14 



THIRTY-FOURTH FRUIT-GROWERS ' CONVENTION. 



this is not necessary, for the mere presentation of the list will show that 

 farming, stock raising, and dairying have not been treated unfairly. 

 During the three last years the University has received $282,000 for 

 the Davisville Farm. The stockmen were the prime movers in getting 

 the $150,000 in 1905 with which to purchase the land. In 1907 the 

 Legislature added $132,000 to the farm fund, the appropriation bill 

 providing that this fund shall be used ''for the purpose of equipping 

 and furnishing the dairy building and livestock pavilion; the erection 

 and equipment of a dormitory building, the construction of cottages, 

 livestock barns and buildings, of greenhouses and propagating houses 

 for horticultural and viticultural purposes, the purchase of livestock, 

 dairy and farm machinery." The great educational work here pro- 

 vided for is not partial to the fruit grower, for the livestock and dairy 

 buildings alone will absorb the greater part of this appropriation. The 

 University has" given wide attention to the interests of farming and 

 vegetable growing through its regular faculty work ; and in the labora- 

 tory at Whittier field crops are receiving about as much attention as 

 fruit trees. Of the $164,500 appropriated in 1907 to the California 

 Polytechnic School the policy toward farming was as liberal as the pro- 

 visions made for the work of the University. The Polytechnic School 

 received $12,000 for building a creamery and $15,000 for the purchase 

 of additional farm land. There can be no question but that the Uni- 

 versity College of Agriculture and the Polytechnic School will be 

 impartial in the way they will conduct their educational and experi- 

 mental work, but from the very nature of the work the equipment and 

 support of their course must largely favor the farm and stock interests. 

 Nor has the General Government been less attentive to the interests in 

 question, for the agricultural bill just passed at Washington carried 

 an appropriation of $11,500,000, and the largest single appropriation 

 for agricultural purposes on record was that of $250,000 for investi- 

 gating the cotton boll weevil. And the fruit growers pay their pro- 

 portion of these great expenditures. 



In this discussion I have not alluded in detail to the expenditures of 

 the Federal, State and county governments for the advancement of 

 agriculture. Immense sums have been spent here in forestry work and 

 protection, in soil and drainage, surveying, and kindred activities. But 

 it requires an equal amount of money per acre to determine the char- 

 acter of grain land as compared with fruit land ; reforestation and fire 

 protection are alike valuable to fruit culture, grazing, lumbering and 

 grain growing; reclamation, drainage, and levee protection cost the 

 same for ^11 classes of land, and national irrigation, even if applied 

 entirely to fruit culture, is not paid for by a property tax. Those 

 interests which complain of county expenditures for orchard protection 

 should remember that no assessment is made on farm crops, except 

 atlfalfa, and that every vineyard over three years old and every orchard 

 over four pay tribute to the county as well as the State fund in addi- 

 tion to the assessed value of the land on which the orchard or vineyard 

 may grow. It requires no argument to show that the fruit growers 

 should receive protection from the State and county funds that will 

 in some measure make up for this special tax which is levied on their 

 property every year. 



I hope this subject is of such vital interest to you that it will not 



