The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume], October 19, 1892, Page 5, Image 5

About The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume] (Topeka, Kan.) 1892-1894

Image provided by: Kansas State Historical Society; Topeka, KS

                
5
Cost.
i mn ont fLcrPn nf whe&t nroduced 73.000.000 bushels at An
'averse price of 60 ceutt, would brinsr .. .....I 37,600,000 1 .49 S 3(5,730,000
5.600,000 acres of com at the lowest estimate or 25 ouaneit
ki the w.rtt elves a Droductlon Of 140.000.000: at 35 cents
per bushel makes It worth 40,000.000 21 29,400,000
Of oats most conservative estimates give 40,000,000 at 30
cents per bushel 12,000,000 22 8,800,000
Rye. barley and buckwheat 6,000,003 bushels at 50 cents. . . . 3,000,000 3l 1,800,000
Totatoes 2.000,000 bushels at 50 cents 1,000,000 15 300,000
Flax 300,0 W at II 300,000 75 225.000
Broom com, 25,000,000 pounds, worth 750,000 01 250,000
Millet and HunKanan, 600,000 tons, worth 1.750,ooo 2.88 1,440,000
Tame hay, 600,000 tons, worth 2,000,000 2 50 1,250,000
Tralrle hay, 2.000.0CO tons, worth 7,500,000 3.50 7,ooo,ooo
Butter and cheese, estimated vlue 5,000.000 2.500,003
Domestic animals, horses and mules, 800,000 head 24.000,000 25 00 20,000.000
Cattle, 2,250,000 bead, of which about 760,000
beaa or milch cows at $15 per bead 111,250,000 21.05 15.7J7.500
750,000 head of heifers, yearlings and calves,
worth 6,000,000 4,500,000
750,000 bead of steers, for market during me
yer at 140 per head 30,000,000- 45.00 33,750,000
Hoas. 2.250.000 head of which 1.000.003 bead 47,250,000
are stackers at $4 4,000,000 4 00 4,000,000
And 1.240.000 head are fat hoes at $U per
Beau lJ,ou,uuu b.w it.irjj.iM)
000,000
17,750,000
750,000 ;.. 2.00
Sheep, 300,000 head worth $2 60 per head
Total value $209,550,000
Total cost $178,235,600
Average,
Now deduct from the total value,
as obtained by Mr. Mulvane, the
amount he allows for seed and for
homeuse,and saying nothing abont an
nual taxes, interest on indebtedness,
repairs to machinery and implements,
clothing the family, schooling the
children, paying doctor bills and
other incidental expenses, leaving all
of these items entirely ont of the cal
culation, and Mr. Mulvane's balance
of $92,500,000 would lack $85,832,500
of paying the cost of production.
Such figures are certainly a terrible
"blow to calamity." If Mr. Mulvane
thinks we have figured the cost too
high, we would like to have him try
his hand at it, and see how near he
can figure our farming population
out whole at the end of the year; but
ha is a man of too much sense to be
lieve that he can palm off up:n a
credulous publio such a statement as
that rendered by him, as representing
the profit to the agricultural classes
of the state, while entirely ignoring,
in his calculation, the very important
element of cost
Now, having reviewed Mr. Mul
vane's figures we desire to submit
a few for his consideration. The chief
of the bureau of statistics of the
United States treasury department,
in his report for 1891, on page xxii,
gives a table showing the export
price of agricultural products each
year from 1855 to 1891 inclusive. We
give below that part of the table that
relates to the great staple products
of Kansas:
3 if g f5,
e & a a -i
"o a . 2. w
Tear- ? J -8. il I 2
. . . ; x .
I ' '. 3 '. n 3 '
-i i a.
1855 $ .89 81.06,$ .08.4 $ .07 3 $ .08.8 f .18.1
1856 74 1 85 .09 2 .08.9 .07.6 .19.7
1857 6! 15J 10.3 .10.0 .07.7 .18.9
1858 68 1.02 .09 3 .08.9 .08.7 .17.5
1859 77 . 95 .10 5 .08 1 .07.0 .16.4
1800 72 .98 .08.8 .07 6 .06.4 .15.0
1861 65 1 23 . 09.6 .08 6 .00.5 .15.2
1862 5 1 14 .07.3 .06 6 .07.4 .15.6
1863 66 1 29 .08.6 .06 6 .07.4 .19.1
1864 82 1 23 .11 1 .09 2 .08.4 .29.4
1865 1.31 1 95 .22 9 .16.4 .12.2 .33.8
1866 82 1 41 .16 6 .15 9 .14.5 .3.3
lfi7 1.00 1 27 .12 8 .13.1 .12.2 .24.1
1868 1.18 1 90 .12.5 .11.4 .11.9 .28.1
1869 97 1 39 .152 .14.0 .08.9 .36.6
1870 93 1.29; .15.71 .13 2 .07.3 .29.3
1871 76 1.32 .11 4! .109 .08.7 .21.5
1872 70 1 47 .08.6 .07.2 .07.0 .19.4
1873 62 1 31 1 .08.8 .07.8 .07.7 .21.1
J874 72 1 43 .09 6 .08.2 .08 2 .25.0
1875 85 1.12 .11 4 .10.1 .08.7 .23.7
1876 67 1 24 .121 .10 6 .08.7 .23.9
1877 69 1.17 .10 8 .09.0 .07.5 .20.6
1878 50 1 34 .08.7 .06 8 .07.7 .18.0
1879 47 1.07 .06 9 .05.7 .06.3 .14.2
180 54 1 25 .06 7 .06.1 .06.4 .17.1
1881 6R 1.11 .08 2 .07.7 .06.5 .19.8
1882 67 1 19 .09 9 .09.0 .08.5 .19.3
1883 68 1.13 .112 .09.9 .08.9 .18.6
1884 61 1.07i .10.2 .07 9 .07.6 .18.2
1885 54 . 861 .09 2 .07.2 .07.5 .18.8
1886 50 .87; .07.5 .05 9 .06.0 .15.6
1887 48 .89 .07.9 .06.6 .05.4 .15.8
1888 56 .85i .08 6 .07 4 .05.3 .18.3
1889 47 .90i .08 6 .07 4 .05.5 .16.5
1890 49 .83 .07.7 .06.0 .06.4 .14.1
1891 .57 .9J .07.6 .05 9 .05.6 .14.4
It is an unquestioned fact that the
export price of these products gov
eras the price in the home market,
and it will be observed from the
above table that there has been a gen
era! decline of all prices, and that
they are lower now than at any time
since the beginning of the record
We would ask Mr. Mulvane or any
other good republican for an expla
nation of this fact. Why should a
bushel of corn or wheat, or a pound
of pork or beef be worth less to-day
than in former years? Four years
ago we were promised better times,
should the republican party succeed.
Do these prices indicate better times?
Let us look at the indications of
better times as shown by the last re
port of the secretary of agriculture.
In 1880 the total acreage of wheat in
this country was 37,986,717. In 1889
the total acreage was 38,123,869, an
excess in 1889 over 1880 of 137,142
acre a The total crop of 1880 was
498,549,868 bushels. In 1889 it was
490,560,000 bushels, an excess in 1880
over 1889 of 7,989,868 bushels. The
total value of the crop of 1880 was
$474,201,850. The total value of the
crop of 1889 was 8342,491,707, or
$131,710,143 less than the crop of
1880. The price per bushel in 1880
was 95 cents. The price in 1889 69
cents, a difference of 26 cents per
bushel
The showing in regard to corn is
even worse than this. The total
acreage in 1880 was 62,317,842. The
total acreage in 1889 was 78,319,651,
an excess in 1889 over 1880 of 16,001,
809 acres. The total product of 1880
was 1,717,434,543 bushels. The total
product of 1889 was 2,112,892,000, an
excess in 1889 over 1880 of 395,457,457
bushels. The total value of the crop
of 1880 was $679,714,499. The total
value of the crop of 1889 was $597,
918,829. Thus 395,457,457 more bush
els in 1889 are worth $81,795,670 less
money than the smaller crop of 1880.
Will Mr. Mulvane tell us the cause
of this? Will he give us any good
reason why it should be so In a
great and growing country like this,
is there any good reason why suoh
things should be? Is this a result
of the improved home market that is
to bless this country in consequence
of protection to American industries?
We are aware of the stereotyped
explanation of this condition of the
market It is said to be caused by
overproduction. Let us see about
this. In order to present an unques
tionable demonstration of the utter
fallacy of this flimsy pretense, we
will take two census years for our
comparison, using only official figures
in our calculation.
In 1870 the total wheat crop of the
United States was 235,884,700 bush
els. The total population of the
United States was 38,558,371. We
produced, therefore, 6.1 bushels of
wheat per head of our entire popula
tion. There were exported that year
36,584,995 bushels, leaving for home
use 199,299,705 bushels. This was
54 bushels per head of our popula
lation. Tne pnoe was l:z) per
bushel.
In 1890 the total wheat product of
the country was 399,662,250 bushels.
Our population was 62,622,250. Thus
we produced 6.5 bushels per head of
our population, or just .4 of a bushel
more in 1890 than in 1870. But in
1890 we exported 100,209,132 bushels,
leaving 299,452,868 bushels for home
consumption. This was 4.7 bushels
per head, or 1.8 less than in 1870.
The price was 83 cents per bushel.
Thus, with an inoreased export de
mand and a decrease of 1.8 bushels
per head left here for home use, the
price was 46 cents less per bushel
than in 1870.
Now take the corn crop. The total
product of 1870 was 1,094,255,000
bushels. This was 28.4 bushels per
head of our population. Of this,
10,673,553 bushels were exported,
leaving 1,083,581,447 bushels for home
consumption, or just about 28 bushels
per head. The price was 93 cents
per bushel.
in le'JU tne total com crop was
1,489,970,000 bushels. This was a
total of 23.7 bushels per head, or 4.7
bushels less than in 1870. But we
exported in 1890 32,041,529 bushels,
leaving 1,459,928,471 bushels for
home use, or just about 23 bushels
per head. The price was 46 cents
per bushel. Thus with an increased
export demand, and a decrease of 5
busheis per head of our entire 62,622,-
260 people, the price was 46 cents per
bushel less than in 1870.
In the face of these facts, will any
one have the audacity to assign over
production as the cause of this de
cline? And if not overproduction,
what is the cause? When are
farmers to expect the dawn of the
better time that was to be ushered in
because of republican success in the
election of 1888? Further; in view
of the fact that all values except that
of money have been constantly de
clining, what guarantee have repub
lican leaders to offer the people that
a continuaeoe of republican policy
will not result in a continuance of
this decline? These are questions
that the people have a right to ask,
and to which they have a right to de
mand an unequivocal answer.
Ex-Skiatob IsoAixs great speech pre
sented the issues of the campaign to the
people of Kansas so dearly that they can
not fail to give an old-fashioned majority
without seriously depredating the reputa
tion of their state for intelligence and pa
triotism. Globe-Democrat.
What issues? The only speech the
ex-senator has made this campaign
was made in Topeka, and if he came
here with any "issues" concealed
about his person they were lost in the
shuffle, and never appeared in the
speech. Issues! Why, he talked
about himself most of the time, and
when he emphatically denied that he
was an issue nobody thought of dis
puting him. The only time he touched
a live issue was when he admitted the
truth of his calamity speech of 1891,
and nobody disputed that, either.
He would have been as near the is
sues of the campaign to have re
peated the Arabian Nights tales or
the history of Columbus.
Diath is the reward of treason; a judg
ment Is lodged against a man who cannot
pay hie debts. W. A. Harris was a traitor;
Geo. T. Anthony oould not pay his debts.
The one was a voluntary crime, the other
an unpleasant predicament whioh oould cot
be prevented by Mr. Anthony, nor by hun
dreds of thousands of other people in Kan
sas and elsewhere. It may be true that
there is a judgment against Mr. Anthony
in the state of New York, but it certainly is
not true that he was an embezzler. Ken
sington Mirror.
It certainly is true that he was and
is an embezzler. The judgment stand
ing against him is not for any debt
he contracted and was unable to pay.
If it was no one would mention it
against him. As the Mirror states,
there are thousands of honest men
who are unable to pay their debts
and who are in no way to blame for
it; but Geo. T. Anthony was a com
missioner in the state of New York
appointed to loan money belonging
to the United States, and held in
trust by the state of New York for
investment. He was under bond for
the faithful performance of his official
duty. Acting in this capacity he re
ceived the money of the United States
for investment and appropriated it
to his own use. This is certainly an
odd way to get in debt.
From Mr. Webster, of Palco, Kas.,
we learn that a certain politician at
Stockton is consoling his people with
the statement that there has been a
great falling oil of Advocate readers
in the western part of the state since
last year. He says he gets his infor
mation from postmasters. One
would'naturally ask what kind of in
formation one would expect to get
from a republican postmaster. If
the said politician's friends could see
the Advocate books they would learn
that the paper has nearly 6,000 more
subscribers than the averege of last
year, and that western Kansas fur
nishes its share of them. If that is
any consolation they are welcome
to it
In this issue will be found a criti
cism upon the recent effort of Mr. J.
B. Mulvane, of Topeka, to show by
statistics the unparalleled prosperity
of the people ofKansas. It is com
mended to the careful consideration
of republicans who have quoted Mr.
Mulvane's statistics with suoh mani
fest glee, and Mr. Mulvaneis espe
cially invited to carefully review it
Tin charge that Dr. Wharton's
nomination in the Fourth district was
secured by fraud is a reflection on
every delegate to the convention
whioh nominated him, and should be
resented as such. It is a very lata
day to make such charges without
showing the proof to back them up.