1. Climate of California, and its effects on agricultural production.—The principal cereal crops stated.—The animal farm stock of the State compared with that of other States.— The influence of this climate on grape-growing.

2. The relation of this agriculture to the development of the mining wealth of the western slope of the Rocky mountains.—The extent of the mining districts; that of the farming lands.—The danger of exhausting the soil.—The evil tendencies of large estates, and of uncertain land titles.—The ownership of the lands, and their several characters.—The true agricultural policy of California is in an adherence to the principles of the homestead law.

   I have had placed before me the annual report of the Surveyor General of the State of California for the year 1862, containing the agricultural statistics of that State; and Mr. Hittel’s "Resources of California,” a recent work of much merit, on its agriculture, mining, geography, climate, commerce, &c.  These present the agriculture of this State comprehensively and clearly. For two reasons it is well worthy a careful study, on account of the peculiar climate of California, and the relation of this agriculture to the development of the mineral wealth of the Pacific and Rocky mountain regions. I will consider these in the order stated.

The climate of the Atlantic States, as far west as the middle of Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska Territory, is wet in summer; that of California, and the Territories of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, is dry, being almost rainless during the summer months. A glance at the cause of this great difference will not be without profit or interest, and its knowledge is essential to an understanding of the climate of California.

On each side of the equator, when the sun is vertically above it, and reaching to about the fifteenth degree of latitude on each side of it, and moving with the sun as it travels north and south of the equator, is a belt of dry surface winds encircling the earth, and blowing with a uniform and gentle force into the equator. The wind of the north belt blows from the northeast; that of the south belt from the southeast. As these surface winds approach each other they rise, being expanded by the intense heat of the vertical sun, and become upper currents. The surface or lower currents are called the trade-winds; the upper, the counter trade. Mr. Maury and Mr. Butler maintain that the south belt of trade-wind, when it rises, becomes the northern counter trade or upper current, and the north belt of trade-wind becomes the southern upper counter trade.  These currents pass through each other in strata, which may be represented by passing the fingers of the hands between each other. But the generally received opinion is, that these surface currents strike against each other as they ascend, and turn each other back over the hemispheres from which they came. I regard the first opinion as more philosophical, because currents of air more readily stratify than repel each other; and because the southern hemisphere of the earth is chiefly water, the immense evaporations of which are more needed to water the land hemisphere of the north than to be discharged on the ocean, where they are not needed. “Nothing has been formed without a purpose.”

Between the points from which these opposing surface belts of wind begin to rise there is a belt of rains also encircling the earth, and about five hundred miles wide. It is called the rainy belt, and from it pour down those torrents of rain which fall on Central America.

As these dry surface trade-winds pass over the land and the ocean they absorb immense quantities of moisture, and their capacity to hold it is increased by the great heat imparted to them from the rays of the vertical sun. After they have risen, and become the upper or counter trade, the north one passes, at first in a northern direction. But on account of the diurnal rotation of the earth it is gradually turned to the east, forming the southwest wind, so general during summer in the Atlantic States. As it passes northwards into colder atmosphere it loses its heat; the moisture, in consequence, condenses, and at about fifteen degrees north of the equator portions of the wind and moisture descend to the earth.  Other portions having received the latent heat liberated from the moisture that has descended as rain, continue northwards even to the north pole. The portions of the earth receiving these rains are called the extra tropical rainy regions.

This central rainy belt and these two belts of dry trade-winds follow the sun in its passage north of the equator to the tropic of Cancer, nearly to the twenty-fourth degree of latitude. As the northern edge of the dry trade-winds reach fifteen degrees north of the latitude of the sun when the latter is at the tropic of Cancer, this northern edge reaches to about the thirty-ninth degree of latitude, being within three degrees of the northern boundary line of California. But before the sun reaches the tropic of Cancer, and after it begins to recede from it, northern California receives the rains that fall beyond the dry trade-winds. Thus this part of the State receives more rain than the southern portion, which is longer covered by the trade-winds.

If this belt of dry trade-winds encircled the earth, the Atlantic States, as far north as Washington city, would have the dry climate of California. Why have they not? The question is not easily answered. The theory advocated by Mr. Butler furnishes, perhaps, the most satisfactory answer. He maintains that the central rainy belt is carried over the Atlantic States in this manner:  As the trade-winds rise at the equator they are passing in a westwardly direction, and being below the tops of the mountains in Central America, they are checked in their course by them and are accumulated. The general course of the mountaing being northwest, the accumulated atmosphere is carried in the same direction, and it takes with it the central rainy belt.  The diurnal motion of the earth acts on this accumulated current, and turns it eastward, carrying the central rainy belt as far north as the northern lakes. It is the rains of this belt and the condensed vapors of the currents of air from this deflected atmosphere that falls in summer over the Atlantic States.

This very brief notice of the machinery adopted by nature for the distribution of rain over the earth may serve to show the reason why the Atlantic and Pacific States have different summer climates. Whilst the general characteristic of the California climate is dryness in summer, it has marked subdivisions of climate, and to these, and their causes, attention is now asked.

Running along the eastern boundary of the State are the high Nevada range of mountains. Between these and the coast is the Diabolo range, and near the coast are short, irregular lines of mountains. These give marked characteristics of climate to the country lying between them. The high mountains covered with snow produce cool night air, which renders the climate unfit for the production of corn. The middle of the Sacramento valley becomes very hot duririg the day. The cold ocean currents which flow southward along the coast create heavy fogs, which moisten the air, and mitigate the heat during the day and the coldness of the nights. But the nearest or coast mountains arrest these fogs. The melting snows of the mountains create numerous streams, forming tributaries to the Sacramento and Joaquin rivers, enabling the miner to wash out the gold and the farmer to irrigate his crops. South of Tulare Lake, lying from the southern line about one-fourth the distance acrosg the State, north and south, these streams are not found; and receiving but little rain, we have here the climate of California in its most intense dryness, rendering the lands better adapted for sheep-growing than any other agricultural interest, and for vineyards along the moist low grounds bordering on the small streams.

Having considered the general and local climates of this State, I turn now to notice its principal crops.

This is its chief cereal crop. In 1861 the acres sown were 361,351, yielding = 8,805,411 bushels, being 24% bushels to the acre. The winter and spring varieties of this grain are unknown in California, but are seemingly blended together, the time of sowing being intermediate—in the months of December and January, after the rains which set in during November have moistened the earth. Its quality is superior, on account of its greater amount of gluten, its whiteness, and thinness of skin. The best counties for its production are those in the immediate vicinity of the bay of San Francisco, being Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano, and Yolo. Their united product in 1861 was 6,008,336 bushels. The fogs on the coast are unfavorable to wheat production.

A sandy soil and a dry climate are known to be favorable to barley growing. Hence it is, relatively, a much greater crop in California than in the Atlantic States. Its amount in 1861 was 5,293,442 bushels; the number of acres 223,217, yielding 233 bushels per acre; but forty bushels have been raised, and a premium crop was sixty-seven bushels. The counties producing most are Alameda, Butte, Mendocino, Monterey, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. In 1861 they yielded 3,763,779 bushels. This grain is sown during the entire winter, commencing with the rains in November, and may be continued until the close of March. Owing to the dryness of the climate the grain rapidly dries after maturity, and in harvesting it shatters out some. This sprouts and takes root in the rainy season and yields a crop well worth harvesting, which is called a “volunteer crop.”

The common oats do not succeed well on account of the dryness of the climate; but there are wild oats belonging to California, which, although an annual plant, is perpetuated from year to year by self-seeding. It mixes itself the first year with the “volunteer crop” of barley, and in the second year appropriates most of the soil to itself. This crop is mown for hay, and constitutes the hay crop of California, except in some counties in the northern part of the State, which produce timothy. It forms a nutritious hay, but the grain is too small to be profitable as a cereal production. In 1861 the oats raised amounted to 1,057,592 bushels, the yield per acre being 283 bushels generally, but there were counties which raised forty bushels per acre.

This is a very limited crop in this State. As already remarked, the nights are too cool for its successful cultivation in the valley of the Sacramento and Joaquin rivers. The returns from California for 1861 show that there were 17,339 acres in corn, yielding 478,169 bushels, being 28 bushels to the acre. The counties of Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sonoma, and Yuba produced 268,963 bushels. The first three are coast counties, where the fog preserves a more equal temperature, and the first two are in the extreme south, where the summers are warm.

The reputation that this State has for growing root crops to the highest perfection is known everywhere. Its pure air, freedom from intense heat and excessive wet, makes it favorable for all these crops. It is not a little surprising, therefore, to find that in 1861 the number of acres in potatos was 20,771, producing but 1,298,474 bushels, which is 623 bushels to the acre.  Onions yielded 169 bushels per acre, sweet potatos 142 bushels. The coast counties of Marin, Monterey, and Sonoma are most favorable for potato production, showing that a moist atmosphere is essential in California for potato-growing, or a moist locality of the soil.

As already stated, the hay crop is taken from the wild oats. The amount of hay in 1861 was 304,791 tons, from 250,464 acres, being 1.22 tons per acre. The dryness of the climate is unfavorable to the grasses, timothy growing in the extreme north alone, which the dry trade-wind belt covers for a short time only. This unsuitableness for grass production is a feature in California agriculture that should receive much attention, because, when once exhausted, how is the fertility of the soil to be restored?  Herein lies a danger to California that must now be avoided.

This is a large animal product, when considered with reference to the population of this State. But in California there is a large amount of grazing land unfit for the plough, and this, too, is an element to be considered. “Of the 160,000 square miles in the area of California,” says Mr. Hittel, “about 60,000 may be tillable; and of the 40,000,000 tillable acres, at least 30,000,000 are so dry that they cannot, because of the want of moisture and the impossibility of irrigation, be made to produce any crop save small grain; and of the remaining, 10,000,000 acres, three-fourths will not yield fruits, maize, potatos, pumpkins, or garden vegetables; without irrigation.” A country like this should become a great stock-growing State, especially when the climate is of such character as to dispense, in a great degree, with winter feeding. "Ohio,” says the same writer, “cuts five times as much hay, in proportion to the number of her horses and cattle, as does California, of which at least three-fourths is consumed at home.” The wheat straw, uninjured by rust or rain, must be a good foddering substance, and this, with what hay can be made of the wild oats, must furnish an amount of food sufficient to sustain a large stock during the short feeding season.

The State of Indiana, one of the best in animal production, had in 1860 5,306,664 head. Its population is about three times as great as that of California, but its farm stock only twice as much. But its cereal production is, proportionably, much greater. The California bushels of wheat, barley, oats, rye, corn, and potatos are 16,948,593, whilst those of Indiana are 94,459,195, a third of which would be 31,486,398. That is, Indiana has nearly double as much cereal food, in proportion to population, as California. It is, therefore, in grain production that this State may prove deficient for the demands that may in the future be made upon it.

In determining the capacity of California to produce human food—for it will be seen presently that this article has that chiefly in view—fruit production must not be overlooked.

The annual statistics of the number of trees and vines and their product are carefully taken by the State; and, in so doing, it presents an example worthy of all imitation by every other State and by the general government. The list shows the remarkable adaptation of California to all fruits, both of the warm and temperate regions. Among the fruit trees are the apricot, quince, nectarine, cherry, plum, pear, peach, apple, cherimoya, persimmon, prune, pineapple, pomegranate, olive, orange, lemon, citron, aloe, and gooseberry; and among the vines are the grape, strawberry, and raspberry. There are also the walnut, almond, and pecan.  The value of the fruit, the tons of grapes, and the gallons of wine and brandy are also taken in its annual statistics.

From the returns of the counties in the Surveyor General’s report, the soil and climates adapted to fruit-growing appear to be much more extensive than are suited to profitable grain production.  The middle of the Sacramento valley is perhaps too hot and dry for fruits, but the slopes at the base of its mountains are most excellent.  Smaller valleys, with their higher elevations, are no less suitable. The great length of the State north and south, in connexion with its mountain elevations, adapts the State to the growth of the large and varied list of fruits just stated.

It is too early in the history of California to determine the localities adapted to each fruit and their extent. I shall, therefore, not dwell upon them, but content myself with an examination of its capability in the production of the grape.

   "California vineyards produce ordinarily twice as much as the vineyards of any other grape district, if general report be true. The grape crop never fails, as it does in every other country. Vineyards in every other country require more labor, for here the vine is not trained to a stake, but stands alone.”

To set forth more particularly the peculiar advantages of California, as well as to place before the vine-grower in the Atlantic States the causes of them, it is proper to dwell more at length on the soil and climate of California as they influence the success of grape-growing.

   "The soil of the vineyards at Los Angeles and Anaheim is a deep, light, warm sand. To the inexperienced eye it looks as though it were too poor to produce any valuable vegetable growth.  In Sonoma and Napa valleys the vineyards are planted in a red, gravelly clay near the foot of the mountains, or in a light, sandy loam in the centre of the valley. Of late the vine-growers of these valleys have done without irrigation. In Santa Clara valley most of the vines have been placed in a rich, black loam, but their vineyards are unhealthy. The Sacramento vines are planted in sandy loam; those of the Sierra Nevada in sandy loam or in gravelly clay.”

"The grape region extends from the southern boundary a distance of five hundred and ninety-five miles north, with an average breadth from east to west of about one hundred miles."

   "This disease, which has done such great damage in France, appeared in 1859, but has done no injury as yet save in a few small young vineyards. I have heard of it only in Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Alameda counties, where the vines are planted in a wet, black loam or stiff clay.”

This disease seems to be one resembling a combination of our blight and mildew.

As California appears to be free from the rot, a comparison of its climate as to dryness with the Atlantic climate, both in the older States and in Europe, may not be useless, either in showing the superiority of California, or in directing attention in these older States to the true cause of the rot. The following tables arc taken from Mr. Blodget partly, and also from the meteorology of the Smithsonian publications:

These tables exhibit an average fall of rain during summer in California of 0.3 of an inch, and in the Atlantic States of 13 inches nearly, and in European vine-growing countries of 7.7 inches. The climate of California would be more favorable if it had more rain in summer, but in moist situations, or where irrigation may be employed, it presents all that invites to grape production.

This brief glance at the agriculture of California reveals the fact that it has a great capacity for stock and fruit production, but a limited one as to the cereals.

2. The next proposed inquiry is 2 consideration of the relation between this agriculture and the mining interests of the Pacific and interior districts.

M. Chase, in his report as Secretary of the Treasury for 1862, thus speaks of the extent of these mining districts.

"But the American republic possesses immense resources which have not yet been called into contribution. The gold-bearing region of the United States stretches through near eighteen degrees of latitude, from British Columbia on the north to Mexico on the south, and through more than twenty degrees of longitude, from the eastern declination of the Rocky mountains to the Pacific ocean. It includes two States California and Oregon; four entire. Territories, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Dakota.  It forms an area of more than a million of square miles, the whole of which, with comparatively unimportant exceptions, i the property of the nation. It is rich not only in gold, hut in silver, copper, iron, lead, and many other valuable minerals. Its product of gold and silver during the current year will not probably fall very much, if at all, short of $100,000,000, and it must long continue gradually, yet rapidly, to increase.”

The business of mining is rapidly developing itself in the Territories, and it will not be long before Colorado, Utah, and Nevada will be united by continuous settlements.  Essential, however, to a rapid and permanent development of this immense mineral wealth are abundant and cheap agricultural products. Where are these to be obtained?

This inquiry leads to an examination of the extent of farming lands in the region described by Mr. Chase. The unexplored parts of much of it prevent a definite answer, but the general character of the Rocky mountains points to the fact that between the small amount of level country, its elevation, and the arid nature of the climate, adequate farming lands cannot be found to sustain those engaged in mining. Its valleys are few, narrow, but fertile, demanding irrigation. Gentlemen who have had some residence in Utah are of the opinion that when there is a general development of the mineral wealth of the Rocky mountains, there must be a dependence on the agriculture of the Mississippi valley. This may be so as to the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, and for the same reason there will exist a like dependence by the western slope on the agriculture of California. It is not probable that Oregon and Washington will do more than sustain their own development of mineral industry and that of Dakota.

Assuming that this will be the relation of California agriculture to the mining wealth of the western slope of the Rocky mountains, let us see whether it is sufficient to the demands that may arise upon it from this relation.

The work of Mr. Hittel discloses two evils that must greatly weaken the agricultural production of this State. These are the exhaustion of the soil, and the want of a proper distribution of the ownership of the arable lands.

   “The farmers generally are anxious to make as much money as possible, without regard to the future welfare of the land. Some of them are not permanent residents of the State, and intend to leave it so soon as they can get a certain number of dollars together; others are farming land the title of which is in dispute, and, as they feel uncertain about its ownership, they are indifferent as to its exhaustion. Many of them come from the western States where the land had not, previous to their migration, become poor and as rotation of crops had never been a necessity within their experience, they have never adopted it.”

   “Rotation of crops, as the phrase is understood in the Atlantic States and Europe, receives very little attention from the farmers of California, and, indeed, is impossible on a greater part of the land, because its dryness will not permit the growth of roots or common grasses.”

And then add to this also the fact that a large proportion of the soil is sand or gravel, whose fertility cannot be restored; that much of its present fertility is due to the manure left on it by the herds of cattle when under Mexican dominion [see my note at the end of this page -ASC], which is now being rapidly exhausted; and who is so blind as not to foresee that about the time when the mining interests will begin to call loudly on the agriculture of California, it will be too weak from exhaustion to respond to the call?

   "A large part of the valley, especially of that near the rivers, is subject to overflow; and about once in five years a flood comes, sweeping away houses, fences, and cattle, destroying gardens, and covering the earth with a thick clay, which, instead of enriching the soil, is far poorer than the ancient deposits of sandy loam made before the miners had commenced to tear down the mountains for their golden treasures.”

Here we see that the subsoil upturned for gold is carried down by the heavy rains and deposited on the alluvial lands, which are overflowed widely and deeply, because the narrow entrances into the bays cannot pass the waters, and which are becoming more shallow from these deposits of gravel.

These evils lie across the path of California agriculture, and now, before they have become fatal, is the time to remove them. How can this best be done? The history of American agriculture in the Atlantic States furnishes the answer. Large landed estates, with their inseparable bad system of cultivation, have been the fruitful cause of an impoverished soil here; but small estates, intelligently cultivated, have been the means of restoring the soil where it could be, and where it could not be, as in the vicinity of Washington, it remains as a warning and an example to all times and places. In California, where the climate favors a much greater annual yield, these estates will admit of a still greater subdivision. But unfortunately the large grants of land made by the Mexican government were recognized by our own government in its treaty stipulations entered into when the agricultural value of California could not have been foreseen. The value of these grants in 1848 should have been recognized, but not the grants themselves, for it was the labor and energy of American citizens, and their blood, too, that gave their present value to California lands, and they only should have reaped the benefit.

"Of these grants,” says Mr. Hittel, there are eight hundred and thirteen, covering a total of 9,828,181 acres. Of these claims one hundred and fifty, covering about 3,000,000 acres, have been finally rejected, and a number are as yet undecided. The grants were for large tracts called ranchos, intended to be used chiefly or exclusively for pasturage, and the average size was about 12,000 acres, or three square miles.”

If these large landed estates had been surveyed by the owners and sold in small tracts at reasonable prices, the evils I have particularized might have been lessened; but a contrary policy has been pursued, for as these grants cover the best agricultural lands, their future value, because of the limited extent of such lands, is regarded as very great, and present asking prices are governed by this future value. The American farmer very justly refuses to settle on lands in any other capacity than as the owner of an untrammelled fee simple. But such a title he cannot obtain in California, and the general effect is seen in the following remarks of Mr. Hitiel: “The world never saw such a people of travellers as the Californians. There are now about 350,000 white inhabitants in the State, and more than 250,000 others have gone ‘home’ during the last twelve years, four-fifths of them never to return. All the men who leave the State do so seeing and acknowledging before they go that in climate, mineral resource, the profits of labor and trade, the enterprise, intelligence, and generosity of the people, the independent spirit of the poor, the democratic spirit of the rich, and the frank friendliness of all, California is far superior to any other part of the American Union, while it has many advantages in other respects.” The causes of this unsettled condition are to be found partly in the influence of gold mining, but others are thus alluded to by Mr. Hittel: “The titles of farming land are, as a general thing, insecure.”  “The questionable character of land titles generally” tends to keep interest high.  "The opportunities for investing money securely in California are few compared with other countries, and the chief causes of the difference are to be found in the defects of our land titles and the unsteadiness of business.”

Here we behold the evil in its full extent. Uncertain land titles are certain at least in these results: an impoverished soil, and indifferent farm edifices, as well as unsettled business generally; for the security of all occupations of society rests on a flourishing and stable agriculture. And no such agriculture can exist in the United States except the cultivator of the soil is its owner too, secure against even a suspicion of a better claim in another.

The uncertainty of land titles alluded to by Mr. Hittel arises from the recognition of the Mexican grants in the treaty with Mexico. And when a grant is confirmed, the lands embraced within it are withdrawn from market, hopeless to the tiller of the soil, except at prices which the present profits of agriculture will not justify.

The lands not covered by recognized Mexican grants are:  First. Those to which claim has been made under these grants, but which have been determined invalid.  Second. Those which are claimed under these grants, but undetermined. Third. The swamp or tule lands owned by the State of California under the legislation of Congress. Fourth. Those granted to the State for school purposes by Congress, and now sold by the State for $1.25 per acre.  Fifth. Mining lands reserved from sale as mining lands, but which have been extausted of their mineral wealth. Sixth. Mining lands reserved from sale, unexhausted.

Some brief observations on each of these will not be improper, in connexion with what has been said on the consequences of recognizing the Mexican grants, in order that a question so important to agriculture as title may be completely considered, as it now, and may hereafter affect the agriculture of California.

1. The lands freed from invalid Mexican claims belong to the general government. The homestead policy obtains in California as well as in other States, and should be applied and unswervingly adhered to in the disposal of these lands. It gives the lands to actual settlers, not to speculators; in small quantities for cultivation, not to be gathered in masses for future sales. This policy will preserve the soil from deterioration, and it will give stability to the moving population, and, as a consequence, to the general business of California. It will exalt the agriculture of that State, and fit it for that coming demand upon its utmost capabilities which the development of the mining industry will make.

2. The lands claimed under grants not yet determined. The unfortunate treaty stipulations which recognized the validity of these grants must be faithfully regarded: but doubts should be resolved for the public welfare, and against individual aggrandizement. And whatever of these lands are decided to belong to the United States, no special legislation by Congress should arrest the operation of the homestead policy. If its principles are just and beneficial, they should be adhered to; if not, they should have no legal sanction anywhere.

3. The swamp lands owned by the State should be disposed of, not as those of most of the western States have been, for the benefit of speculators, but for the complete fulfilment of the conditions of the grant, and for actual settlement. These lands may come slowly into cultivation, and until they do it is far better that the State should retain the fee simple than speculators.

4. The lands donated to the State for common school purposes. These have been placed in market at $1.25 per acre, and, from all that is disclosed in the Surveyor General’s report, are mostly purchased. How far they will have gone into the possession of actual settlers cannot now be determined.

5. Mining lands reserved from sale for mining purposes, but which are exhausted of their mineral wealth. It is stated that these amount to about ten millions of acres and are susceptible of improvement for agricultural purposes, but especially for fruits and the vine. They lie along the foot of the Nevada and other mountains, having a most delightful climate. These, too, should be surveyed and-brought into cultivation under the conditions of the homestead law. For most truly does Mr. Hittel remark: “It is one of the great evils of the tenant-at-will system, that there is little security for the investment of capital. Land should be the main stock of wealth, and the main basis of credit, and the increase of its value with increasing population should be one of the main sources of riches in every new country; but of this kind of property the mining districts are deprived by unwise policy.”

6. The great body of California lands not sold are those reserved from sale as mineral lands. The policy of the government is to prevent them from being absorbed by speculators. This is a just policy, for it favors the laboring classes, and the welfare of these should ever be regarded. Whether the laborer is a miner or a farmer is immaterial; he should not be subjected to the capitalist.  But as fast as these lands are exhausted of their minerals, they should be surveyed and disposed of to the actual settler.

From this hasty consideration of the agriculture of California, it will be seen that the chief danger to it lies in the accumulation of its best farming lands in the hands of a few proprietors under the Mexican grants. The power to remove this evil is with the legislature of the State.