The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-09-15
DO THE FARMERS LOSE ANNUALLY
100000?

IF it be true that it costs 63 cents to
raise bushel of wheat while the mar
ket price is only As cents, then no freight
| rates can reach this question. Here is a
difference of Is cents. 1t costs 10 cents
more to produce bushel Of wheat than
It's price in the market. Kansas farmers
are raising wheat at an annual loss Of
cal extreme claim of freight charges and
reduce this to the lowest limit proposed
by any anti-railroad man and wheat is
still raised in Kansas that does not pay
cost of production. If wheat were laid
down at the Missouri river free of charge
for transportation it would still be at
loss, according TO the Peoples party
claim, and yet kansas is a daisy" and
they are standing up for Kansas.
The EAGLE has no apology or excuse
to make in the freight question. 1t has
led the way for correction of the trans
portation abuses 1t spoke when many,
who now are loudest, were silent. While
the EAGLE has nothing to take back
on this question it does insist
that men ought TO be reason
able, and that the rate question
is not the only question. 1t does insist
that men cannot ''stand up for Kansas
while they are advertising the impossi-
bility of farmers raising wheat here I'M
less it IS sold below the cost Of produc-
ton. These people are constantly ad-
vertising the great mortgage debt OF
Kansas, and that Kansas products will
not bring cost of production. Kansas
paying about million dollars year for
the privilege Of farming! If such things
were true it would indeed be calamity.
But they are not true, and farmers who
attend strictly to their business know
they are not true as to his farm.
While it is not true that the Kansas
farmer is raising wheat at a higher cost
than its selling price. it is true that the
transportation Of his wheat to market is
an important question. If his market
shall always be England the transporta-
ton that distance of heavy, crude ar
ticle like wheat at the cheapest reason
able rate will always be matter of
great concern to him. Long haulS are
dearer than short ones, and If the farmer
can by any possibility get nearer
market for wheat than England
he is most vitality interested in
getting such q market. If he must al
ways be taxed for a long haul, on heavy
freight, and must sell in a market where
wheat is sold that is produced by labor
cheaper than American labor. then the
wheat raiser must look always distrust-
fully of this foreign market and be con-
tent with very narrow profits if any at
all for his surplus product. Our farm
ers are quite at the mercy of the farmers
of Europe and Asia. When crops are
abundant in those countries it is known
that prices will sink to the cost line of
production here or may be sold at loss.
Their failure is our fortune, unless it is
accompanied by such poverty that the
needy are unable to buy, as was the case
in Russia in the last year.
The greatest boon for the farmer is a
home market. He can only feel certain
Of his market when the factory employs
men and teams enough that become con-
sumers to absorb his surplus. Nearness
to market is The great question. Very
low transportation rates is but another
way of solving distance and getting near
to market. But you cannot avoid the
cost of transportation, and distance adds
to the cost. The nearest market is the
best. New York would be better than
Liverpool, and Chicago would be
better than New York, but
Wichita would be best Of all. Any
policy that tends to lessen the number
of consumers is the wheat growers
enemy. Any policy that tends to IN
crease competition among wheat growers
without increasing his consumers will
prove detriment to the wheat growers.
The wheat grower-using him as type
Of farmers troubled with too few con-
sumers-with under consumption.
Men talk as though wheat were a
measure of value. This is only true
when the supply exceeds the demand
In other words when there is bushel of
wheat for which there is absolutely no
demand-then this bushel of wheat may
be allowed to return to the dust whence
1t came and is no more valuable than the
dust. This principle Will illustrate how
sometimes an abundant crop may end
in an over-supply, to the great depression
of prices and be of less value to the pro-
ducer than a lighter crop. If there
We're no such thing as over-production
and there were ready consumers for all
wheat raised, wheat would have more
or less permanent value. As it is, pro-
duction or supply vary immensely,
and so does the price, and
the man who charges up
different times to transportation charges
is chump. He can add the charges to
the price he gets and see what be would
get if he paid no charges. He can add
the over charges to the price he gets and
see what, by his calculation, he ought to
obtain for his crop, If he observes that
in either case, as the Alliance pretends
TO see, his wheat sold for the cost of pro-
duction or less, the transportation ques-
ton cannot give him relief. This refers
to state relief.
The banners with inscriptions show
ing that wheat cannot be sold for the
cost of production in Kansas. Islander
the state. While wheat is low now it
will hri0rr mara than cos- Of rr,,i,otio,,
and will increase in price to paw