Agricultural Development 

 selective processes of pioneer life and the strong 

 remained to build up the State. Of these either the 

 first comers themselves, or their offspring, figured 

 largely in the upbuilding of the interior states of 

 the Pacific Slope. It was a common way among 

 those seeking their fortunes in the farthest west 

 to throw themselves straight at the Pacific seaboard, 

 even if some of them did bounce backward from 

 it to homes east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

 Even the Mormons made a trail to California after 

 the gold discovery, but they retired later to what 

 was at that time the seclusion of the Salt Lake 

 region. Of course many from foreign lands joined 

 the ranks of the pioneers and helped notably to 

 develop and populate the country; but it is a fact 

 that free immigration has always been prevented 

 by distance and cost of transit — so that in direct 

 foreign immigration a rigid selection has always 

 prevailed : only the best, and relatively few of them, 

 passing this barrier. Of indirect immigration, 

 Americanized aliens and their off'spring, we have 

 received a large percentage of our present popula- 

 tion, but with them the same selective process pre- 

 vailed as with native-born Americans, and with the 

 same results. Without argument, then, it may per- 

 haps be conceded that the Pacific Coast States have 

 a population incidentally selected for purpose and 

 efficiency, and this has proven a ruling factor in 

 development. 



Statistics of Pacific Coast Development in 

 Agriculture. — Those who have preceded me in this 

 "Division of Natural Resources and their Develop- 

 ment" have emphasized achievements which have 

 a mineral basis. The relative percentage of rural 

 population in the Pacific States and the value cre- 

 ated by farming is determined by the United States 

 Census of 1910 as follows: 



population of pacific states and agricultur- 

 al VALUE. 



Population* Per cent Value of all 



rural farm property* 



Arizona 204 69.0 75,124 



Utah 373 53.7 150,795 



Nevada 82 83.7 60,399 



Idaho 326 78.5 30'5,317 



Washington 1142 47.0 637,543 



Oregon 673 54.4 528,244 



California 2378 38.2 1,614,695 



* Expressed in thousands, three figures being omitted. 



The last five years have been very active in 

 development in the Pacific States, and present at- 

 tainment is much greater than that of the last census 

 year, but no authoritative measure of it is avail- 

 able for all the territory in the above table. 



226 



