The Wichita daily eagle., 1894-08-11
RUSSIA'S VAST CROP
Too Great to Be Earve sted Where
Famine Recently Reigned.
To Gather In the Grain Would Be TantaA
mount TO Throwing Good Money After
Bad-A Severe Agricultural Crisis
Anticipated.

Anticipated.
Cries of despair are coming from
Russian farmers and landowners be-
cause of the abundant wheat harvest,
Says the London Telegraph. For
weeks past the Russian press has been
devoting its leading articles to dis
cussion of the measures best calcu-
lated TO neutralize the effects of the
coming plentiful harvest, and now,
curiously enough, the question has re-
duced itself to snis simple issue:
Should the wheat be reaped and gar
nered in, or would it not be wiser to
turn sheep and cattle into the fields
and thus lessen the quantity of the
produce? 1t seems well nigh incred-
ible that a people who, two years ago,
We're in the throes of a famine and pub
hcly offered up prayers to Heaven for
an abundant harvest, should be now
concerting measures for the purpose of
counteracting the effects of the wished
for abundance. But it is none the less
true, and stranger still, some organs of
the press, in reply to the question:
should the wheat be reaped?" have
deliberately given it as their opinion
that for numerous districts it would
be advisable to solve this problem in
the negative" Nay, more, it now ap-
pears that many landowners refused
last year to gather in the harvest, and
are determined not to remove it this
year either. One landlord, for in
stance, who owns a large estate near
Odessa. and whose facilities for export
are therefore exceptionally numerous,
foreseeing the fall of prices, purchased
one thousand sheep and unhesitatingly
turned them into his fields of wheat.
He is said to be so satisfied with.the re-
suit that he means to do likewise now
that further fall in prices is proba BILE.
J The Odessa Novosti, journal which
is usually very well informed upon
agricultural questions, has published a
series of articles to show that to
gather in the harvest this year would
be tantamount to throwing good money
after bad, for it can only be done at a
heavy loss to farmers. A pood thirty
Six pounds) of barley, for instance,
when it reaches the port of Nikolaieff
from the neighboring government of
Poltava costs the producer thirty-six
Ind one-fourth copecks, whereas the
market price is at present thirty-six
copecks, and Is bound to become less
as soon as the abundance of this years
harvest is generally known A very
severe agricultural crisis is anticipated
in consequence, and the well meaning
efforts of the government to keep down
the price of the ruble with a view to
facilitating expectation, will avail
nothing. The results Of such crisis
may be gauged by the circumstances
that Russia is an agricultural country,
which cannot hope TO find in the in
creased profits of manufactures COM
pensation for the falling off of corn
exports. The situation is critical, and
will make itself sOrely felt in more
than one form before the end of theyear.
Unfortunately, dispassiCnate study
of the causes that have combined TO
bring about the present crisis fails to
bring to light a single cOnsidera ton
which would warrant hopes of a
brighter prospect in the near future.
Some authorities maintain that the
prohibition to export grain which was
issued by the government during the
famine enabled American farmers to
triumph over their Russian competitors
by leaving European markets without
Russian grain for year. But most
Russians hold that this was no more
than the occasion; the real cause lay
deeper, and is to be sought for in the
manner in which the Russian producer
is handicapped by domestic laws and
conditions, in the negligence of Rus
sian grain merchants. who sought to
enrich themselves rather than acquire
a high reputation for the native produce
and in the resulting inferiority of Rus
sian grain. Thus Russl1aia Chisn,
well-informed agricultural organ,
unhesitatingly declares that the for
elgn demand for Russian grain was
the result of a misundersta nding, for
the grain itself, owing TO its quality,
could rot compare with that Of Amer
lea or even Australia and East India,
and those who transacted the sale. if
Judged by the standard of cOnscien-
tiousDess or by the commercial methods
they employed, would lose by compar-
iscn with their foreign colleagues"
The journal then goes on 70 say that
the export from Russia was artificial,
due exclusively to the mistaken agri-
cultural policy of the government,
which made it impossible to forward
grain from the fartheSt corners of Rus
sia to Germany, England and Belgium
for nominal freights. while it was prac-
ticslly impossible 10 distribute it in
the neighboring Russian districts
whore people were dying Of hunger.
Thus on the one hand it was scarce at
home, where sorely needed, and plenti-
full abroad, where 1t was not really
wanted.