the war, and the fact that it was worth $400, 000,000 "OK 

 the consuming markets ; he would not enjoy the profits- 

 from the difference in values ; that the loss in this respect 

 would equal if not exceed $200,000,000 m n. 



Experience has demonstrated the truth of my obser- 

 vations, and the just appreciation of our losses to the 

 farmer in this respect; figures which at the date of pub- 

 lication were treated as fantastic. 



That the losses which would result if we were ob- 

 liged by circumstances to hold up the dispatch of our 

 crop, if we were obliged to retain it in the country for 

 only a few months more than anticipated, if, by chance- 

 sufficient ships were not at hand to carry it away, or any 

 other contingency intervened (it is true I had not strikes- 

 in our port in mind but rather delays in the arrival of 

 ships) to impede its sale and dispatch, would exceed all 

 previous calculations, and mean immense losses through* 

 deterioration as there exists no place to store our ce- 

 reals, is without doubt and beyond all argument,. 

 At a lowest figure this would mean that one quarter" 

 of the crop would have to be thrown away or sold for at 

 mere bagatelle, and taking the loss of this, plus the loss- 

 in the labour in sowing, harvesting, bagging, storing and 

 seed thrown away, our farmers would be out of pocket to> 

 the tune of $150,000,000. 



At the moment I write, the press is full of reports of: 

 immense piles of wheat, heated, and "Gorgoja" eaten r 

 etc., of the maize rotting and mouldy in the "trojes",, 

 etc., etc., and our losses are for this year's crop 1918-9-' 

 even calculated to exceed my estimate on 1914. 



That the waste of money in sacks, occasioned normal- 

 ly through sacks being used as places to store our cereals., 

 would be double and treble the customary ; that a suddeiy 

 demand for sacks in case of our crop remaining unsold,, 

 would force the price up and add to their cost by creat- 

 ing an artificial shortage, and speculation would step ins 

 to add to their price; that instead of sixty millions pesos 

 in sacks we would have to buy for three times the amount,, 

 and pay war prices for them ; that despite the increased; 

 expenditure the shortage would still exist even after wast- 

 ing over $150,000,000 m n. in buying sacks, which after 

 they would be worth not one quarter of their price when: 

 we came to sell them with the grain, so that even the 

 lowest computation, still allowing for the extra price we i 

 might obtain for our grain, would leave us out of pocket 

 over sacks by more than $45,000,000. As a matter of fact 

 they have proved nearly double my estimate in 1914. 



That from the money the farmer spends on sacks 

 he recuperates nothing even in normal times, so that the 



