The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-11-04
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK
Where Is the Exportable surplus7
To the Editor of the Journal.

Where Is the Exportabie Surplus7
To the Editor of the Journal.
I note your quotation from an article by
G. B. Murray in the Cincinnati Price Cur
rent, with table of figures attached
His ten-year average of Is cents for /
wheat at Cincinnati includes the two |
years of remarkably low prices, 1894 and
1895, 81 and IS cents respectively My
recollection is that those extremely low
prices were due to combination of over
production and hard times in this coun- I
try and good crops abroad. Mr.. Murray
will probably never again see a year Of
such low prices, and even his ten-year
average OF IS cents bushel will not be !
duplicated in any one annual average at |
Cincinnati or Chicago for a long time.
Many of the most experienced observers,
including prominent government officials,
hold to the opinion that the era of low
priced wheat in this country has long
since passed. Average yields per acre
seem to have permanently declined and
that in itself means higher cost of pro-
duction bushel, to say nothing Of the
fact that land values, farm wages and
nearly everything the farmer buys has
advanced decidedly.
Since the earlier years of low prices for
wheat, shown in Mr.. Murray's table of
prices, savings bank deposits and the per
capita Of money in circulation have in
creased enormously, which general fact
leads naturally to initiation and the great
staple article of wheat flour feels it more
than many other articles of food, espe-
cially in a short crop year and poor crops
in Europe My opinion Is that present
prices for wheat represent, under the ex-
listing conditions, reasonable and legiti-
mate imitation; that $3.50 wheat would
mean undue imitation and sure to be fol-
lowed by reduced consumption and great
fall in price; but up to a limit Of, say,
@
there will be no material reduction In con-
| sumption. Labor generally Is too we'll
| employed at good wages to stop at
Scent loaf, against the former 5-cent
loaf. Yet that difference Of / cent means
so cents bushel for wheat. r..
Mr.. Murray's theory would lead, log
| ically, to the farmer thrusting 80 to 80 per
| first few months Of the crop movement
and largely into reserve storage centers
Years of our lowest prices were invariably
accompanied by these conditions.
But 1t is for the best interest of the
country that farmers should market their
crops gradually and obtain fair prices,
rather than in a great rush, resulting in
evitably in low prices and railroad con-
gestion. .
Mr.. Murray claims also that corn is too
high. The crops of 1901 and 1902, con-
sidered together, were not much below an
(cash stuff at Chicago for the two years
were above so cents and at Cincinnati
SAY cents. Considering that both the
1 visible and farm supplies of old crop are
practically exhausted, it is doubtful if
farmers will hasten to sell contract grade
on a basis to justify spectators selling
the May option at As to 46 cents, Chicago
Mr.. Murray says we 'have a moderate
exportable surplus Of wheat I dispute
that proposition. It is true we are ex.
porting some, namely in flour, and If the
same rate is kept up for the crop year
We will have, at the end of the crop year
no visible supply and no farm reserves
The government and all other crop au'
thorities reported up to the opening OF
new crop that farm supplies, above seet
and bread requirements, were practically
exhausted. Do these conditions make fol
anything like the much lower than presen
prices for wheat which Mr.. Murra,
claims should obtain? Another poin
| which some crop authorities seem to over
look is the light weight averages of thi
crop The Kansas state report showed
that only little over Is per cent of tn
gross crop was marketable wheat
largely due to damage by. rains after har
!; vest, but partly to light, shriveled grain
In Minnesota and the Dakotas, much o
the lightweight wheat makes fairly goo,
flour, but takes at least one to two bush
els more a barrel of -four I think it
conservative estimate that the tire
states produced wheat requiring an aver
/ age of one bushel more barrel of flou
than crop Of mainly No. and No.
wheat would and this after throwing
out what is not marketable for millln
purposes. In the whole country, sprin
and winter wheat, it is a conservative
Y estimate that it will require an averag
Q of one-half bushel more barrel of flour
K This means that the crop estimates whic
q are all based on farm or threshers
y measure, must be reduced about 40, 900. 90
bushels from this one cause alone. Fig
uring on the basis Of government of
l. fetal reports Of per capita consumption c
r, wheat, where have we any legitimate eS
y portable surplus of wheat? '-r
n "A. A. Freeman.
l. Nicollet Hotel Oct 90