376 THE YEAR-BOOK OF AGRICULTURE. 



The following table gives the production of wheat in the other States and Territories, 



according to the census of 1850, and according to the estimates of the Herald for 1855 : — 



Hushels of Wheat. 

 1850. 1 866. 



Arkansas 199,000 300,000 



California 17,000 150,000 



District of Columbia 17,000 20,000 



Connecticut 41,000 50.000 



Delaware 482,000 660,000 



Florida 1,000 L'.umi 



i, orgia 1,OS8,000 l,20o.ouo 



Louisiana — 



Maine 296,000 400.000 



Massachusetts 31,000 50,000 



Mississippi 137,000 200,000 



New Hampshire 185,000 200,000 



New Jersey 1,601,000 2,000,000 



North Carolina 2,130,000 2,500,000 



Rhode Island — — 



South Carolina 1,066,000 1.200,000 



Texas 41,000 100,000 



Vermont 535.000 650, I 



Minnesota 1,000 600,000 



New Mexico 196,000 .jno.ooo 



Oregon 211,000 500,000 



Utah 107,000 500.(ii'0 



Kansas — 200,000 



Nebraska — 200,000 



Total 8,382,000 11,872,000 



Fourteen States in previous table 92,086,000 156,700,000 



Grand total 100,468,000 168,572,000 



In comparing the estimates as given by Mr, Cist with those of the New York Herald, and 

 also with those of the New York Courier and Enquirer, (leaving out of consideration those 

 of the Cincinnati Price Current, as far below the truth,) it will be seen that the principal 

 element of difference consists in the estimate placed upon the crop of Ohio. Making this the 

 same for each estimate, and the aggregates differ but little. In regard to the estimate of 

 Mr. Cist, he says: I consider Kentucky, Alabama, and Tennessee entitled to the estimate 

 given by me, not less on account of the favorable season, but because, in 1839, they yielded 

 respectively four millions eight hundred and three thousand one hundred and fifty-two, 

 eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand and fifty-two, and four millions five hundred and 

 sixty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-two. For the old States of Maryland, Virginia, 

 New York, and Pennsylvania, which have formerly been the principal sources of supply for 

 wheat, my estimate is not greatly above that of the Pries Current, and is less than that of 

 the Herald. It is in the great wheat-growing States of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa. Michi- 

 gan, Wisconsin, and Missouri, which, great a- is their aggregate, lias far from developed 



their productm capacity, that the great difference between my estimate and that of most 



others consists. And my estimates of those States differ little in the aggregate, except as 



relate- to ( >hio, from those of the Herald. < lor difference upon Ohio, and his short allowance 



for California and Texas, would about make up the difference of our general aggregate. 

 \nd now for Ohio. My estimate of its wheat crop, for IS",;,, ,,f forty millions, will, doubt] 



. and discredit my judgment with yet more. Why I should exceed by 



1 per cent, on this point the figures of other business men in our City and State, is well 



calculated to inspire suspicion, surprise, and distrust The wheat crop of Ohio was, in 



Bn I Bnahsia 



■ 16,671,661 



1- 17 16,800,000 



l- 18 20,000,000 



1 i,l-. 



28,760,137 



L851 25,800,226 



1862 22,062,774 



The Agon - for 1889 and 1849 i d from the United states Census of 1840 and 1850. 



Those for 1M7 and 1848 will be found iii th" Patent Offioc agricultural Reports for those 



ira. The figures for the three late] ire taken from the ofioia] returns in the office 



of the auditor of : Ohio. The exhibit of ls.Vi. although the largest on the li.st, is 



