68 TRANSACTIONS OF THE 



loss to the farmers by the purchase of sacks is not less than two million 

 of dollars. This is an absolute loss to the State, to say nothing of the 

 unnecessary additional expense of moving grain in this slia])e, which 

 comes out of the consumer. 



To dispose of the expense of sacks, it is believed that if the farmers 

 would combine together, and steadily and firml}- refuse to deliver their 

 grain in them, the speculators and mill men, to avoid this unnecessary 

 tax upon their business, would soon find means to handle grain in bulk, 

 by the use of elevators and other appliances adopted in other countries, 

 and the freight men would readily (conform their means of convej-ance 

 to the i-equirements of the case, as they have elsewhere, and thus would 

 result agi'eat saving to the State, and particularly to the farming interest. 



Again, it has been estiniated by a careful writer an4 statistician that 

 the fences in thirteen leading agricultural counties in California, viz : 

 Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, JSIapa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San 

 Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma. Sutter, and Yolo, cost 

 the agricultural interests in those counties the sum of nineteen million 

 five hundi-ed and ninety-four thousand nine hundred dollars. Tliat the 

 annual expense of keeping these fences in repair, including interest on 

 the original investment, is five million nine hundred and forty thousand 

 six hundred and seventy-four dollars. The same writer estimates the 

 total value of the gross annual agricultural ])roducts of the same counties, 

 excepting stock, at twenty million sixty thousand eight hundred and 

 twenty-four dollars. By this estimate it appears that the original cost 

 of fencing the farms in these counties, supposing them to be well fenced, 

 is very nearly equal to the total value of their entire crop for an average 

 year. And the cost, per annum, of sustaining these fences in re]Dair is 

 over one fourth the total value of the annual agricultural crops which 

 they are designed to protect. 



It is hardly necessar}^ to state that this enornious and to some extent 

 self imposed tax upon the agricultural interest in these counties is 

 thought to be necessary in order that their horses and cattle may be 

 allowed to roam at large upon the public commons as the monarchs of all 

 they survey. Sheep and hogs must be left out of consideration in these 

 estimates, they not being among the privileged classes of quadrupeds — ■ 

 not free commoners. Then let us inquire what is the value of the horses 

 and cattle in these counties, for whose benefit all this money is 

 expended and these hardshijis are imposed upon the farmers and their 

 families. The same writer, whose estimates we have used above, and ho 

 bases his estimates upon the official returns of the County Assessors, 

 makes the whole value of all the horses, mules, cattle, sheep, and hogs 

 in the thirteen counties above named, eiglit million eight hundred and 

 four thousand seven hundred and twent3'-four dollars. About one fourth 

 of this entire value, or two million two hundred and one thousand one 

 hundi-ed and eii^hty-one doUai-s, is represented by sheep and hogs, 

 leaving the total value of the stock against which the fences are built, 

 six million six hundred and three thousand five hundred and forty-three 

 dollars. The yearly increase or product of this stock is about thirty- 

 three per cent, or two million two hundred and one thousand one hun- 

 dred and eighty-one dollars. 



Now let us look at the deformity of this system of farming from a 

 business or economical jjoint of view. We have invested nineteen mil- 

 lion five hundi-ed and ninety-four thousand nine hundred doUai's, and 

 are annually adding five million nine hundred and forty thousand six 

 hundred and sevenly-four dollars to the original investment, for the pur- 



