Farmers' champion. (Elgin, Okla.) 1912-1922, 1913-12-10


value Of corn. wheat. kaiir and cotton
In 1912 per square mile.
missouri .................. 2.ISl
Oklahoma ..................... .vt,S5T
Nahsas .................. I,esz
ArkHisas ................ l.t0o
This year Oklahoma has increased
Its agricultural production about $500
per square mile. while values have
scarcely held their own in the other
states. But none, OF the other states
have oil or other minerals In large
quantities to Offset Okiahoma's big oil.
gas and coal production. A fairly ac-
curate estimate of the mineral pro-
ductions OF the states named Is as
follows:
Oklahoma, per square mile area ~ 143
Missouri. per square mile area. 800
Kansas, per square mile area. ... 800
Arkansas, per square mile area. 200
Texas per square mile area. .. 50
Now. then. combine the agricultural
and mineral productions including oil
and gas) and note the result.
Oklahoma per square niIe... 400
Kansas, per square mile. 2,ls2
Missouri, per square mile. ...... 2,6Sl
Arkansas. per square mile. -. 1898
Texas, per square mile. ........ 1,1O3
THE foregoing table is made up
upon the assumption that only Okla
homa has made agricultural gains over
the agricultural production Of last
year,
Another table is necessary to ascer-
tain Oklahoma's standing among its
neighbors. II should be borne In mind
that the foregoing tables and the one
| following do not include all of the pro-
ductions of the states named, but In.
clude only the cereals. cotton and the
minerals tincluding oil and gas). No
account Is taken Of minor crops or
the livestock industry. The following
table shows the per capita value In
the states named:
Oklahoma, per capita Of popula.
tton .................. ..$1eS
Kansas, per capita Of population 112
Texas. per capita OF population. 116
| Arkansas, per capita of population SO
Missouri, per capita Of population so
The foregoing table Is fair pre-
, sentation OF conditions in all but Mis-.
, souri, In Missouri much larger per
cent OF the population Is engaged in
manufacturing than In the others,
while the per cent SO engaged in each
of the other states does not vary ma
terially. The livestock industry in
i Texas, Kansas and Missouri Is some
what more extensive in proportion TO
population than In Oklahoma, but the
inclusion Of livestock would not ma.
terially change the relative standing
OF the states In the per capita produc.
tions.
The greatest handicap to Oklahoms
\ tOday In the fact that few of its fore
most citizens realize its worth-actual
or potential. A timidi.y exists in thii
state In investments due wholly tc
lack of knowledge Of the true worth
OF the state. Land is selling for hall
its real worth because OF the lack al
knowledge OF the state. The timidity
frightens outside investors and drivei
out investment funds. City develop
ment is held back for the same rea
son. The leading citizens OF the state
need course OF instruction upon the
, resources and productions Of theil
state.
Another feature OF great interest II
the geographical location of the states
population. II has been SO often as
serted that the wealth of the state lie.
In the east half that many even whos'
, interests are In the west half have
J been converted to that belief. lnvesti
cation proves the statement to be ut
terly false. The United States ant
} state reports show the agriculture
, productions to be largely in the ives
half OF the state, while oe. gas AM
coal are largely as yet confined to tn
east half. The following table give
r the percentage Of productions In tn
east and the west halves OF the state