96 



The average export value for twelve years is given, showing that it fell 

 from $1 12 in 1875, to 89 cents in 1887. 



Mr. McCarty in his valuable "Statistician" gives a table showing aver- 

 age value per bushel in the United States; average yield per acre, and 

 average value per acre from 1862 to 1887. In 1866 the price reached 

 $2 19^ per bushel, and in 1884 as low as 64-J cents per bushel; and the 

 lowest yield, in 1881, giving ten and two tenths bushels per acre. The 

 highest value per acre was $23 in 1867, and the lowest $8 05 in 1885. The 

 average in 1887 was as follows: Value per bushel, 68.1 cents; yield per 

 acre, twelve and one tenth bushels; value per acre, $8 25. 



The average value per acre of California's wheat crop of 1887 was $7 40. 

 This was a very bad year, but in 1886 the average value per acre of our 

 wheat crop was only $7 30, as shown by the same authority. Both these 

 years prices were low; but the question for the wheat grower to consider is, 

 can better results be expected in the future, when we know that the aver- 

 age yield per acre is falling off, and the price has been on the decline for 

 some years? It is certain that the wheat growers of California, as a class, 

 have lost money in late years. Individual instances and exceptional lands 

 may be pointed out where profits are made, but any one familiar with the 

 straggles of the mass of wheat farmers in this State knows that matters 

 with them have been going from bad to worse. 



I tried an important case four years ago, where it became necessary to 

 show the cash rental value per acre per annum of the best Sacramento 

 River bottom lands in Tehama County, and they are as good as can be 

 found for wheat raising. Such witnesses as John Finnell, J. S. Cone, Hugh 

 Mooney, and Herbert Kraft were called. Two of these are among the 

 largest and most successful wheat growers in the State. The result of the 

 testimony showed that $3 per acre per annum was all a renter could afford 

 to pay. This yields only 10 per cent interest on $30 per acre for land that 

 at the time was assessed at $50 per acre, and is now selling at $100 per 

 acre. The tax on the land was $1 per acre, leaving but $2 to the owner. 

 This is only 2 per cent per annum on the market value of the land. 



It is due to wheat growers and to the State to say, however, that our 

 average yield is less because many lands have been cultivated to wheat 

 that are not adapted to it, and that the average value per acre is reduced 

 for the same cause. That many men are making money raising wheat I 

 know to be true. I am only seeking to point out the actual condition of 

 the industry generally, and to suggest better and higher uses for much of 

 our lands now devoted to wheat. 



There is another important factor for the California wheat grower to con- 

 sider — the market for his surplus; and this also involves the question of the 

 competition he must meet in seeking the markets of the world. 



For our surplus the home market outside of California is shut off by the 

 great mountain ranges, and the long line of rail transportation to States of 

 the Union having a deficiency. 



The market for our surplus wheat is Liverpool. California farmers will 

 ever be subjected to the changing conditions in Europe, and to the fluctua- 

 tions in the cost of transportation by sea. This last element is a menacing 

 one. A table of rates from 1878 to 1888 shows a fluctuation ranging from 

 85 shillings ($21 25) per long ton in 1881, to 25 shillings ($4 25) per ton 

 in 1887. No one can foresee or provide against this factor; and it comes to 

 this, that the price of California's surplus is fixed in Liverpool, and the 

 price in Liverpool is fixed in part by the shipowners, and the shipowners 

 are governed in part by the demand on this coast for freights brought hither 

 from abroad. The table of shipping rates for the period named is itself the 



