Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1901-11-20
NOT PGSSIMlSUlC.

Our esteemed contemporary-the
Great Falls Tribune-thinks the ARGUS
too pessimistic as regards the agricul-
tural possibilities of Montana. Now,
tho ARGUS and the Tribune are not so
very far apart on this all-important
question. The greatest difference is as
to the plan of procedure in attaining
the desired result. In the first place, il
is no d~iscredit, but a matter that should
excite just pride, that Montana is the
leading mining and st~ock-growing state
in the Union, when both industries are
taken together. The miner and the
stockgrower were the trail-blazers in
the settlement of the west. They ven
tured into the wilderness when hos
tile Indians roamed unchecked over the
prairies and mountains, and laid the
foundation of what vas TO be a great
state. They have established homes
and aided in building up our civiliza-
ton. Even If we had no other indus
tries, the magnitude of these two is
sufficient to cause envy and wonder.
However. the ARGUs does not under
estimate the value and Importance of
agriculture to the state, although il
may differ with our contemporary as TO
the extent Of the lands that can be re-
claimed. No one can dispute the rich
ness of the soil-whether it be the alkali
lands of the prairies or the black loan
Of the valleys in the mountain ranges.
Even with our present farming popula-
tion we believe agricultural products
could he increased ten-fold were there
accessible markets to arouse a supreme
effort. But this has been the great
drawback to some regions not pene-
trated by Il railroad. The local de-
mand has been easily supplied, except
in very ~unfayorable years. This has
led u farmers To give greater atten-
ti0n 20 stock, which is desirable from
every standpoint. II is in the direction
Of diversified farming, which it is con
ceded is the only true method of farm
ing, and which will, in a few years, do
much to meet the demand for beef the
National Live Stock association is SO
much concerned about. But we cannot
agree with our contemporary that 100
acres of land is sufficient for our farm
ers or small stockmen under present
conditions, and we consider it doubtful
under the very best system of irriga-
ton. Even the farmer, if he raises cat
tie or sheep, must have some range, for
there are very few who are so fortunate
rs to possess 100 acres of bottom land or
level land. His holdings often consists
of valleys, couiccs, platcaus and side
hills. No doubt with plenty Of water
for use at the proper time some por-
tions of his land could be made twice
AS productive, year after year, but what
is the farmer. who is also a stockraiser,
going to do until that happy day
arrives? We agree with the Tribune
that government leasing and ceding to
the states are both undesirable. The
state would derive no revenue from the
former plan and is unable to reclaim
the lands by the latter.
Government irrigation is coming. and
it will not be necessary to repeal the
land laws to hasten the day. Montana
can and will contain a much greater
rural population than it has today, but
it will come gradually, as it has been
coming in the past, and will, IA a mat
ter of necessity, be somewhat scattered.
But this is IA big state and can hold a
great many people and then have plenty
of elbow room.