f 10*3 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ■ iUREAU OF RAILWAY ECONOMICS Established by Railways of the United States . for the Scientific Study of Transportation Problems IK HAIGH DIXON CHItr »T»TISTiei*N JULIUS H. PARMELEE •TATISTICIA* logan g. Mcpherson DIRECTOR ',,;■; Railways and Agriculture 1900-1910 ■V i; ' I w%& Bulletin No. 45 WASHINGTON, D. C 1913 BTJLfcteTlNS Of T«E EUREAP OF RAILWAY ECONQivaCS, '.-mm 1. Summary of Rffeiues sand Expenses ,0* Steani Roads to the United States for July* ^9i0, : (Monthly Report Series, • Bulletin ;Np..l.) ? ' > 2. Sumtoaiy of Beyfenuesjand Expenses of Steaip Roads to the United States for-Aflgust, 1910. (Mptithly Report Sdriess Bulletin >*% 2.) 3. Sttmmary of Revenues and Expense* of %%$& Roads In, the United States for Septembek, 1910. (Monthly" Report Series, BijlWstta No. ft) 4i',A Cpinp^ratiTd Stetetnent of Physical Valuation aud/Oapltalizatiioa. : 5. Pr^Imtoaity Bulletin for November, 19lO^-Reyenues< and Expenses, ft Railway Tranl&'StatiStioSi 1906-1909. (SeeNo>31.) : ; _ 7. Summitry of Revenues and^Expenses of Steam Roads In 'l#e 'Uhfte. -: '' 1ft The (Conflict Between Federal ihd 1 State Regulation of the Railways. 16. Summary of Revenues audi Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States f6r May; 191% ''"'./>— %/"'" ■'*,■''-' 17. (Giit of Print) 18. <3aplta;iiaatidn find Dividends of the Railways of, Texas, Tear Ending June 30, 1909, ,■ f 19. Summary of Revenues and pip^ns^s; of Steam Roads to the United States 'i< tor;;#iu*,1911.. ;1 ,,, )■•■. -'~V V - .''■''."' '■■ ; ' : ' •' 20. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads in the United States for juiy,' 1911. . „■' ■; ■"-;»:«, •■;'"/_ ;' >'.•■•. v, v- ,-; ■ ■ 21: The Cost of Transportation on the Erie Canal and by RMli ;< v 22. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States for August 1911; ,- //, ' • ;' •'.''*',■■ " 23; Analysis of the Accident Statistics of the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion for the Year Ending J^ine 30, lSll. 24. Comparative Railway Statistics of the United States, thte United King' dom,, France,- and f Germany. , '[''",.-■ .■ ' 2ft Summary of Revenues indEkpeufies, of Steam Roads to tte United States for September, 1911. V : , , i , (Continue to page 3 of cover.) Railways and Agriculture 1900-1910 WASHINGTON, D. C. March, 1913 tT GO I; KM: 'if U M I V E F; I: I i Y 1-llikAUY / oqio q V V y'l K: >! :h\' I Ml' YJ1 A)l ni.i CONTENTS. Page Summary e Introduction y Comparison of Plant 12 Comparison of Aggregate Output 14 Comparison of Output Per Unit of Plant 15 Comparison by Geographical Districts 17 Conclusion 18 Crop Values and Purchasing Power 21 Service of Agriculture and the Railways in Relation to the Population 26 (3) In the preparation of this bulletin use has been made of the latest available official statistics. It is impossible to make compari- sons at this time to cover years subsequent to those indicated. (4) SUMMARY During the last Census decade the miles of main track of the railways increased at nearly double the rate of increase in im- proved farm land, and at three times the rate of increase in the area devoted to crops. Measured in the aggregate, the output of the railways — ton- miles and passenger-miles — increased 80 per cent and 102 per cent respectively, while the output of the ten principal crops averaged an increase of about 9 per cent. While the railway output per mile increased 40 per cent and 56 per cent respectively, the output per acre of the ten principal crops averaged a decrease of about 1 per cent. Measured per one thousand inhabitants, the output and the revenue of the railways — that is, the work performed and money received — increased at very nearly the same ratio. The output of five of the ten principal crops, however, measured per one thou- sand inhabitants, decreased from 5 to 21 per cent, while the farm value increased from 37 to 80 per cent. The output of the remain- ing five crops increased, in the same relation, from one-half of 1 per cent to 20 per cent, while the farm value increased from 34 to 83 per cent. The increase in the farm value of the crops was at a greater ratio than the increase in the prices of the staple commodities. For example, one thousand bushels of corn in 1910 would pur- chase greater quantities of all commodities by 52.4 per cent than would one thousand bushels of corn in 1900, one thousand bushels of wheat greater quantities by 43.8 per cent, and one thousand bales of cotton greater quantities by 63.4 per cent. One thousand bushels of corn would purchase in 1910 75.7 per cent more ton- miles and 87.6 per cent more passenger-miles than would one thousand bushels in 1900; one thousand bushels of wheat 65.8 per cent more ton-miles and 77.1 per cent more passenger-miles; one thousand bales of cotton 88.4 per cent more ton-miles and 101.1 per cent more passenger-miles. Conversely the purchasing power of the receipts from one thou- sand ton-miles in 1910 of all commodities was 13.3 per cent less than that of one thousand ton-miles in 1900, and the purchasing power of one thousand passenger-miles was 18.8 per cent less. (5) Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030119790 RAILWAYS AND AGRICULTURE. 1900-1910. INTRODUCTION. Bulletin No. 39 of the Bureau of Railway Economics, entitled 'Comparison of Capital Values — Agriculture, Manufactures and the Railways," makes certain comparisons that are concerned mainly with the capital value of these three major industries of the United States, and the return on capital in the case of the manufacturing industry and the railways. The statistics of the Interstate Com- merce Commission and the Bureau of the Census permit of a serv- iceable comparison of the return on railway capital and manufactur- ing capital, but there are not available data which would permit a similar comparison with the return on capital in agriculture. Official statistics do, however, record the output of the principal agricultural crops, so that the output can be computed per acre. This is the unit of area by which land is measured, and in connection with the unit of output constitutes the basic unit for statistics of the productivity of agriculture, that is, bushels per acre, bales per acre, etc. In the case of the railways, a mile of main line track may be taken as the unit of operation and together with a unit of traffic as constituting a basic unit for statistics of the density of railway traffic. That is, as one ton carried one mile, i. e., a ton-mile, is a traffic unit, and one passenger carried one mile, i. e., a passenger- mile, is also a traffic unit, the railway output may be measured by ton-miles per mile of main track, and by passenger-miles per mile of main track. The available official data permit the relation of the total agri- cultural output of the country to the total acreage ; that is, the land under cultivation may be taken as one large farm. This for the purposes of the present comparison may be considered the agricul- tural plant. The available official data also permit the relation of the total ton-miles and the total passenger-miles to the total main track of (7) the railways ; that is, the railways of the country may be taken a? one large system. The total main track for the purposes of thf present comparison may be considered the railway plant. It is different with the manufacturing industry. Because of the great diversity in the nature and size of manufacturing plants, the kind of power used by them, and especially because of the in- finite variety of the products, some of which are measured by the yard, some by the pound or ton, and some by the dozen, and because of other complications, it is impossible to relate the entire manu- facturing output to the entire manufacturing plant, except in term? of value. This is done in Bulletin No. 39. The present study is a comparison of the increases in the plant and output of agriculture with the increases in the plant and the output of the railways. Bushels and bales are so different from ton-miles and passenger-miles that there cannot be any direct com- parison between them, but it is fair to compare in a general way the respective ratios of increase. That is, if during an extended period the ton-miles and the passenger-miles per mile of main track have increased at a substantially greater ratio than have the bushels per acre or the bales per acre of a particular crop, it is fair to say that the railways have made greater progress in efficiency than has agriculture as measured by that particular crop. In this way, by considering the ratios of increase in the production per acre of the various crops, a rough but significant and serviceable comparison of their relative productivity can be made between agriculture and the railways. Then, again, it is perhaps true that an acre of even the most fertile soil does not have an elasticity of production com- parable with the range of traffic that can be moved over a mile of railway. The practice of European agriculture, however, demon- strates a vastly greater productivity per acre than has been obtained in the United States. Therefore the present comparison of the in- crease in productivity is well within the limits of practicable achieve- ment." o Light is thrown on the possibilities of intensive agriculture by the records of corn production per acre made by farmers of the United States under the auspices of the Bureau of Plant Industry of the Department of Agriculture. In a number of instances over 200 bushels of corn have been raised on a single acre of land, the record for the season of 1912 being 207 bushels Per-acre yields of from 175 to 200 bushels are not uncommon. These records may be contrasted with the average corn crop of the United States per acre in 1910 of about 26 bushels. Over a century ago one Paul Hathaway raised 124.5 bushels .of corn on a single acre of land in southern Massachusetts. Within certain limitations increased productivity means increased efficiency. Greater production per unit of plant, other things equal, means greater serviceability to the users and consumers of the product. There are radical differences between industries however, in the extent to which the application of human effort and of ma- chinery and appliances increases efficiency in this sense. Before proceeding to the comparison of the relative productivity of the railway and the agricultural industries, attention should be directed to differences in addition to those already pointed out. In the railway industry so large an initial investment in fixed plant is required in order to operate at all, that for a considerable time after being opened for traffic the plant is likely not to be fully utilized, and hence additional applications of labor and equipment are rewarded by a more than proportionate increase in output. In other words, efficiency tends steadily to increase up to the time that the plant is completely utilized. No such large initial investment is required in agriculture, and the point is more quickly reached where there is even a less than proportionate reward for each new applica- tion of capital and labor. That the point of diminishing return has been reached in the case of many railways is undoubtedly true. It is frequently asserted that the farmer suffers from the dis- advantage that the quantity of land is fixed, and that he cannot increase it at will. This impression, only in part true, probably arises from the fact that the governmental policy of free land is practically at an end, and that if the farmer wants more land, he must, as does the railway when it extends its lines, invest more capital. There is still opportunity open to the farmer to extend his productive area. But efforts to develop efficiency meet hampering restrictions not alone in agriculture. Agriculture is not subject to such public regu- lation as the railways, and in the railway field much in the way of unproductive or relatively unproductive investment is demanded in the public interest. These investments, being to a considerable de- gree beyond the control of the railway, may hamper that develop- ment of physical plant which is best fitted to handle traffic efficiently. Again the output of the agricultural plant, eliminating natural forces, is within the control of the farmer ; within a practicable limit he can produce as much or as little as he chooses, and hence the responsi- bility for a large or a small product per acre within this limit is his alone. The railway, on the other hand, performs a service, is, there- 10 fore, dependent upon patronage for its output, and hence its output is not under its sole control. The fact that it is a service which the public are obliged to use modifies the force of this contention, but does not remove the fact that the intensiveness of traffic depends largely upon the volume of traffic offered. These fundamental differences in the character of the agricultural and railway industries would seem on first thought to destroy the value of any comparison of their efficiency. But it must be remem- bered, as has been said, that the two industries are not being com- pared directly with each other ; rather the increase in the efficiency of each is being compared over a series of years. The record for efficiency of each industry is compared at one period with its record at another. Account is taken of the degree in which the plant of agriculture and the plant of the railways have been extended, of the aggregate increases in output, of the increases in output per unit of plant, of increases in value in relation to output, and of the rela- tion that extensions of plant and increases in output bear to the growth of population. As the census of the United States is taken decennially the com- parison cannot now be made of any more recent period than that indicated by the years 1900 and 1910." It would not, however, be fair to utilize the results of these two years in this comparison be- tween the railways and agriculture, unless they were normal years in both industries. As to agriculture the following is the opinion of John Iv. Coulter, expert special agent for agriculture, Bureau of the Census, expressed in an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for November, T912: "After a very extensive study of climatic conditions and general agricultural conditions for the two years thus necessarily selected, I am ready to state my belief that they were typical or representa- tive years, not abnormal in any material respect. In some districts conditions were exceptionally bad or exceptionally good in 1899 (the farm year covered by the census of 1900), and the same was true of 1909 (covered by the census of 1910). For the United "The agricultural census of 1900 was taken as of the date of June 1, 1900, and that of 1910 as of the date of April 15, 1910. The inventory statistics of these censuses— statistics of farm land, improved land, livestock, and the like relate to the dates indicated. The crop statistics of each census cover as nearly as possible the prece-linp calendar year— that is, the years ending De- cember 31, 1899, and 1909, respectively. All the railway statistics in the present study are of fiscal years ending June 30th. II States as a whole, and for all crops which it is possible to bring into the analysis here presented, these years are as comparable as it is possible to find two years any distance apart." It may also be said in a general way that 1900 and 1910 were normal years for the railways of the United States. Freight traffic showed steady and continuous increases each year from 1897 to 1907, indicating that 1900 was one of a series of normal years; in 1908 and 1909 there was a recession, but the traffic of 1910 again presented a growth over the preceding years. Passenger traffic increased steadily each year from 1897 to 1910. 12 COMPARISON OF PLANT. The physical plant of the railways of the United States comprised 206,631 miles of main track in 1900. By 1910 this had grown to 266,185 miles, an increase of 59,554 miles, or 28.8 per cent. Improved land in the farms of the United States amounted to 414,498,000 acres in 1900 and 478,451,000 acres in 1910, an increase of 63,953,000 acres between 1900 and 1910, or 15.4 per cent." It is evident that the railway plant has increased at nearly double the rate of the agricultural plant. Additional light is obtained by showing the rates of increase separately for the three principal dis- tricts of the United States— Eastern, Southern, and Western. 6 Increase in Railway Track Mileage and in Improved Farm Land Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts. Eastern district: Railway main track. . Improved farm land. Southern district : Railway main track . . Improved farm land. Western district : Railway main track. . Improved farm land. d Decrease. Increase, 1900-1910. 1900. 1910. Amount. Per cent. 64,537 90,921,000 75, ^9 89,641,000 10,592 d 1,^80,000 16.4 & 1.4 33,117 82,061,000 43,694 88,353,000 io,577 6,292,000 31-9 7-7 108,977 41,516,000 147,362 300,458,000 38,385 58,942,000 35-2 24.4 "The extent to which the farmer utilizes his plant is indicated by a state- ment of the amount of land devoted to crops, or aggregate crop area. In some respects crop area better represents the agricultural plant than does the acreage of improved land, but as statistics of crop area are not available for all agricultural products, it is not a wholly satisfactory index. The area covered by the crops for which acreage statistics were secured by the Census Bureau in 1910 showed an increase of 9.9 per cent over the area covered by the same crops in 1900. b The Eastern district comprises the New England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. The Southern district includes all the States south of the Potomac and Ohio and east of the Mississippi rivers. The Western dis- trict comprises the States of Illinois and Wisconsin, and all States west of the Mississippi. As regards railway operation, the Eastern district corresponds very closely to combined Groups I, II. and III of the tentorial classification of the Interstate Commerce Commission ; the Southern district to Groups IV and V combined; the Western district to Groups VI, VII, VIII, IX. and X combined. The boundaries of the groups that lie along the borders of these districts do not always follow state boundaries; but the districts specified above so closely correspond to the combined groups of the Interstate Com- merce Commission that there is no appreciable variation from strict com- parability. 13 Of the increase in improved farm land, over nine-tenths was in the West, where new lands are being put into cultivation through irrigation and settlement. The South shows a substantial increase, but in the older and more closely settled East there was a decrease. The improved land in the farms of the United States amounts to but one-half of the total farm area. Although it must be recognized that a certain area must always be held out of cultivation, yet it is clear that it is not because the farmer has no more land to cultivate that he has not enlarged his field of operations. The increase in railway trackage was distributed over the three sections of the coun- try, the rate being about twice as great in the South and West as in the East. The conclusion is clear that the railways have been extending their plant with greater vigor than the farmers in all sections of the United States, especially so in the older sections of the country, east of the Mississippi River. H COMPARISON OF AGGREGATE OUTPUT. Railway output in the United States in 1900 and 19 10, expressed in terms of ton-miles and passenger-miles, was as follows : Output in— Per cent of in- 1900. 1910. 1900-1910. Ton-miles 141,596,551,000 255,016,910,000 80. 1 Passenger-miles 16,038,076,000 32,338,496,000 101.6 The immediate comparison in the case of agriculture will be con- cerned with the ten principal crops, those which enter into uni- versal use and consumption and constitute over 80 per cent of the value of all crops — corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, po- tatoes, hay and forage, tobacco, and cotton. The area devoted to these ten crops in 1900 aggregated 274,380,000 acres, while in 1910 it was 297,865,000 acres. This area of the ten crops, representing over four-fifths of the total crop area of the United States both in 1900 and 1910, increased 23,485,000 acres during the decade, or 8.6 per cent. The increases in the respective crops are shown by the following table : Production in— Per cent of / * , increase, 1900. 1910. 1900-1910. Corn (bushels) 2,666,324,000 2,552,190,000 d 4-3 Wheat (bushels) 658,534,000 683,379,000 3.8 Oats (bushels) 943,389,000 1,007,143,000 6.8 Barley (bushels) 119,635,000 173,344,000 44.9 Rye (bushels) 25,569,000 29,520,000 15.5 Buckwheat (bushels) 11,234,000 14,849,000 32.2 Potatoes (bushels) 273,318,000 389,195,000 42.4 Hay and forage (tons) 79,252,000 97,454,000 23.0 Tobacco (pounds) 868,113,000 1,055,765,000 21.6 Cotton (bales) 9,S3S,ooo 10,649,000 11. 7 <* Decrease. The rate of increase in gross railway output, between 1900 and 1910, is shown to be from 80 to 100 per cent. The increase in the output of the ten crops combined, each crop being assigned a weight proportionate to its acreage, was about nine per cent. 15 COMPARISON OF OUTPUT PER UNIT OF PLANT. It may be asserted as a general principle that an increase in out- put per unit indicates a gain in efficiency. However, this statement is subject to qualifications, for a loss in output per unit does not always denote lowered efficiency. Agri- culture is affected directly and railway operation indirectly by climatic changes, seasonal variations, and calamities of one kind or another — factors that can neither be anticipated nor controlled. The pushing of agriculture into new fields may for a time increase output per unit, while the extension of railway lines into new terri- tory may temporarily decrease output per unit, yet in neither case does this influence play any necessary part in determining for the time being the actual efficiency of operation. With this condition clearly in mind, it will be interesting to com- pare the output of agriculture and railways per unit of plant. Railway output per mile of main track in 1900 and in 1910 was as follows: Railway Output Per Mux Output per mile of _ . , . main track in- ciease, 1900-1910. 1900. 1910. Ton-miles 685,263 958,044 39.8 Passenger-miles 77M7 121,489 56.5 The output per acre of the ten crops in 1900 and 1910 and the rates of increase or decrease during the decade are indicated in the following table : Output Pes Acre. 1900. 1910. Per cent of in- crease, 1900-1910. Corn (bushels) 28.1 25.9 *7.& Wheat (bushels) 12.5 15.4 23.2 Oats (bushels) 31-9 28.6 d 10.3 Barley (bushels) 26.8 22.5 <* 16.0 Rye (bushels) 12.4 13-4 8.0 Buckwheat (bushels) 139 16.9 21.5 Potatoes (bushels) 93-0 106. 1 14. 1 Hay and forage (tons) 1.285 1-345 4-7 Tobacco (pounds) 788.1 815.3 3-5 Cotton (bales) 0.393 0.332 ^15.5 d Decrease. i6 The rate of increase in railway efficiency from 1900 to 1910, measured by the increase in traffic per mile of main track, is shown to be 39.8 per cent in respect to ton-miles and 56.5 per cent in respect to passenger-miles — that is, the increased efficiency of rail- way operation as a whole was not less than 40 per cent for the decade. When each crop is given a weight proportionate to its acreage, it will be found that the average of the increases and de- creases in the output per acre for the ten crops combined shows a decrease of about one per cent. None of the ten crops shows as great an increase in output per acre as 40 per cent, while the out- put per acre of four of the ten crops decreased. The highest rate of increase of any of the ten crops was that of wheat, the production per acre increasing 23.2 per cent. The reason for this increase should be carefully noted. Had the land devoted to wheat remained the same in quality, this would have indicated a real increase in output. But as a matter of fact the rate of average increase is due in part, probably, to the fact that the later year was a somewhat better crop year for wheat than the earlier, and in part, also, to the withdrawal of poorer wheat land from wheat cultivation in the East and South during the decade, and the substitution of newer and better for older and poorer wheat land in the West. In a number of states the extent of the transfer of land planted in wheat in 1900 to other crops or to pasturage in 1910 is very striking, and the fact that in practically all such states the average output of wheat per acre increased during the decade proves that it was the poorer wheat land that was so transferred. For example, the wheat area of Minnesota decreased three million acres between 1900 and 1910, or over 50 per cent, while the average of wheat per acre rose from 14.5 bushels to 17.4 bushels; in Ohio the wheat area decreased 1,400,000 acres, or 43 per cent, while the average production per acre rose from 15.7 bushels to 16.8 bushels; in Indiana the wheat area decreased 810,000 acres, or 28 per cent, while the average per acre rose from 12. 1 bushels to 16.3 bushels. These examples can be multiplied to include nearly all the states whose wheat acreage decreased. Buckwheat production per acre increased 21.5 per cent; potato production per acre increased 14.1 per cent; rye, hay and forage and tobacco showed small increases — less than ten per cent — while in the case of four crops — corn, oats, cotton, and barley — there were decreases in production per acre. Without exception the in- 17 crease in railway efficiency between 1900 and 1910, as measured by increased output per mile, seems to have been greater than the increase in the efficiency in the production of the ten crops. Four of the crops decreased in output per acre, indicating not only that there was no gain in efficiency of production, but probably an actual loss. Comparison by Geographical Districts. That the same general conclusion is applicable to each of the three great geographical districts of the United States — Eastern, Southern, and Western — is made clear by the comparison given below. Wherever it appears that one of the three districts produced less than a tenth of the total output of any one of the ten crops, the production of that crop per unit is not shown for that district. Output Per Unit. Eastern District. Per cent of in- 9 * " ' crease. 1900-1910. Railways : Ton-miles 1,162,810 1,664,134 43- 1 Passenger-miles 134,689 191,669 42.3 Agriculture : Corn (bushels) 36.9 37-3 l-i Wheat (bushels) 13-7 *7-3 26.3 Oats (bushels) 33-6 29.3 5 "-i Tobacco (pounds) 1004.8 970.8 ^3.4 Southern District. Railways : Ton-miles 516,251 774.487 50.0 Passenger-mites 45,340 73,762 62.7 Agriculture : Corn (bushels) 15-7 16.8 7.0 Tobacco (pounds).... 725-9 767-3 5-7 Cotton (bales) 0.395 0.386 ^2.3 Western District. Railways: „ Ton-miles 453.841 652,486 43.8 Passenger-miles 53.636 99,860 86.2 Agriculture: Corn (bushels) 30-9 26.7 * I3 ,(, Wheat (bushels) 12.8 15.4 20.3 Oats (bushels) 33-5 29.7 in. 3 Barley (bushels) 26.8 22.5 i 16.0 Rye (bushels) 12.8 14.2 11. 4 Potatoes (bushels) 97-5 101.9 4.5 Hay and forage (tons) 1-370 1.404 2.5 Cotton (bales) 0.390 0.272 ^30. 3 * Decrease. i8 In the Eastern district the gain in railway efficiency ranged above 40 per cent. The efficiency of production of the eight crops, which were raised in sufficient quantities in the Eastern district to warrant comparison with the railways of that district, without exception increased at a lower rate than the 40 per cent of the rail- ways. For the Southern district comparison is made between railways and the three principal crops of that district — cotton, tobacco, and corn. Railway efficiency as a whole increased something more than 50 per cent. The corn and tobacco crops show small increases in efficiency measured by production per acre — less than 10 per cent — while the cotton crop shows a slight decrease in per-acre production, indicating no gain in efficiency of cultivation and handling. Comparison is offered for the Western district between the rail- ways and eight crops. Railway efficiency as a whole may con- servatively be said to have gained more than 45 per cent. Of the four crops showing increased efficiency, no one has as high a rate of increase as this in output per acre, and four crops show de- creases in output per acre. Conclusion of Comparison of Output. While emphasis must again be laid on the fact that the foregoing comparisons are not absolute and are at best of the most general type, yet the constancy with which the rate of increase in the pro- duction per acre of the several crops has lagged behind the rate of increase in railway traffic per mile of main track is significant. The same tendency is shown when attention is directed to all the crops of the United States for which returns of acreage and pro- duction for 1900 and 1910 are available. The following table covers all the crops for which the indicated data are given in re- ports of the Census Bureau : 19 Per Cent of Increase: 1910 over 1900. Total Total Crop. Acreage. Output. Cereals 3.5 1.7 Other grains and seeds (beans, peas, peanuts, and flaxseed) 24.6 23.4 Hay and forage 17.2 23.0 Tobacco 17.6 21.6 Cotton 32.0 11. 7 Sugar-beets 230.5 395.7 Sorghum and sugar-cane 35.4 29.0 Broom corn 82.6 d 13.2 Hemp d 52-3 d 36.3 Hops A 19.6 d 17.3 Potatoes 24.8 42.4 Sweet potatoes and yams 19.3 39.3 Small fruits (strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, cranberries, etc.) d 12.1 d 7-9 d Decrease. Scrutiny of this table will show that the cereal crops, to which over three-fifths of the total crop area is devoted, did not quite hold their own, acreage increasing at a slightly higher rate than output. The general conclusion warranted by the table, when the importance of each crop is considered in connection with its relative increase in acreage and output, is that the crop production of the United States increased at no greater rate from 1900 to 1910 than did the crop area. The same fact is presented from a different angle by the Census Bureau in the statement that there was practically no difference in the average quantity of crops produced per acre in 1900 and 1910. In contrast is the record of the railways, in which the increase of 28.8 per cent in miles of main track was far less than the increases of 80.1 per cent in ton-miles and 101.6 per cent in passenger-miles; that is, the average output per mile of main track in 1910 was considerably greater than in 1900. That the efforts put forth by the farmers of the United States during the past decade have only barely maintained the production of crops at the same level, without leading to any appreciable in- crease in efficiency of production, is the opinion expressed by John L. Coulter, in the article cited in the introduction. He says : "It is true that the hope has been, and I believe I may say that the belief has been, that agriculture was increasing rapidly, if not keeping pace with the increase of population. The people of the United States have been more than willing to supply the Department of Agriculture, State agriculture experiment stations, and a great 20 variety of agricultural schools, colleges, and lecturers with all of the funds necessary, believing that all this pointed towards a larger pro- duction of goods as a basis for the food, beverage, and clothing supply of our people. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended for this purpose. It may seem that this expenditure has been in vain, since the average production of agriculture has not increased. But without it doubtless there would have been far- reaching decreases due to depreciation of the soil and failure of the farmers to maintain the average production secured when they first took charge. Tho hundreds of millions of pages of literature have been distributed among farmers ; only a small percentage has act- ually been read, and only a small percentage of that read has been put into practice. It has taken almost all, if not all, of the educa- tion which has reached the farmers to date to prevent any down- ward movement in the quantity produced per acre of land actually cultivated." 21 CROP VALUES AND PURCHASING POWER. In the light of this agricultural record, which shows an absence of increased efficiency in crop production, it is of interest and sig- nificance to note the extraordinary increase in agricultural prices and, in consequence, of the capital value of the agricultural in- dustry. According to the United States Department of Agriculture the average value of an acre's output of the ten important crops of the United States was $9.13 in 1899 and $15.51 in 1911, an in- crease of $6.38, or 69.9 per cent. The details for each individual crop are as follows : Crop. Corn Wheat Oats Barley Rye Buckwheat Potatoes Hay .'..' Tobacco Cotton Compared with the prices of things which farmers buy, the pur- chasing power of the crop of an average acre was greater in 191 1 than in 1899 by 41.6 per cent. In other words, while there has been an increase in the market prices of such commodities as the farmer purchases in considerable quantity, the increase in the prices he receives for his crops has been so much greater that his purchasing power has been increased in considerably greater proportion. Ex- pressing this situation in terms of the several important crops, the purchasing power of an average acre's output of corn in 191 1 was 50.7 per cent greater than in 1899; that of an average acre's output of wheat was 30.2 per cent greater than in 1899 ; that of an average acre's output of cotton was 32.3 per cent greater than in 1899. This comparison of a farmer's purchasing ability at different periods has been carried a step further by the Department of Agri- culture, to apply to specific commodities purchased and used by the farmers of the United States. While many of these commodities vary widely in grade, quality, or size, that grade or quality has in Value of an acre's Per cent of in- output, 1911. crease over i8y9. $14.79 73-8 10.96 So. 1 10.98 38.3 18.38 70.2 12.96 105. 1 15-29 97-5 64.60 78.1 n.38 11. 8 84.13 61.7 20.32 52-3 22 each case been selected which represents what is most generally sold to farmers, and the comparisons from year to year are always of retail prices of the same grades or qualities. The following table shows the increase in purchasing power in 191 1 over that of 1899 of the output of the average acre of corn, wheat, cotton, and of all crops, respectively, in terms of these specific commodities. Per Cent of Increase, 191 i over 1899, in the Purchasing Power Of these Commodities— By an average acre's output of- Corn. Wheat. Cottou. All crops. Coal-oil 112 83 86 99 Coffee 11 d 4 d 3 4 Flour 33 20 18 25 Lard 25 8 10 18 Salt 44 23 26 35 Sugar 37 19 20 29 Tin pails 63 41 43 S3 Overalls 30 13 14 23 Calico 33 15 16 25 Axes 60 38 40 50 Nails 68 45 47 58 Shovels 57 37 38 48 Steel wire 70 47 49 60 Hose 46 26 27 37 Lime 47 28 29 38 Paints 9 d 7 d 4 4 Twine 71 48 50 61 Stoves 51 30 32 42 Harness 45 20 22 30 Wagons — single 55 34 35 46 Wagons — double 42 23 24 33 d Decrease. The 21 representative commodities entered in this table were taken from a list of 83 commodities in the report of the Department of Agriculture. Between 1899 and 191 1 the purchasing power of the output of the average acre of crops increased in the case of 82 of these 83 staple commodities — that is, the price received for an average acre's crop rose at a greater rate than the price paid for these commodities. The only commodity, the price of which rose faster than the prices of agricultural products, was brooms. This increase in the purchasing power of the farmer took place in face of the fact that the prices of 79 of the 83 commodities advanced. 23 Power of Average Acre's Crop to Purchase Transportation The amount of transportation purchasable by the output of an average acre of these same crops in 1899 and 191 1 is shown in the following table : Corn . Wheat. Cotton. All crops. Ton-miles Passenger-miles 1899 "75 442 1911 1954 749 1899 1008 379 1911 1448 555 1899 1843 693 1911 2684 1029 1899 I26l 474 1911 2049 786 The percentages of increase in the amounts of transportation purchasable with the average output of an acre are as follows : Ton-miles Passenger-miles 66.3 69-5 43-7 46.4 45-6 48.5 All crops. 62. 5 65.8 Purchasing Power of 1,000 Crop Units and i.ooo Traffic Units Taking the purchasing power of the farm value in 1900 of 1,000 bushels of the crops indicated, and of 1,000 bales in the case of cot- ton, as 100, the relative quantities of the commodities named below purchasable at wholesale with 1,000 bushels of the same crops and 1,000 bales of cotton in 1910 are as indicated in the following table: Relative Purchasing Power in 1910 Of these commodities. By 1,000 bushels of— Corn. Wheat. food" f°^ crops. K ' Farm products 120.7 "4-0 100. 1 129.5 Food 146.9 138.7 121. 9 157-5 Cloths and clothing 156.7 147-9 130.0 168.0 Fuel and lighting 175-0 165.2 145. 1 187.6 Metals and implements 170.2 160.6 141. 2 182.5 Lumber and building materials 137-0 129-4 U3-7 147-0 Drugs and chemicals 179-4 i°9-4 148.9 192.4 House-furnishing goods 172.5 162.9 I43-I 185 -0 Miscellaneous 149-7 I4I-3 124.2 160.5 All commodities 152.4 143-8 126.4 163.4 Ton-miles 175-7 165-8 145-7 188.4 Passenger-miles 187.6 177- 1 155-6 201. 1 Taking the purchasing power of the receipts of the railways from 1,000 ton-miles and 1,000 passenger-miles in 1900 as 100, the relative quantities of the commodities named below purchasable at whole- sale with 1,000 ton-miles and 1,000 passenger-miles respectively in 1910 are as indicated in the following table : 24 Relative Purchasing Power in 1910 Of these commodities. By the Receipts from r.ooo ton-miles Farm products Food Clothes and clothing Fuel and lighting Metals and implements Lumber and building materials. Drugs and chemicals House-furnishing goods Miscellaneous All commodities 1900. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 TOO I9IO. 68.7 83.6 89.2 996 96.9 78.0 I02. 1 98.2 «5-2 86.7 1,000 passenger- miles. 1900. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1910. 64.4 78. 3 83-5 93-3 90.7 73- 1 95-7 92.0 79.8 81.2 The purchasing power of the value of 1,000 bushels of corn has risen from 100 in 1900 to 152.4 in 1910, an increase of 52.4 per cent; similarly the purchasing power of wheat has risen from 100 to 143.8, or 43.8 per cent ; the purchasing power of cotton has risen from 100 to 163.4, or 63.4 per cent; the purchasing power of the seven prin- cipal food crops, covered by earlier tables, has risen from 100 to 126.4, or 264 per cent. The purchasing power of the receipts from 1,000 ton-miles has fallen from 100 in 1900 to 86.7 in 1910, a de- crease of 13.3 per cent; the purchasing power of the receipts from 1,000 passenger-miles has fallen from 100 in 1900 to 81.2 in 1910, a decrease of 18.8 per cent. These statistics have reference to pur- chasing power in general — i. e., power to purchase all commodities. When specific groups of commodities are considered, such as food, clothing, and the like, it is perceived that the purchasing power of the various crops indicated largely increased during the decade, while the power of the receipts from ton-miles and passenger- miles to purchase these same commodities with but one exception decreased. The increase in the purchasing power by crops of transportation is of course explained by the fact that in contrast to the rapid in- crease in the average value of farm products during the period, there has been no more than a slight variation in average receipts per ton-mile and in average receipts per passenger-mile. 25 Correlative with the increase in value of farm crops, and in large measure as a direct result of such increase, the value of farm prop- erty greatly increased during the decade ending in 1910. This value as a whole, including land, buildings, implements and ma- chinery, and livestock, increased 100.5 P er cent > or practically dou- bled. The value of farm land alone increased 118.1 per cent, an increase in average value per acre of 108.1 per cent. In the same period the cost of road and equipment of the railways increased 40.2 per cent, their gross capitalization increased 60.3 per cent, and their net capitalization increased 63.3 per cent. Note. — In the preceding paragraphs retail prices as computed by the Depart- ment of Agriculture have been used for the comparison between 1899 and 191 1. The fact that such prices were not computed for 1900 compels the utilization of wholesale prices for the comparison between 1000 and 1910 . 26 SERVICE OF AGRICULTURE AND THE RAILWAYS IN RELATION TO THE GROWTH OF POPULATION. There is another basis upon which the comparison of the devel- ment and efficiency of the great industries that serve the people of this country should be made ; this is in relation to the growth of the population. That is, as the service of agriculture and the railways is to the whole people, it is appropriate and significant to measure that service in relation to the population to which it is rendered." For example, the production of 25,000,000 more bushels of wheat in 1910 than in 1900 might seem a gratifying increase. But an ad- dition of sixteen million to the population reduced the per capita supply in 1910 to eighty-six per cent of what it was in 1900. And so also should facilities of the railways be measured. There was an increase of 25 per cent in the miles of line, 29 per cent in the miles of main track, and 36 per cent in the miles of all tracks between 1900 and 1910. But if the comparison be made in relation to the population we find that in 1900 there were 2.53 miles of line for each one thousand inhabitants, and in 1910 2.62 miles of line, an increase in proportion to population of only 3.4 per cent. Miles of main track on the same basis increased 6.4 per cent, and the miles of all tracks 12.3 per cent. The following tables bring out the ratio of increase in plant and output of the agricultural industry and in the plant and output of the railways in relation to the population. 8 Part of the crops are exported and part of the traffic of the railways is for export. As exported products are bartered for imports, or enter into the settlement of international balances, it is not considered unfair to include the export traffic in the aggregates of production and service that are related to the population. 27 Acreage of Agriculture per 1,000 Inhabitants. (Ten Principal Crops.) 1900. 1910. p * r cent of increase. Corn 1,248.9 1,069.7 d 14-4 Wheat 692.0 481.3 d 30.5 Oats 388.7 382.3 i 1.7 Barley s 8.8 83.7 ' 42.3 Rye 27.0 23.9 ill.? Buckwheat 10.6 9.5 * 10.1 Potatoes 38.7 39.9 3.1 Hay and forage 811. 8 785.9 d 3.2 Tobacco 14.5 14. 1 i 2. 9 Cotton 3I9-4 348.4 9-1 d Decrease. Track and Equipment of the Railways per 1,000 Inhabitants. r,™ ,„,„ Per cent ot r 9°°- '9 10 - increase. Miles of line 2.534 2.619 3-4 Miles of main track 2.719 2.894 6.4 Miles of all track 3-405 3.825 12.3 Locomotives (number) .496 .641 29.2 Locomotive tractive power (lbs.) .. a 10,112.6 17,275.8 70.8 Freight cars (number) 17-97 23.21 29.2 Freight car capacity (tons) "556-5 832.6 49.6 Passenger cars (number) .457 .512 12.0 1902. The acreage of seven of the ten crops under consideration de- creased between 1900 and 1910 in relation to the population. These crops were corn, wheat, oats, rye, buckwheat, hay and forage, and tobacco. The remaining three crops show increases in acres planted per thousand inhabitants, namely, barley, potatoes, and cotton. The acreage of these three crops with the exception of cotton is com- paratively small. All the track and equipment factors of railway operation in the United States increased between 1900 and 1910 in relation to population. The increases in mileage have already been indicated. Locomotives per thousand inhabitants increased 29.2 per cent and the tractive power of locomotives 70.8 per cent ; freight cars per thousand inhabitants increased 29.2 per cent and their ca- pacity in tons 49.6 per cent, while passenger cars per thousand in- habitants increased 12 per cent. The next two tables present the increase or decrease in output of agriculture, and the increase in output of the railways, in relation to population, during the decade 1900 to 1910. 28 Output of Agriculture per 1,000 Inhabitants. (Ten Principal Crops.) 1900. Corn (bushels) 35.085. Wheat (bushels) 8,665 Oats (bushels) 12,413 Barley (bushels) 1,574 Rye (bushels) 336 Buckwheat (bushels) 147 Potatoes (bushels) 3.596 Hay and forage (tons) 1,042 Tobacco (pounds) 1 1,423 Cotton (bales) 125.5 d Decrease. Output of the Railways per 1,000 Inhabitants. 7 27,749.6 5 7,430.3 • Q 10,950.5 3 1,884.7 • 5 321-0 .8 161. s 5 4,231-7 9 1,059.6 •4 11,479.2 5 H5-8 Per cent of increase. d 20. g d I4-3 ill. 8 19.7 i 4.6 9.2 17.7 1.6 0-5 d 7.7 Per cent of increase. Ton-miles 1,863,256 2,772,759 48.8 Passenger-miles 211,042 351,611 66.6 The output of five of the ten crops increased in relation to popu- lation during the ten years ending 1910. The largest increase per thousand inhabitants was that of barley, which was 19.7 per cent. Potato production per thousand inhabitants increased 17.7 per cent, and the production of buckwheat, hay and forage, and tobacco less than ten per cent. The remaining five crops decreased in output as related to population, rye showing a decrease of 4.6 per cent per thousand inhabitants, cotton of y.j per cent, oats of 11.8 per cent, wheat of 14.3 per cent, and corn of 20.9 per cent. The output of the railways for the same period increased per thousand inhabitants, ton-miles by 48.8 per cent and passenger-miles by 66.6 per cent. The value of the output of these ten crops and of that of the rail- ways in relation to population is shown in the next two tables. Value in the case of agriculture is the farm value, that is, the esti- mated price at the farm for the crops. In the case of the railways value represents the receipts for handling traffic, and is expressed in terms of freight and passenger revenue. 29 Value of the Ten Crops per 1,000 Inhabitants. Corn $10,898 Wheat 4,868 Oats 2,857 Barley 548 Rye 162 Buckwheat 76 Potatoes : 1,295 Hay and forage 6,372 Tobacco 750 Cotton 4,260 1910. $15,641 7-iSi 4,509 1,005 222 101 1,810 8,959 1,134 7,650 Per cent of increase. 43 46 57 83 37 34 39 40 51 79 Value of Output of the Railways per 1,000 Inhabitants. Freight revenue $13,807 $20,936 51.6 Passenger revenue 4,260 6,839 60.6 The average value of the ten crops per thousand inhabitants in- creased 50.2 per cent. It should be noted that this relative increase in the farm value of crops has been due entirely to the increased prices received by farmers. The five crops that relatively increased in quantity increased in value at a far greater ratio, and the value of the remaining five crops materially increased, notwithstanding the decrease in quantity. In the case of the railways, however, the in- crease in revenues per thousand inhabitants is about the same as the increase in ton-miles and passenger-miles, indicating that the in- creased revenues were due almost entirely to the increase in traffic. This contrast is presented graphically on the next page. 30 a (1) a> (an ^ ci p P» PI U <» a o o s- o a> P. .a PI 4-3 ^"* PI 0J io a> 9 ■*a a) .9 o ■1 6 S-n *» Si >> p. s>^ « •a ■•-» u 9 pi o o"d .2 Pt 03 za CO cS "O p. o .a n p. SI PI a> o> !-. 4-a o .s » += ■d *> o w o 1 ,n F| rt 5 a rt •-3 4> Pi W> „ ■9 PI js C3 > o .9 0) «> ti a 0> & .9 o T-l OS © o OS 3i The foregoing diagram presents output and value in relation to population. The situation in detail in respect to three of the most important crops is as follows: The cotton production in 1900 was of 125.5 bales per thousand inhabitants; in 1910 it was 115.8 bales, a decrease in the quantity of cotton per thousand inhabitants of J.J per cent. The value of the cotton crop, however, which was $4,260 per thousand persons in 1900, had risen to $7,650 in 1910, an increase of 79.6 per cent. That is, while cotton production had fallen off J.J per cent per inhabitant, the value of the product had increased 79.6 per cent per inhabitant. There were produced in 1900 8,666 bushels of wheat per thou- sand inhabitants, while in 1910 there were produced but 7,430, a falling off in bushels per thousand inhabitants of 14.3 per cent. The value of the wheat crop, however, that was $4,868 per thou- sand inhabitants in 1900, had risen to $7,151 in 1910, an increase of 46.9 per cent. That is, while the wheat crop had decreased 14.3 per cent per inhabitant, its value increased 46.9 per cent per inhab- itant. The corn crop amounted in 1900 to 35,086 bushels per thousand inhabitants, but had dropped by 1910 to 27,750 bushels, a decrease in quantity of 20.9 per cent. The value of the corn crop, however, that was $10,898 per thousand inhabitants in 1900, was $15,641 in 1910, an increase of 43.5 per cent. That is, while the quantity of the corn crop had fallen off 20.9 per cent per inhabitant, its value had increased 43.5 per cent per inhabitant. An incidental point in this connection is that the railways are dependent to a very great extent on the farm products of the coun- try for their traffic. BULLETINS OF THE BUREAU OF RAILWAY ECONOMICS ' l •: . ■ . ' '• ' " (Continued from page 2 of cover.) 26. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads In the United States ;» for October, 1911. 27. Summary b* Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads in the United' States for November, 191J. ; ; $8. Effect qt Recent Wage Advances upon Railway, Employees' Compensation -during the Year Ending June 30, 191L Variatlohs to th£ Number . of Railway Employees, 1909-1910-1911, Relation of the Number Of Employees and their Compensation to Traffic and'Reyentte, 1909;19W1911. 29. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States - .,; for December, 1911. -. 30. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States -;■' , for January, 1912. ' ' ' 31. Railway Traffic Statistics, 1900-19101 / .;• ,.., r ' 32. Summary of Revenues and Expense* of Steam Roads In the United States ■: • for February, 1912. _,_ ( ;_ ,;■ ..- ■'■ t 33j Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States for Ifarch, 1912, 34 £ Comparative Study qt Railway Wages and the Cost of. JiMnf to the '; t ; ' ' United Stotes. the United Kingdom, and the Principal Countries of Continental Europe. ' , 35. Summary of Revenues arid Expanses of Steam Roads to the United States for April,j 1912.' , '\-\-\ 36. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States for May, 1912. * ' ' > , '" f^W/-' 37. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam stj^fcto the United States for June, 1912.. ■'•'. ' .. ' ~$?Mv:. 38. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States ' ' for July, 191Z _ j " <■ 39. (^niparlson ^^piil»|; Values— Agriculture. Manufactures, and the Rall- , ' ..vV ' waya ■i : .,$f "<' / : f ! ''■.-";,-' '•- ' . ' \ ' ' ''.' 40. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States for August, 1012. ./ ; 41. Summary of Revenues and Expenses, of Steam Roads to the United States for September, 1912. , V. i <■■.''■• j ■' ' . ■ ''.' ■ . ,• ; ' -. .'•}" ' ■ 42. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States for October, 1912. , 43. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads to the United States .'; f or November, 1942C ; ' . : '' 44. Summary of Revenues and Expenses of Steam Roads In the United State* . for',^ember,^12v.i. ,: ""■:' '■'.■'{ 'T " "[■■■■■' : '■■' : ';:' 45. Railways and Agriculture, 1900-191^ •■ ;: Date Due ^1 DEC it)*§^M^ PRINTED IN U. 3, M, c*3f CAT * NO. 23233 I l