Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-16
coNFLICrrNe OPINIONS.

There have been two agricultural adj
dresses delivered at this State Fair, and it
is noteworthy that they represent diamet.
rically opposite opinions ON at least one i'm
portant question. Mr.. Shorb takes the
position that small farms should be the
rule. Mr.. La Rue holds that small farm.
ing on the plain lands of California is i'm.
practicable. 1t must be said for Mr.. La
Rue that he has had more practical expert.
ence of agriculture than Mr.. Shorb, and on
the whole we think his view is the one
which the general experience most sup.
ports. Mr.. Shorb himself qualities his
view by declaring the necessity of irriga.
ton on large scale. But here the practi-
cal question arises whether such systems
are applicable to a large proportion of the
plain lands. Mr.. La Rue evidently thinks
they are not, for he proceeds on the as
sumption that the general conditions of az.
riculture on the plain lands will remain
what they are. Without irrigation it must
be regarded as certain that small and di.
yersified farming on the plains is imprsc-
ticable, and since irrigation itself is by no
means an unquestionable solvent of the
problem, and since In its hygienic aspect it
Is open to very serious objections, it seems
probable that MIR. La Rue's view will be
the one borne out by the facts. Whether
in the absence of diversified farming it is
possible to make agricultural pursuits suf-
ticently attractive to prevent the rising
generation from seeking other occupations,
is an important question. We have already
stated some reasons which in our judgment
initiate strongly against the adherence of
the young men to q farming life, and we
may add that we do not believe any such
movement as has been set up in this dlrec-
ton can be affected by complaints or lameu.
tations. In fact it is quite useless to say,
as Mr.. Shorb does, that the farm life
must be made more attractive, and
that youpg men should be urged to con.
tinue in it. Young men will not stay in
an occupation which presents SO many draw
backs and disagreeables as wheat. growing
in California abounds with. They demand
= fuller and more active and satisfactory
life, and if they cannot obtain it in the
country they will seek the towns. The
most necessary thing at present, however,
is to recognize the limitations of farming
Ito = &c III - IL a.
possible with them. If diversified farming
on the plains ia impossible, then it follows
that really agricultural life on the plains
is impossible. Wheat-growing Of itself is
not farming, and if that is all that can be
done on the plain lands, then the plain
lands can never build up such race of
farmers as form the backbone of the East
ern States. To recognize these facts, if,
indeed, they are facts, seems the first re-
quisite for rational conclusion in the
premises. 1t is useless to shut our eyes to
the great difference which exists between
Californis wheat-growing ard Eastern farm
ing, and to try to persuade ourselves that
the same results ought to flow from each.
II our wheat-growers were making attrac.
tive homes ; if they produced all they
needed for their own consumption; if their
business was diversified it would be in
order to make strenuous efforts to induce
the young men to stay by the farm. But
we must first define the meaning of the
word =" farm" and we must next ascertain
how far the wheat ranch is from filling that
definition. If it proves TO be quite another
thing, we shall have to realize that new
conditions imply new habits, and we shall
also have to recognize the impracticability of
making this kind of life alluring to the ris.
ing generation.