The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-06
THE "vAN1sHING FARMER"

Mr. David Overmeyer, whose name is
vaguely associated in our memory with
those recent manifestations of what
they call Democracy in Nebraska, or
some other Western state, enters the
lists to discuss with, Mr. David B. Hill
the Future Of Democracy" Mr. Hill
had his say in the Forum, and Mr..
OVermeyer finds a more cOngenia1
platform in the Arena. What either
Of them has to say about the future
is inconsequential, for Mr.. Hill forfeit
ed his right to speak for the party
some tine ago, if he ever had it;
while as yet, Mr.. Overmeyer has not
established his. Each has the unques-
toned right to speak of it, and each
has exercised the right at the custom
airy magazine rates, presumably. But
Mr.. Overmeyer makes a serious charge
against Mr.. Hill, if the former is cor
rect in his premises. Mr.. Hill, he says,
makes no obeisance to Ceres. He has
not word for the oppressed and van
much disturbed because Mr.. Hill fail
ed to nod to her, but she will be deep
ly agitated, if it be true that, as Mr..
Overmeyer seems to assert, the farmer
is vanishing.
AS much of the lingo of our later
day politics embraces Just such terms,
the Republicans representing him as
oppressed and vanishing before Dem
ocratic free trade" and our newest De-
mocracy assuring us of the same con-
ditions before and under the grasp
ing money power" it becomes a matter
of general interest to ascertain if this
man, who feeds us all, is really van
ishing. If he is. some of us will have
to go back to filling the soil. We have
recently had quite an exhaustive in
Vestigation into the conditions of our
farmers and planters by a person who
has no political or other bias to warp
his judgment or suppress facts. We
lish statistician, Mr.. Mulhall, who has
compared conditions in 1850 and inter-
mediate decades with those of 1890. 1t
is true that he had to depend upon cur
but they sufficiently indicate the gem
eral trend to warrant moderate conclu-
sions. 1t is also true, as we have in
sisted and still insist, that our farm
ers have not had a fair and equal show
in the struggle for existence and
wealth accommodating, that they have
been handicapped by burdens their
more favored fellow toilers should have
borne, but with all this we fail to find
proof that our farmers are vanishing.
AS Mr.. Overmeyer gets his more
vivid impressions, as we all do, from
his immediate surroundings, we will
take Mr.. MulhalPs investigation of
what he terms the prairie states, the
twelve from Ohio to Nebraska. In
these states the rural population in
1870 was 11,215,O 900, and in 1890 ii was
16,S69,0O0 an increase of over 5000, 900
in twenty years. The urban popula-
ton had risen from 1,766,0 900 to 5493, 900
in the same period, and it is well
known that no inconsiderable portion
of this came from the farms, the
causes of which we have heretofore
discussed. But these figures indicate
no disposition to vanish, nor any fight
from oppression. The farmers in these
states produced, in millions of bushels,
of wheat, corn and oats, 312, in 1850;
So, in 1870 and 1888 in 1890, With ga,
600 tons of beef mutton and pork in
1850, against 2,1SS000 tons in 1894 Be
tween 1850 and 1890 they had increas-
ed their improved acres from 27210,00O
to 1S4, $780, 900. Meanwhile they have so
studied the problem Of production that
they produce, per hand engaged, $50
bushels of grain and 1910 pounds of
meat as compared with III Of the one
and $40 of the other produced rer hand
in England, or 70 of the one and 360
of the other in Germany. In spite of
all that we term the inequality of con-
ditions and what Mr.. Overmeyer terms
oppression" MI Mulhall finds that
three prairie farmers possess as much
wealth as four French, six German, or
thirteen Austrian farmers, while their