1913. 
11 ol 
There is great need of a bridge or tube over or 
under tlie Delaware River to connect Camden, N. J., 
with Philadelphia. The ferry which now connects 
these points has made little improvement in the last 
50 years, while paying great profits to its owners. 
In 1912 it is said that this ferry company had a 
gross income of $304,644, with dividends of $315,- 
000, while the surplus was $49,644.37. While making 
this great profit, the company gave very poor and 
inadequate service to farmers who haul their pro¬ 
duce to Philadelphia. This city must depend upon 
the farms and gardens of Central and Southern New 
Jersey for a large share of its food, and the Jersey 
farmers must find their market across the river. 
Thus the policy of both States should be to bring 
consumer and producer together by making quick 
and reasonable transportation between them. There 
should be a bridge or tube for the easy passage of 
farm wagons. This will mean quicker and easier 
transportation of farm produce and anything which 
does that will benefit all Jersey farmers. This is 
a State issue in which all the people are interested. 
The railroad companies will naturally oppose any 
bridge or tube which they cannot control but the 
people and not the railroads of New Jersey should 
take charge of this work. The situation is a com¬ 
plicated one, as it involves inter-State travel, but 
at any rate every member of the next Legislature 
should be made to understand that the people need 
this communication. 
* 
Depopulation of the rural districts seems to be 
world-wide. Our farmers are often told about the 
great prosperity of French agriculture, yet even in 
France there is the same abandonment of the soil. 
In 1862 there were 4,000,000 persons engaged in agri¬ 
cultural pursuits in France; in 1912 there were 
2,320.000, or a loss of 40 per cent, in 50 years. The 
French Parliament recently discussed a plan for im¬ 
posing a special tax on all foreign workmen who 
enter France. The object of this was to provide 
more work and extra pay for French workmen, and 
in this way make farm labor more attractive. The 
plan failed, because it was shown that farmers could 
not harvest their crops without help from other 
countries. One great trouble in France, as here, is 
the fact that there is too little profitable Winter 
w ork, so that general farmers cannot give a man a 
steady yearly job. A farmer with a dairy or other 
live stock can give work every day in the year, but 
the fruit or general farmer cannot keep his full crew 
profitably employed much over seven mouths of the 
year. That is why so many of our fruit growers are 
thinking about keeping a small herd of choice dairy 
cows, or a flock of sheep. These men could afford to 
run a dairy even if there was little profit from the 
milk, for they could keep several good hands busy 
raid make a profitable use of the manure. A good 
share of the future dairy business will be found on 
such farms in the Eastern States, and such farmers 
will prove the heaviest buyers of improved stock. 
* 
In this country the farmer receives only a small 
traction of the price paid by the consumer. Enormous 
packing establishments have monopolized the business, 
and there is little or no competition in buying the 
tanners stock. The enormous fortunes that have 
grown up in this business in recent years show that 
the farmer has not been getting his full share of the 
profits. 
Well! well! Who is this new recruit who talks 
35-ceut dollar with 100 per cent of truth? No hot¬ 
headed demagogue, but a cold-blooded man of figures 
irom the Agricultural Department. In a statement 
which uo one will try to controvert the Department 
analyzes the meat situation. The American supply 
of beef cattle is rapidly diminishing, while dairy 
cows hardly hold their number. No great supplies 
can be expected from Canada, and the unsettled con¬ 
ditions of Mexico give little hope for increased sup¬ 
plies of beef. The English colonies are mutton pro¬ 
ducers and export but little beef. Argentina has 
reached the limit of its beef production, and Great 
Britain demands its surplus for export. Once an 
exporter of beef, this country does not now produce 
enough for our own people. After the most careful 
study of the world situation the Agricultural Depart¬ 
ment can see no possible outlook for cheaper beei 
<)n the other hand there will be a famine unless th 
American small farmers prevent it: 
The farms of this country have almost unlimited pos 
m bin ties for live stock production. If the farmers ca 
how to produce live stock at a reasouabl 
Piotit and how to get a ready market for it when it i 
produced they will furnish all the meat that is needec 
That k the soundest proposition that has com 
irom Washington in many a day. The packers ar 
begging farmers to raise more calves at a loss. Yarl 
0US fools in Congress want laws to prevent farmer 
irom killing the calves. The Department goe 
straight at the mark. Make it profitable for th 
farmers to raise beef cattle and they will do so. Th 
Proposition is to break the packing monopoly 1>; 
e^nbiishing public slaughter-houses and markets 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
Farmers may ship their live stock to these slaughter 
houses, and have the work of killing, dressing and 
selling done for them at cost. This must mean co¬ 
operation. The farmers of a district must breed and 
feed so as to produce uniform cattle, and they must 
combine to sell the cattle in large lots, and also to 
sell their credit so as to raise capital to run then- 
business, and not be forced to sacrifice their prop¬ 
erty. Hurrah! The 35-eent dollar has reached the 
United States Capital! 
=* 
Keep at the 35-cent dollar. It is beginning to be 
talked about by the consumers, aud will grow if we 
keep working long and hard enough. n. w. H. 
Rhode Island. 
Keep at it? We will—until it has become a part 
of popular thought A few weeks ago we told how 
a Vermont minister preached a sermon on the 35-cent 
(“foliar. Now it is squarely into politics. George T. 
Hughes of Somerset County, N. J., is a candidate for 
the Assembly. Here is his platform as set forth in 
a letter to Senator Frelinghuysen, who is president 
of the State Board of Agriculture: 
In the first place I believe that the greatest issue to 
the farmers not only of our own countv but of the 
whole State is that of “the 35-cent dollar/' By this I 
mean the condition which has brought it about'that of 
100 ceuts paid by the city consumer the country pro¬ 
ducer gets on the average 35. while the remaining 65 
is divided among various middlemen, who, with the 
minimum of investment in money and labor, grow rich 
at the expense of consumer and producer alike. 
Mr. Hughes challenged the other nominees to a 
debate, but they declined; then he got after Senator 
Frelinghuysen as the leader of New Jersey Agri¬ 
culture :— 
Now, what are we goiug to do about it? Simply 
keep hammering away until the Legislature is forced 
to give this problem its attention. Every help which 
the State can give toward getting for the farmer a 
larger share of that dollar than the 35 ceuts he now 
gets, that help the State ought to give. I think our 
experiment station should devote more time to market¬ 
ing problems. I think the State ought to exercise rigid 
control over commission men. New York State is do¬ 
ing that now. I think that farmers’ co-operative or¬ 
ganizations ought to be encouraged. And finally I be¬ 
lieve the employers’ liability law should be amended to 
exempt farm help. As it is now one or two accidents 
may lose a struggling farmer his entire farm. 
That is wbat we call putting the 35-cent dollar into 
politics. Our regret is that we do not live where we 
could put a vote behind Mr. Hughes and his ham¬ 
mer ! 
* 
Hakdly a day passes without one or several let¬ 
ters from readers who have been asked to serve as 
“honorary members” of the Luther Burbank So¬ 
ciety. We judge that at least 50,000 of these in¬ 
vitations have been sent out. The people who 
receive them have as a rule never done anything to 
entitle them to a place in such an “honorary” list, 
and they want to know what it all means. The 
old game of this Society was to go fishing for “life 
members” and bait the hook with a list of famous 
men and women who had already consented to give 
their lives to the Burbank Society. Our belief is 
that those respectable people finally “got wise to the 
game and refused to let Burbank cut up their repu¬ 
tation to use as “sucker bait.” The honorary mem¬ 
bership may lie more attractive than “life” to many 
respectable people. We regard the entire game as 
a bold and clumsy scheme to boom Burbank and 
the “novelties” which interested parties expect to 
sell. We have said little about it, because we have 
found Burbank to be like a rubber ball—the more 
you hit it the more it bounces back. The Luther 
Burbank Society wants publicity of any sort what¬ 
ever. The best thing to do is to ignore the whole 
thing, throw the letter of invitation into the waste 
basket and forget it. Of course we know that many 
people are suffering from Burbankimania. We have 
met some of them. The “argument” is about as 
follows: 
Luther Burbank is the most wonderful man of 
the age. 
Why? 
He is a plant wizard. 
Who says so? 
He is a wonderful man. 
What has he done? 
He is a great originator! 
What has he done? 
He is a poet and dreamer. 
What has he done? 
He is a plant wizard! 
Name one Burbank thing that you know of which 
is superior to the Carman or Elberta peach. The 
latter is said to have grown from a peach pit thrown 
out the kitchen door by a negro cook, yet it has had 
more influence upon the real business of horticulture 
than all Burbank’s “novelties” put together. Now 
what has Burbank done? 
When the victim of Burbankimania is pinned 
down about all he knows is what Burbank has told 
about liis own productions. You cannot cure the 
disease. It spreads through publicity. Far better 
let Burbank alone! 
It is wonderful what a great light the average 
New York politician has seen on this matter of diiect 
nomination. When Gov. Hughes made his great 
battle for the principle the Legislature adjourned, 
and the bosses, large and small, laughed at liim. 
When, early in the Summer we named those anti¬ 
primary Senators they all laughed again. Now, 
however, everyone seems to favor primary reform. 
We are putting the question up to the Assembly 
candidates from the country districts and they all 
apparently realize that they must do something. 
For example, here are letters from the two candi¬ 
dates in Wayne Co., where a bitter battle is being 
fought. E. B. Norris represents a fusion of Pro¬ 
gressives and Democrats. He says : 
I was nominated for the New York Assembly. At 
the convention I publicly announced that the issue this 
year was State-wide direct primaries, that if elected I 
should use my influence in support of a bill similar to 
the bill introduced by Governor William Sulzer. The 
government must be restored to the people, and State¬ 
wide direct primaries are an advanced step in that 
direction. I am under no cover in this position. 
Sodus, N. Y\ E. B. NOKRIS. 
The Republican candidate representing, as we un¬ 
derstood, the organization element of his party says: 
I favor the direct election of party committees, the 
direct nomination of party candidates in Congressional. 
Senatorial, Assembly, county and municipal subdivi¬ 
sions, and the direct election of delegates to the State 
convention, with the right of party electors to express 
directly their preference for nominations for State offi¬ 
ces it they so desire. r. a. wilson. 
This is typical of what we find all over the State. 
4 or over five years we have been working to help 
bring about just such a condition by making this 
demand for direct nomination a part of popular 
thought. Men whose judgment and character we 
greatly respect have long opposed this reform, some 
for one reason, some for another. These men now 
begin to see that every interest which in its business 
methods is antagonistic to the best interests of farm¬ 
ing, lined up against direct nominations. Let a man 
once free himself of prejudice and he can see only 
one reason for this. These interests know that when 
our farmers once learn how to use the primary ef¬ 
fectively the caucus and the convention will no 
longer be workshops where political tools are made. 
We think the end of this long battle is in sight. 
Ohio Crop Report. 
1,654,497 acres 
17 bus. 
27,297.467 bus. 
96 % 
10 % 
acres 
bus. 
bus. 
% 
• The Ohio Agricultural Department gives the following 
crop report for that State : 
Wheat—Estimated area harvested... 
Product per acre . 
Total estimated product for 191.3.! 
Quality compared with an average.. 
Prop of 1912 still in producers’ hands 
Oats—Area as returned by township 
assessors . 1,610.196 
Product per acre . 28 
Total estimated product for 1913..! 44,950,805 
Quality compared with an average. 90 
Barley—Fall and Spring: 
Area as returned by township as¬ 
sessors . 
Product per acre . 
Total estimated product for 1913. . . 
> Quality compared with au average. 
Bye—Area as returned by township 
assessors . 
Product per acre . . 
Total estimated product for 1913.. . 
Quality compared with an average. 
Corn—Prospect compared with normal 
yield ... 
Cut up for fodder . 
Average date for fodder cutting... 
Potatoes—Probable total yield com¬ 
pared with last year . 
Tobacco—Prospect compared with an 
average yield . 
Pastures—Condition compared with an 
average . 
Apples—Prospect compared with last 
year . 
44.399 
22 
994,164 
89 
1S5.473 
16 
2,971.078 
95 
S3 
75 
acres 
bus. 
bus. 
% 
acres 
bus. 
bus. 
% 
% 
% 
September IS 
50 
69 
79 
% 
33 
% 
% 
% 
Government Crop Report. 
The Bureau of Statistics give the following figures 
CONDITION OCT. 1. ACREAGE, 1913. 
Acres 
106.SS4.000 
841,000 
3.6S5.000 
1.144.500 
2,425.000 
824.100 
CROPS. 
1913 
10-yr. av. 
P. et. of 
1912 
Corn . 
65.3 
80.6 
99.8 
Buckwheat . . 
65.9 
84.2 
100.0 
Potatoes .... 
67.7 
76.4 
99.3 
Tobacco .... 
76.6 
83.1 
93.4 
Flax . 
74.7 
7S.5 
85.1 
Rice . 
80.3 
87.5 
114.0 
Apples . 
46.6 
54.1 
The yields indicated by the condition of crops on Oc¬ 
tober 1. 1913, or at time of harvest, follow: 
CROPS. 
1913 
1912 Final 
Yield Per Acre. 
Corn . 
Bus. 
Bus. 
•» •> 
29.2 
Buckwheat . 
16.5 
White potatoes . . 
S6.7 
113.4 
Tobbaeco, lbs. .. 
766.0 
785.5 
Flax . 
8.7 
9.8 
Rice . 
30.9 
34.7 
Preliminary estimates of production ! 
as follows : 
Yield Per Acre. 
CROPS. 
1913 
1908-12 
ave. 
Spring wheat . 
Bus. 
Bus. 
13.0 
13.3 
W inter wheat. 
16.5 
15.2 
All wheat . 
15.2 
14.5 
Oats . 
29.3 
29.7 
Barley . 
23.9 
24.5 
Rye . 
16.3 
16.2 
Hay, tame. 
Tons 
Tons 
1.31 
1.38 
Total bus..1913 
2,373.000,000 
14,000,000 
319,000.000 
S77.000.000 
21 . 000,000 
25,000,000 
have been made 
Production 
1913 
Bus. 
242,714,000 
510.519.000 
753.233.000 
1,122.139.000 
173,301,000 
34,789,000 
Tons 
03,460,000 
