98 



nine thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight bushels in 1872 to twenty 

 million two hundred and ninety-two thousand one hundred bushels in 

 1885, are not to be despised. How long it may take to overcome the preju- 

 dices of centuries that cling to these people is hard to say; but when im- 

 proved implements and methods are introduced and adopted, how long 

 will it take British India to supply the deficiency in Great Britain ? Six 

 times her export of 1885 would fully supply Great Britain on the basis of 

 her average purchases for the past fifteen years. 



In the Argentine Republic of South America we have another and a 

 formidable prospective competitor. She has an immense area of land suit- 

 able for wheat culture. European immigration is rapidly changing pas- 

 toral lands into arable culture. In 1887 it was estimated that' in three 

 years the increase of cereal crops was 23 per cent, of which twenty million 

 bushels were wheat, half of which was available for transportation. Should 

 immigration continue wheat culture will be rapidly extended. In the 

 opinion of our Commissioner of Agriculture Great Britain can more easily 

 supply her wants from this source than from India. 



Many of you will remember the remarkable essay of Prince Krapotkin 

 in the Nineteenth Century," upon the future food supply of Great Britain. 

 I cannot stop to quote him, but he showed that the United Kingdom might 

 have food to export and feed thirty-seven million people if her present area 

 were cultivated as land is on the average in Belgium. And so it would 

 seem that Great Britain has it in her power to supply herself within the 

 borders of the United Kingdom alone. 



I need not extend the list of competitors. They are Russia, Australasia, 

 Africa, and some other countries. 



This question of markets of the world, about which the people have 

 recently heard a great deal, is a serious one to the producer in the United 

 States. Good and bad crops or increase or decrease of area seems not to 

 figure very much. It often happens that the price has been high when 

 the crop was large, and often the reverse, and sometimes short crops and 

 low prices go together, as we know to our sorrow in California. The supply 

 of the world regulates the price, and our crop figures only towards the 

 aggregate. The United States produce more than one fifth of the wheat of 

 the world. The country has furnished in grain and flour from 1872 to 1884 

 51.1 per cent of the world's deficiency. Russia averaged 13.6 per cent, and 

 India 7.9 per cent. 



California exports about 70 per cent of her crop, or about twenty-five 

 million bushels, and this is about one fifth of all the wheat exported from 

 the United States in years of largest demand. 



We produce about one twelfth of the wheat of the United States, so that 

 our excess of exports over other portions of the Union is very great. This 

 is the disadvantage we labor under in being deprived of a home market. 



Improved methods of harvesting have cheapened wheat growing to large 

 growers (the combined harvester has done much), but they are not avail- 

 able to the small farmer. But however cheaply we may grow wheat, of 

 what will it avail after we have lost our market? 



But I must leave the case of the plaintiff. Let us sum up our conclu- 

 sions: 



First — It seems to me that wheat growing in California for the markets 

 of the world is at least precarious. 



Second — Average production to the acre is diminishing. 

 Third — Fertility of the soil is diminishing. 



Fourth — We are at a disadvantage with our competitors by reason of their 

 cheaper and better facilities for transportation. 



