VOL. XXVI.
1 ■ *?/
INDIANAPOLIS, IND., DEO. 12,1891.
NO. 50
T^UW7
Written tor the Indiana Farmer: __
Transportation Problems.—No. 1.
BT JOHN M. STAHL.
It is not what a man earns, bat what he
saves, that makes him rich. We have
heard that a great many times, and we
know it to be true. It is not what a farmer
produces, bat what he saves that makes
him rich; and his capacity to save is not
measured by what he produces, but by the
margin between the cost of production
and the price his products net him when
sold. The margin can be increased by reducing cost of production or by selling to
a better advantage, thus realizing a higher
net price. Herein lies good husbandry.
Our agricultural writers and papers give
more than its share of attention to economical production. It is important
it is true to produce economically; but it is equally important to sell to
the best advantage. Profit depends upon
what a thing sells for as much as upon
what it cost tha producer.. The profit to
the producer is not measured by the price
paid by the consumer, but by the price
net to the producer. The price
set to the producer is the price
paid by the consumer, less the
cost of getting the product to him. Transportation from producer to consumer is
paid for by the producer. This requires
little argument. We have only to con-*,
sider that the price of an article is fixed
by circumstances so far removed from
the producer that he can exert upon
them no direct influence and over which
he, as an individual, can have no appreciable control. While the preduction of
the mass, either its magnitude or its
methods, have an important influence upon prices, the production of the individual, considered, not as one unit of the
mass, but as an independent individual,
has no effect upon prices. A bushel of
wheat may have cost the Individual producer one dollar to produce, but that does
not make tha market prica of his wheat
one dollar per bushel. Yjur neighbor
may have better land or use better
methods, and as a result his wheat costs
him less per bushel to produce than your
wheat costs you; but that docs not make
the market price of yonr wheat the
greater. If your wheat is of the same
quality as his, you get the same price in
the same market. You may have to haul
your wheat 10 miles to the first market,
while your neighbor has.to haul only five
miles to the same market. It costs practically twice as much per bushel to transport your wheat to that market as it costs
to transport your neighbor's wheat there;
bat because of that the buyer does not
pay you the more per bushel. If your
wheat and your neighbor's wheat are of
the same grade, you get the same price at
the mill or railroad station; and as it has
cost him the less to transport his wheat
to the buyer, it nets him more per bushel.
You maybe 500 miles from Buffalo or
Chicago, but your wheat brings no more
in the Chicago or Buffalo;, market than
the wheat of the same grade produced
only 250 miles* |away. Clearly the wheat
produced nearer the market nets the
higher on the farm. In eflact it is as if
you sold directly in Chicago or Buffalo,
and paid the cost of getting your product there. Youfmayfsell to a near by
shipper and your product may pass
through several hands bofore it reaches its
final destination, yet the result is the
same as if you sold to the uLimate buyer
and paid, personally, every person that
assisted in getting, your product to the
ultimate buyer. You do pay, but it is
through others whom you pay to act as
your agents. In every case, the price you
get is the price paid by the consumer less
the expenses of getting that product to
him.   The consumer may be in your own
county or State or he may be in Great
Britain or Germany, and your product
may be wheat or pork or beef or cotton;
in every case you get the price paid by
the consumer less thecoats ot transporting
your product to him. Hence just as we
lessen the costs of transporting our products to the consumer do we Increase the
pric9s that we receive on the farm? The
individual, working in his individual capacity, can not do much to lessen the
cost of transporting his own products
compared with the cost of transporting like products of his neighbors. It
will at the best, cost very nearly as much
to transport a bushel of your wheat as it
will to transport a bushel of your neighbors wheat the same distance; but you
may effect a saving, though a small one,
by, say, so hitching to your wagon that
you can haul at a less expense tban he.
Yon can make a greater gain by changing
the nature of your product, putting it in
more condensed iorm, as when you convert hay into batter; this gives a less bulk
and weight to transport. Perhaps yet
greater savings may be effected through
the individual working as a member of
the mass of farmers. For example, he
may dohis part towards getting better
highways or more economical railway
management. This will benefit others
equally, with himself, it is true; but
it is none the less to his benefit. He is
benefited none the les3 because his neighbor-I_"benefited with him.* His 'share of
this gain is not diminished by that gain
being shared by others. There is a
grain in economy in the transportation of
products in general; that gain is to the
benefit of the producers; and it is shared
by every individual producer in proportion to the ratio hisproduct is to the whole
product upon which the saving is made.
It costs more than $700,000,000 to get from
the producer to the consumer the farm
proelucts annually product d in this country. It would seem to be possible to save
one-third of this, at the least—a saving
that would add much to the prosp9rity of
our farmers; that in one year would pay
all the farm mortgage indebtedness of
Kansa., Alabama and Tennessee, or of Illinois and.Iowa.
Quincy, III.
gentleman of musical culture had, with
his wife, anxiously looked forward to her
visit. When she came he was on a sick
bed. Jenny Ltnd heaid of his desire and
found time to go to his house and sing to
him and his wife.
When she went to London, Mendelssohn
asked her to sing to a friend of his who
had long lain upon^a bed of sickness.
She went and cheered her with song**, the
remembrance of which are still cherishod
by the family.
Again and again when the opportunity
oflered for such an act of kindness, she
sang to invalids who could not be present
at her concerts. The gift of Ood within
her was a trust to be administered for the
good of others.
Jenny Lind.
Jenny Lind, the woman, was greater
than Jenny Lind, the singer. "I would
rather hear Jenny talk than sing—wonderful as it is," wrote Mrs. Stanley, wife of
the bishop of Norwich, in whose palace the
great singer was a guest while in that city.
The bishop's son subsequently Dean
Stanley, who had no ear for musio* and on
whom, therefore, her singing was wholly
lost, wrote that she had "the manners of a
princess with the simplicity of a child
and the goodness of an angel " Her character showed itself, he added, "throngh a
thousand traits of humility, gentleness,
wisdom, piety."
She looked upon her natural faculty as a
gift of God, and never sang without reflecting that it might be for the last time.
"lt has been continued to me from year
to year for the good of others."
This feeling was no fine sentiment, but a
religious principle. While she was the
bishop's guest Bhe begged Mrs. Stanley to
allow her to take three of the maids to a
concert where she was to sing.
At a service in the cathedral she was
moved to tears by the singing of the boy
choristers, and had places reserved for
them at her concert the next morning.
When she came on the platform she
greeted them with a smile of recognition
which the boys never forgot.
She gave to charitable objects thousands*
of pounds gained;by her wonderful voice.
While singing in Copenhagen, such was
the excitement-bat courtand town begged
her to give them one more day of song.   A
The Profit in  Manufacturing*.
Farmers' meetings often discuss the
question whether or not agriculture is as
profitable as other occupations, and the
question is usually left undecided for
lack of accurate data. Mr. Horace WadliD,
chief of the Massachusetts bureau of labor
statistics, has made a careful examination
as to the profits of manufacturing in this
State, which will be of Immense service in
throwing accurate light on the relative
profitableness of farming. Au examina
tion by experts has been made of thousands of establishments having a collective capital of more than ¥500,000, and
giving employment to hundreds of thou-
sands~Ttf"pereons. These" establishments
represent about three quarters of tho
capital value of products manufactured
annually in the commonwealth.
The results show that the selllngprice of
manufactured articles is made up as
follows:
Raw material .50 per cent
Wages S2  **
Salaries 2  "      "
Incidentals, such aa rent, taxes, Insurance, freight, etc i  "     "
IntereH on borrowed capital; depreciation in tbe value ot machinery. Implements and  tools; selling expense", bad
de-ts, etc 9  "     "
Profit to capital Invested .4  "
Assuming these figures to be correct, as
they probably are, coming from such
eminent authority, it follows that for
agriculture to be as profitable as other
kinds of business, the farmer must earn
wages at the going rate, and then must
make a profit of four per cent on the total
value of his product. But as the farmer is
engaged in a business that mixe. up home
life and business life, he must not forget
to place on the other side of the account
the value of his living—Including rent, all
farm products consumed in the house,
and the use of team for personal use. It
is authoritatively settled that manufacturing pays fonr percent on the value of the
product.—Our Grange Homes.
Free Coinage.
"Free coinage" is a technical phrase
well understood in financial literature,but
in popular language it is misused. Technically, coinage is said to be "free" when
the mints are opened to the coinage of ail
the,bullion offered. Unlimited coinage
has precisely the same meaning. Henco
the phrase "free and unlimited coinage"
in common use is tautological. "Gratuitous" coinage is the popular idea ofthe
meaning of the term "free."
We had the gratuitous and unlimited
coinage ft both metals at our mints from
1792 to 1853. We maintained the unlimited
coinage of both metals up to 1873, but
♦rom 1853 to 1873 we charged one half of
one per cent on each metal. The coinage
of gold remained unlimited from 1873 to
1875, but there was a coinage-charge of one
fifth of one per cent. Since 1875, the coinage of gold has been gratuitous and unlimited, while coinage of sliver ls confined
to that purchased by Uie Government;
hence the amount is limited. The coinage
of silver now depends upon the option of
the Secretary of the Treasury when there
is a demand for the redemption of the
silver Treasury notes. As these notes are
preferred to coin, the coinage Is stopped;
but there is a iriou.U__.ion of four and a
half million ounces per month in limited
legal-lender Treasury notes.
The coinage of .liver In India is not
gratuitous, as the mints charge two per
cent, In*t itis unlimited. From 1603 to
1874, the coinage of silver in France was
unlimited, yet tbe chargo varied from one
and a half to throe-fourths of one per
cent. Gold coinage in England ls not
gratuitous, if done at once, but it is unlimited.—From "The Ita.toration of Silver," by John A. Grior, in L'.pplncott's.
 .   ot   . —-
PrickorM di .ink.—"I don't suppose'
the practical mother of a family said, "that
it doe. any good for one person to grumble about existing abuses. A single Individual cannot constitute an organization, and without organized iflort, very
little is accomplished. Bat Ido wish some
one would start an energetic crusade
against the extortions of druggists. I had
occasion, the other day, to use an article
that I know can be bought tor 15 cents a
pound by the single pound. I wanted a
quarter of a pound, and the druggist
called it four ounces and charged me 40
cents for it—10 cents an ounce. I presume
it is tsaf a to say that the average article required fjr the family consumption,
which is purchased of the druggist, is paid
for at a rate si£ to ten times above its
cost to the same individual.
"A prescripton, which my physician
ordered the other day, waa pat up by the
apothecary, and be charged 40 cents. I
know the cost of the material for that prescription was not over four cents. The
only necessity was accuracy iu the weighing. For that I had not the facilities;
therefore I paid, allowing three cents for
the bottle, 33 cents profi. on stock, which
by no possloility could have cost the druggist over seven cents. You may say
that I am able to pay, but that's nothing
to the case. Tne charge is extortionate,
and, if I am able to pay It, there are thousands of people wh" are not. But as long
as the public tolerate such abuses, just so
long they may. Such profits would
never be permitted in groceries,
hardware, dry goods or any other
of the like necessities of life,
but simply because it is a medicine, about
which people, as a rule, know less than
of the other staple articles of consumption,
advantage is taken of the consumer, and
the mostoutrageous prices are put upon
things which are as necessary as bread and
meat. As I said before, I don't know
what can be done about it, but something
should be done, and that at once."—N. Y.
Lsdger.
 . ♦ . 	
We Have Seen.
A young man sell a good farm, turn
merchant, break and  die insolvent.
A farmer spend as much time in town
that there was nothing at home worth
looking after.
A worthy farmer's son Idle away , tho
prime of his life in dissipation and end
bis career in poverty.
A farmer too self-conceited to mend his
way and too obstinate to mend his footsteps.
A poor boy grow rich by industry and
goonmanagement and a rich boy grow
poor by idleness and dissipation.
A man spend more money ln folly than
would support his family in comfort and
independence.
A farmer build a dwelling house so large
and fine tbat the sheriff was first to occupy
it.
A farmer deliver a fine oration at the
agricultural fair with his fence all down,
fields overgrown with weeds, stock foraging on a neighbor's field and his taxes un-.
paid.