The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1910-04-01

which Mr.. Hill derived MS ngureS with
regard to acreage production and the
drift of population-what becomes OF
the great railroad mans theory2 We
raised the wheat. No matter how few
men raised it. No matter how little
they raised to the acre. There is the
wheat-more for each OF US than ever.
Yet bread is higher in price than ever.
Why7
Never mind "why"--not just yet.
This recital of dry facts is an effort first
to establish a case of robbery. It's an
effort to enable the public to place a
proper valuation upon the high-price-
of-food statements of Mr.. Hill, Mr..
Taft, Mr.. Brown and all the other gen
tlemen who talk about the subject as
they talk. So, let us go on.
In 1898, the average price of wheat,
according to the department of agri-
culture, was "a cents a bushel. Now
it is lowering around the dollar mark.
about four and half bushels of wheat
are required to make a barrel of flour.
The farmer is therefore receiving $1.04
more than he did in 1898 for the
wheat from which a barrel Of flour is
made. The consumer, even at 81 a
barrel, is paying $3.50 a barrel more
than he did in 1898. Buying by the
sack, as he usually does, he pays $3.50
more than he did seventeen years ago.
Somewhere between the farmer and the
consumer $2.46 has disappeared. The
consumer paid it. The farmer didn't
get it. Who got it7 Workingmen in
the -four mills? A little of it, maybe.
But figure up how little of increased
wages can be charged against single
barrel of flour by mill with big out
put.
The consideration of bread suggests
milk and butter. Some butter may
come from the seed of the cotton, and
some milk may come from the pump,
but the real articles still come from the
cows. The simplest way to determine
whether our milk and butter supplies
are running short is therefore to COM
pare the number of COWS and people,
at some time in the past, with the
number of cows and people at the pres
ent time. And, for the purpose of this
comparison, we may again turn to the
records of the United States depart
ment Of agriculture.
From this source, we learn that, for
the decade that ended in 1895, there
was precisely quarter Of milch COW
to each man, woman and child in the
United States. For the decade that
ended with 1905, there was ID of
mich COW to each inhabitant. In
other words, in ten years there was a
decrease of one one-hundredth Of
mich COW to each person. But, dur
ing the three years that ended with
1908, there was an increase Of two one
hundredths. The departments figures
for 1909 are not yet available, but the
extreme care that the COW takes to
keep close to population is sufficient
guarantee that each inhabitant has, as
he had in 1908, twenty-four one
hundredths of COW.
Here Mr.. Hill and Mr.. Taft win out
by an eyelash-but it will be we'll for
those gentlemen if they do not try to
use these figures to bolster up their
contention that decreased relative sup
ply is the cause OF the present high
prices. In 1891 the retail price of
milk was a cents a quart. According
to the old law Of supply and demand,
the decrease of one one-hundredth in
the per capita supply of COWS should
have increased the price of Accent
milk four ten-thousandths of cent. In
stead, something has increased the
price of milk 100 per cent. The con-
sumner now pays 8 where he used to
pay 4; and, in New York, he some
times pays 9.
The farmer, on the other hand, re-
ceives little more for his milk than he
did when milk was retailed at 4 cents
a quart. This fact was brought out at
an inquiry held last winter by the
attorney general of the state of New
York. All the farmers who testified
told the same story. No buyers ex-