estimate is very essential to the whole project

Check one farmer's estimates against another as you go along. L:ake

sure that the farmer in his reasoning about the question considers

all the factors entering into a correct estimate.

14: 'Construction cost." Obtain the cost of original

construction of the buildinT whenever the farmer happens to now

what it is.

1. "Conditon." In general describe the condition of the

building as "very good", "good", "fair", "poor" or "very poor."

I2-21.8m

- 24 -

10. Under "rods frontage " count up the numoer of ro .s of

road taken out of the farm . If the road passes thru the farr., the

roads will need to be doubled, because in this case four s uare

rods will e taken out for each rod of road in lace of t o square

rods.

11. Under "soil types" in 'icate the soil type as de crib

in the soil map of Blue Earth County. If a far has ore than one

soil type, indicate the relative proportions of each .. This will

require that the farm be located rather efinitely on the soil ap.

This can probably be done ~Y atching the soil map a~inst the lat

book rap . This wor?. can be done mo tly s.fter you get horr.e. I ex­

pect, however, that tb_ soil ap wi 1 need checzinz aa to details.

12. Un er 11 r emarka" n:ent ion any unusua circu .stances,

such as 3tony land, floo s, poor a ns.:~, run-do~n noil, to.

13. Under "reproduction vale of u ·11ings" et t .. e best

estL.ate you c.,,n of what it woul have cost to rave erecte t .... e

buil ings at the tii e the plac e as purchased. Y ..,an affor to

s end c nsidera le tir::e tal ing ith t ... e far .. a_ about t: is, · ecause

t e accuracy of this est· . .ate is ery essential to th~ hole rojeot

Check one far.er ' s estimates against another as you go long. ~e

sure that th farm r in his reasoning ~b t the

all the factors entering into a corr ct eatL.ata .

estion consi era

1~~ 'Construction cost ." Obtai1 the cost of original

construction of the buildin

h:. t it is .

henever t .e far ,er happens to .: o·,y

1 . "Conditbn." In general descri . e the condition of the

Uilding as "very good", "good", "fair", " oor" or "v ry oor."

12·21-IM

-25

Abbreviations can I's used for these terms.

16. Under "remarks" enter any special circumstances con-

nected with the oons*ruction of any cf then- *cuillin3s. such as

sanitary barn equipment etc.

17. "Land improvements." This information is asked for

only for the sa:- e of checking an interpretation. If the farm has

the usual types of wells, fences, etc., nothing whatever needs to

be entered.

18. Express the "yields" of the various crops in their

usual units, i.e., corn in bushels per acre, silage in tons per

sore, etc. Get data as to yields from any availe-le source that

you car. locate. It will happen very frequently that the farmer

who is on the place will not know very much abvIt the yields

by his predecessor. If necessary. get the desired information

from the nieghbors.

19. The classification, "tame hay", may mesn red clover,

alfalfa, timothy, or timothy ani clover mixed. It might be well

to indicate which is referred to by sore form cf abbreviation.

20. The livestock inquiry refers only to cattle and

horses. If any considerable amount of land is used for pasturing

she or hogs, a noteshould be made of this.

Preliminary tc cur going into the field, each farm to be

visited was located on a detailed map of Faust Earth County to

facilitate locating them. With this aid we did not experience any

unexpected difficulty in this respect, but we ware not entirely

successful in getting all the information which appears on the

schedule. The age of the buildings was not known in all oases but . 2

- 25 -

r vi ti on u for

1 • U .d r "r " en r

n o it t' +ruction 0 n

nit r r

7 .

or.l f o t

t

t r

1

it ,

t

c . oc ...

1 on t

1 r

2 ..

nt

i

0 0

of 1

e

i. orn

It

p 0

sor. I

tl g t.

ettL

o:: •.

... .. r v ,.. i ..

h

in

0

,.. . ....

... ..

. ent .

to• I

o!

r

r

-0 c

n UC

or 1

no 0

t ro i r

1 0 r

0

ir

0

- 26

we seoured a very satisfactory estimate by combining our judgt,,ent

with that of the farmers. After a few unsuccessful trials we did

not attempt to secure the reproduction value, and in only compara-

tively fei instances was the construction cost obtained! The in-

formation under the captions, "land improvements", and "livestock

pastured on year of purchase" 7:18 secured, but has not been used

in this study.

• The method used in obtaining the building cost is explained in chapter rive.

- 26 -

our v r ti or 0 u

1th th t o th f r r t

not tt t to cure th r ro otion v

tiv t 00 r

!or tion un h 0 io

0 0 r " in t 1 tu -------------------------------------------------------------------

i 0

I

27 -

•

CHAPTER V

CO' DILATION ANP ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.

Value per acre. The 160 la nd sa les used in the study were ones

oonsumated in four different years, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919; and

because land values were constantly rising, it was first necessary

t o reduce them to a comparable basis. This was accomplished by

reducing the value per acre for each farm to the 1919 price level

hasis. To do this, it was first necessary to find the increase in

general land prices in the county from 1916 to 1919; from 1917 to

1919 and from 1918 to 1919.

The difference in the average sales value per acre for

each of the years respectively as compared to the 1919 average will

give us the proper differential due to increase in land values,

provided the sales included in figuring the average for each year

are comparable, or that they represent sales of a similar dis-

tribution of grades of land. By this, we mean that the average

sales value would not represent the increase due to rise in the

general land value if the sales for one year were a 11 high grade

land and the next year the poorer grades were sold. In other "rords,

if the average value of each years sales is to be significant the

distribution of the sales with reslcect to the grades of land for

each year must be

The statistical measure used for this relative distribu-

tion is called the coefficient of variation, solved by the follow-

ing formula: V = 100 pi (17 )

(17) Detailed discussion Karl Pearson "Chances of Death" G U Yule "Introduction to the Theory of Statistics".

- 27 -

CHAP ER V

CO fPILATIO l A. D Ai~ALY I OF THE D TA·

Value uer acre. The 160 la nd sa lea use in the stu y ere ones oonsumated in four different ye rs, 1916 1917, 1918 an 1/19; n bee use la d values ere constantly risin , it as first ne~ e ry t o reduce the~ to a comparable basis . Thie was acoc. lishe y

re1uo.ing t p value er aor for ea.ch far to t .e 1919 ri:le level

basis . To o t is, it s first necessary to fin t. incr in

~eneral land prices in the county fro 1916 to 1/19; fro 1917 to

1919 and fro 191 to 1919· The d.iff rence in th av r ge sales v ue r er- ~or

e ch of t.e y =s r peotiv ly a comp r to the 1919 :ver ge ill

give us thp proper iff erenti 1 ue to incr a e in 1 n l• ,

pro i e the s les inclu e in figuring t ... ch y r

are c ra e, or th.a th r _pr "' ent aal es of ei i -

tri ution of gra es of la.n By t hi , m n t r e

al value ·.ou not repr sent th in r ~e u to ri i n t'

ga or 1 la ~ valu if t 1 s f r on r 1 .. ig ... gr e

~a. an th n x e r th poor r gr r In ot .. r r

i ~ t av r .... valu O- e o r e is i •. i th

istri tion of t. a le it r to t gr es of 1 n r

each ea~ .u~t · e i 1~ r.

The t t stica ea. re us fr t.i r ~a.ti i •ri u-

- 28-

Table 2. Showing yearly averages of sales, the index representing yearly increase in value, and the coefficient of variation fc; each year.

• . Value Index :(1L2 )(1): Coef. of Var. . . . : 100.300 : 24.135

' 85.837 : 26.250 • . 79.157 • . 25.618 • . 72.636 : 25.557

Year : . Average value • . 1919 • • 1918 • • 191I 191

:

1157.23 ;13'4.96 $124.46 3114.52

The coefficients of variations shown in the fourth ool-

umn of the table are very uniform, thus furnishing us a basis for

knowing that the distribution of sales in each of the four years

was quite siA.lar. Knowing this it is safe to a2sume that the

average yearly value shown in the second column of the table rep-

resent the yearly increase in farm land values.

Using the year 1913 as a base, the third column of the

table shows the index number of land value for each year. In order

to redone all the years to the 1919 land value basis, it is only

necessary to divide the value per acre for farm by the land value

index for the year in which the land was sold. For example, for

a farm sold for 9150 per acre in 1917, the index of land value for

1917 is .79157. Dividing 9150 by .79157 gives $159.49 per acre, or

the 1917 value put on the 1919 basis. (18)

IOTA ALL PLOW LAZ:DS Year • Average Value Index

1919 16! • 10000 1916 91.12

131 • •

1 135 82.84

• • 79• T19 -)LOGray USDA Bulletin No 874

"Farm Land Values in Iola" p 5 , Increase in value 1918 to 1919, 22.

12.Z1-41m

- 2 -

T 1 2. rly 0 , th in e r yearl .c lu ' n Ji nt of v ri ti on

ch y ar .

r Av !ue :{l }{l~}:

l~l.7 157. 23 1 . .135 l,1lu 13· . ~6 5.s37 26 .25 19ll 12 t- . 6 7~ .15l 25 .61 l,11 11 .52 72.03 2:,.5,7

T e coefficie ts of v ria.tion 8 o n in th curt ol-

u n of t ... e t le ar very uniform, th ni ing u or

0 i .. t:.. t the istributicn of B 1 n ch f th f r r

uite 1 .il r . . o ing t ~ ... it i f to u e t' t t .

ver e Y rly v lu in t• co .... u o ... ... t r . ...

r e t the ye rly in s.

Uein t 19 , hir co n of

t 1 aho th r o u ct r. r

o r :u 19 ,I it i

n e r t v u . r c . t

i • x for t r in hie t Fo ... r

15 p r ore i

1,... 7 7 57. i i n 15 y 91 7 9 c -. , Jo

~ 19) Bu ... l 87"T"

in Io 5 1 915 to ~~-9 2Z, ....

12 ZI

Dirt Roads State Roads

Table 4. Cross Tabulation on Basis of State and Dirt Roads and Cost of Buildings per Acre.

Dirt Roads Cost of Bildzc., : Value

per acre : per acre

;; State Roads

: Acres:: Cost of Bldgs : Value : Acres • per acre : per acre:

0--12

12--24

24--36

36--48

46--60

60--72

72-64

$131

$152

$162

$213

• • •

4549 ••

• •

: 4037

• •

• •

• • • •

: 1058 •

•

••

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

•

• 345 ::

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

• •

• •

• • •

• • •

0--12

12--24

24--36

36--46

46-60

60--72

72-84

$153

1173

$169

3164

$194

$349

1492

2164

733

176

277

30

Table 5. Cross Tabulation on Basis of State and Dirt Roads and Distance to Market (miles)

Dirt Roads • :: State Roads • •

Distance to Market 0--2.5

2.5.-4.5 11.5-6.5

10.5--12.5

Value per acre

0160 /155 133 131 127 $ 76

40

• Acres:: Distance to • Market

: 2546 :: 0--2.5 : 4104 2.5--4.5

2161 :: 4.5--6.5 : 1352 :: : 155 :: s.5-10.5 : 75 :: 10.5--12.5

Value : Acres : per acre:

. • q80 : 148 173 : 2309

. • $203 : 210

. $138 :- 712

. • $189 : 40

. $169 : 102

••

• •

Average Value per acre Total acres

1147 10,393

41171 14-,873

- 29 -

Correction for State Macadam and Dirt Roads. The solution of the

road differential for dirt and macadam roads was accomplished by

means of oross-tabUlation, the presentation and explanation of

which is following. Lands on macadam roads were reduced to a

flitt-road basis.

Table 3. Average Value per acre on State and Dirt Roads.

12-21-661

f . - 29 -

Correction for State Macadam and Dirt Roads. The soluti on of the

road :iiff erent i 1l for irt an i . . acadam roads was accoru lished b y

.. e9.ns of cross-tabul a tion, the present at i on an e la.nation of

w::ich is following. La 1ds on acadam r oa s w re reduced to a.

'irt - road as is.

Table 3. Average Value per acre on State and Dirt Roads.

Average Value per acre Total acres

Tajle 4. Cr oss Tabulat i on Cost of

oads

Cost of :S v p er acre r acre

0--12 131

12--24 152

24--36 $1S2

36--48

4&.-6 213

6 --72

72--84

Dirt Roads

147 10,393

St~te nJ Dirt Roads an

.. Acres:: Cost of Acres

per acre p .. r avre :

4949 : : 0--1 2 153 1492

4 37 12--24 .. 173 216 . . i 5s 2 --36 1 9 733

36--4 164 176

349 .. 4 -60 19 277 . . 6 --72 .. . . 72-- 349 30

Ta le 5. Cross Tabula tion on Basis of St~te an Dirt oads an:i Distance to ·ar ket ( ilea)

Dirt Roads Stat Value

...,er acre:

0--2.5 160 2546 .. 0--2 5 1~9 . . 2.s--4.5 155 4104- 2.5--4.5 23v9 4.s--6.5 ~133 2161 4.5--6.5 21 "' 6.5-- .5 131 1352 6.5-- .5 :- 712 s .5--10.5 $127 155 s .5--10.5 : 40

10.5--12.5 I\ 7 75 .. 10. 5--12. 5 1 2 . . 12 .. 21 ... ,.,.,

In Table No. 3, the simple tabulation shows a differen-

tial of $24. Te shall investigate its degree of ostensibility in

Tables No. 4 and No. 5 by cross tabulation. The assumption is

that if 4;24 is a true constant difference between state and dirt

roads, it should appear also in any cross tabulation of data, on

the basis cf other factors, provided the distribution or the acres

included in each class interval is large"t allow the effects of

other influence factors to average out or compensate.

In the cross-tabulation represented by table No. 4, a

constant difference of ai'eut $20 appears in the classes where the

distribution is large. For example in the olas9 interval ''cost of

buildings ""0-$12"; dirt roads, $131, state road,:153; and also in

the class $12-124; dirt roads, $152, state roads, $173. In the

other classes in this table the distribution or number of acres is

too small to warrant any consideration in the way of furnishing

evidence as to the genuineness of the differential.

Similarily in Table No. 5, the cross-tabulation on the

distance to market basis, the differential of about $20 again oc-

curs in t'-_e classes having the large distributions. For example,

in class interval 0-2.5: dirt roads, $160, state roads ::180: and

class 2.5-4.5, dirt roads $155, state roads $173.

On the basis of these data an average weighted differ-(20)

ential w as worked out and used as the correction for state roads

(20)The average weighted dif`rential was obtained from tables No4 and No. 5. The differential appearing in the two classes 0-12 and 12-24 in Table No.4 and the two classes 0-2.5 and 2.5-4.5 in Table No. 5 were used because these classes contained the largest acreage. The weights used in determining the average differential were the number of acres in each class. The c=putation is as follows:—

- 3

In Table J . 3, the siffiple tabulation sho s a differen­

tial of ·24 . We shall investigate its aegree of ostensibility in

T1bles To . 4 and o. 5 by cross tabulation. T:e assumption is

that if $24 is a true constant difference bet~e~n stnte an dirt

roads, it should appear also i n any crosq t~ ulation o~ data, on

the bas is of oth~r factors, provide

inclu ""d in e~.Jh ol.:.vss i nterval is

or t .P. acres

allo the eff ots of

other influence factors to average out or compensate .

I. the cross-ta ulation reprasente y ta _e o. 4, a

constant iff ere.~ce of a'"-l"u t 11.20 appe3.rs in th- cla s e .ere t e

distribution is la.r"'e. For exa .ple in th cl as int rval "cost of

bui in s "" - · 12"; irt rca s, 131, state roai ,. 153; an a lso in

the class 12-., 2ll-; dir t roads, 152, stat rca s, 173· In the

other classes in this ta le th 'stribution or nu er cf er "S is

too s all to ~ar-ant any ccnsi 'eration in th y of furni hing

evi1ence as to the genuineness of th ff er ntial .

Si ilari-Y in Tabl"" .o . 5, the cross-ta la io o •he

istance to .. a.rket b sia, •:r..e if_ renti 1 of cu.... 2 again oc-

curs in t' cla-~es ta ing t. e 1 rge distr ibutions . For xa.i. 1 ,

inc ass 'ntP.rval 0-2.5: rt roa 16v, stat~ roa~s lS : an

class 2. 5- 4. 5, dirt roais 15J, stat"' r oa 173·

O. the asis f thee t~ n ver - i : te · f. (20)

er-tial as worked out (20)Th J v-r~3~ w0 i ht~d different·~1 o' ta'ne fro and /o . 5. The ifferential appearing in the two ...,1 s 0 -..-12 12-24 in Ta le Jo .4 an the two clas e - 2.5 an 2.5-~.5 i n Ta le o. 5 er use ecause the~e c asses o~nt ineJ t .~ 1 = PSt acr a e The wei hts used i n et r ning th average iff erent i a. re t e n ber of aor~s in e~ch cla s . The c-~putation i s a fol o s :--

12-21.eM

-31-

Fror. Table Yo. 3.

4:?45A x 131 ;648, 4037A x f152 8986A 89 86 1,264) 1492A x C153 122, 2164A x $173 .374,

no- $140.75 lo 8375

3656A 3656 603,942

165.19

24.4

$165.19

weighted difference Table No. 3.

From Tab le No. 4. 2500A x ;16o 400,000 4100A x 4155 8635,500 6600A 6600 1 035,500 $156.89

A 1500A x 4180 g270,000 2300A x $173 397,900 3800A x 3800 667,900 ;175.76

18.37 weighted difference Table No. 4.

Difference weighted On total acres. involved..

$175.76

$24.44 x 12,642A 308,970 $18.87 x 10,400A ;7196,248

$21.92 23,042A 505,218

421.92 average w sighted differential or correction for state roa

Statistical evidence, other than that which apreared in

the cross-tabulation, that $21.92 represents a fairly true constant

difference, will now be presented using the four clas,es which were

not used in calculating the differential because the distribututioni

were small, These four classes will be grouped together which will

increase the distribution or acres. If our reasoning has been cor-

rect, the difference in the one large or grouped class should tend

to approach o-:r accepted constant difference, $21.92.

12-21-11M

- 31 -

Fro Ta le Jo . 3.

;131 64&,352 152 616,i+os s9e6 1,264,so 140.75

153 22~, 105 173 37!.!-,837 3656 603,942 $165.19

weighted difference T lv ro. 3.

Fro1 Tab le ... o. ~ .

2500A 4100A x 660'0A l 6.89 15 OA x 23G A x

3800A x 38v0 175.76 ~175 . 76 _12 . s9

lS. 07 eight d ff ence Ta le ··o. 4 .

Difference eight

24 . 44 x 12,642A l • 7 x 10,4 OA

23, 042A

d on total

3cs,97 296,2 & 505,218

ore . involve .

21. 92 ~21 .92 average eighte differ ntial or cor ection for t t ro s. -------------------------------------------------------------------

tatiatic 0 vi e~ce, ct. er tan that hie" p ~re in

the crosf3-t f irly true 21.92 re resents u 1.tion th3.t ,.. ..., . t nt

diff re oe, ill ow e r e te usin t' f o c. s~ ~ ich r

not use i calou atin th iff e enti 1 th tu io

were s 11 T ese f cur clas il ro e to- t ... r ic ill

incr :iae t:i istr ution or vr If our nin_ s _ean cor-

rect, th iff ~rence n the one ar or grou e class aho~l te ·

to approa~ o·r ace t _d const nt diff rence, 21.92.

4-

t: $62

.a.

•

Difference $71

91

Dirt Roads : 1133 --acres 2200

4-

n.32 : ;1.27 : ”9 1250 t 155 • . 75

4. 4.

State Roads --acres

,204 210 712

• • • X140

170 102

—32—

Tab le No. 6 (from table no. 4) Value per Acre According to Dis—

tance to Larket and Acres.

Distance to Market. 4.5-6.5 6.5—z.,

Table No. 7 Four Classes in Table No. 6 Grouted into One. Distance to Yarket.

• . 4.5 -- 12.5 . . .

Dirt roads • • . 1130 --acres ' . • 3743 •

1. t 4 State roads : : "156 --acres : 1062

4 + 126

The differences in the first calf?, ranged from $7 to 51;

when grouped together the difference (everted back to ,6 as was

expected. This difference perhaps should have been nearer p21.92,

but even in this combination clas the acreage on state roads is

only 1062 a ores.

The farms on state and dirt roads were separated ani

correlated with distance to market. On this basis the following

forecasting equations resulted:--

X value per acre; Y distance to market.

State Roads X = 157.29 — 7.04Y

Dirt Roads X 161.47 — 5.05Y

On the basis of these equations, the predicted value per

t2 9 -e

4

4 Difference

-

- 32 -

Ta.'b lP .fo . 6 (fror.. ta 1 no. 4) alue p-: ere Accor g to Dis-

Dirt Roads --acres

Distance to r ket.

4 . 5-6.5 6 . 5- s . 5 s . 5-10 . 5 10.5-12.5 133 ll-112 127 (A.7~

2200 1250 155 75 :--------------+-----------~-------------T-------------

t;ite Roajg 204 "'139 1 6,1 170 --acr9s 210 712 40 1 2

+--------------·-----------·-------------~-------------Dif f er~nc e ' 71 · 7 · 62 · 91

Ta~le

Dirt ro::l.d.s --acres

Four Class 99 in int o One .

·--------------•-----------~-------------+-------------. . 156 . t t roa --acres 1052

·--------------~-----------~-------------~-------------. . 2t . Differ nee

Th diff i:>r noes in th f r t o~ .... ... n • fr'"'m 7 to 91;

hen re ed to t er the iff erene fe erte to 26 -

e eote . Th s diff ere ee p r ap shou ha e een ne r r 21 .9 2,

~t even in t is co ir. .... i on cl ~s t e crea e on t t e r i

on~ 1 62 a er s.

The far. s n st a t an rt r o s

oorre atPi 1th istanee to mar' e . n t .1

for ca t ng equations r t ' . . --- V"lue • er a.ere; Y eta. ee to r..a.r.K t.

ta e oa

Dirt Roa ..... s

::: 187.29 - 7· 4

X :::: 1 1.4 7 - 5, 05Y

r se r ed

sis t. f o ()I; ing

On th J ba i of t . se e ua · o , th pr iot d v lue er

-

-33—

acre for the following distances to market are:

Miles State Road Dirt Road ' Difference

1.25 : ,':,176.14-9 ,(155.16 23

3.75 . '').6o.ss' 4 e12.53 ! t16 /1-1

Average Difference 123.5C

Here a.,=-,air note the appearance of the constant difference of about An^ Cv•

After the va]ues per acre of the farms on state roads wer

corrected by the means of the difference $21.92, all the farms ad-(21)

jacent to "Class Two" towns w ere sorted out. These farms wer e

then classified on the basis of state and dirt roads.

Table 6. State and Dirt Roads Class 2 Towns.

Value per Acre and Acres.

State Roads . e2.44.48 -- acres : 56.42 Dirt Roads • 1144.74 -- acres . 24.33

----------------------------------------------- ------------------ In that the effect of roads has been corrected for or

eliminated, a tabulation on this basis should not reveal any dif-

ference when the distribution is large. Note that the above shows

a difference of only a few cents, which aga!r: confirms the assumed

constant 21.92.

Correlation between distance to market a 7d value per acre

of the farms adjoining "Class Two" towns was made„first of these

on state roads and then of those on dirt roads: The coefficients

were r 394 and r =-.24 respectively. All of the farms were

-(21) SLall towns of about 500 population.

12-21-am

- 33 -

acrP for the following i~tance~ to roar{ 0 t are:

Miles

1.25

3. 75

State Road Dirt Road Diff erenoe

23

Average Difference -------------------------------------------------------------------Here ,_,ain note the a rears.nee of t .... c c o stant ..i.i f erence of ~ cut

""20.

After the vaJues per acre of t .~ far .s on state roads r

corrected oy the eansof t.e ~ifference 21.92, all the ar s a -(21)

jacent to "Class Two" to ns w ere sorted out. T e f r s ere

then cla sified on the ~asis of state an irt ro

State and Dirt g Clas~ ! Towns.

tate Roads -- acres Dirt Roads -- acres

Value per Acre

144.4 50.42

lI+ •. 7+ 24.33

s.

-------------------------------------------------------------------In that the ef ..L. ect of roa s ha • en corr ote f r or

li .i te , a ta'ulatio ... on tis ~asie ho 1 not eveal any i ~-

f erence h n the listri ution is larg . ...; te tha ... ve :ho s

a diff erenoe of only a f e cents, w!:ic a....,c.<.:n c n ... ir. s t:.e u ....

co ta t 21.92.

Corrslatio bet e n istanoe to a.rket

of the far.s a joining "Class T10" to s as

on state roads th_n of tho~e on dirt roa

v lu ere

,,first ho e

The coef icients

ere r = - • 394- an All of t:i ere

21 S all towns population.

314. -

then corrected for the state road by means of the correction $21.92

an the correlation between distance to market and value per acre

3.-ain calculated. The coefficient in this case was r...23

This coefficient is only one point froLfl the r=-.24 of the farms on

dirt roads. This again supports t'.- e accuracy of the correction

2l.92 in putting the farms on a dirt-road basis or eliminating

the effect of the state road.

The value per acre of all of the farms was then out on

a dirt-road basis by correcting for the state-road influence.

Correction for influence of towns, due to size, market

facilities, etc.: The towns in the area were put in two classes

on the basis of population, market facilities. etc.

Mn ass One includes Mankato, Lake Crystal and Janesville.

Class Two includes all small towns of about 500 populatio

The correction for the influence of the Class One towns

on land value was worked by cross-tabulation in a ...anner which is

si.Alar to the differential calculation for roads.

Table Avera g e Value per Acre by Class of Towns.

Towns Class One Class Two

Average value per acre: ---Acres 3720 8290

Difference $3.4.37 ...............................................................

Before we can intelligently investigate by cross-classi-

fication the genuineness of as being the true constant dif-

ference, the avera,Te value of the other factors present in each

class of towns must be known. The following cross-classifications

were made.

12.21-6m

- 34 -

then corrected for t~1e state road· y ·.,eans of the correction 21.92

an: th, corre:ation bett~~n ~iatance to iar:e an value er ere

w~.'"' a -:ain ccolculatecl. The coefficie t in this case vas r::: - .23

T~is coefficient is only one oint fro 1 the r:-. 24 of the far s o

dirt roads. This again supports the accuracy of t _c corr ction

21 . 92 in putting the farms on a dirt-road basis or eli inating

th~ effect of t~e state roa~.

The value ;.:er acre of all of the ..:arn.s was th~n • ut o

a dirt-road asis by correcting for t •• e stat -roaj influence.

Correction for influence of to~ns , ue to size . ar~et

facilities, etc.: The to,ns in the area re ut in t o classes

on the basis of opulation, mar~et faciliti , etc.

Class One inclu es · nk~to, a~e Cryst 1 r J

Class Two i clu es all s .all to ns of a· o~t 5 ~

ea ·ille.

o~ulatio I.

The correction r the influence of the Cla~ 0 e tow s

o land value was orke y cros -ta ulatio in a er hie is

si ilar to tte .ifferential calculation for roa s .

T3.'-'l Avera r.r A"'re- b SS of Towns.

Tow s Clnss One

verage value er acre: "'15 .36 ---Acres 3720 Difference A 14. 37 -------------------------------------------------------------------

efore e can intelligently inve g·te y oros -class i-

fication t~e genuineness o A14.37 a be ng the t

f erence, the average val e of t ~ othP.r factors

e con ... tant if-

r: e ch

olase of town ust be , own . The follo ing oro ... -ol ... -ificatio s

were r.iade .

12-21-IM

_

Tow ns Class Two Class One

i;12.43 Difference

Class Two Towns Cost of Bldgs 312-24

: Class One Towns : Cost of Bldgs 12-124

10.35 Difference

: 15.69 Difference

- 35 -

Table 10. Average Value of Factors in Each Class of Towns.

Table 11.

Class Two Towns Distance to Market 2.5-4.5

• • •

• •

Cost of Bldgs 389-3100 : 4,152.60: --Acres 903

Class One Towns Distance to Lfarket

Cost of Bldgs. --Acres

2.5-4.5

X165.03 1299

Table 12. -115-

Productivity Index 76-90:$151.48:Productivity Index 76-90:$161.84 --Acres : 701:--Acres : 507

Productivity Index 90-104138.94:Productivity Indes90-104I3155.64 IAAcres : 1486 :--Acres . 817

ProductivityIndex104-118:$154.52:ProduotivityIndex104-118:$166.52 AlAcres : 1076 :ACRES Difference : • : 12.00

(22) A weighted a verage difference was worked out for the

three differences appearing in Table 12.

10.357 x 1208 $12,511.256 15.697 x 2302 336,134.494 12.008 x 1618 319,428.944

5128 68,074.68 13.275 equals the weighted average difference

(22) Weight on acreage basis.

t12.71 95.0 85.5 3.45

$15.52 99.7 86.9 3.96

Cost of buildings Productivity index Law! classification Distance to market

Ta le 10 . Avera , Va1 ue of

Tow ns

Cost of bui liings Prc'uctivity i.dex L~n claGsific-t ion Distance to ar·~'3t

Ta le 11.

Cla ss Two Towns

- 35 -

ch Class

Class 0ne To ns Dista ce tQ :!arAet 2 . 5- . 5 Di~ta..ice to 'n.rKet 2 . 5- l.t . 5

Cost of :!311.gs - -Acres

Di ference

Ta le 12.

Class T· o To Cost of Bldg

Proiuctivi ty -- ores

Difference

9-~100 : A152 . 60 : Cost of Bld s . 903 : --Acres

151 . l.ts ;Productivity 7 1 :--Acres

In ea 9 - lc4 13~ . 91.t ~ Pro ucti· t· In es 9 : 14-06 . --A..;r a

Difference

Pro ctivityI de 1 .!:.! ores Diff f>r enc e

-11 : ~ 1 51.t . 2 :Prciuctivity! : 1076 :ACRE

exl C

2 '

1

~ 16) . 03 I

12;9

12 .4-3

12 . 0

-------------------------------------------------------------------22)

A .eighte a verage i fferenc as or~ cut or the

three differences

1C . 3:J7 x 120 15 . 697 x 2302 i2 . 00s x 1615

512

ear i n i n Ta le 12 .

13 . 75 equ ls the eight d v r if r nee

(22 ) ei ght on acr eage bas i s .

\

-36

Table 13.

Class Two Towns ; Class One Towns

Dirt Road ;)144.48 : Dirt Road 4157.19 --Acres 5842 : --Acres 2915

Difference $12.70

The three differences appearing or resulting from the (23)

Tables 11,12 and 13 w ere then weighted and the average (24)

weighted difference used as the correction for the town classes.

The value per acre of all the farms was then corrected

by means of the differential $12.82 and put on a "Class Two" town

basis.

By using the three corrections for increase in land value

for type of road, and class of town, the value per acre of all the

farms was put on this basis: Sold in 19,1; adjacent to "Class Two"

town; on dirt road.

Calculation of 1719 depreciated cost of buildings. The dimensions

and type of structure of each building was obtained in the field.

Knowing the dimensions, the cubic foot content of each farm struct—

ure w as calculated. The cubic foot contents was then multiplied

by a certain cost per cubic foot depending on the type and kind of

structure. This cost was then depreciated down to the year 1919.

The depreciation rate depended on the condition of repair the

building was in and its age.

(23) By number of acres. (24) Table 11. $12.43 x 3563 $44,288.09

413.275x 5128 68,074.20 Q12.707x 875 $111,2 7.199

17 8 223, 37.48 'c.1.2.£517

Hence X12.52 equals the average weighted difference.

Table 13.

Clase Two Towns

Dirt Road --A ores

Di erenoe

- 36 -

Class One To ns

Dirt Roa --Acres

157.19 2915

The three differences ap~earinn or resulting fro t• e ( 23)

Ta les 11,12 and 13 w ere then weiihted an the verage (24)

weighted difference used a the correction for the to n class a.

T e value er acre of all the fari s as th- co ... r cted

by e ns of the iifferential 12.82 an ~ut on a "Clas T o t n

as is .

By using the three corrections for incr 0 s ir. lan v ue

for type of roa , and cla.s of to n, t e v lu pe... ere of 11 th

farns as put on t.i ~asis: Sol in 191,; a j cent to

tojyn; o dirt roal.

1 s T o

Calculation of i:~9 eoreciate The i "'nsions

and ty e of structure of eaoh buildin~ a o· t i ' in t. fiel •

Kno in th~ i ensiona, th1 cubic foot co tent o eac~ far struct-

ure ~ ~s calculated. The cu ic foot content t. n ul .... i lie

Ya certain cost per cu· ic foot ep~ in~ on t•e Y~ nd ·in of

structure . T is cost w s then e reci te o . to t: e y ear 1 l" .

The epreci~tion rate dee~ e on t e condition of r p ir t.e

· uiLiing as in ... r. ~ its e . ( 2,3) By nu r of 2~) Ta le 11.

acres . 12.43 x 3563 44,28 . 09 13.275 5128 6 ,074.20 i2.707x 87?¢ 111,275.195

17~ s 223,637.4 12. 817

Hence 12. 82 e ual the verage eig· te difference.

— 37 —

farm.

Table 14.

The following is a samrle of the calculations for one

Sample Calculation of Building Cost.

Building :Cu. ft.:Cost per: ; cu. ft.;

Cost :Depreciation: ; Rate ;

Depreciated Cost 1919.

Dwelling i Barn : Hen House : Machine shed: Lail: house : Granary : Corn crib : Shed :

11,520: 16,456: 3,500: 4,000: 1,260: 4,480: 7,500: 2,160:

14 O i%612.60: 5 0 : 622.80: 500 : 175.00: 3t0 : 140.00: 5 0 : 63.00: 5 0 : 224.00: 3i0 : 262.50: 5 p : 106.00:

35.70 51 SO% gO% 51% 28% 800 26%

: : :

• . . • .

: .

$ 99.94 403.17

35.00 28.00 30.87

161.26 52.50 77.76

Total 1219 depreciated cost 1.736.52

In calculating the costs the following scales and tables

were used: (25)

Table 15. Building Cost per Cubic Foot.

Type of Building Cost per au ft in

1915

Dwellings, frame, small box House, no cornice • . 9t0 Dwellings, frame, shingle roof, small cornice, plain :12 to 1.0 Dwellings, briok, same class :16-irto 150 Dwellings, frame, shingle roof, good cornice, sash • •

weights, good house :16*Oto 1 ,0.: Dwellings, brick, same class, good house :24cto 24¢ Barns, frax,ie, shingle, roof, not painted, plain finish : 3110to 60 Barns, frame, shingle roof, painted, good foundation : 6 to 70

2Srl Machine Shed

Single Corn Crib 26 Double Corn Crib

: 4o

Tables were not used to determin e cost of silos, each one

being considered individually, because of the lack of uniformity in

construction. The estimates were based on the "New Building

Estimator", Wm. Arthur--Silo Cost data p 535-55.

25) "New Building Estimator", Wm Arthur p 311. Prices for 1902 were raised to 1912 level by U S Bureau of Labor price indices.

(26) Calculated by writer.

3-

It _

4k,

I - 37 -

The following is a sample of the calculations for one

faru..

Ta' le 14 . Sample Cal~ulaticn of Builiing Cost.

Building : Cu . ft. :Cost per : Cost : De reoiation : De reciate . cu . ft.; Rate Cost 11:;. . D.velling ll,~20: 14 ¢ . e- 6 3 ~ $ ~99 ° 94 : t 1 12. 3 Barn 1 J 56: 5 s22 . g -1'.,f 03 .17 ? ,., Hen House . ~,500 : 5 175 • v 5 ~ 35 . 0..i . rachine shei: ' 0 : 3 t 14 • . g ,o 2~ ,..., . • V

:,:il k houae 1,260: 5 6~. 00: 51~ 30.g7 Granary 4,48 : 5 ¢ 22 • 0 : 2 % lbl.2 Corn crib 7' 500 : 3- ¢ 262.5 301 52.5

i~

Shed 2, 160: 5 ¢ lOES. 28,o 77.76 Total reciated cost 173b.52

In calculating the costs t e following scales an tables

ere us d:

Ta ,jl e 15.

ings, ·e-line;s,

llings, Dwelli :igs,

( 25) Building Cost per Cu~ic Foot .

Ty e of Building

frame, sm-11 ox Hou3e: no cornice sh'n le reef, s ~er e, plain ea .. e class

e, ah n le roof, goo cor1 ·ce, s ... eh e i...... ts, .soo ... ...ou s e

Del ins, brick, s~ile c~~s , _oo hou ~" ns, ra:le, shingle, ro~f, not painte, plain finish Barns, fr .... e, shin le roof, ai..ted, goo foun · tion

l~2~6l Single Corn Ori Double Corn Crib

a.chine She

. :16 2 .,,to 1 .,. : 2lc to 2+.,.

), to 6 6 i;.t 7

:r ... .3'".,. 3c::Y.

Tables ere not use to eter in cost of silos, e-c on

eing considered in~i i lly, eo_u e of th.,, c· of unifor ity in

00~3truction . es 0 re se on t e "· e il i:lg

Esti ator", . Arthur-- ilo Cost data 535-55· (25)--;-;--~i1di~~--;t1-~~~;;---~-A;~h~;---311~-------------------

P r1c es for 1902 er3 rai e to 191/ level y S Bureau of Labor rice indices.

(26) C lculated by riter.

TatA.e 16. Depreciation Tables for Frame Dwellings. (27)

:Percentage Depreciation according to Condition .

10 12 27 •

15 17

7 47

8 18 21 0 9 20 • . 23 :

. 25 : 45 •

. 26 • . 47 25 : 28 •

• .

: l

• 30 • . 34 :

31 :..

. 30

32 55

17 • . 31 • .• . ' 0

• . 32 : 3 • .

47 : 5o • . 61 : •• • •

(27) Used in the Cleveland Va luationWew Building Estimator; Wm. Arthur.

(27) Used in the Cleveland Va luationWew Building Estimator; Wm. Arthur.

3 31

.4 • 13

12 51

• • .

i • . :

29

18 . 19 • . 3 • . •. 61 • 20 • . 34 • . 33 • . 63 • 21 : 34 • .

490 • • • . 6

6o • 35 • . :

41 • . • 68 • . 22. :

N • • . . 37 • . 42 : . 69 •

22 • • .

37 4 • . • . 71

2 • • 38 • . t . •U •

27 • . 39 2 7 • . 4 • . 4 • 28 • . • . 4 : 75 • 29

. • . 490 • . 47 : . 79 :

• 30 41 • . 46 : so • . 31 : . 41 •. 48 : . SO •

32 • . 42 • . 49 • g2 •

R : :

42 43

• . •. 53.

50 • . • .

83 85 :

•

35 • . 112

: •.

52 : 86 ' • 36 : 53 : . 88 • 37 • . 14.5 • . 5-4 : 90 38 ;12

• . 54 . . • .

93 91 : • .

o 4.6 32 • . 95 • 49

41 47 57 • • .

42 • . 47 • . 59 : •

143 L1•8 :

. . 59 59

• • : • :

: la

: • 60 .• • 45 :

46 : 50 • % 61 : ••

49 4s

51 51 . . • . 24 i

50 • . 52 • . 64 • : ....... __ ......................................................

- 38 - ri===---=========-- 3 -

Ts. 1 e 16. lE~~£~~~~g~-~~£~~£!~~!2~ __ ££2~~-~--~2 __ 2~~!~!2g_~=

Years : Good. : air : Ba ----------------t---------------t---------------t----------------~ . . . . 1 3~ 4~ 2 5 7 3 8 10 4 1 12 5 13 15 6 15 17 7 17 19 g 18 21 9 2 23

10 22 25 11 23 26 12 25 2B

~l ~~ ~~ 15 29 32 lb 30 34

i~ §~ ~~ 19 33 37 2 34 3& ~~ 34 ~$

33~ Ii

~~ 37 ~~ ~~ §~ ~a 27 39 45 28 390 46 29 4 47 3 41 4S 31 41 4 32 42 4/ 5~ tt~ ~o 35 -44' 3 52 35 4 53 j~ ~~ ~~

. ~6 ~~ ~g 41 47 57 42 47 53 ~3 ~e 59 41-4 48 ~6 tt~ ~6 : 61 47 50 61 48 : 51 ~~

. . -

1 I

17 23 27 31 34

~6 4-2 4.-4' 4~ 51 53 55 57 ~o 61 63 6~ 6') 60 6 71 72 74 75 79 5

v 91 93 ;5

49 51 64 ------2~ _______ : _______ 2~ ______ : _______________ :____________ _ __ : ( 27) Use i the Clevelan Va luation nl'Je Building Es ti .a tor~

• . Arthur.

-39)—

(28) Table 17. Depreciation Tab le for Brick Dwellings.

Years Depreciation

1 5% • . . 2 7 .

11 . . • • 5 13 • .

10 16 15 23 • . 20 • . 28 • . 25 . 33 •

. 30 . . 49

4?) . . . •

5 . 'cj.

82 . . . . .70 . .

c.,

. 70 80 . .

Table 1 E. Depreciation Table for Barns, Granaries and Other Far= Buildings.

:Derreciation rate according to Condition.

Yea re Good. • • Fair Bad.

. . : 1 • . 10 • . 2 • . 12 • .

14 16 •

. .

5 1 • . 6 20 : 7 22 • . s 24 . 9 26 : 10 28 11 3o 12 • . 32

.

. .

. 35 .

14 8

. 15, • . 1 • .

. 43 • •

. . 46

. 49 52 • 55

R' : See continuation on next page--

10 17 18 19 20 21 22

12 • 14 15 • 17 18 : 20 21 : . 23 23 • . 26 26. • . 29 29 • 32 32 • 35 35

38 46

• • 44

43 47 47 53 51 •

55 b5

b3 77 67 • 83 • 71 • 75 79 81

(28) The Bernard Depreciation Table "How to AssaseProperty in Cities and Bural Towns". H V Cowles and J H Leenhouts. TiS. Tax Coul. 1914—p32.

12•21.41m

AC-

- 39 ,-

Table 17. Depr~ciation Ta le for Bric (2 )

llinge.

Years Depreciation ------------------------------------------------------------------1 5% 2 7

a i£ 5

10 15 2 25 3u ~5 ~o

13 16 23 2& 33 ~§ ~

: . 7 : : 1 : : ----------- -----------------------------------Table l S. De~reciation T~ le f r B r s, Gr n ~i

Far. Bui dings. r.. Ot ... er

ccordin~ to Con ition . . -------------------------------------------------_ Yea rs : Goe : F ir : Ba -----------------------------------------------------------------. . . . . . . . 1 10 12 14 2 12 15 17

4 14 1 2 16 21 2J

~ lo 23 25 2 2~ 2_,

7 22 2_, 32 g 24- .

32 35 9 26 35 ? 1 2& af -rl

11 3 '+4-12 32 Lt 3 •7

i~ 35 '+7 ,,, ~l 51 ~5 i- 55 .

1 . lo : 43 59 71 17 46 b3 77 15 4 67 .)

19 52 71 2 55 75 21

~l 79 22 (51

Se conti....uatio. on

(20) M'. s.

12-Zl·IM

(29) The weiThts were approximations resulting from judgments based on the observation of sales of the various grades, and

12-27-am

- 4o -

Continued-- Tana 18. Da-creciation Table for Barns, Granaries an_' other

Farm Buildings.

:Depreciation rate accordinR to Condition. .11 •

Years Good Fair Bad

R • • • .

64 6,

265 2 • . 70

• 73 27 76 28 • . 79 29 • • 62 30 .

•

Land Classification Index. On each fam there were various grades

or classes of land and the percentage of the good and poor grades

cn each farm influenoed the value per acre.

The percentage of each grade of land could be entered

into the multiple correlation equation, but not without increasing

the required calculations many fold. For this reason it was thought

feasible to reduce all of the grades to a more or less common

denominator and express their combined significance in one figure,

which was called the land classification index.

The land classification index was calculated y weighting

percenta7e of each class of land by a figure representing their

approximated relative value significance.

Table 19.

The weights used were:

Land Classification Index Computed.

• Grade of Land Weizht(29)

1. : Woods--not potentially tillable(3a) : 1/5 2. : • Woods—potentially tillable 1/2

3. • • Wild Hay land 3/4 . : Tillable : 1

c ========= C ti~:u3d-­T ~'tl e lo . De· reciation T ~ 1

Far Buildings.

: '3preci tion

- 4

for Barns, rar. ries anl other

r~te ocorii~g to C n ition . ~---------------------------------------------------

Years : Good : F&ir : ~a : -------------------------------------------------------------------~4 2'"" 2~ 27 2 29 30 -------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification In ex. On each far th r various gr es

or ~lasses of lan n t.~ perce ta e f ~~e _oo an poor ra"es

en e~ch far influe oed t e value er ~ere .

T' e peroenta of e~oh -ra~e of land co d be ent re

into the .~, ltiple ccrre_ation quati n, but t · i th t 1 ... re

t e requir"d calculati1..;ns ... an, folj . For this reason it

easi" le to reduce all of the a es to a ore or les co .on

deno .inator eY e ~ their c~ bin -: g if ic oe in o .e ... 1 r ,

as cal ei the 1 nd c assifioatic in~a •

T e 1 d. claosification in ex c lcul t... "" l ll"'

ch class of land by a f r r s er.tint) t r

a._ro. i ated relative v lue si. ific noe .

T e eig' ts use re :

Land Cla

g-~~~-2f _~~~---------------------------~! ~~~=~2 _______ _ 1. s --not otentially ti a le( 3 ) 1/5 2. oc s--~otentially ti~la le 1/2 3·. ild Hay land 3/4 4- : Till a 1 e : l :

(2~)--Th~--~i-~t;--~;~----;~;1;.-~i~~--;~;~-~~-:--;~~---------------·,a ed on th 0 o erva.tion f sales cf ti'l v = o s .....

Tab le 16 centIllustration:--

-

Grade Percent '"eight

Grade 1 ' . 10 : 2 Grade 2 : 10 . . 5 Grade 3 : 20 : 15 Grade 4 • 60 . : 6o

Cont. Land Classification 'Index 82

on data found in Minnesota Bulletin lb. 145. "l'he Cost of Producing 7innesota Farm Products."; Minnesota Bulletin No 19 "Cost of Milk Production"; Minnesota 1920 Census; and Crop Reporter, Dec. 1919. The wei7ht 3/4 Placed on wild hay land may seem a little large hut on the average this was good low land which could be tiled. It was not tiled, however, because the farmers found that especially in dry seasons the wild hay crop would compensate for the short crop of tame hay. Includes other not potentially tillable land which can be pastured.

(3v)

Productivity of Soil Index: The productivity index is a relative,

figured out on the basis of crop yields in Blue Earth County. The

average yield of all the crops grown in the county was calculated.

The index for each farm was the average percent that the average

crop yield of the fam waq to the average crop yield of the county.

In making the survey the yields for each crop on each farm were

obtained for as many years as possible. In most instances, yields

for at least three years were obtained.

Table 20. Illustration of Calculation of Productivity Index for One Farm.

Crops grown : Av Yield County Av . Percent of

Yield : County Av Yield

Corn • 65 Oats 55

4.s.23 134.7 41.26 15.2

Spring wheat : 18 12.53 143.5 91.5 Clover and timothy 2 • • • .......... ..... ............ 2.16

503.19 Productivity of soil index 125.80 .... .. -------------------- r -----

Tab le lB cont­Illustration:--

- 41 -

Grade Peroent e i ht -------------------------------------------------------------------Gr1:le 1 1 2 Grale 2 10 5 Graie 3 20 15 Gr;i.de 4 : 6 : 6 -----------------------r---------------------- --------------------( 2)) Cont . Li. Cla...,.,,.ific ti·n n ex B2

on data found i n Mi nnesota 1 etin :ro . 145. "The Co;:it of Pro..luoing "innesota Fs.rm Products . 11 ; innesota 1 et in ·o 19 "Cost of i L Production"; ··1nnesot 1:2 Ce sus; an Cr op Re orter, Dec . 1919. The weight 3/4 Placed on ild hay 1 n~ may see large rut on the aver 0e this as goo lo la.d .~ c be tile . It ,as not tilei, ho~ever, because the f rs found th3.t especi ally i n .iry seasons t• e wil ul cor neat e for the short or op of tai e _ay ·

() ) I clud~s other not potential y til ·le b a~ture .

Productivity of Soil In ex : T e roduc-tiv i ty L • 0 i a~iv

f i red out on the a~is of ro yi s in .lue Eart· Ccunty . T e

average yield of _l th 0 crops grown in th c~nty oa~culat ....

T.e inMex for each far ':Va the average ,.eroent t-t r e

cro yiel of the far r to the vera e c o yie f ounty .

In ~,a.kir.g t e survey the yields for each on e3.C ••

obtained for as any ye rs a~ pos i bl e . I .. o t inst . oe , ie_

for at lea t t.ree 3~r ~ere obta e ·

T le 2 . Illustratio .... of C lculati'"'. of Product ·vi ty I . e for One

Cro 8 i eld v . Per~ ent of o n i el : Co t v i 1

-------------------Y--------------~----------------·------ --------Corn 65 ~ ·. 23 13 ·7 O~ts 55 1.2' 1)3 · 2 S rin heat 1 12.53 1 ; .5

Clover ti .othy 2 : 2 .1· : 91.:) -------------------------------------------------------------------r ~tivity o oil i

-------------------------------------------------------------~-----

-42—

Distance to Market: The distance to market figure was obtained

'-'1- -..eking the farmer the question, how far is it to V:e town where

you market most of your -:,roduots.

The following five factors were then oonsidered in

multiple correlation:-

X11.- Value per acre corrected. as previously explaine1.

X 2 7.. 1919 depreciated cost of buildings per acre.

x3 ... Land classification index

X4 : Productivity of soil index

X5, Distance to market.

(31) The forecasting equation which resulted is

53.449+1.154 X2 4.787 x3 4.179 x/ — 3.7c x5

It is interesting to note some of the relationships as

evidenced by the equation. An increase in a dollar's worth of

buildings per acre increases the land value ..11.15 per acre. An

increase of one point in the land olassifioation index results in

a rise in the value per acre of t75. In this area the productivity

of soil index was the least significant factor studied. This index

merely indicates soil produotivity differences and most of the land

variation is indicated in the land classification index. An in-

crease of one point in this soil productivity index results in a

$.17 increase in the value per acre. The most interesting and yet

the most difficult relationship to study was that of distance to

market and value per acre. Coupled with this relati-nship is the

relative significance of the type of road and class of town. On

a farm which is on a dirt road and adjoining a Class Two town, elch

(31) See appendix for calnulation.

2 -

i u t 0

-14.3-

mile from town decreases the land value per acre 33.70. On the

average the state macalex% roads increased the adjacent land value

$21.92 per acre over the land adjacent to dirt roads. Class One

towns influenced the value per aore 312.82 per acre more than Class

Two towns.

Following are two illustrations of the use of the fore-

casting equation:

Farm No 14*

Farm sold in 1918 for 3150 per acre. on state road, "Class One" town.

X2 7. 1919 depreciated cost of buildings per acre 436.24

x3, Land classifica tion index 87

Productivity of soil index 96.6

X5

:- Distance tc na rket 9 miles

53:445 *1.154 7.2 1..787 x3 + .3.79x4 -3.70 x5

53.449+ 41.82 +68.469 +17.29 -33,30

',:t147.73 21.92 state road correction 12.82 "class one" town

3182.47 x .4584 1918 land value index

::;156.63 prediction; 3150 actual value

Farm :;o 107

Farm sold in 1919 for $135 per acre; en flirt road, "Class Two" town.

-2 1919 depreciated cost cf huildings $12.47

x3 Land classification index 75.62

x4 s Productivity of soil index 103.7

x5 Distance to Itarket 3 1/2 miles , solo ion •f -r ble en

Similar data on the balance of the 160 farms is in the appendix

x1

'2 21-4.

- 4-3 -

ro. to n er r o 3.7 . t

t t

r er ov r to

... u nc t r er 2 . 2 or

~ollo n r ... " 0 il u r 0 0 or -

io

r

1 0

l 1,.. c

n io

ro 1 of in

to r

53 . .... +1.1 2 +. 7 3 . .. 7, - 3 .

9+ 2 +6 7. 2~ -3 .

2 7 . 2

0

c to :r· t

1 on ._. c

2 J:t M

x1= 53.4554.1.154 x2 .7s7 x3 4.179X4 _3.70 X5

53.11-991L 14.39 It59.52. 4.3.g.56 -12.95

$137.96 prediction; $135 actual price.

Prediction by means of this equation involves a probable

error of $17.46 per acre. The two illustrations are chance selec-

tions, number 14 showing a farm with three corrected items, and

number 107, with no corrected items. The largest error in predict-

ion will be found in the forecasted value of farms which contain

other factors which have not yet been considered. For example, a

farm may have site value such as lake frontage or perhaps resident-

value due to being located in close proximity of Mankato or soe

other town. Corrections for these factors and some others will be

ascertained in a further investigation of the problem. With this

information'at hand it is hoped that the error in rediotion in

these extreme oases may be greatly reduced. Another reason for

error in some instances is due to the fact that we assume the land

price level is the same thrauzh out the whole year. This is oertai

to cause error in predicting the sale price of a farm which sold

at a time w'iich is far remote from the month in which the Wear. value

for the year occurs. It is simply a case of using the mean to rep-

resent the distribution of sales for one year. The exact error is

dependent on the standard deviation of the distribution. Finally,

Part of the error is due to imperfect market adjustment resulting

from the lack of organization in the land market and the bargaining

differential. The same grade of land does not always sell for the

same price at same time in the same market.

12.21-6M

- 44 -

X1 :::: 53.45::; + 1 .154X2 +• 77X3 +. 17 X4 ~ 3 · 7 X5

53. 499 -f 14 . 39 + 59 . 51 + 18. 56 -12 .95

$137 . 96 rediction; $135 ctual price .

Pre iction y e'.lns of th"s eq ation involves a pro e

error of ~17 . 46 er or . The t-o il ustrat ns ar hance s leo-

t i or.s, nUrJber l!+ sho vin a far it. thr«> correct ite s, nd

number 107' with no corrected t ms. The largest error i .. iot-....

ion '"lil~ be found in th forecast e valu of f., r .. ich contain

other factor .~ich have ~ot et e ~n consi r For ex e, a

f arr. i~ay have site sue aa 1~ · =~nt - or p erraps re i ent-

alu due t ~·n locate in close roxi ty of n'ato or

othe~ •own. Corr ctiQ s f = t e f ct r an o. e ot~->r il e

asc ert1.ined in a furtrer in stigati - . o t 1 ° pro e . ~·1 t •. t• i

inform tio t n · i t i o : ope th t t e arr r L • ~ e · i ti i •

these ev-t:r e .e o-~e .a. t y r due nc h '"' n f cr

error i o.: ins t -.... :. ces is :ue to tue f c t ~+ t 0 n _,,

price level is t. e sa .. e t rou h cu .+- •• o ye r . .hi i " .. to ca:.i 0 error in pr ictin the a e 'O:rice of f r ....

at a ti .. e ic is far r ot fro. t ,, .on~h ir "' ... "' t r. ~ "'

for t e ye oco r It is i. y a. c 0 u ir. an to

re ent thJ dis ri ion of s f o:: n e -:: . vao error 1

ependent o. t. 0 stan :: of t .. i tr· t on .

f ti "' rror is t i • O!'f t .... nt re ult ng

from t. ~ck of or ar.iz~t i on in th ~an r e n t 0 r inin

differential. The same grade of lan does not al a s sell fo r t he

same pr ic e at same time i n t he s ame market.

12 21·8'"4

u

CHAPTER VI.

CONCLUSION.

It has been shown that the formula furnishes a means by

rhich the most -prcbe:le land values in Blue Earth County can be

ascertained. The equation may be of much value in other sections

where conditions are-quite different but this does not necessarily

follow. Further investigation is needed in this phase of the

prol!lem.

The land equation is similar to other measures, in that

to ,easure with accuracy, the conditions must remain the see or

corrections :..ust ...ade in the measure to take into account the

change in conditions. A fifty-foot steel tape is only fifty feet

when the temperature is a certain degree. Then the temperature

rises, allowance in measuring must be made for the expansion. Like,-

wise, the land value measure worked cut in Llue arth County is only

accurate in territories in which conditions are similar, but slight

t.odifications may render the formula very useful in quite different

regions.

The formula is of particular practical imprtance where

scientific api,raisal of land is required. The land tax which is

based on a perdentage of the land v-lue, could be adminstered with

unerring equality, by use of the value equation. The present in-

Llstice and inequality in assessment which results in some land

being overvalued and some undervalued, would be eliminated. The

value of every farm would be determined with the elms yardstick,

the value equation.

2-21-iSkt

- 45 -

-~PT""'R rr . CO.IC u ro· .

It .as bee aho · that th for u. ur i . s a n

th<> o-t • :-ob~ ~l lan va ues i •• :1J.e E ... h c unty c- ,,e . T.e e u ti on 9. 'b of o: .. v 1 in ot. e eo ... io

con :tions r9 .. uite if f r nt ... 0 no• e e ily v . Furt· er i v stigat i o i s ne e1.o. i ... t i .... ...

T e lan e u :i n is sin:il r to Ot- r r , i t' t

to ea ure it: accuracy, t e con i i on or

-::arr ct ions .. ust . e . e in the . t into ccoun t .

n e in con iticns . A fifty-foot teel t is 0 i t t

h tl.i.6 t er" ure is rta.:.n e . is a, a lo· nee in e urin ... u t 0 th i. -

is , t. e n· va ... Ol' lu cu. y ... onl

ccurc..te in .... rritor i e c n.::.iti .. r L. r, .... t ~ i .. "

od :1.., .io . .ay n r .or 1 v r- u .&' ... l .L J. .L

r i ns .

T e for ul .... i 0 r +- .... 1 r

tif i.J i .. L .

J. 0

o . a rcent n lu co

e u lity , u u .-. i .e !.l lity l.u s r u 0 1 n ..

i t rv an

of eve r • OU e in it• ~ y r •i..,

+.. -ne value e uatio .

12·21•6M

- 46 -

Llany tax problems are linked up with a scientific analysis

of 1.1-rld value. Among these problems are many which have their

justice based, wholly or nartly on the theory of "benefit reoeived".

Vho receives the benefit is a question of land. value analysis. Case

'Dearing upon this point are many, the construction of new roads,

county ditches, irrigation and other reclamation projects, and.

special assessme,nts.

Peot.le whc participate in the land market, including farm

real-estate men and all °Veer buyers and sellers of land, are at

present in nee.:1 of a measure for the commodity in which they deal.

The land. value equation will serve the purpose.

The Federal Land Bank, other banks, mortgage companies,

insurance companies and others who loan money on farm land are in

need of a scientific measure of farm land values. If land values

can be meaeured more accurately, it is possible that lenders can

advance larger loans on land than heretofore, and at the same time

net incur any more or as much risk. The buyers of farm mortgages,

knowing that the valuation placed on the land. represents a scien-

tific valuation or its actual value and that it is a superior seour-

ity basis, may be willing to accept lower net yields on t.anir -n-

vestment, and this will operate tc lowering the interest rate to

the farmers on long-time credit.

In new sections of the county, many problems connected

with land. credit, such as the effect of clearing an acre of land on

land. value, can be solved by means of a value equation.

The Interstate Commerce Comn.ission and public utilities

12-21-em

- 46 -

:.iany t pro len.s ar __ 1n·r: • up ith a s ientifi ralysis

of land value . A .ong thecse pro 1 e ,s arP ·-9. y :'T'.ich !' ·e t. r

·ustice b-=>sed wholly or part y on th the ry o! "be "fit reo ve

ho receives t~e benefit is a question of la. va_ e ar.alysis . ~a e

bearing upon t:1is • oint ar~ .nany the construoti n o_ ne r a s,

county :litct~s, ir::-igation an ot .... er reole.mat ion rc~ects,

a ial ass .... ss .. ::nts .

People r.ho rticipate in the ., ... a~~ inolu i g f u..J.

re_l- 3sta te i...en and all ot· "r buy r a SPl era of anci, r t

present i . nee: cf measure r .... co 0 ity i n ic· t ey al. " . T e and value e uation ··i 9 rve +'h ,,_.

T e Federal La d. &.n: , oti1e.r ·an. , • crt ..., oc • a ies,

i surance coLpanies an_ o h rs c o n _oney n r an r n

need of a scientific ueasure of farm lan · lue . I 1

can be wea~ured ore c~ur tely, it is

adva~ce laxger 1 ans on lan' than herp

net incur any 0 -,o ..... or as uoh ri " .

no ing that th 0 v uation laced on th lan

e that a ....

n t th

rs of

v lu

ortga e

a o ie .-

tific va uation or it actual valu an t"iat it is s u :-ior s o· r -

ity asis, y be illin to acce t o er et yiel 0 t: 1 i..-

vest ... e.t , d this i ll oper te to lowerin t 1 t r :t 0

... e on lon - ti ere 'it . " ar .ers

I ne.v sec .... io .s of the ;.;O nty, n 0 1 r co . ct

. it lanj re it, e"c . a t .e .... f! ..,t cf c - of 1 n 0

1 nd v 0 can be ~, solv ean cf v ~U ti on .

The Inter ... tate Co erce Co is ion an . ., . U .1.1C utilities

- 47

ccemAssions adjust rates to the valuation of the company's property.

Scientific rate adjustment is dependent on having accurate value

equations.

The land value equation which was solved and presented in

this treatise is not the most refined piece of statistical work pos-

sible. It is only in its preliminary stages. Lore equations must

*es solved.to fit the various needs, many of which I have already

enumerated.

The real practical and scientific significance of the pres

entation is that it portrays a scientific solution of valuation

problems by meansAthe accurate mathematic° statistical logic*; that

it puts land valuation on a genuine scientific basis by an accurate (3.0

solution of an identity, the land value equation.

(32) Science arises from the discovery of Identity amidst Diversity The process may be described in different words, but our lang-uage must always ir.ply the presence of one common and necess-ary element. In every act of inference or scientific method we are engaged about certain identity, sameness, similarity, likeness, resemblance, analogy, equivalence, or equality aprarent between two objects. It is doubtful whether an en-tirely isolated phenomenon could present itself to cut notice, since there must always be some points of similarity between object and object. But in any case, an isolated phenomenon could be studied to no useful purpose. The whole value of science consists in the power which it cenfers upon us of applying* to one object the knowledge acquired from like object and it is only so far, therefore, as we can discover and reg.. ister resemblances, that we can turn our observations to ac-count. Nature is a spectadle continually exhibited to our senses, in which phenomena are mingled in oeabinatiene of endless variety and novelty. 7onder fixes the minis attention; memory stores up a record of each distinct impression; the powers of associa tion bring forth the record when the like is felt again. By the higher faculties of judgment and reasoning the mind ccm-pareS the new with the old, recognizes essential identity, even when disguised by diverse circumstances, and expects to find again what was before experienced. It must be the ground of all reasoning and inference that what is true of one thing

Karl Pearson Chancee of Death p ;05

- 47 -

c ....... issions ~ .. i~ust rate to the valu tion of t e cc. ny' rop rty .

Soientif ic rate adjustment is depen ent o

equations .

The land value e uation hie~ a~

avi:r. ccurat valu

n .. se te i .

this treitise is not the woMt ref · n 1 piwJ of st ti tic 1 orK o -

sibl 0 • It is only in its pr li~inary eta ea . c ... w e uat c .s

solve1.t fit t e various eods, ny cf .ic. I .. ve lr 'y

en· erated.

T' e

e tation is th

roble s l::y .. e

real

t it

l of.t

ractical a. "' ... ientific ei .ific nee of the ...

ortrays a so i ent fie so ution of r lu tio

~ ae~urat .athem ti o s t st'c lo io*;

t

t

it .. uts la:!d va_ 'a ti~!" o- ge uine scientific • ac~u t (S~)

solution of e~tity, the

()2)

ar .. u

-------------------------------------------------------------------* IZ·Zl-6M

- 4s -

will be true of its equiva lent, and that under careful as- certained co7nitions Nature repeats herself."

J Jevns Pr'nciples of Science p 1

Expressing economic relationships which cannot be def-

initely measured, as identities or in the form of equations has

received no little criticisth from some people. They think of

mathenlatical equations as being of no value except in expressing

exactitudes. Their LAsoonception is due to not understanding what

the L.e_bers 317 the equation represent. As in this instance the left

hand member of the equation represents not the exact market value (33)

of land but the i.ost probable market value. It is on this prin-

ciple of probable equality, the theory of ap:,roximations and prob-

ability that scientific land valuation must find its basis.

(33) In reality even ap7arent equality is rarely to be expected. More commonly experiments will give only probable equality, that is results will come so near to each other that the dif-ference may be ascribed to unimportant disturbing causes. Physicists often assume quantities to be equal provided that they fall within the limits of probable error of the processes employed. We cannot expect observations to agree with theory more closely than they agree with each other. as Newton re-marked of his investigations concerning Halley's Comet." W S Jevons Principles of Science p 480.

AZ_

- l.j.

il"' 't true of its e uiva 1 ... t, d th tun~ r certaine· o~r. itions . tur r ~ts er lf.

r ... u ...

J J v · Pr~ncipJes of SG i n;e ~ 1

E. res"'· ng econo ic rel tion "ii . c cs- n ot e

ir.itely ea ure , as i entiti s or in t for, of qua ti ~:r.

r c ,iv .... n"" itt ..... e cri 'ci m fro s o e .. eople . th 0

athe .. tival equations

Their ... s .... onception is d1 0 ""o not u ersta

f -

t e .e .. .1 rs of t .e eq at io r pr in t is i .st nee the 1

h of the e uation r res ts n t

cf ., n . ut the .. ost 1 roba le .. ar·~ t . .... ue .

t "( " r t v -Ue

()3) It l. on t i . 1 .-

Ci le of ro 1 1° equality, th9 t" 3ory 0 p i ons ro -

a ility that

)~ )

MEI 49 •••

- CALCULATION OF THE COEFFICI:7TF CORRELATIO:', 7T C.

Variables Standard Deviations Means

X1, Value per Acre . 1,_ 3.495763 : mi.: 142.4162. X2: Cost of Bldgs per acre 2 4.095649 . 212 -_- 15.45216

X3 - - Land Classification Index: 3 -_, 4.397174 : 2s3 = 86.4c)367 74 . Productivity Index 4--- 3.977397 : m14. = 99.586368 X__ = Distance to Market i 5 = 2.2190138 i 2i5 z 3.978048

Zero Order Coefficients of Correlation. 1.

2 + .507972

2. 3. 4.

3 + •149009 : +.16654021

4 4. .2501445 + . 2190054 + .2071274

5 — .386969 ; —.1490m : _ .2576383 .0770776

- 49 -

T. CALCJ AT I OJ OF T.. COEFFIC :'T ""' CO - ATIO , - .., •

V riablcs Stand.9.rd Devi ti ns e s -------------------------------------------------------------------X1: Value per Aore . . . .. 2 ::. Cost of Bldgs per .:.ere 2::. 4 . 0;56+9

x3 -=- Land Ola sificatio In ex : 3::. 4 . 3;717+

. . .

X4 ::. P od.uctivity In ex 4:: 3 · 77397 . . . .

1.:: 1+2. +l 1

·2-:; 15. l 5216

3 :: 6. 1v367

- ;I • 5 36

_2:_~:=~=-~~-~~-==:~~: _______ i ______ ~~-=~=~--=~=-i __ 2_: __ ~~~~-~---ero 0r"er Co fficiPnts o orre, +i o .

1 . 2. 3. ';-, -------------------------------------------------------------------2 +. 5.')7972

3 + .4490 ?

4 l-. 25 1448

+ .1665+ 21

+ . 21Sv 5+ + . 2071274

5 - . 3 ·6;65 : - .14 111 : - . 2_7 3 3 - . 077 776 -------------------------------------------------------------------

: 35 —.2878383 : .95768

— . :',770776

.57372

.98603

: .93883

34-1..2.07127

50

!.:eans . ...

T-.ble I.

Standard Deviations ....:.

Coefficient of Correlation.

: (3.495763) Class 1 142.+11 :1 Intervals : 2 .1. .507972

: (34-.957 ) units

: (4. x35649) Class 2 15.45216 :2 Int ervals : 13 +.4490C9

: (12. 2 6 ) units

: (4.397174) 01a3c 6.1+0367 :3 Int ?rvals : 14+ .250148

: (13.191 ) units

: (3.577394 ) Class 4 99.588368 :4 Intervals : 15..386969

(15.909 ) units • •Ir

: (2. 2150138) C1'33 5 3.97804-8 :5 Intervals 23 +.16654021

: (2.215 ) units +—

2 + . 2190054

25 — .14-90111

: .86137

4

: .69352

: .96820

.92209 •

I. -------------y----------------------T---------------------T--------

Co ffici t · . T"evi ~tions . of Cor el tion.

ns St n r

-------------·----------------------·---------------------·--------2+ ·') .J 972 6137 1 14-2.4-lSl

(3.43?763) Claes :1 Int

(34.)57 ) units -------------+----------------------~---------------------T--------1

2 :2 (12.2 .... 6

) Cla Int rv

) unit ls 13 + . 449 3 2

-------------~----------------------+---------------------

3 6. Cl

t . ~6o2v

-------------~----------------------+---------------------T--------

4 9,, . 5.., .... 36 ) I

) 15 - .3 . 922

-------------~----------------------~---------------------~--------

5 3. 97 (~ . 21

:5 2 . 219

-------------+-------

-138) Cl I..t 23 +· 665 .9 3

-------------~---------------------~--------

:---------------------~--------

25 - .1 111

. . .---------------------·--------4 +· 2 7127 7 31

. .

.---------------------~--------

35 - . 2 7 3 3 . . .--------------------- --------

45 - · 7 77' 7 2

-------------~----------------------~=~===================~========

12 21-e

- 51-

Table II.

Coef of Cor-:Product term :Numerator :Coef of Correla-: rlation : Numerator : and • ticn (Zero OrIar): :tenoinator:Firet Orler

:4..1450310 : .911790 : .3112756 : .8517484 :4.047583 .7542

5606

+ .4159 : .94

54692

:4..138896 .840455

• 9195 +:80339736

• 333195 • 81037 .36'412

: 4 :_.0615

933436

651 :4.337625 • .883067

7728 : .85706 : .11

54086

: .823905

:443971:7 : .947199 :4.15/142

9 : .87413 • On4810 .85106

•4. 220318 . : .919342 : .367689 .96314

:4.0195720

: .892767

r12.5 ..493874

r15.2 -.365454 .3654 .9303

• +.059877 r25.1 .9582 •

r12.4 +.475721 ••

.E774 • •• •

• • r14.2 4.165262 .9862

• r24.1 4.110241 .9939

•

r12.3 4.451687 • .8707

• •

r13.2 4.429055 •

• .9032

•

•

r23.1 -.07362 • .9963

13.5 4.3E2332 .9239 • •

15.3-.301187 .9535

• 35.1 -.138469 .9903

•

•

• 13.4 4.419338

• .5077

. • 14.3 4.173767 •

• .9336 •

. I. 34.1 4.109593 .9939

• •

14.5 4.239647 .9708 .

• • • 15.4 --.330900 •: .9245 • •

• • 45.1 4 . 022088 • .9957

4.057662

-.0756934

• •

134.449009 4.0518118

+.093002

4.112317

14 4.2501448;

34 4.2071274:

124.507972

15 -.336969

25 _.149on.i; -.195694

12 +.507372 +.054783

14 +.250144E: +.111248

244.2190054! +.127066

12 +.507372 : +.074777

13 +.449009 ! +.084597

23 +.166540 ' +.228083

13 +.443009 : 4.111384

15-.336969• -.129241

35 • -.287883 • _.173752 •

114. . 25011448, 3. 029 826

15 - .336969 : -.019260 5 -.0770776: -.096798

•

- 5 -

'3.ble II. -------------------------------------------------------------------Co 0 f of Cor- :Product t r : :Tu .era. tor : Coe " C rr el -: r- 1 a ion : u er tor : n : ticn ; V ! - 4"' (Zero Orj3r) : :Deno inator : ir t Or r : -------------------------------------------------------------------12 -t. 507972 + • 057662

15 - . )&6:65 : - . r.756 34 25 .

-· 4/vlll : _ .155694

12 +. 5 -7~72 : + . 0511-7&.3

14 +. 250144-s ~ + . 11124

24 -+ • 219v054: + .127 66

12 +. 5...,7,72 +. 074777

13 + .4 I 003 +. o 1-4-5 .. a 2) + . 16~:;

13 + . 4.l.;./ ~ . l 384

5 - . 3~696~ - . 12924-. .,5 - . 2 7 .... 3 ; _ .173752

13 + .449"':; +· -51 18

l i- • 25 1 I g: 4- • ~ 3 -..2

3..;. ... . 2 7127' : + . 112317

TZ 21...eM

r12 .5 + . 4-_, -z...,74

rl3 . 2 - • 365454

r25 . 1 + · 05'; '"77

r 12 . 4 + . 4 7 7 21

r l • 2 4 . 165262

r 21+ .1 -1. 1102'4-1

1 • ,I -4-. 4 1 ...,7

13 . 2 f· ~ 55

r23 . 1 - . 79;6

03-. ,, .99 2

. s7 7

. _, 32

l . 5 +• 2332 23

) . - · 3 _1

5 1 - .13 '69

3·' +. ·133

1 • +. 7,,, "7

3

~ . 1 .+ • 22 "'

,.. • ..I/)

,, 3

77

.9 36

• _.,39

• ,, 2

.9.,,, 7

Tab le II continued. Coef of Car-: Product : :Iumerator :Coef relation Term : and : (Zero Order): Numerator

of Correla-: tion

: Denominator: Fir 3t Order :

23.5 +.130571 .9914

25.3 -.1c7c36 .9942

35.2 -.269761 .9 629

23.4 + .126946 .9918

24.3 t.151272 .9815

34.2 +.177378 .9541

24.5 + 21(+91 • .9776 •

25.4 - 135823 • .9907

45.2 -.046063 .9989

• 34.5 +.193691 • .9810

•

35.4 -.276732 .9603 •

45.3 -.o3.1633 • •999e 4 ••••• 0.111.111.

64 123 982 23 1-.1665402! +.042891

25 - .149oni; -.047936

35 -.2&763a3: -.024816

•

:

: : :

23 + .166542: + .045362 24 + .2190054: +.034495 34 + .2071274: + • 036473

• .9 .131075 .944301 • .26302? : .975316

4.121178

:+• • .954555

1s4 o • .964, 1.'1 06 • • •

24 +.2150o54: +.011485 25 -.1490111: - .016880 45 -.0770776: - .032634

:+.207520 65883

.132131 • .972812 : .64443 -.964821

+.184942 • .954E26 .271874 • .975394 _•01 8

+.2071274.: .022185

35- .2a78383: - .015901.

45 - .3770776: - .73963.9

:

:

:

:

:

: 4

2 -

_ 1 II n n -----------------------------------------o Ccr-:

tion : e o ,,,. r) :

2; t . 2 91

25 - .1 1: - . 79

35 - . 2 7 3 3: - . 1

23 + . 16

2 +.

3 +·

2 : -t • ~ 5 62

+. 03 ..-5

+. 3 73

. • 2 7 27 I: t • . .

.... ::>- · 2 7 3 3: - . . 5 - . 77 77 , : - . -961

------------T------------

r on

r:

. -. I A

-----------------------------------. . . . ; .

. 3 - .

35.2

5.

'5 · 2 - •

35 .

5.

.9

---------------- -----------

-53-

Table III.

Coef of Corre-: la.tion of • First Order :

Product Term

Numerator

: Numerator : and

:Denominator:

Coef of Correia-: tion •

Second Order

12.3 +.491687

15.3 -.301167

25.3 -.107036

.5 +.493874

.5 +.239647

.5+.210491

+ .032237 - .052628 -.148089

4. 050443

+.103956 4..118355

.459450

.243

.9479 9

5 .8 .041053

r 83 0212

9444.

934

031 4 : 54

+.1356e1 .84992 • . 21 b

013

12.53 4.4E4667 .3747

15.23 -.287136

25.13 4.049448

12.45 4.467234 : 8841

14.25 4-.159650

24.15 4.109164

0

12

14

24

12.4 4 .479723. 13.4 .419338 23.4 +.126946

13.4 +.419338 15.4- .380900 35.4 -.278732

13.5 +.382332 14.5 4 • 239647 34,5 +.193691

23.4 4 .126946 25.4- .135823 35.4- .2i78732:

23. 5 + .130571 ;

24. 5 4.. 2101491

34. 5 4 .193691

-1-.053222

4 .o60856

4.201165

▪ .1063.6;

-.116162

_.159725

4-.046417 +.,•;7+054

+.091624

+.037658

-.035363

-.017242

+.040770

4-0025290

+.027484

4..426490 .900250 : 12.34 4 .473753 .358440 : 13.24 4.43.1902 .870205 : .074219: 23.3.4 -.09319 .7 15 :

_ .264016 : 7E-75.TET :

.313169 :

.667797 15.34- .302889 13.54 4- . 3 527 4 8

.11 00 : 35.14-.141815

.6 91.9 •

+ .335915 : 13.45 4.352720 .952354 : +: off 14.35-..182704

rr- •

.90,45 • 23A.251

2 : ._ : 34.15 +.113796 . 9 ;2

• 4 : .1 40

. 92089088 23. • 093642. • 1-,

: 54 -1- 0;

: 25.34 -.105457 .2;14c0 • _ -FF-d-r • 35.54 -.266126 . ,,2570 •

4.1.91.3191 : 23.45 4.093637 .959025 : 4 .185201 : 24.35 4 .190425 .972563 :

34.25 4.171490 .9o9192 :

. • •

•

.8607

.9356

.9533.

.9832

.9956

.9944

.983.7

- 53 -

To.ble III. --------------------------------------------------------------------Coef of Corre- : Product : rumerator : Coe vf Co rel - : l.;1.tion of : Ter : an : tion 1- r ~irst Or 'er : N erator :Denor. i ns.tor: Secon 0 ~·er : -------------------------------------------------------------------12. 3 + . 4916 7 : -4- • 032237

15. 3 - • 3 11 7 : - . 05262

25 . 3 -· l 7 36 : - . 148089 . . . 12 . 5 + .493874 : 4- • c5 43

14. 5 + .239647 ~ + .103956

24 . 5 +. 21u+1;11 . : + . 11 355

12. 4 + • 4 79721 : +· 053222

13 , 4 + . 419338 ~ . 0605)6

23 . 4 + . 1269 6 +. 201165

13.4- + . 41933g : + .1 616::

15. 4- - . 3 0$10 : - .1160 2

3 5. 4 - • 27 732 : - .15 725

13 . 5 + . 3 2332 .

6+17 : -+- •

l +. 5 4-. 2396+ 7 . : + • 7+ 5

3 4. 5 + • 1) .3691 .

9162q. . . + .

. 23 • 4 -4- . 126 46 : +. v37 ~o . 25 . '+ - . 135 23 : - . C.353 J

35 . + - . 207:,732; - . 01721.r2

. 3. 5 + . 13 :i71 ; + • v 770

. 211- . 5 + . 21c491 ; + 0252

34. 5 -+ .193691 ~ -t- . 27 S4-

. . .

+ . ~~24~ . 9 79 9 . 24-.:..~5~

- • 1565 '(, i- • 0+1053

. 53 212

: .12 . i:;3 -+ . 4 .667

15 · 23 - • 2 7136

25 . l) + • .,.4 '+4c

12.'+5 + . !4-672>

14. 2? + . 15,;65

24 . 15 +.l /164

1 2 . 3'+ 4- • 7) 7?

i 3 , 2+ +• 1T119 2

23 . l - • v 31 _,

13 · 5 +. 3527

15. 3 - . 3 2~ ,,

35 . 1..,. - . 1+1 15

1

. 5 7

.935'

.9531

~~-- : l ) . , +. 52720

14 . 3.:> +·12, . ,,32

34- . 15 + l l) 7,, 6

57

J5 · .J -. 26612'

23 . 5 ../-. 3'37

241" . 3, + . 1 v+-23

3'+· 25 -f. 171~9

--------------------------------------------------------------------1Z-21-8M

- -

Teole IV.

Coef of Corre- : Product : Numerator : Coef of Correla- : laticn of • Term : and tion Second Order : :Tumerator :Denominator: Third Order

12.35 +.484667: +.0314.791 12.435 +.466092 • .8847 .44520 6 + . 97

114,35 +.182704 +.092292 •. : 14.235 4.105290 •9944 + .090

69412

.8582 24.35 +.190425 : +.092292

• • • . 05 913 3 24.135 4.114107 0005

13.54 +.352748: +.343752 : . 0c o :

: 13.254 .351048 .9363 . 80209 12.514. 4..14-6723)4- : 4..033031 : 14. 3/4-203 • : i 12.35-i- 4.466141 4- :9 31'48

23.54 4. • 093614-1 +.1.64815 . 0 11 • 4 : : •

23.154-- .086045 .6271 3

15.34 , - .302889 :- .049960 _ 25232 _9 : : 15.234-.286808 .9574 ..875768

12.34 +.473753 +.0319+1 *41312 : 12.534 4.4.66163 .947762

25.34 -.105457 ; -.1.43494 4 807 : 25.134 • 014.531J4. 39,5

Table IV. --------------------------------------------------------- ----------Coef of Co ... re- : Product : T era tor : Co f of ""or ls.- : - -lat ion of : Terw : and : tion : l-r2 Seconl Order : :r er ·tor : Denominator : Th· r r ' r : --------------------------------------------------------------------12.35 +. 484667 +. 34791 : + .4-i+2 z6

: • 965207 12.435 +.+66092 7

14.35 +-1&2704 +. v:;2292 : + . o~o 12 : . 55 692 1 . 2 3 5 + .1v529

24. 35 + .19 425 +• 092292 : =+ .o~blI2 : • g 0005 24.135 ..J. .1141 7 .

13. 54 -+-• 352748 . 3 ~ .... 6

13. 25Lt -f • 3?10to + · .5752 . -+ • "'2 ' • b 0209

12. 54 + . +6723+ 33031 : + .4 24202 2. 35-r ..,. . .,.661 l +• : . 3145~ .. . 23 . 54 -1- • v93 '41 + .1.64515 : _ . oz11~ 23 .154 - • oe6o4, : • 271 3

:

15. 34 - • 3 28 9 : - . 049.;60 : - . 252·l2~ 15.2 . 875760

12. 34 +. 473753 : + . ..,31341 : + .4-41812 12.5)+ +. 661S3 : • 47762

25.34- -. 1 5+57 : - .14)4-~+ : ..,. .023 2Z : .s3;,; s 25.13~ -I • ..n.;)14

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-55—

l'tanlard Deviations. 6 1.2345= 314.957 17.7.;?; Ylerf4.5 Yl-r13.45 YI-4.2.345

= 34.957 (.92209)(•9708)(9356)(.ss47) = 34.957 (.7409) =25.899 (.674489) $17.468 Probable error.

6 2.13 5 t 12.286 (1:45 Y1:74:75 11-43.45

12.286 (.9888)(5776)(9956)(.8847)

12.286 (.8513)

4.0.459

6 3.1245 = 13.191 1-r35 1-r 11:;317:5 11-43.45 Y1-43.245 =13.191 (.95768)(.5956)(.9810)(.9363)

=13.151 (.37576)

=11.552

6 4.1235 = ri_r35 y1=i3::5 )(37=q2.47:35 yi=447235 =15.909 (.99702)(.9610)(.9817)(.9944)

=15.909 (.95479) =15.189

6 5.123, a. 2.219 11—ri5 fi-Trar5.4 11-45.34 Yier15.234

=2.215 (.95702)(.9603)(.5944)(9574)

7.2.219 (.9114)

- 5::> -

t ' rd Deviations .

6 1. 23 1-5 ~ 34 . 957 r l - rf5 Yi-rf~ . :5 Yi-rf3 .4::; (i-rr2. 3 5

: 3~ . 957 ( . ~2209)( . 9708)(,. /6)(.6 ~7)

=' 34. _,:;7 ( . 74 )

=- 25 . 89_, ( . 67'"1"1+"'9) 17 .465 Pro 1 error.

0 2. 3 1~5 -: 12. 2 6 f l-r~5 Ji-r~+ . 5 Yi-r~).' :> l -r12 . 3 5

::: 12. 2u6 ( , )(577) 9956)( , 0 +7)

": 12. 206 ( . o'.)13)

--1 . 459

Q 3 . 12'.5 = 13 . 191 Yl-r5::> }l- ~ · :5 fl-r~) · ' .J 1- rl

=. l.) . 1~1 ( . /;76) .9 ;6)( . 1 )( . .., .. /3

=13 . 1.Jl (._7576

~ 5 ·-

. lv)

• 3 Yi-rr . 235

(.9_,..-')

~15 . 1s9

0 5.123 ' = 2 . 219 Y l -rg5 Y1-r~:.;- 1-r 2.J · - • 2.> :: 2 • 21 ( . ,. _, 7 2 )( • 9 6 3 )( • ) _, ;) l

;.2 . 219 . ';11)

=2. 022

2-21-84

b12.345 r12.3'+5 i 2.1345

Coefficients of Regression.

- 56

.466o --25:j5--- 10.459 • .466o (2.4762) • 1.1539

1:13.245 r13.245 1112145— a 3.3.245 .3510

—25.552 gaa___

11

b14.235 2

1)15.234 z

• .3510 • .7869

r14.235

.1052

= .1052 = .17,37

61L234— r15.234 -W3.1234

2.022

= .2886 (12.8036)

(2.2419)

41:2:245__ 44.1245

- 15.185 (1.7051)

• 3.6991

- 56 -

Coefficients of Re~r 0 '"'ion •

:::

. 466v --~5 ~9~---1 .+59

· .466 ----------(2.4762) ::. 1 . 1539

A'" 1 2 4 ''~ bl3 . 245 - rl3 . 245 _y __ .:.,_~t2---- 6 3 .12<t5 - . 3510 _gs.:._ ---

1i.ss2

:: . 3510 (2 . 2419) :: • 7869

:: .1 52

-:: .1 52

- .17537

-4-lJ.23~ --0 .12+5 ..,- ,-.

--· .:..2 ... ---15.169

(1 .7 51)

13. 23:+ ::: r 1 .... 23 1. --~lJ.2 ?.---, . 't 6 5 .1 23rt

.238 (l? . ... 6)

JZ .. 21-IM

-57—

::u7tiple Correlation Equation.

1.1539x2+ .7869x3 .17937x4-3.6991x5 = 142.4-18 +1.1539(x2-15.4521) 4.7669(X3 - SS.4036) +.17937

(x4-99.5883) —3.6993. (x5 — 3.978)

342.418 1.1539x— 17.8301 + .7869x .z — 67.9909+.2.7937x4 —17.86315 3.6991x5 + 14.7150 .

X1 4 53.149 .1.1739x2 + .7869x3 .17937x4. —3.699x5

Coefficient of Multiple Correlation.

02 1.234-5r: 611-- (1-R21(2345))

(25.899)24 (34.957)2(1—g)

670.753 4 1221.99 (1-R2 )

670.758 = 1221.99 1221.99R2

1221.9982 7 1221.99- 673.758

1221.99P2= 551.232

R2_ 551.232 - 1221.99

R2 r-- .451093

R = .67163

Sts.ndard deviation of original sales

tandard error cf corrected sales

Therefore .7353 R including corrections wade for value per.

road and size of town.

Then-254M5--: 'Z',25.889 38• 219 Z38.219

.6776

'2.21-66,

- 57 -

u tip e Correl tion E uati n.

X1 = l . 1539x2 + . 7669x3 + . 17 37x4 - 3. 6 ,,lx5 X1:: 142. 41& +l .1539(X2- 15 .4521) +. 71::>69(X3 - l' .

1+ 36) + •17937 (X4- ..1 .5 3) - 3· 69..11 (Xi; - 3· 1 )

./

1 = 142 . l+l l .153-9X2- 17 . 3 l + . 7669 3 - 67 • 909+· 17937 4 - 17 · 31, _ 3. 699115 + l'+.71, .

xl .::: 53 . 4!4-9 .+- l . 1539X2 + . 7s69X3 +•17937X4 - J . 69 ~5

Coefficient of ·ultip e Corr l ati n.

I t +. 2345 :: 6( (l-R21 (23'+5))

I (25 . 99) 2~ (34 . 957) 2(1-R2 )

670 . 75~ ~ 1221 . 99 (1- R2)

670 . 75 ~ 1221 . 9 1221 .99 2

1221 • ..19R2 = 1221 . 95 - 67 .... . 756

1221 . 99n2~ 551 . 232 R2 ~ 551 . 2-22

1221. 99

r2 = . 451093

R =- . 67163 t ndar .:~vi tion

ta r_ error cf oor~ ~ct

l a .l-' ' 219 T-..en- 2 ~-3 . 21 -- - .

T ere or . 7 53 =- " ~cl· 1 cor!' c-+- o. r :;le r .

ro ~· ize oft n .

•

77 ,

Schedule: Original : price

Number : per acre

Year of

Sale

: : :

Reduced to 1919 basis

: :

Corrected : for

roads :

1 : 0190.00 : 1919 : ;;190.00 : .:168.08: 2 : 185.00 : 1919 : 185.00 : 163.08: 3 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08: 4 : 185.00 : 1919 : 185.00 : 163.08: 5 : 169.60 : 1919 : 169.60 : 147.68: 6 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 103.08: 7 : 130.00 : 1919 : 130.00 : 106.08: 8 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 128.08: 9 : 300.00 : 1918 : 349.50 : 327.58: 10 : 133.33 : 1918 : 155.33 : 133.41: 11 : 137.50 : 1917 : 173.70 : 151.76: 12 125.00 : 1917 : 157.91 : 135.99: 13 156.00 : 1917 : 197.07 : 175.15: 14 150.00 : 1918 : 189.49 : 167.57: 15 160.00 : 1917 : 202.12 : 180.20: 16 80.00 : 1916 : 109.84 : 87.92: 17 85.46 : 1916 : 117.33 : 95.41: 18 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 128.08: 19 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 103.08: 20 205.00 : 1919 : 205.00 : 183.08: 21 : 200.00 : 1919 : 200.00 : 178.08: 22 60.00 : 1917 : 75.79 : 6:4.97: 23 : 105.00 : 1919 : 105.00 : : 24 : 140.00 : 1915 : 192.21 : : 25 : 94.28 : 1918 : 109.84 : 26 : 100.00 : 1916 : 137.29 : : 27 : 111.32 : 1916 : 152.84 : : 28 . 146.34 : 1916 : 200.92 : : 29 • 45.00 : 1917 : 56.84 : : 30 : 120.73 : 1916 : 165.76 : : 31 42.50 : 1916 : 58.35 : : 32 37.50 : 1916 : 51.49 : 33 101.26 : 1916 : 139.02 : 34 54.37 : 1916 : 74.65 : 35 65.00 : 1917 : 82.11 : 36 100.00 : 1917 : 126.33 :

.455.26: 022.36 : 97.50 : 125.80 : 150.26: 17.60 100.00 : 92.70 140.26: 24.04 : 94.28 : 124.80 : 150.26: 29.26 : 95.00 : 87.27 : 134.86: 34.08 : 56.78 : 87.73 90.26: none : 100.00 : 95.26: 12.25 : 72.50 :

1%:g :

115.26: none 80.00 : 101.00 : 314.76: 82.98 100.00 : 122.79 : 120.59: 43.47 100.00 : 100.00 : 138.96: 123.17: 91.69 39.35

35.65 90.00 : :

90.60 129.96

: :

162.33: 16.10 93.75 : 130.41 154.75: 36.24 87.00 : 96.60 : 167.38: 22.68 80.25 . 122.00 : 75.10: none 69.22 • 106.46 : 82.59: 115.26: . none7

8r).81 97.50

• 125.00 109.00

: :

90.26: 170.26:

1:2:7:: 92.18:

8.53 26.40 35.52 none 13.58 :

55.398

85.22 72.25 57.55

61.54 128.76 122.00 78.82 81.69

: :

: 179.39: none : 91.25 : 139.64 • 97.02: none : 52.91 92.11 • 124.47: 140.02:

13.23 7.02 : 997.:::

• 103.60 91.80

: :

188.10: none :• 90.22 109.94 44.02: none 30 : 73.00 152.94: 45.53: 77.50

26.77 : 87.06 : :

116.43 100.269

8 :

38.67: 11.86g : 48.00 4 :

126.20: none : 74.66 : 128.39 : 61.83: 69.29:

15.28 non©

: :

60.00 96.19

: :

82.04 118.63

: :

113.51: 8.68 78.03 : 91.86 :

3 3 3 2 11 7 3.1 2

7 1 1 3 8 3 9 1 11- 7 6

7 1 -i 3 7i- 8 3 :1- 11 2- 5 6 j 3 9 9

111- 6 6 5 7 -.1-

Corrected :1919 derreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance for :cost of buildings:classification: of soil : to towns per acre • . Index : Index : Market

LAND VALUATION DATA FOR THE 160 FARMS, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL PRICE, CORRECTIONS IND VALUE F1CTOR3. LAND VA.LU.AT ION DAT.A FOR THE 160 FARMS, INCLUDING THE ORIGIN.AL PRICE, CORRECTIONS AND VALUE FACTORS. - -

Schedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : Corrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Dista.nce :price : of : to 1919 : for : for :cost of buildings:classification: of soil . to .

Number : per acre : Sale : basis : roads : tovms : per acre : Index . Index : Jlarket . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 : $190.00 : 1919 : $190.00 : $168 .08: ~155.26: $22 .36 : . 97.50 . 125.80 : 3 . 2 : 185.00 : 1919 : 185.00 : 163.08: 150.26: 17.60 : 100.00 : 92.70 : 3 3 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08: 140.26: 24.04 . 94.28 . 124.80 : 3 . . 4 : 185.00 : 1919 : 185.00 : 163.08: 150.26: 29.26 : 95.00 : 87.27 : 2 5 : 169.60 : 1919 : 169.60 : 147.68: 134.86: 34.08 : 56.78 : 87.73 . 11 . 6 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 103.08: 90.26: none : 100.00 : 103.67 : 7 7 : 130.00 : 1919 : 130.00 : 108.08: 95.26: 12.25 : 72.50 : 93.80 : 3t 8 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 128 .08: 115.26: none : 80.00 : 101.00 : 7 9 : 300 .oo : 1918 : 349.50 : 327.58: 314.76: 82.98 : 100.00 : 122.79 : l

10 : 133.33 : 1918 : 155.33 : 133.41: 120.59: 43.47 : 100.00 : 100.00 : 1 11 : 137.50 : 1917 : 173.70 : 151.78: 138.96: 35.65 : 90.00 : 90.60 : 3 12 : 125.00 : 1917 : 157.91 : 135.99: 123.17: 39.35 . 91.69 : 129.96 : 8 . 13 : 156.00 : 1917 : 197.07 : 175.15: 162.33: 16.10 : 93.75 . 130.41 . 3 . . 14 : 150.00 : 1918 : 189.49 : 167.57: 154.75: 36.24 : 87.00 : 96.60 : 9 15 : 160.00 : 1917 : 202.12 : 180 .20: 167.38: 22.68 . 80.25 : 122.00 : it . 16 : 80.00 : 1916 : 109.84 : 87.92: 75.10: none . 69.22 . 106.46 : 7 . . 17 85.46 : 1916 : 117.33 : 95.41: 82.59: 10.07 80.81 125.00

61 \J1 : : : : (.

18 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 128.08: 115.26: none . 97.50 : 109.00 . II I . .

19 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 103.08: 90.26: 8.53 : 55.39 : 61.54 . 7 . 20 : 205.00 : 1919 : 205.00 : 183.08: 170.26: 26.40 : 88.87 : 128.76 : it 21 : 200.00 : 1919 : 200 .oo : 178 .08: 165.26: 35.52 . 85.~2 : 122.00 : 3 . 22 : 60.oo : 1917 : 75.79 : 62.97: 62.97: none . 72.25 : 78.82 : 7 , . 23 : 105.00 : 1919 : 105.00 : : 92.18: 13.58 : 57.55 : 81.69 : 8

140.00 : 1916 : 192.21 : : 179.39: none : 91.25 : 139.64 . 1i t .

25 . 94.28 : 1918 : 109.84 : : 97.02: none : 52.91 : 92.11 : . 26 . 100.00 : 1916 : 137.29 : : 12A.47: 13.23 : 95.62 : 103.60 : 5 . 27 : 111.32 : 1916 : 152.84 : : 140.02: 7.02 : 91.88 : 91.80 : ot 28 . 146.34 : 1916 : 200 .92 : : 188.10: none : 90.22 . 109.94 . 3 . . . 29 . 45.00 : 1917 : 56.84 : : 44.02: none : 35.00 : 73.00 : 9 . 30 : 120.73 : 1916 : 165.76 : : 152.94: 26.77 : 87.06 : 116.43 : 9 31 : 42.50 : 1916 : 58 .35 : : 45.531 11.86 . 77.50 : l00.26 : 8 . 32 : 37.50 : 1916 : 51.49 : : 38.67: none : 48.00 : 97.41 : 11 t 33 101.26 : 1916 : 139.02 : 126.20: n one . 74.66 . 128.39 . 6 : : . . . 34 . 54.37 : 1916 : 74.65 : : 61.83: . 15.28 : 60.00 : 82.04 : 6 35 : 65.00 : 1917 : 82.11 : : 69.29: none : 96.19 : 118.63 : 5 36 100.00 : 1917 : 126.33 : : 113.51: 8.68 : 78 .03 : 91.86 :

7t J :

continued

Schedule:

Number :

Original price

per acre

: Year : of : Sale

: : :

Reduced to 1919 baeie

: : :

Corrected for

roads

: : :

Corrected for tovms

:1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance :cost of buildings:classification: of soil : : per acre • . Index : Index : Market

37 ..„1.08.69 : 1918 : C126.62 : .,;113.80 C 9.26 72.98 115.01 : 8 38 225.00 : 1918 : 262.12 : 249.30 : 49.53 79.50 75.57 : 1 39 '130.00 : 1919 : 130.00 : 117.18 : 21.59 84.50 : 81.62 8 40 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 137.18 : 9.38 83.12 : 134.90 : 3 41 112.50 : 1919 : 112.50 : 99.68 : none 50.75 : 82.94 : 3 42 239.72 : 1919 : 239.72 : 226.90 : 22.06 89.03 : 124.40 1 43 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 112.18 : 14.81 93.85 : 100.15 5 44 135.00 :1919 135.00 : 122.18 : 5.60 78.62 : 92.18 5 45 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 137.18 : 3.79 75.00 112.25 : 7 46 152.50 : 1919 : 152.50 : 139.58 : 17.21 77.42 : 100.31 : 7 47 : 125.00 : 1915 : 171.62 : 149.70 : 136.88 : 20.15 3.36 93.36 : 3 48 177.50 : 1919 : 177.50 : 155.88 : 142.76 : 22.87 9100.00: 99.82 : 2 49 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08 : 140.26 : 14.82 95.00 : 96.00 1 50 • 165.00 : 1916 : 226.54 : 204.62 : 191.80 : 13.40 95.36 : 112.20 5 51 • • 140.57 : 1918 : 163.76 : 141.84 : 129.02 : 19.27 100.00 110.32 52 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 13.94 68.00 89.11 : 4 53 97.00 : 1919 : 97.00 : 84.18 : none 63.99 • 93.30 : 6 54 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 112.18 : 18.62 74.50 90.18 : 8 55 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : 152.18 : 15.00 85.00 89.90 2 56 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 162.18 : 32.84 98.62 98.65 6 57 155.00 : 1919 : 155.00 : 142.18 : 12.77 99.37 88.93 4 58 : 100.00 : 1919 : 100.00 : 87.18 : 3.37 58.32 99.97 • 7 59 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : 152.18 : 16.89 91.79 97.62 3 60 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 162.18 : 26.71 92.27 104.90 2 61 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : 137.18 : 35.16 96.25 106.92 2 62 : 133.00 : 1919 : 133.00 : 120.18 : 10.09 68.94 109.07 6 63 71.42 : 1918 : 83.20 : 70.38 : none 55.24 75.40 6 64 165.43 : 1918 : 192.73 : 179.91 : 30.49 95.25 : 100.00 65 : 130.00 : 1918 : 151.45 : 138.63 : 8.83 84.00 : 83.56 7 66 125.00 : 1917 : 157.91 : 145.09 : 11.46 100.00 : 104.75 • 8 67 : 150.00 : 1917 : 189.49 : 176.67 : 15.68

938.32 137.74 8

68 102.75 : 1917 : 129.80 : 116.98 : 20.64 2: 8 106.37 3 69 : 78.94 : 1916 : 108.38 : 95.56 : none 89.46 : 117.23 5 -i 70 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : 158.80 : 10.57 78.00 95.56 4 71 : 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : 152.18 : 19.04 93.05 : 109.22 4 72 205.00 : 1919 : 205.00 : 192.18 : 24.01 100.00 : 101.66 3

continued - -- - ----- ---

Schedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : Corrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance price : of : to 1919 : for . for :cost of buildings:classification: of soil .

-~~~~~-!-~!-~~;~_:_~!~_: __ £~~!~--!---~~~~---!---~~~---: ____ ~!-~~!~ _____ : _____ !~~~! ____ : ___ !~~~! ____ :_~~~~~-37 : 4108.69 : 1918 : ~126 .62 : : $113 .80 : ~ 9.26 : 72.98 : 115.01 : 8 38 : 225.00 : 1918 : 262.12 : : 249.30 : 49.53 : 79.50 : 75.!37 : 1 39 : "130 .oo : 1919 : 130.00 : : 117 .18 : 21.59 : 84.50 : 81.62 : 8 40 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : : 137.J:S : 9.38 . 83.12 : 134.90 : 3 . 41 : 112.50 : 1919 : 112.50 : : 99.68 : none· : 50.75 : 82.94 . 3 . 42 : 239.72 : 1919 : 239.72 : . 226.90 : 22.06 : 89.03 : 124.40 : 1 . 43 : 125 .oo : 1919 : 125.00 : : 112.18 : 14. !31 : 93.85 : 100.15 : 5 44 : 135.00 :1919 : 135.00 : : 122.18 : 5.60 : 78.62 : 92.18 : 5 48 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150 .oo : : 137 .J:S : 3.79 : 75.00 : 112.25 : 7 46 : 152.50 : 1919 : 152.00 : . 139.68 : 17.21 : 77.42 : 100.31 : 7 . 47 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : 149 .70 : 136.88 : 20.15 . 93.36 : 93 . 36 . 3 . . 48 : 177.50 : 1919 : 177.50 : 155.88 : 142. 76 : 22.87 . 100.00 : 99.82 : 2 ..l... . i t 49 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08 : 140.26 : 14.82 : 95.00 : 96.00 : 50 : 165.00 : 1916 : 226 .54 : 204.62 : 191.80 : 13.40 . 95.36 : 112.20 : 5 . 51 . 140 .57 : 1918 : 163.76 : 141.84 : 129.02 : 19.27 : 100.00 : 110.32 : 2t . 52 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : : : 13.94 : 00 .oo : 89.11 : 4 v 53 : 97.00 : 1919 : 97.00 : : 84.18 : none . 63.99 : 93.30 : 6 V> . 54 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : : 112.18 : 18.62 . 74.50 : 90.18 : 8 . 55 : 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : : 152.18 : 15.00 : 85.00 : 89.90 : 2 56 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : .. 162.18 : 32.84 : 98.62 : 98.65 : 6 57 : 155. 00 : 1919 : 155.00 : : 142.18 : 12.77 : 99.37 : 88.93 : 4 58 : 100.00 : 1919 : 100.00 : : 87.18 : 3 .37 : 58 .32 : 99.97 : 7 69 : 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : : 152.18 : 16.89 . 91.79 : 97.62 : 3 . 60 : 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : . 162.18 : 26.71 : 92.27 : 104.90 : 2 . 61 . 160.00 : 1919 : 150 .oo : . 137 .18 : 35.16 : 96.25 : 106.92 . 2 . . . 62 : 133.00 : 1919 : 133.00 : . 120.18 : 10.09 . 68 .94 . 109 .07 : 6 . . .

3 . . 71.42 ' 1918 : 83.20 : : 70.38 : none : 55.24 : 75.40 : 6 165.43 : 1918 : 192.73 : . 179.91 : 30.49 : 95.25 : 100.00 : i .

65 : 130.00 : 1918 : 151.45 : : 138 .63 : 8.83 : 84.00 : 83.56 : 7 6 : 125.00 : 1917 : 157.91 : : 145.09 : 11.46 : 100.00 : 104.75 : 8

67 : 150.00 : 1917 : 189.49 : : 176.67 : 15.68 . 93.32 : 137.74 : 8 . 68 . 102.75 : 1917 : 129.80 : . 116.98 : 20 .64 : 88 .25 : 106.37 : 3 . . 69 : 78.94 : 1916 : 108 .38 : : 95.56 : none : 89.46 : 117.23 : 5 70 . , 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : : 158 .so : 10.57 : 78 .oo : 95.56 . 4 . . 71 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : : 152.18 : 19.04 . 93.05 : 109.22 : 4 : . 72 : 2.05.00 : 1919 : 205.00 : . 192.18 : 24.01 : 100.00 : 101.66 : 3t .

Corrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance for :cost of buildings:classification: of soil : to towns : per acre Index : Index : Marl:et

4 5.38 ;i: 92.90 : 88.11 : : 12.80 82.50 : 108.00 • : 15.56 87.50 : 99.69 :

18.52 64.85 : 100.44 : 23.22 85.20 : 97.40 : 49.56 71.23 : 110.68 : 12.47 100.00 : 102.70 : 11.28 100.00 : 82.86 :

88.45 : 114.70 : none : 75.00 : 1 86.80 :

: 2.97 : 73.45 : 79.22 : : :

11.82 9.50

: :

81.25 : :

60.29 102.64

: :

: none : 96 6.(3)40 . 97.39 : : 18.70 : 93.25 : 114.12 : : 5.30 : 93.00 : 107.88 : : 19.00 : 86.29: 78.10 : : none : 88.00 : 80.58 : : 86.06 : 110.4.8 : :

19.41e : : 100.00 : 99.00 :

: 13.89 : 97.69 : 113.00 : : none : 100.00 : 135.56 : : 57.44 : 90.60 : 108.96 : : 31.06 74.88 : 69.82 : :95.78 10.42

6.:) 93.00 : :

114.70 77.86

. • .

5.80 91.86 : 91.69 : I. 11.29 82.27 :

94.'0): :

14.47 95.30 : : none 100.00 : 102.96 : 15.17 100.00 : 100.00

t3 .

9.13 76.70 : : 19.84 93.16 : 92.94 : 19.08 57.50 : 87.97 : 12.47 : 75.62 : 103.75 :

: 21.72 : 88.11 : 104.81 :

t::789 158.80

0

6 5 5 i• q ..., 2 3 4 3 2

4- 2 1 1 5 2 2 7 2 7 i

0 2 + 2 2 1, 8 6 7 4 i 3 3-14- 1 1

3 3 3

oontinued

Schedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : : price : of : to 1919 : for

Number : per acre : 3ale : basis : roads

73 : .:i; 98.33 : 1916 : 4135.00 : : 74 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.61 : : 75 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : : 76 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 4103.08 : 77 : 179.00 : 1919 : 179.00 : 157.08 : 78 : 160.70 : 1919 : 160.70 : 138.78 : 79 : 134.00 : 1919 : 134.00 : 112.08 : 80 : 152.50 : 1919 : 152.50 : 130.58 : 81. : 133.33 : 1919 : 133.00 : 111.08 : 82 : 87.50 : 1919 : 87.50 : 65.58 : 83 . 135.00 : 1919 : 135.00 : 113.06 : 84 • . 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 1 153.08 : 85 : 210.00 : 1919 : 210.00 : 188.08 : 86 : 130.00 : 1919 : 130.00 : 108.08 : 87 • . 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08 : 88 : 125.00 : 1918 : 145.62 : 123.70 : 89 : 132.00 : 1918 : 153.78 : 131.86 : 90 : 132.50 : 1918 : 154.36 : 132.44 : 91 : 100.00 : 1918 : 137.29 : 115.37 : 92 : 125.00 : 1918 : 145.62 : 123.70 : 93 : 155.45 : 1917 : 196.38 : 174.46 : 94 : 155.00 : 1917 : 195.81 : 173.89 : 95 : 174.70 : 1916 : 239.85 : 217.93 : 96 : 150.00 : 1917 : 189.49 : 167.57 : 97 : 190.00 : 1919 : 190.00 : 168.08 : 98 : 100.00 : 1919 : 100.00 : : 99 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 100 : 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : 101 : 136.00 : 1919 : 138.00 : 102 : 100.00 : 1919 : 100.00 : 103 : 126.36 : 1919 : 126.36 : 104 . 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : 105 : 205.00 : 1919 : 205.00 : 106 . 85.00 : 1919: 85.00 : 107 : 135.00 : 1919 : 135.00 : : 108 : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : :

oontlnucd

chedul

umber

:1919 depreciated : Land :coot of buildings:classification:

oductivity:Distance of soil : to

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73

per acre : Index Index : llarket

: ~ ~~-~~ : l~lb : ~135.00 : : C122.18 : 0 5 .38 74 : 125.00 . 1916 . , '71 - ~, 1"'8 . 79 : 12.80

lf'.;,,.80 : 15.56 76 : 125.00 : 1919 : 125.00 : ¢103.08 : : 18 . 52 77 : 179.00 : 1919 : 179.00 : 157 . 08 : : 23 . 2.a 78 : 160 . 70 l 1919 ' 160 .70 : 138 . 78 : : 49 . 56 79 : 134.00 : 1919 : 134.00 : 112.oe : : 12.47 80 : 152.50 : 1919 : 152.60 : 130 . 68 : : 11 . 28 81. : 133.53 : 1919 : 133.00 : 111.08 : : none 82 : 87 . so : 1919 : 87 . 50 : 65 . 68 : : none 83 : 135.00 : 1919 : 135.00 : 113.08 : : 2. 97 84 : 175. 00 : 1919 : i 1s.oo : 153.08 : : 11.82 86 : 210.00 : 1919 : 210 .00 : 188.08 : : 9 . 50 86 : 130. 00 : 1919 : 130.00 : 108 .08 : : none 87 : 1'75.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 153.08 : : 18.70 88 : 125.00 : 1918 : 145.62 : 123.70 : : 5 . 30 89 : 1 32 . 00 , 1Q1A , s:. ':t ?fl • , fir, ft~ 19.00

none 13 . 89

: i 92 . 90 : 82 .SO : 87.50 : 64 . 85 : 85. 20 : 71 . ~

: 100.00 : 100.00 : 88 .45 : 75 . 00 : 73 .45 : 81 .25 : 92. . 62 . 00 . : 93 . 25 : 93 . 00 : 86 . 29

88 .00 86 .06

: 100 . 00 : 97 . 69

100 .00 o.

74 .88 95 . 78 93 .00 91 . 8 82. 2 95 .3

100.00 100.00

76 . 70 93 . 16

7. 75 . 6 88 . 11

88 .11 108.00

99 .69 100.44

97. 40 110 . 68 102.70

82 .86 114. 70 86 .80

93 . 102 .96 100. 00

81 . 58 92 . 94 87 . 97

103 . 7 104.81

: : : : : . . : :

:

:

: : :

:

6 5 5 3 2 3 4 3

1

7 2

0

6 7

3

l 0 3

3

°'

Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : corrected price : of : to 1919 : for for

per acre : Sale : basis : roads towns

4107.50 : 1916 : %;147.59 : 120.00 : 1919 : 120.00 : 120.00 : 1919 : 120.00 : 69.92 : 1919 : 69.92 : 254.62 : 1919 : 254.62 : 135.00 : 1919 : 135.00 : 178.00 : 1919 : 178.00 : 100.00 : 1919 : 100.00 : 165.00 : 1919 : 165.00 : : 150.00 : 1919 : 150.00 : : 110.00 : 1919 : 110.00 : : 140.00 : 1919 : 140.00 : 100.00 : 1918 : 116.50 : : 150.00 : 1916 : 174.75 : 85.00 : 1918 : 99.02 : : 90.00 : 1918 : 104.85 : : 133.82 : 1918 : 155.90 : : 135.00 : 1919 : 135.00 : 155.00 : 1919 : 155.00 : 155.00 : 1919 : 155.00 : 110.00 : 1919 : 110.00 : 92.94 : 1917 : 117.41 : 113.13 : 1917 : 142.91 : 105.00 : 1917 : 132.64 : 163.50 : 1918 : 190.47 : 152.00 : 1918 : 177.08 : 124.00 : 1918 : 144.50 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.61 . : 10J.00 : 1916 : 137.29 : 150.00 : 1917 : 189.49 : 106.97 : 1917 : 135.13 : 80.74 : 1917 : 101.99 : 108.75 : 1917 : 137.38 : 100.00 : 1917 : 126.33 : 160.00 : 1917 : 202.12 : : 125.00 : 1917 : 157.91 : :

Schedule:

Number :

109 : 110 : 111 : 112 113 114 115

: • .

116 117 118 • 119 : 120 : 121 : 122 : 123 124 : 125 : 126. : 127 .

129 128

130 131 132 133 : 134 : 135 : 136 : 137 : 138 : 139 : 140 : 141 : 142 143 : 144 :

:1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance :cost of buildings:clansification: of soil : to : per acre Index : Index : rarket

:

75.00 90.00 96.99 61.26

:

: .96.264-ia

104.72 109.35

63.24

: :

: 83.22 : 115.65 88.12 102.55 :

96.25 95.62 76.16

:

86.40 90.00 65.00 •

99.69 107.44 81.64

:: 74.00875

62.20 69.81

: • .

: 100.00 : 102.94 : 92.50 : 86.61 .

67.00 : 63.31 : : 94.97 : 83.15 : 97.80 : 100.73 : 90.42 : 106.76 : : 99.16 : 94.03 : : 100.00 : 114.04 : : 92.71 99.99 : : 92.50 : 112.87 : : 80.62 : 100.41 : : 100.00 : 102.19 :

100.00 : 116.76 : 64.00 : 113.69 : 93.12 : 76.43 : 97.00 : 107.66 : 73.75 : 76.85 :

: 96.50 61.88 : 1. 45.94 : 12'3.86 :

92.29 : 98.9r) : 61.66 : 91.59 : 96.87 : 104.91 : 87.00 : 79.13 :

3

3 4-i 1

2 4 4 3 3 4- 3 2 1i

4 4 1 : 8

-'

5 4

4 3

3 4 ir 3 4 2 2 2 5

9.7 4 3 3 i 3 3 2

none : none : none

4.53 53.39

19 :

3.73.8 none 24.17

: : : 21.61 : : 216.,2-4

none 56.20 none none 6.28

none 15.77

none 18.05

14.60 : :

none9

: 34.70 : 14.50 : 23.29 : 19.31 : none : n ne : none : none : 17.47 : none : 45.21 1 23.32

continued continued

chedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : eorrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance price : of : to 1919 : for : for :cost of buildings:cla~ sification: of soil : to

-~~~::_:_~~:-~~:!_:_~~~!_: ___ ~~!!!_: ___ :~~! ___ : ___ ~~~~---: ____ ~:-~~:~ _____ : _____ ~~~~----:---~~~~~----:-~:~:~-109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 12 125 126. 127 128 129 130 131 13 133 1 135 136 137 138 13 l 141 142 1 l

107.50 120.00 120.00

69.92 254.62 135.00 178.00 100.00 165.00 150.00 110.00 140.00 100.00 150.00

85.00 90.00

133.82 135.00 155.00 155.00 : 110.00

1916 1919 1919 1919 1919 : 1919 1919 1919 1919 1919 1919 1919 1918 1918 1918 : 1918 1918 1919 1919 l

1919 1919 1917 1917 19rt 1918 1918 1918 1916 1916 1917 :

92.94 113.1 105.00 163.50 152.00 124.oo 125.00 100.00 150.00 106.97 80.74

108.'!5 100.00 160.00 125.00

: 1917 : 1917 1917 1917 1917 • 1917

;Jl47.59 : 120.00 120.00

69.92 254.62 135.00 178.00 100 .oo : 165.00 150.00 110.00 140.00 116.50 174 .75

99.02 104.85 s 155.90 135.00 155.00 155.00 110.00 117.41 142.91 132.64 190.47 177.08 144 .50

171.61 137.29 : 189. 135.13 101.99 137.38 126.33 202.1 157.91

none none none 4.63

53.39 19.86

3.73 none 24.17 21.61 21.22 26.21 none 56.20 none none

6.28 none 15.77 18.05 none 14.60 none

3 . 89 34.70 14.50 23.29 19.31 none n eine none none 17.47 non

5.21 23.32

75.00 90.00 98.99 61.26 · 83.22 88.12 98.75 96.25 86.40 90.00 65.00 74.00 83.75

100.00 92.50 67.00 94.97 97.80 90.42 99.16

100.00 92.71 92.50 80.6

100 .00 100 .00

64.00 93.12 97.00 73.75 96.50 45.94 92.29 61 . 66 96.87 87.00

104.72 109.35

96.26 63.24

115.65 102.55

95.62 76.16 99.69

107.44 81.64 62.20 69.81

102.94 88.61 63.31 83.15

100.73 106.76

94.03 114.04

99.99 112.87 100.41 102.19 116.78 113.69

76.43 107.66

76.85 61.08

123 .86 98.00 91.59

104.91 79.13

3 4 .l..

4-f 2 4 4

;t 3 2 l ~

3 4 4 1 8 2 5

!t 4 3 4t 3 4 2 2 2 5

4 3

.a 4

3 J...

3 3 2

(}"\ ..... I

continued

Schedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : Corrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance price : of : to 1919 : for • . for ::cost of buildings:classification: of soil : to

Eumber : per acre : Sale : basis : roads : towns : per acre . Index : Index : Uarket

145 : .0.18.30 : 1919 : •s118.30 : 146 : 100.00 : 1916 : 137.29 : 147 : 65.00 : 1916 : 89.24 : 148 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : 149 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : 150 143.75 : 1916 : 197.36 : 151 120.00 : 1916 : 164.75 : 152 130.00 1916 : 176.48 : 153 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.61 : 154 135.00 : 1916 : 185.34 : 155 : 94.11 : 1916 : 129.21 : 156 : 93.75 : 1916 : 129.03 : 157 : 50.00 : 1916 : 68.65 : 158 : 93.75 : 1916 : 128.71 : 159 : 82.00 : 1916 : 112.58 : 160 : 105.26 : 1916 : 144.52 :

21.97 7.38 : 5.26 : none none 15.52 none 8.19 : none 25.42 10.28 11.61 : none none none 59.92

63.37 111.70 : : 100.00 i

: 88.22 : 1 102.57 : 6 90.62

100.00 : 92.94 : 11 73.20

- 87.97 : 3 :

97.93 : 80.90 : 4

9::TO 1 77.82 : 5

8 i-, 86.25

101.72 : 109.00 : 1

80.82 : 90.66 : 2 78.04 : 85.29 : 7 80.50 : 101.08 : 1 -1.

62.50 .0 : 77.23 : 2

87.00 : 83.43 : 1 1 79.86 : 3

63.15 : 147.13 : 0

continued - -

Schedule: Original : Year : Reduced : Corrected : Corrected :1919 depreciated : Land :Productivity:Distance price : of : to 1919 : for : for ::cost of buildings:classification: of soil : to

Number : per acre : Sale : basis : roads : tovms : per acre : Index : Index : Harket -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

145 : ~118.30 : 1919 : ~118 .30 : . : $ 21.97 : 63.37 : 111.70 : ..l. . 1 146 100.00 : 1916 : 137.29 : 7.38 . 100. 00 88.22 : : : : . : 1 2

147 : 65.00 : 1916 : 89.24 : : : 5.26 : 90.62 : 102.57 : 6 148 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.62 : : : none : 100.00 : 92.94 : ..J..

2

149 . 175.00 : 1919 : 175.00 : : . none . 73.20 . 87.97 : 3 . . . . , 150 : 143.75 : 1916 : 197.36 : . : 15.52 : 97.93 : 80.90 : 4 . 151 : 120.00 : 1916 : 164.75 : : . none : 97.50 : 77 .82 : 5 . 152 : 130.00 : 1916 : 178 .48 : . . 8.19 : 88 .10 : 101.72 : i t . . 153 : 125.00 : 1916 : 171.61 : . : none . 86.25 . 109.00 : l . . . 154 : 135.00 : 1916 : 185.34 : : : 25.42 : 80.82 : 90.66 : 2 155 : 94.ll : 1916 : 129 .21 : : : 10.28 : 78.04 : 85.29 : 7 156 : 93.75 : 1916 : 129.03 : . . 11.61 . 80.50 : 101.08 : l .J.. . . .

21 157 . 50.00 : 1916 : 68.65 . : . none : 75.00 : 77.23 : . . . 1l 158 : 93.75 : 1916 : 128.71 : : : none : 62.50 : 83.43 :

159 : 82.00 : 1916 : 112.58 : : : none . 87.00 : 79 .86 : 3 . 160 : 105.26 : 1916 : 144 . 52 : : . 59.92 . 63.15 : 147.13 : 0 . .

II Q' I\)

BIBLIOCRAPHY.

Blankenhurg, Rudolph. Real Estate and Its Taxation in Philadelphia.

Bolton, Reginald. P. Building for Profit.

Boyle, Jno E. Publication and Assessment Lists. "!Etate a nd Local Taxation" 1905 p 249-262.

Boyle, Jno E. Methods of Assessments as Aprlied to Different Classes of Subjects. "State and Local Taxation" 1907 p 126-156.

Castle, E. J. The law and practice of rating.

Charlton, J. D. ar.tino: Land Values.

Coulter, J. L. Changes in Land Values, Farms, Tenants and Owners Since 1900. Am. Statistical Assn. Vol. XII 1912-1913 1103. 97-104.

Cowles, H. V. How to assess property in cities and rural towns.

Craigen, Geo. J. Practical llethods for Avraising Lands, Buildings and I:.rovements.

Foote, A. K. Taxation Work and Experience in Ohio. "`'tats and Local Taxation". 1910 p 189-227.

Fox, A. W. Rating Land Values.

Haig, R. M. Land Taxation in Canada.

Hamr_onl. Y. B. Cooperation betwe ,n State and Local Authorities in the Assessment of Real Estate. "State and Local Taxation". 1906 p 113-126.

Hausmann, S. Land Taxati':h in Bavaria.

Heydeoker, Ed. L. Preparati;n of A Town Tax 4ap.

Howe, Frederic C. The Scientific Ap-raisal of Real Estate as a Basis for Taxation.

Hurd, Richard a. Principles of City Land Values.

International Tax Ass'n. Columbus, Ohio. 1909. Land Taxation. Uniform listing of real estate.

/2-2t-tim

IB

Bl nl:.e • ur , Ru clph. Real Est t Phila 'e-rhia .

n It T ation in

Bolton, Re:Jinal Bu'l ·TI ~or Pro it.

Boyle, Jno a n Loe 1 T xatirn'

ub ' o tL .... 1

249-"'c2. As a-~ nt Li t . t te

~oyle, ~no ~ eth s of a~ ss~ent- A ~i to Taxation' lS 7 Diff ~r t ".::las of <"'u' j ots. t-te an

:t:- 128-153.

C tle, ,. J. T ..... la

Chs.rl to .. , J . D.

C:h3. .g~s

.,.., ....

Coulter, J . a~ 0 n rs Since 19~0 .

os . 97- 104- . A .. St t ica.

= ct c f rat'n .

lu , F r .s, T nant Vo~ · II 191 - l,.3

Covlea, H. V. Ho t. aa ess pr • rty in ities and rur9.l to .. s .

X

Leenhouts, J. H. A Plan of Assessment for Rural Towns.

Lutz, H. L. The Somers System of Realty Valuation. Vol. XXV p 172-181.

Lianufacturers Appraisal Con,pany. Valuation Land Sites. NYC.

Y Tax R-form Assn. Plan to keep re:30rd of land value =ssessments.

Orr, Jno. Land Value Taxation.

Pleydell, A. C. Rules and Suggestions for the Assessment of Real Pr,),:erty.

Post, A. E. Prc)posed Syster, of Assessment. Phil. 1S-13.

Powers, L. G. UniforL, Listing of Real Estate. Colombus 7:-;;*

Royal Com:Assion. England and Foreign countries land valuation.

. Seleznan, E. R. A. The importanoe of precision in assessment.

i'•

Smart, Taxation of Land Values arid. te Single Tax.

Stalker, A. Land Taxation in Canada.

Webb, C. A. Law and practice of rating and assessment. A handbook etc.

Whitmore, Henry. Real Estate Values in Boston. Am. Stat-istical Assn. Vol. V 1896.1897. no. 33.

Yetta, Soheftel. Land Taxation.

3laker-an, J. On test for Linearity of Regression in Frequenoy Distributions. BioLetrika Vol. 4 p 332-350 1905.

Blodgett, J. H. Obstacles to Accurate Statistics. A,. Statistical Assn. Vol. VI 1896-99 Nos 41-48.

Brown, GreenTood and Wood. A Study of Index Correlation. :cur Roy Stat. Soc. Feb. 1914. (West Int .. Etatistios.)

Davenport, C. B. "On the Theory of Correlation" Jour f Roy Stat. Soc. 1397.

"Effect of Weather oa the Yield of Corn". Monthly 'feather 71eview vol 42, p 72.

12-21 -5M

1 . xxv

e-nh 1.its, J . .... . A Pl . o s R""J.r 1 To

utz, · . I . The Sor ers yste of Re lt r a ..... u ti n. 172-1 .... 1 .

. uf ctur rs Aptr is 1 Cop ny . Valu tio ·ye . ..... Y m x R r A ... . Pl n ... ·e .... or · of l n va.., ue

-9sea~ ent"' .

of R al

rr, ... no . L~n ue T· a ti on .

Pley ell, A. c. Ru ..... ty .

u "'tion for th e e t

"os t, A. .,.... ?..:opo s. st of , en t . P ... i 1 . -913 .

p ~rs, . ..., . Uni o i stin of R _: E tate. ol . bu i;"' .

... y ... Co . i ss i o .... E; n F r ei ~ o un~rie · luation .

E. A. ,.,., 4 port ::io e of reci io in . ... . ... e~t .

s art, t ... . T tjo of n t e Si .,, ...

St ~ ti n in n ..... , c. L r ...ic 0 r ti n nt.

h n

H .. . E t te V lu n 0 ... 0 . . St t-'-'"

i ic 1 A "'n . .... s9 ,.._ no . 33 .

1 . e.n T ti

On i e

tt, J . H. .J t to u ..... t i t 0 . ~o~ . I 189 ~·oa .....-

., on, Gr en· oo n 0 . A of n - c rr J. ti .. -ur :-'oy tat . oo . .

u-:.v ~nport, C. B. 0 Roi s~ t. Coe. lv97·

1 14. ( . e t ... i

On t.e ~heor o C re

t o... e '4::h r o . ...h - ie·.... f o n . .. evi · vo 72 .

t ·o . )

"Effect of Weather on the Yield of Corn" Vol 42 p 72

"Effect of Weather on the Yield cf Potatoes" Vol 43 p 232

Monthly Weather Review Vol 44 1516 p 551. Elemantary Motes on Least Squares, the Theory of Correlation and Statistics for Lleteorology and Agriculture.

Harris, J. A. An Outline 7.%f Current Progress Theory of Correlation and Continginoy Am. 1Zat. Vol. 1916.

Harris, J. A. The Correlation between a CoLonent and 'tween the sum of two or more ooLp -nents and the aim of the remaining oomponents of a varie:le. AL Ptat Assn. Dec

Harris, J. A. The Arithliatio of the Produot Lo meat ethod of Calculating the Coefficient cf Correlation. A.... Hat. Vol 44 p 693-659 1910.

Hooker, R. H. "Statistical 'Methods, with Special Refereno to Biological Variati-n." 1914.

Hooker, R. H. Correlation of Weather and Crops. Jour Roy Stat. Soo. 'Mar. 1907.

Issrlis: 311 the Partial Correlation Ratio. 71rt I Theoretical Eiometrio Vol X p 391-411 1914 Pert II Numerioal Biometric Vol XI p 50 1916-1;17.

Xing, W. I. The Correlation of Historical Economic Varia-ble and the misuse of Coefficients in this connection. AL. Stat. Assn. Dec. 1917.

Moore, H. L. 'Multiple Cori elation. Price. of Cotton Forecast.

Pearson. On Partial Correlation Ratio:Process. Royal Society. Series A Vol XCI p 492 1915.

Pearson, Karl. "Regression, Heredity and Panmixia". Trans. Roy. Soc. Series A vol..olxxxvii 1896 p 253.

Pearson, Karl. Chances of Death and oth-r Studies in :volution.

Persons, W. M. The Correlation of Economic Statisticz. 701 XII 1910-11 no 89-96.

Reed. V. G. The Coefficient of Correlation. quar Pub. All,. Stat. Assn. Vol 15 p 670-84 1917.

in the 50 p 53-64

12-21-6h.

'Effect of e t er o the Yi ld of Cor " ol .2 72

"E ... evt of "e the en t J Yi 1 f ot to ol 3 ,. 232

''ot for

o t hl y th er R v i son L 1st u rJ , th Th e:~orology an ricultur .

·~ i,16 o~ Cor:r 1

Har1is, J . An Out n f Cur n~ Proqre s i . the ·at . vc- . 5, .. 5. - 5+ T:...~:..rJ· of 'o r ... 1a•L .. n an· Conti gincy . A

1 , l' "' .

·:arr is, T . A. T:. J Oor.rel ~ t-e~n th STu of t-o or o e ~o p r 0 i i . p .:.nts vari :. .

:: rris, -f C~l ul ti. th ,. 6., 3- 699 191 .

: . A. ~:e rit' t c v ffioient of Cor.

.• oo.rer, R. H. to Bio~ogical V riati n.

• 001 er, . H. St t . ,.. r . 1 07 . ....,

I II -

I.

" 0 tat · stical :!. "14 .

""or!'el ti on

l

.. e 1...orr el t'o

of

o: t. at ion .

th r

11 ,/

of to o:: vO f ..1. ici nt ... thi

OOI'"', u" ... 1 Corr ... " .

p

Pe r 0 • • 0n P rti Corr 1 ~o i o '"'oci ty . eri s A 0 - CI 2 1915.

0 e t:

.cod.uut J, .e. t ,,tho ... .1. t. Vol

i tt. cie.l

n \J 0 s. our 0

ic 1 0 io · ri :J ... 0 t

ic ""o•to

Pr c 0 .L

1 '-..)., .

r or., rl. c tb ... " 1

G. 0 "-..i r u .

A. . t t . Vol 15

IZ 21·9M

0

Theory of Correlation as App:ie 1 to Y.Ar... :- Irvey Data on Fattening Ball, reef. Dul 504 U S D A ay 23, 117.

The Correlation of 7eather and Crops Jour Roy Stat Soc p 1 .Smith, J. 7.

Snow, E. C. Application of the Method of :dultiple Cor-relation to Estimate the Post Censal Population.

Westergaard, Harold. Scope ani ethods of Statis-ics. Assn. Sept 1916.

Yule, G. N. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics.

Yule, GL N. On the Theory of Correlation for anv Nua,ber of Variatles treatod ty a New System of Notation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A, Vol LXXIX 1907 p 182.

Yule, G. N. An investigation into the Causes of Changes in Panperisn in England etc. Jour. Roy. Stat. Soc. Vol lxii 1859.

F 249.

•

124!.40.1

T:. on Fatte .ing

TLeory ...,f • y :3e f.

Ccr,. 01~+ion s A.p~ iei to F r. rvey D t Bu~. 5 J+ U S D A • y 2 3 , 191 7 ·

T1 e orrP.le.tion of eat· -r a.. Cro l ,c ith, .J , .. .

Jour Roy tat noc

'"'nJw, E . C. A rli'"' ticn cf t· e · etho · cf . ulti l"' relati n t.., Est:.. t'"' ~·.e Pest Censal opul t i o •.

or-

-a:!' , .'...i.r .... d . C" pt 1s,1t .

Cc op et:.::>..i.,

· ule, G. Introduction to ~. 0 Theor o St tistic .

Yu:e, G • • r . On the Theory of Corr 1 tio of ·aria"l 0:: tr..., tP.: y a i .. w 0 ste O- • ot-t i on . Sr . A, ·o_ L:'XIX 1907 182 .

or n u i r r oc • Rc~,r • S c •

Yule, G. in~ nr 0 ris in E

2 ~ .

A in esti tiJ~ int t.. Causes of C gee Jan etc . J ur . R C'.'1-+_; t . Soc . ol lxii 16 J.

Cournot. Recherches sur les principes lathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses".

Davenport, H. J. Economios of Enterprise.

Fisher, Irving. The r.ature of Capital and Income.

Jevons, 7 E. Principles of Science. •

Jevons, Itt • C. Theory of Political Foonomy.

Marshall, A. Principles of Economics.

Pearson. Grath ar of Science.

Taylor, . C. Agrioultur.,.1 Econmizs.

Taylor, F. M. Principles of rconolnics

Arthur WI, "New Building Estimator.

Gillette, H. P. Handbook Cost Data.

Kidder. Architects and Builders Pocket Book.

Walker. The Building EAtimator Reference Book.

U. S. Bureau of Labor. Index Numbers of rholesale Prices in the United States and Foreign Countries.

U. C. D. A. Soil Survey of Blue Earth County, Minnesota.

U. S. E. A. L. C. Gray Bulletin No 874. Farm Land Values in Iowa.

2- 1-6•0

Cournot. Rwc· ~ ·AS ur l ... s pr'nci es th .. :lti u 9 •

Th ori.., ~... Rich s "

Daven o ... t' 'I" E"' 0. 09 f E e prise . "' .

-is her, Irv:. Th ... atur 'J .Ji t 1 n Inca.

Jevo Pr oip of ci no~.

Jevons, Cl Th or o.f Po itic.::.i. -· oono

rsha. .... l, A. 7.>rinci le of oono ic~ .

Pea ... son. ;.;ra r of "'ci nc . T • lor, . c. A'""ricultur E..,ono ios .

Taylor, F . rinci. e of "O .o .. ic

rt·ur 'I 4Juil 'in s -I ".!. ... or . ...

Gi ... ~ ~tt , .. . "'J ""os"-

r .

Th Bui i

. Bureau of ct t an

. A. ~ 11 ur ey

. s. D. A. L. V • ur y u V Jue in Io· a .

·1 co .

.ce Eco

of

rt .. C

tin o 74 .

-

io

ot .

n