The Liberal democrat. [volume] (Liberal, Kan.) 1911-1924, 1913-12-19

JOHH rlelub VI inc OhldHOuld rdIH
Journal worked out of the government
reports the following table giving the
value Of corn, wheat, kafir and cotton
in 1912 per square mile:
Oklahoma ................... .$1,95T
Kansas ...................' l,oSZ
Arkansas ..............!.... lif5o
leAas ''''..'..' .'.'''''.....'' l,ofo
This year Oklahoma has increased
its agricultural production about 5000
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 Oklahomas big oil,
gas and coal production. A fairly &C
curate estimate of the mineral pro-
auctions of the states named Is as
follows:
Oklahoma, per square mile area 81 143
Missouri per square mile area. 500
Kansas, per square mile area. 300
Arkansas, per square mile area. 200
Texas, per square mile area. 60
Now, then, combine the agricultural
and mineral productions dncluding oil
and gas) and note the result
Oklahoma per square mile. .$3,4oo
Kansas, per square mile. ....... 2,192
Missouri, per square mile. ...... 1851
Arkansas, per square mile, ,,... 1898
Texas, per square mile. ........ 1,703
(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. 1t should be borne in mind
that the foregoing tables and the one
following do not include all of the pro-
auctions of the states named, but in
clude only the cereals, cotton and the
minerals (including 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-
tlon '....'........'. ........ ."@l44
Kansas, per capita of population liz
Texas, per capita of population. 116
Arkansas, per capita Of population So
Missouri, per capita of population go
The foregoing table is a fair pre-
sentation of conditions in all but Mis-
souri,. In Missouri a 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
Texas, Kansas and Missourf 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 Oklahoma
today is the fact that few of its fore
most citizens realize its worth-actual
or potential A timidity exists in this
state in investments due wholly to
lack of knowledge of the true worth
of the state. Land is selling for half
its real worth because of the lack of
knowledge of the state. The timidity
frightens outside investors and drives
out investment funds. City develop
ment is held back for the same rea-
son. The leading citizens Of the state
need a course of instruction upon the
resources and productions of their
state.
Another feature of great interest Is
the geographical location of the states
population. 1t has been so often as
serted that the wealth of the state lies
In the east half that many even whose
interests are in the west half have
been converted to that belief. lnvesti-
cation proves the statement to be ut
terly false. The United States and
state reports show the agricultural
productions to be largely in the west
half of the state, while oil, gas and
coal are largely as yet confined to the
east half. The following table gives
the percentage of productions in the
east and the west halves of the state:
East West
Items Hail Hair
Area cultivated .........34To $50
Cotton produced ........ 1870 500
Corn produced ...........34%o $50
Wheat produced ....... go $40
Oats produced .......... 1870 67%o
Broom Corn produced. .... 90 1000
Alfalfa produced ..... go 91To
Kafir and milo produced ~ 93%