crops. Fall plowing is best for spring crops, as the frosts of winter tend to break up the shot-like chunks of muck, making the fine rich mold so suitable for the various root crops and vegetables. This lowland is naturally adapted to grass, and if he who makes two blades of grass to grow where but one grew before is a benefactor of his race, how much more a benefactor must he be who causes whole tons to grow where none ever grew before. We usually seed to timothy our newly cleared swamps, sowing six quarts of seed in September on each acre, and were it not for June grass and red-top we might have permanent meadows, but these grasses spread very rapidly and make it necessary to plow again after a few years.

Corn, oats, millet, or the various root crops well tilled make the ground soon ready again for the timothy seed.

Usually swamps are soft and a team walks with difficulty. We have tried oxen and have discarded them as worthless, except for beef, on a swamp farm. A solid horse team with wooden shoes works the best. These shoes are made of light pine plank 8x10 inches, fastened to the foot by means of holes cut to fit the calks of the horse's shoe, and by wires fastened over the top of the hoof. The wires are made in the form of two loops reaching from the wooden shoe near the holes for the heel calks to within an inch or so of meeting on top of the hoof. The loops are made of fence wire and can easily be joined on top by a small piece of steel wire which may be twisted until the shoe is made solid to the horse's foot. With the edges beveled to avoid tripping we have a shoe that any horse can wear and any man can make. If the ground is very soft make the shoe larger. We have no patent on the shoe. You may use it freely. We have found it the best of several that we have tried; and if by means of this paper more may be induced to improve their waste places my object will have been accomplished.

In answer to various questions, Mr. Charles made the following further

statements:

He has 100 acres of meadow land that was formerly wooded with elm, ash, and tamarack timber and alder bushes, with many miry places. Across a part of this a railroad runs, and they drove piles 120 feet to get a foundation for a bridge. He now raises corn, oats, and wheat whenever it is necessary to plow it, which he does once in six to seven years. A wet season does not affect it any more than other land. To a question as to why he sowed so much seed he replied that where hay is too thin it grows coarse and is unsalable. He puts fire in such land only in the spring when the soil is too wet to burn. It is almost worthless when fire goes through it. He does not pasture in the spring with cattle; they injure the crop of hay by treading the soil when it is soft.

THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM.

BY PROFESSOR ROLLO C. CARPENTER.

(Read at the Albion Institute.)

Very much is said about transportation; the journals at times are filled with references to the "Transportation Problem," but as to what that problem is, and the nature of the unknown quantity that makes it a problem, we are left as much in the dark as ever. It will be my effort in this short paper to present

that problem before you in a rational manner without advocating any extreme measures, or, indeed, indicating any method by which the unknown factor may be eliminated, and thus the great problem of transportation be solved. So far as we stand in interested relations, the railroad is the prime factor, the disturbing cause in the great problem. Remove the railroads and we should have the ways of the good old pleasant times, with nothing of the hurry and worry of railroad travel, and none of the distractions of the transportation problem. We would, it is true, have to draw our grain probably many weary miles in wagons, but it is not clear that it would net us less money per bushel than at present. It is probably true that the average cost of transportation would be added to the price paid by the consumer. That is, if you paid $1 per bushel to get your wheat to market, and every other farmer did the same, the price would be that much more than otherwise, and you would receive as much as though it only cost five cents. On the other hand, supposing your wheat and that of all your brother farmers was carried to market free of expense to you, do you think the net price would be higher than at present? It is extremely doubtful. The consumer alone would be benefited.

The transportation problem, then, so far as it affects prices, must be looked at from a different standpoint. It must be looked at as the London merchant looks at it. He reasons as followe: "I can buy wheat in Chicago for 70 cents per bushel, if wheat can be brought here for nothing its value here is 70 cents." It is the way you would look at the purchase of any foreign commodity. If the London merchant finds the cost of transportation from Chicago to London to be 30 cents per bushel the cost at London is 100 cents.

Now, the tendency is to look at this problem in just the other way. We see wheat is worth 100 cents in London and 70 cents in Chicago, hence we say if the transportation did not cost so much it would be higher in Chicago. The actual fact is that it might be lower in London.

Thus, supposing London the final market of the world, its consumers obtain wheat from all countries having a surplus. The principal supplies are found in America, Russia, and India. If there is a large surplus in these countries the English merchant soon ascertains the fact, and, knowing that these countries must have his cash, he is in no hurry to buy, meanwhile holders become anxious to sell, the grain is offered low, and is finally sold at a low figure. The price the producer receives does not depend on the actual amount charged for transportation from these countries, but it is affected by the difference in cost of transportation.

Thus the English merchant finds he can buy wheat in Chicago for 70 cents, it costs him 30 cents for transportation. Grain from India costs him 40 cents for transportation, hence he will pay in that place only 60 cents per bushel. Grain from the Black sea costs him 15 cents per bushel for transportation, hence he will pay at that place 85 cents per bushel as compared with American grain.

Now if the cost of transportation were 30 cents from each place, then would the producer in each place receive the same amount, 70 cents per bushel. If the transportation cost nothing, the producer would receive no more nor less. This may be stated as a general rule, that the average cost of transportation is paid by the consumer and not the producer.

If the producer can transport his grain for less than the average cost, he receives more than the average price; on the other hand, if he pays more than the average cost, he receives so much the less. In a general way, the rates of

transportation do not affect the price received by the producer. It is also true, in a general way, that the price of a commodity will not remain for a length of time below the cost of producing. These general rules, the truth of which is obvious, are frequently inapplicable in special cases. Thus you may be in a position that ought to have freight rates lower than the average, while as a matter of fact your rates are above the average, the result is you suffer from what we term discrimination, and you receive as much less for your grain (unless you hold a sufficient amount to sensibly affect the supply of the world) as your rate is above what it should be.

I quote the following from the Prairie Farmer as pertinent on this point: "In Chicago there are nearly two thousand men whose chief business is dealing in agricultural products. In other cities there are thousands more of the same class. A part of these are in legitimate trade, buying and selling for others on a fixed commission. The other part are simply buying and selling on future prospects. These are usually shrewd men, of much experience in the business. They study the conditions of the supply and demand at home and abroad. They know more in an hour, of the real state of affairs and of the prospects than it is possible for the quiet farmer to know in all his life, or than any one outside of their circle can possibly know. They enter into combinations to corner supplies, and to put prices up or down as shall best suit their own advantage. But suppose the dealing to be free from the clique and deals, who so well know the probable range of future prices as they? Surely not farmers.

"We have received recently a great number of communications upon this subject, some pitching into the railroads and attributing to them the low prices, and quoting the difference between their home prices and those in Chicago. We care nothing for the railroads in this connection. The interests of our agricultural readers are first and foremost. The situation is such that if the railroads would bring the grain here for nothing it would only make things worse. These markets can not stand additions to the present supply without knocking prices down. It would be a good thing for the farmers themselves, and for the future of their grain, if the railroads would put up the freight so high that not a bushel could be sent to the markets for the present. That of course they cannot do, for they have got to cultivate business; but the farmers have it in their own hands, and the best advice we can give them is, as we look at it, to not forward a bushel of grain by the railroads or in any other way, nor sell it to dealers at the present prices, where it is at all possible to hold on to it. We shall be denounced by the business men of the country for this advice. They say 'let the grain come out and set the wheels of commerce in motion.' We say 'no!' and repeat, that every bushel of grain now added to the market will only make things worse everywhere for the farmers themselves, while holding on to it will by and by compel consumers to come for it at prices better than those now prevailing."

Discrimination, I am sorry to say, is often practiced. Indeed, I think it is the custom of railroad officials to charge what they think they can get Thus, last fall a gentleman obtained rates on rutabagas from a certain station in this State to New Orleans at 42 cents per 100; another party obtained rates from that identical station to New Orleans over the same roads and granted by the same parties, at 41 cents per 100; while still another party obtained a rate of 40 cents per 100. This difference in favor of one shipper as against another is unjust and without reason. It would be sufficient to demoralize

business, for one man would receive, simply through favor, sufficient profit to support him. Discrimination and difference in rates is then a factor of considerable importance in determining the price of produce. Difference of rates may be and often is a just thing; thus the farmer in Iowa cannot expect his grain taken to New York as cheaply as the farmer in Michigan, for the reason that the cost of transportation is greater. On the other hand our grain should be taken to New York for a less price than the grain from Chicago, unless it can be shown that the cost of transportation is more from this place than from Chicago. As a matter of fact, however, the rates are fixed with little regard to the cost of transportation, though I think with more regard at present than a few years since.

The reason for this discrimination is sometimes found in competition, and sometimes it seems to be mere favoritism, whereby the railroad manager affords one individual or one town better rates than another in the same business.

Enough has been said to show that the problem of transportation involves heavy unknown factors, and I will now call your attention to a few particular

cases.

A few years ago it was believed that competition would solve all evils in freight rates, and to this end railroad building was encouraged to a great extent. The effect was, on the whole, very different from what was expected; the building of railroads increased the facility for carrying freight. The amount of freight to be carried was, on the contrary, but little increased, the results were disastrous to the railroads and of little permanent benefit to the towns. For a time towns with two railroads, under the effects of sharp competition, had rates at their own figures. At such times, however, discrimination ran high and some shippers received much lower rates than others, so that even that condition of affairs was far from satisfactory. This period, which is known generally as the period of competition, was followed in every case in a few years by either consolidation of the two rival roads, caused by the failure of one road and its purchase in the interests of the other, or by the pooling of the earnings of the roads. This is generally known as the period of combination. A combination of the roads east of Chicago has been in existence until 1885 for the last five or six years, and strange to say there has been less complaint from that district than during the period of competition which preceded the combination. Rates have been maintained at a fair figure, and at all competition points discrimination against shippers has been prevented by the watchfulness of the railroad companies of each other. Discrimination is never openly done; the published rates are the same to all. It is done, however, under cover of rebates or by overbilling, both of which practices are difficult to detect.

Whatever may be urged against combination, this much can be said in its favor, that it has done everything possible to secure to all shippers from the same place the same rates, and farther, to give cities rates in some proportion to the cost of transportation.

The eastern combination of the railroads is practically dead, at least for the present. Scarcity of business made each road clamorous to secure what it could regardless of rates paid by the shippers. At present, competition ruinous for the railroads and demoralizing to business is in existence at all principal freight centers.

West of Chicago, no combination of the railroads has yet been formed that remains long intact. The difficulties are, probably, somewhat greater

than east of Chicago. The great source of trouble lies between the producer and the first competitive points, all such freight being called local and taxed very heavily. The rates to such points are often excessively high.

The competitive points are sometimes favored with extremely low rates, and they are generally very reasonable. This discrimination is demoralizing to all business, and complaints long and loud have come from producers who are principally in the country west of the Mississippi.

For instance, corn is worth in Chicago about 40 cents. The freight rate to the Iowa farmer is 24 cents, leaving him a net price of about 16 cents per bushel. How much the market of Chicago would be affected by lowering the freight rates to Iowa corn is not known, because Chicago draws its supply of corn largely from other States, but there is little doubt that a marked fall in the freight rate would, if there is a large supply in Iowa, lower the price in Chicago.

The effect of granting the Iowa people low rates, then, would be to lower the price of the corn and take money out of the pockets of the farmers of Illinois and Michigan. The same thing is true on the wheat-this in Detroit is worth 83 cents, in Chicago 79 cents, and in New York 94 cents. Now, this difference is maintained largely by the freight rates. If the freight rates be lowered for our western farmers the result will be to bring their grain into sharper competition with ours, and although they may secure a little more price we shall secure a little less. The result of this will be that the market price goes down some, the consumer is correspondingly benefited, the shipper from the far west has reaped some benefit, while his brother in the east has lost nearly all that both classes have gained.

The time once was when Michigan was in the far west. At that time it was of great importance to her to secure low transportation rates to the seaboard. It is of the same importance to-day, but instead of being one of the States in the far west it is comparatively an eastern State. Wheat growing regions have been developed where a few years before was supposed to be a sterile district, and more than that, the wheat produced in these regions is vastly greater in quantity than that produced in Michigan. Now low through rates mean the bringing of the grain from the far west into a sharp competition with Michigan grain. If our farmers have high local rates to pay, as they frequently do, the result is that grain from the far west is favored at the expense of our own. And it is favored simply because the presence of a large supply of grain acts to lower the market price.

It seems strongly to illustrate the statement made sometime since, that low freight rates were, on the whole, of benefit to the consumer only.

When Australia wool is brought in large quantities into this country and affects the price of our home crop, we appeal to the government for a higher duty; we want protection. High tariff is protection because it increases the expense of getting the wool into our markets. Now, higher freight rates serve the same purpose and will help you materially if they are applicable to your brother farmers, and not yourselves. I am satisfied that the movement. of the farmers against the railroads has been in a great part an error. It certainly is, so far as Michigan, an eastern State, is concerned. While it may be to the advantage of the Dakota farmer to have low freight rates, it is to our advantage that he pay well for getting his grain into market. Now as a rule the farmers have been after the railroads simply in regard to through rates. Yet experience has well shown that through rates will take care of themselves.