The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1913-01-15
THE FARMERS SHARE.

DuA AOoo obobSO IhoC thC bOC1l NaiuC
of all the crops of the United States
in 1909 was $5,487, 1000, as com
pared with $4,000, 100000 in 1S99,"
an increase of S3 per cent, says the
New York Sun. The planted acre
age increased about 10 per cent. and
the increase in quantity was approxi-
mately 10 per cent. 1t was found
possible to institute a price COM
parison on about nine-tenths OF the
total crops, and on that basis the
bureau reports that If the crops
valued at $4,934, 100000 in 1909
had been sold at the prices prevail
ing in 1899 the valuation in 1909
would have been $2,962, 5000.
That is, there went into the farm
ers' pockets, entirely by reason of
600, 100000. That sum was paid
by the consumers of -four and pota-
toes and beans and lard and a long
list of other eatables, is charged
by many of them to the malign in
huence of the tariff, the wicked
Vaccinations of the trusts or the
rapacity of the railroads.
We have no quarrel with our es-
JCCLhCu lOllON IlIlAClO w liz I'LL IuO
soil, but in any honest search for the
facts of the existing economic stu
alton, in any fair investigation of the
causes of the present high cost of
living, this force in price making
must be made prominent. Compari-
son of returns for individual years
is unfair, but the method is un-
avoidable in census taking.
On hroodar hocic tho pornon-
tages are changed, but the funda-
mental fact remains unaltered. Thus
the average wheat crop for the five
year period 1S9S-1902 was 633,00O,-
100 bushels and for the five year
period ten years later, 190S-1912, it
was 667,000,000 bushels, an in
crease of about per cent. But the
farm price increased SO per cent,
from an average of 60 cents a
bushel to an average of 80 cents.
On the same basis corn shows an in
crease Of 33 per cent. in quantity and
so per cent. in farm price, and po-
tatoes of Sc per cent in quantity and
80 per cent. in price. Up to date
details Of price and production are
not available for the many farm
products that are included in the
list of articles of daily household
consumption, but the housekeeper
does not need to be told that she is
paying fully 33 to so per cent. more
for fresh fruits, vegetables, butter,
eggs, cheese and numerous other
commodities than she did ten years
ago, although many of those who
pay the bills do not seem to know
that a large part of their money
goes to the worthy farmer rather
than to the baneful trust"
The figures concerning beef cattle
and the conditions affecting the sale
of beef on the block quite effectively
prohibit any accurate concise presen-
tation of the influence of farm
values in relation to block prices,
but cattle appear to be worth about
one-third more than they were ten
years ago. The change in price of
lard, hams and bacon can be more
definitely located. A hog on the
farm is worth a good bit more than
twice what he was ten years ago.
Our cotton goods cost us more mon
ey now than they did ten years ago,
largely by reason of the fact that the
plantation price of raw cotton has in
that time practically doubled. The
census statistics of the production
of dairy products are admittedly in
exact, but the general statement is
made that 1.-The combined farm and
factory production of butter was L.
619, AIS, 900 pounds in 1909 and L.
491, 1853, 900 pounds in 1899," an
increase of only Sc per cent. in
quantity to supply the requirement
of 21 per cent. increase in popula-
ton. 1t would make no difference
in the price of the commodity, for
the reason that there is no appreci-
able surplus supply in any other
country; but butter should certainly
go on the free list, for moral effect
If for no other reason. The egg sit
uation is to some extent explained
by the statement of the bureau that
the average value dozen as re-
ported by the farmers increased
from $0.111 to $0.193." The egg
crop, partly estimated, is reported as
1928, ,662,433 dozen in 1899 and L.
59l, ,311,371 dozen in 1909, the re-
spective total values being $144,-
240,541 and 6,68S,960. 1t is to
be remembered that prices here
quoted are prices on the farm and
not in the store. A part of the in
crease in the cost of clothes and
blankets may be attributed to the
fact that the average price of a
pound of wool was $0.165 in 1899
and S0.226 in 1909.
In this light the farmer appears
as notable beneficiary of price
increase in recent years, but it is as
untrue that all of the increase has
gone into his bank account or his
assets as it is that the duty on man
ufactures goes only into the pockets
of the manufacturers.
The attitude of the coming Con-
gress, with it's promised downward
revision of the tariff, toward the ag-
ricultural schedule will be watched
with as much interest as its strug-
giles with the woollen schedule, the
cotton and the metal and chemical
schedules.
EnNCED