Norwich bulletin., 1921-01-14

live, there was a period of eight or ten years when our farm assessments were boosted by from eight to fifteen per
 cent, each year, one alter another. For l instance my own farm is ftoday assess ed at something over eighty per cent. more than it was twenty years. ago, i though it wouldn't sell, as farm, for as much now as it would then. (Tl,e 1 oppressive taxation following increased
 assessment-value deters prospective buy-
 CTS from considering anything in local
 farms, except at bargain prices.) Pel-
 haps this fictitious and enforced increase l in assessments may have been reflected
 in reported valuations. I don't know. l l have no access to any figures showing ; the facts, and hazard this as mele sur- lmise.
 Now please listen to one more state
 mcnt of this city statistics-ronger:
 Furthermore when a business depres-
 sion comes along, the farmer fares better than other business men. He is pro- I ducer of absolute necessities, and his i market does not slump so badly
 Oh, ye gods and little hshesi Only the other day, called your at-
 tention to the government figures which showed that the farm market this past season, "slumped" to such an extent that . the farmers of the whole country were : able to sell their big 192U crops for only
 5000, 100000 as against more than s14, 4,000, ,O00.0 900 paid them for the small , CT crops of 1919. That was slump" 5 of $5,00O. 900. And it all happened ir . less than three months Moreover, this X farm slump came before any other
 market in the land so much as tottered 8 No other market, whether of commodi 2 ties of labor. has even yet fallen ir = comparable degree.
 ! Let me beg you to glance over son' " crop figures from the governments las U report, that for December, 192U. The, : won't be so dull reading as you may ex Il pect. 5 Corn, to begin with: The coW,try's 192 = crop was 3,232, 367,000 bushels agains
 1858 ,000 bushels for 19l9-L e. 574,
 O00,0O0 bushels MORE in 1920 than i e 1919. And its farm value is reported b Q the same authority as having been S3 If S51. TAI 900 in 1919 and $2,1Ss,721, 900 i [, 1920-i. C. S1,662, 100000 LESS in 192 n than in 1919! The farm value5 per bush d el, reported by the same authority, wa 5 $1S4 in 1919 and sixty-seven cents, jus l. one-half, in 1920l
 l. Spring wheat: The farmers of the wes i-i produced 4,603, 900 bushels MORE in. 19z y than in 1919, and they got S194 ,650,00 d LESS for it! l. Oats: We raised, amongst us, 2s4,3o1 10 VVU uuouSIS ILOTS III 1JSU lIldn III 1J l; to and we got S1S0, ,515 .oO0 less for them B. Potatoes: We grew 74,635, ,0O0 bu5he re more in 1920 than in 1915, and they wer
 worth S70,394,0 900 less to us
 Rice: The southern rice-planters prC n, n, ducsd 10,729,000 bushels more in 192 ~, ,' than in 1919, and had to sell it for $50 ]& 315 ,001 less.
 10 Cotton: The cotton states baled 1 us 56S,000 more bales in 1920 than in 1S1 ts and it's price on the plantations is r ," ported at $1,12Q, ,000,0o2 less
 T. Onions: With about S,0U0, 900 bushe LII larger output in 1920. the farm price
 reported at S1.31 a bushel against S2.1 C. in 1919
 e- Cabbage: With considerably over dol of ble the crop ill 1929 of that of 1919, u ne farm price is reported as s30.7S ton x 20 against $52.74 in '19. (Thcse figure h. both as to onlons and cabbages, q ve strangely at variance with the p1ic re quoted by buyers for the big city ma re kets. Onions. for example, are quot ,n in the New York wholesale market at ng average of about 75 cents instead up S1.31, and cabbage averages $I6 a t DTS in that same market, instead of s3e' ss- These are New York wholesale pric gre too, and a good deal higher than pric