The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-07
FARM NOTES.
Edited by John C. Edgar, Duval, to whom all
for this column snouiu Ie au'
dressed.l

Agricultural Editor Statesman
The small yield of cotton this year
has caused every farmer to cut down
expenses as much as possible and
when the utmost has been done the
crop is not likely to produce what it
cost to raise. l think it is too Tad TO
have the cost of production raised by
the competition of the county poor
farm. To be more explicit, l COM
plain that the manager of the poor
farm has been paying 10 cents per 100
pounds more for picking than the
price current in that section. A pri-
vate individual can do as he pleases in
the matter of wages, but the county
officers have no right to use public
funds to the injury of the public, who
supply the finds. As soon as my pick
ers learned that the poor farm paid 10
cents more than l was paying, they
struck work and was compelled to
make the advance or leave my cotton
n the field. The same with my
neighbors. What is the poor farm run
for anyway? There can be no money
made on it to support the poor, as all
the labor is hired and at the highest
rate of wages. The only reason | can
see for its being called a poor farm is
that it helps to keep other farmers
poor by unnecessary production and
uncalled for competition.
Respectfully, a. L. E.
The complaint made by A. l.. E
is one of old standing. If the manage
of the poor farm has been guilty of the
sin laid to his charge he can plead in
eXtenuation that he is no worse than
the other fellows that preceded him
and that it is a custom of the institu.
ton to top the market in wages.
There has never been anything
stipgy about the poor farm in the
way OF paying for labor. For many
years farmers in the neighborhood of
the poor farm have complained that
it set the wage standard too high, so
high as to rob them of help unless
they advanced to the top notch. and
that was ever being raised on the poor
arm. The question, What is the
poor farm run for?" is pertinent one.
| have tried, but without success, to
find out the cost of running the farm
and return it yields. The county
commissioners can't tell me, the
county clerk does not know, and the
treasurer is equally in the dark.
The monthly statements rendered
by the manager set forth the number
of paupers on the farm-not as work.
ers but as consumers-the names and
number of hands employed and the
amount paid, the amount received for
stock or produce sold and account of
supplies delivered. This is all very
we'll as far as it goes, but it stops short
of supplying information as to the
profit or loss on the operations of the
farm. There is no separate account
kept, whereby the expense of running
the farm can be determined. No one
can tell what the profit or loss on a
years transaction may be, but calcu
lating farmers guess that the profit is
nil and the loss considerable. An ex-
ample of how the county farm pays
may be seen in the fact of its corn be-
ing hauled to Austin and sold at 80
cents per bushel, at the same time
that the county teams were eating
corn bought from private farmers at
40 and 45c per bushel.
1t is but just to the present manager
to say that the place is better farmed
than at any time since it became
county property. The land is we'll
titled and full average crops raised;
this is patent to the eye of every
passer by, but beyond that no one yet
can tell anything 1t would
be interesting to have statement as
to cost of raising pound of cotton on
the poor farm.
am glad to see that the commits
sioners have decided to get some re-
turn from the county convicts. 1t is
difficult to see how they can be con-
trolled on the poor farm except for
cotton work. There is liable to be
many escapes or several killings. AS
they are only credited with 25c day
for their labor farmers will not be
able to complain about the poor farm
raising the wage standard. 1t is to be
hoped that the convicts can be worked
there. If not, the only thing left is to
sell the farm and save taxes.-ED.