Daily Kennebec journal., 1911-04-24

make for themselves and for the cities
which supply them. TO quote again
from James J. Hills book:
An industrious, fairly intelligent and
exceedingly comfortable agricultural
community can raise from the soil food
enough for the needs of 490 persons TO the
square mile. Adopting that ratio, the
4l4 49S, 4S7 acres OF improved farm lands
in the United States on the date of Tho
last official report-an area materially en-
larged by the present time-would sup
port in comfort 81 $50 400 people enabling
cradle food for export and to engage in
necessary manufacturing employments
Applying the same ratio to the entire
acreage of farm lands within the United
states both improved and unimproved
which was at the same date SIS 591 ia, the
population indicated as able to live with
comfort and prosperity on the actually
existing agricultural area of this country,
under an intelligent system and a fairly
competent but by no means highly scen-
tifc method of agriculture, rises to CA,
046. S23.
fApplause)
Let any gentleman who secs golden
visions of prosperity in buying from
tho Canadian farmers instead of from
our own farmers apply Mr.. lIilFs esti-
mate to his own state. such a devel-
opment of agriculture with a har-
m1nlous supplementary development
of manufactures on her great water
powers, would give to Maine d popu-
lation of 100000 people. Her COM
m"rcial metropolis. Portland. would
find in that population business to
justify great and healthy growth.
based on prosperous country about.
Is not that growth better than the
congestion of people driven from un-
profitable farms to seek employment
in the city, like the idle thousands of
London who tramp the streets in want
while the acres of England are going
out of cultivation? applause on the
Republican side.)
Here lies the greatest conservation
opportunity ever placed before a ma
ton. II is an opportunity that can be
seized only by the efforts of the far
mers. And yet We today are propos-
ing to take the heart out of their ef-
forts by destroying the natural equili-
brium of their home market. Cap
rlause on the Republican side.)
Farmer Not Responsible for Cost of
Living.
While the proposed proceeding
fensihle the outcrv in the cities
against the high cost of living impels
us onward in our search for Il victim.
We all admit the high prices; mary
OF us are oppressed by them; few of
us know that wholesale prices have
been falling for nearly q year, so much
does the retail price affect us But
has anyone proven that the ruin of the
American farmer will lower prices in
the cities except as it may shrivei the
business OF the cities? And ought
not some one to prove this before we
proceed to spoil the farmers home
market for the next two generations?
To give little personal experience.
While the farmers Of Maine have been
getting % cents bushel for potatoes.
/ have been paying for them dollar
hushel. You may think this an ex-
trcme illustration of the difference be-
tween the price the farmer gets and
tie price the consumer pays. I am
not certain that it is. Unfortunately
we have had no investigation on this
highly important point. In another
distinguished body an inquiry was
proposed last year, but, unless my
iiI'HioIS y 10 at lotits al dpplOpl ldlioll
for it was defeated by objection from
the Democratic side of the Chamber.
But our own observation and that of
others will show us that there is a
vast difference between consumers
prices and farmers prices. Last sum
mer Mr. B. F. Yoakum, head of the
Frisco Railway system, published in
the Saturday Evening Post an article
on .The farmer and the cost of living"
in which he set forth, after what he
considered "a careful investigation.
the food bill of New York City for the
year as related to the farmer. Here it
is: