38 



mileage scale and materially lower on the longer distances than even the 

 pre-war mileage scale. One after another a number of the prominent roads 

 adopted this scale. To date, there are sixteen that have applied it and the 

 total mileage of these sixteen roads within Illinois amounts to nearly 

 eight thousand or nearly two-thirds of the total mileage of all roads within 

 the state. There are a number of important roads, however, that have 

 not even yet adopted the scale; also the problem of a suitable basis for what 

 is known as joint hauls, or traffic involving two or more roads, has not 

 yet been worked out. The latter is "on the board's" now. It does not seem 

 possible that anything can be accomplished until the general rate hearings, 

 which are taking place at present at Washington, have been concluded and 

 the Interstate Commerce Commission has handed down some decision. The 

 roads are all in a position where they are unwilling to take any voluntary 

 steps until they know what is to be legislated upon them. I am hoping that 

 this situation will clear up and settle down by the first of April, or soon 

 thereafter, and that we will then be able to attack, with prospect of results, 

 this joint haul problem. Even as it is, Illinois seems to be the object of 

 envy from the limestone producers and users of other states on this freight 

 rate matter. 



FAULTY DISTRIBUTION, NOT OVER-PKODUCTION. 



Before concluding my remarks, I would like to emphasize a distinction 

 which, I think, is too often entirely overlooked, or at least mimimized. It 

 is the distinction between maximum production and efficient production. 

 Authorities tell us that, taking the world as a whole today, there is not an 

 over-production but rather an under-production of food crops. What seems 

 to us in America and is, in effect, an over-production at this time is due 

 to the fact that distribution is out of joint. We should not, however, allow 

 considerations of the need for curtailed production, if such really exists, 

 to make us less efficient, but we should instead strive to be more efficient 

 in production. Efficiency is a money maker in times of prosperity and high 

 prices, but it is also a money saver, yes, even a buisness life saver, in 

 times of low prices and distress. If there is really an over-production and 

 prices of farm crops are low relative to the cost of production, would we not 

 be better off in every respect if we could grow three-fourths as much on 

 two-thirds the acreage? Limestone and phosphorus, or in other words soil 

 fertility, constitute the cornerstone of agricultural efficiency. I quote from 

 an article in Harvey's Weekly, dated September 27, 1919: 



"British economists are urging an increase of agricultural produc- 

 tion in the United Kingdom, and are pointing out the discreditable con- 

 trast between that country and Germany, before the war, in the amount 

 of staples produced in proportion to the total area under cultivation. 

 The contrast between those countries and the United States is still more 

 striking and more discreditable. Thus to each 100 acres of cultivated 

 land Germany produced 33 tons of wheat, Great Britain 15 tons, and the 

 United States 4% tons. To each 100 acres Germany produced 55 tons 

 of potatoes, Great Britain 11 tons, and the United States 2% tons. To 

 each 100 acres Germany produced 28 tons of milk, Great Britain 17% 

 tons, and the United States 5 tons. It is doubtless true that those 

 countries devote a larger proportion of their land to these crops than 

 does the United States, where vast areas are planted in cotton, corn, 

 and other crops not grown in Europe. Nevertheless the contract is also 

 due largely to the difference in methods of cultivation, and the conse- 

 quently much smaller production from each acre here than there. We 

 shall be great gainers if intensive cultivation is promoted as a result 

 of necessary war-thrift." 



I would like to ask: Did the war make us more thrifty and efficient, 

 or did it make us more extravagant? Did it encourage well balanced diver- 

 sified and conservative methods of agricultural production or did it cause 



