The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-14

Editor Of The Times; 49,
Sir.-In two recent issues Of the state,
I notice short editorial comments on an
article I recently sent TO Inc Ilnhes oi
this subject. VIII you permit me Wo.d
in rcply2 In the first comment the Sta's
AYERS that j make an unfair comparison
when 1 contrast Virginia ana iowa.
cannot concode this. l could not contrast
Virginia and any OF the other Southern
States. as they are all suuerlhB from the
same biighting cause as this Stdte-the
failure OF the farmers TO avail themselves
Of the oil pOrtuuitlcs before them, MAlch
pointed out IN my article. To contrast
This State with New York and the New
ENGLAND States would be manifestly un-
just, as they are not agricultural Dut
manufacturing States. TO nave contrast
ed Virginia with the Middle states "ouiu
also nav0 been unfair as they are also
largely manufacturing States with laIte
city populations and have an almost IN
Vulnerable number of small towns ana
villages scattered through them. 10
have taken the Western States would like
wise have been unfair as they are pIdc-
tically largely virgin soils. ana therefore
not comparable with Virginia. lows,
on the other hand, is almost purely an
agricultural State. 10 mas lew ldi -
towns or cities. and il IS not u newly
settled State. il was constituted Il telil-
tory in ISIS. and admitted 10 Slatehoou
In 1915. over fifty years ago. Inc com
harrison OF pODulatlOu-bOth town ana
cOuntry-is also nearer the same than
that OF any other State I'm point or num-
bers and ln point Of occupation. Inc
State further alleges the war sure ret-
son Virginia farmers are not prosperous.
To this i would reply that the PERIOD
since the cessation Of hostillties Is now
so remote as 10 make the war cease 10 ne
q factor I'm the question. Evidently uouD1-
ing the cOgency of its reasoning on these
objections, the State then falls back on
that old chestnut" decentralization
Of silver. and charges II with being the
cause Of the want OF success or. farmers
IN this State. To this / reply tnat the
effect of the legislation as 10 slNer, II
any effect IL had. which ! 10 not auihll.
equally applied 10 Iowa and Virginia YET
Iowa farmers are prosperous ana VIZ
ginia farmers not so.
This legislation was national and not
State legislation. You can no more create
prosperity in "a State by legislation either
national or State. than You can MAKE
people sober or moral by legislation
Legislature may decree that 80 cents, or
for that natter. cents shall be cailed
a dollar. but this Will not after one lulA
the true value Of property or make 'he
owner Of IL any richer.
In o further and later comment
on tho article. the State does both my
self and the farmers of Iowa an MUS
tice mo doubt unintentionally), IN as
sorting that 7 select as prosperlnS'
farmers. having per capita production
Of S5O3, and that such bait Is not az
all likely TO prove an enuclng one. 1
selected as prosperous farmers IN COM
parison with our Virginia farmers the
farmers Of a State having production
for the whole Of the population OF me
State Of staple crops OF >yDoi per cdplld.
But this does not represent the prosper
Nv OF the farmers OF that State hy any
means and this / pointed out IN my aFu-
Gle. In order that true statement %
their position may be arrived az 10 Is ne
ccssary first. 20 deduct from the to'ai
population OF the State the NUMBERS CI
the city population within the state, Tor
these produce 10 part or the STAPLE crops
Iowa has "A city population IN cities nav
ing more than 1900 people, OF 1yV'o4o. u
Quoting this number from the present
estimated population OF the state we
farming population OF l,NJl,osv. making
staple crops last year OF the value t OF
Sl03. N03s6, or n per capita value or s1'.o-'
This means for each average family an
annual value OF S2SsiO. This compares
with an annual value Of crops arrived al
in the same way for each taIniiy OF lalIn
ers in Virginia OF 800 But TINS uoe7 hot
cover the whole OF the annual income
of the farmers. for TO Il must be added the
value Of the live stock. Ia iowa this y
$7S.4 per capita for each inhabitant OF the
State. II We deduct from THIS totdi pop
ulatiOn the city population or -vV,oio, we
nave IT per capita value VI hfN .-'.'N -
$3.50 for the farmers OF that State or
sac for each family OF farmers In the
State. II We add this 10 the value OF the
crops Wa find that each family OF farm
ers In Iowa has an annual income oi
S737.l0. In Virginia the figures OF crop
production and live stock worked out on
the same basis. would give for each lam
lily OF farmers in the State an annual
income OF $3.50. What a comparison is
thisl The Iowa farmer. by his adoption
OF a system Of farming" as against the
Virginia farmers system OF planting
makes an annual income nearly four
times as great" as the Virginia farmer:
Surely Sir. the Editor OF the state VIII
not contend that the showing or he Iowa
farmer IS not one TO encourage young
man 10 invest I'm farm II ne Is able ana
willing TO farm scientifically. and not
merely 10 plant" An annual income in
these times OF depression Of yi1. with
home rent free and all the vegetables.
chickens. eggs. fruit. ard other small pro-