1892 
THE  RURAL  NEW-YORKER. 
i67 
cents.  Unable  to  agree,  a  strike  ensued.  A  very  large 
portion  of  the  milk  was  withheld  and  thousands  of 
cans  were  emptied  in  the  streets  and  highways  about 
the  shipping  stations.  In  the  end  the  farmers  were 
victorious  and  the  prices  they  asked  for  were  main¬ 
tained  for  the  year. 
In  the  meantime  the  New  York  Milk  Exchange,  a 
wily  and  unscrupulous  foe,  was  actively  at  work.  They 
went  out  to  remote  points  and  established  milk-receiv¬ 
ing  stations,  offering  more  for  milk  than  the  farmers 
could  get  by  making  it  into  blitter.  In  this  way  they 
very  largely  increased  the  available  supply.  Having 
got  the  milk,  they  began  again  their  tactics  of  crowd¬ 
ing  down  the  price.  The  first  to  revolt  were  the  pro¬ 
ducers  who  were  newest  in  the  business.  The  older 
company,  with  headquarters  at  Goshen,  laid  on  its 
oars  and  watched  the  struggle.  On  February  28,  1889, 
a  meeting  was  held  at  Oxford,  Chenango  County,  N. 
Y.,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  to  resist  the  oppres¬ 
sions  of  the  Exchange.  The  plan  adopted  was  modelled 
after  that  of  the  producers  supplying  the  Boston  mar¬ 
ket.  For  a  year  or  two  it  was  of  some  service,  but  it, 
too,  has  gone  to  sleep. 
Since  then  efforts  have  been  made  to  organize  a 
gigantic  stock  company,  which  should  control  the  en¬ 
tire  business,  and,  though  some  progress  has  been 
made,  no  results  of  importance  have  been  achieved. 
Something,  however,  has  been  accomplished  in  an  edu¬ 
cational  way,  and  good  will  eventually  come  of  the 
movement.  It  has  brought  some  of  the  best  men  in 
the  business  to  the  front — men  who  are  not  easily  con¬ 
quered  when  they  set  about  subduing  an  evil,  and 
The  Rural  believes  it  will  yet  be  able  to  report  some 
substantial  gain  to  producers  and  consumers  as  the 
result  of  their  labors. 
The  curse  of  the  traffic  is  what  is  known  as  the  “  Ex¬ 
change  Creameries” — that  is,  milk-buying  establish¬ 
ments  in  the  producing  regions,  owned  by  members  of 
the  Exchange.  No  permanent  improvement  in  the 
producers’  condition  can  come  until  these  affairs  are 
wiped  out.  The  milk-receiving  station  is  a  necessity, 
but  it  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  producers — not  of 
their  enemies.  If  farmers  cannot  cooperate  in  these 
matters,  they  must  endure  the  evils  they  now  com¬ 
plain  of.  Farmers’  creameries,  such  as  the  one  at  Mon¬ 
roe,  a  concern  which  has  done  a  profitable  business 
for  years,  would  knock  out  the  Exchange  completely 
and  put  the  control  of  the  business  where  it  belongs — 
in  the  hands  of  the  producers.  Doubtless  we  shall  get 
there — let  us  hope  so. 
The  Pictorial  Story  or  Milk. 
Our  pictures  this  week  tell  in  graphic  language  the 
story  of  milk,  and  tell  it  in  a  forcible  way.  The  milk 
producer  (see  Fig.  93),  looks  over  his  monthly  state¬ 
ment  and  finds  a  loss  is  all  he  has,  to  compensate  him 
for  his  toil,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fat  and  sleek 
Exchange  man  (see  Fig.  94),  who  has  but  a  tithe  of  the 
capital  invested  that  the  farmer  has,  finds  a  snug 
balance  in  his  favor  as  he,  too,  looks  at  his  monthly 
statement.  Fig.  95,  illustrates  the  peculiar  methods 
of  the  Exchange  creameries,  where  milk  is  scientific¬ 
ally  brought  to  a  “legal  standard.”  Fig.  96  shows 
how  the  farmer  ships  it — he  must  send  it  pure.  If  the 
consumers  will  stand  adulterated  milk,  the  dealer  in 
the  city  proposes  to  give  it  to  them,  as  is  seen  at  Fig.  97. 
Taxing  Valuable  Personal 
Property. 
DOES  “EARNING  CAPACITY”  MEAN  TAXABLE  VALUE? 
Should  the  Horse  be  Taxed  ? 
The  following  letter  has  been  received  from  William 
McCabe,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Tax  Re¬ 
form  Association: 
“I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  excerpt 
from  the  New  York  Times  of  a  recent  date: 
.1.  B.  Haggln  has  finally  purchased,  from  his  New  Zealand  owner, 
the  famous  thoroughbred  racer  and  sire,  Maxim,  a  son  of  Musket,  out 
of  the  English-bred  mare  Realization,  by  Vespasian.  The  price  paid 
is  not  made  public,  but  it  is  said  to  be  the  largest  ever  paid  for  a  horse 
for  exportation  from  the  antipodes.  It  is  stated  in  a  Melbourne  paper 
that  the  only  reason  for  the  sale  was  because  the  authorities  insisted 
upon  taxing  the  horse  at  a  valuation  of  10.000  pounds.  Musket,  the 
sire  of  Maxim,  is  also  the  sire  of  Carbine  and  Nordenfeldt,  two  of  the 
greatest  horses  that  ever  ran  in  Oceanica. 
Here  is  shown  the  evil  of  the  system  which  taxes 
personal  property.  It  is  true  that  in  this  case  the 
United  States  have  been  benefited,  while  New  Zealand 
is  the  loser;  but,  supposing,  as  is  possible,  that  the 
present  legislature  should  pass  more  rigorous  personal 
property  tax  bills,  and  suppose  Mr.  .T.  B.  Ilaggin  should 
bring  his  famous  horse  to  this  State — what  would  be 
the  result?  He  would  have  to  do  as  Maxim’s  New 
Zealand  owner  did,  sell,  and  send  him  out  of  the  coun¬ 
try  because  of  such  an  iniquitous  system  of  taxation. 
The  effect  of  personal  property  taxation  in  New 
Zealand  was  to  drive  Maxim  (a  valuable  piece  of  per¬ 
sonal  property)  to  the  United  States.  The  effect  of 
personal  property  taxation  in  the  State  of  New  York  is 
to  drive  valuable  property  out  of  the  State.  In  this  one 
case,  which  appeals  to  The  Rural  New-Yorker  directly 
because  it  is  in  its  line,  I  think  it  can  see  the  evils  of 
personal  property  taxation,  and  therefore  it  is  that  I 
hope,  in  behalf  of  this  association,  that  it  will  give 
this  matter  due  publicity  with  a  view  to  showing  the 
horse  breeders  of  this  State,  who  are  classed  as  farmers, 
what  a  tremendous  mistake  they  are  making  in  advo¬ 
cating  increased  personal  property  taxes.” 
This  brings  up  a  question  that  has  long  vexed 
students  of  taxation.  Should  Maxim  be  taxed  ?  If  so, 
at  what  price  should  he  be  assessed  ?  What  is  he 
worth  ?  That  is  to  say,  how  much  of  his  owner’s 
property  does  he  represent  ?  As  an  investment,  what 
will  Mr.  Haggin  make  in  the  way  of  interest  or  profit? 
We  submitted  the  letter  to  a  number  of  farmers  and 
breeders  and  requested  them  to  comment  on  it.  The¬ 
following  notes  are  typical  of  many  others  which  we 
have  not  the  space  to  print. 
Many  wild  statements  have  been  made  about  the 
difference  between  the  assessed  and  real  values  of 
stock  horses.  We  have  secured  the  facts  about  Hamble- 
tonian,  which  are  interesting  in  connection  with  this 
discussion.  This  famous  horse  earned  for  Mr.  Rysdyk, 
$170,000.  He  was  never  assessed  as  Hambletonian. 
If  assessed  at  all,  he  was  simply  rated  in  with  other 
personal  property.  The  matter  of  assessing  him  at  a 
figure  somewhat  in  accordance  with  his  estimated 
value  was  discussed  at  one  time,  but  nothing  came  of 
it.  Mr.  Rysdyk  paid  tax  on  considerable  personal 
property,  but  never  in  proportion  to  the  accumulated 
earnings  of  the  horse. 
Should  Maxim  be  Taxed  ? 
Most  assuredly  the  horse  should  be  taxed  for  its 
actual  value.  It  seems  strange  to  me  that  in  this  en¬ 
lightened  age  any  one  man  or  association  of  men 
should  come  to  the  people  and  ask  that  personal  prop¬ 
erty  should  be  exempt  from  taxation.  They  must  take 
the  American  people  to  be  very  ignorant,  but  probably 
they  are  going  on  the  Barnum  theory  that  “  people 
like  to  be  humbugged.”  To  illustrate  the  folly  of  their 
position,  we  will  take  the  stallion  Maxim,  which 
“  stands,”  we  will  say,  for  $300  per  mare,  and  has  50 
mares  for  his  season  ;  that  gives  to  his  owner  $15,000. 
Allowing  $1,000  for  attendance,  food,  etc.,  there  would 
be  a  net  balance  of  $14,000,  which,  at  six  per  cent, is  the 
interest  on  $233,000  in  round  numbers.  John  Jones 
has  a  farm  of  1,000  acres,  valued  at  $100,000,  which 
pays  him  six  per  cent  net,  or  $6,000  ;  he  pays  taxes  on 
his  property  according  to  the  law,  and  is  there  any 
injustice  in  the  owner  of  Maxim  being  compelled  to 
pay  taxes  on  his  valuable  property  which  has  proved 
so  profitable  ?  Certainly  not. 
The  idea  that  a  tax  on  capital  would  drive  it  out  of 
a  State  or  country  is  absurd  in  the  highest  degree. 
Any  student  of  history  will  remember  that  ever  since 
there  was  any  capital,  it  has  always  taken  care  of 
itself,  and  to-day  it  does  not  need  laws  to  protect  it. 
When  the  bill  taxing  mortgages  on  real  estate  became 
a  law  in  California,  it  was  said  that  the  State  had 
received  its  “death  blow,”  that  “capital  would  be 
withdrawn  from  it  and  reinvested  in  neighboring 
States  where  there  was  no  such  law.  Have  these  pre¬ 
dictions  been  fulfilled  ?  By  a  careful  perusal  of  the 
authentic  reports  of  California’s  progress  it  is  found 
that  the  past  two  years  have  been  the  most  prosperous 
in  its  history.  In  fact,  wherever  personal  property  is 
taxed  the  official  records  fail  to  show  that  capital  has 
been  driven  from  the  State.  This  whole  question  of 
exempting  personal  property  from  taxation  is  such  a 
foolish  one  that  we  farmers  can  hardly  afford  to  dis¬ 
cuss  it  at  any  length.  Nothing  can  possibly  come  out 
of  this  movement,  which  is  backed  by  only  a  few 
scores  of  capitalists,  “  agitators,”  and  New  York  city 
“calamity  howlers!”  the  dear  friends  of  persecuted 
capital  !  The  idea  is  so  foreign  to  the  common  sense  of 
the  people,  that  a  legislature  could  never  be  elected  in 
this  State  that  would  pass  such  a  measure,  and  I  should 
hate  to  think  that  there  are  a  thousand  intelligent 
men  in  the  State  that  would  be  in  favor  of  any  such 
iniquitious  and  unfair  legislation. 
Pres.  N.  Y.  F.  A.  &  I.  U.  edward  f.  dibble. 
Will  Not  Maxim  Need  the  Law’s  Protection  P 
All  kinds  of  property  are  protected  by  the  govern¬ 
ment.  Why  should  not  all  property  pay  its  share  of 
the  cost  of  protection?  If  all  property  were  taxed, 
taxation  would  be  so  light  as  to  be  a  burden  upon 
none.  Tf  a  breeder  has  a  stallion  worth  $100,000,  and 
he  can  command  fees  of  from  $500  to  $2,500  for  a  single 
service,  and  earn  in  a  single  season  on  the  track  in 
addition  $25,000  and  upward,  why  should  he  be  exempt 
from  taxation  ?  If  all  the  States  had  a  uniform  sys¬ 
tem  of  taxation  of  all  property,  real  and  personal,  how 
could  there  be  any  shifting  from  one  State  to  another  ? 
There  would  then  be  nothing  to  gain  in  so  doing.  If 
valuable  breeding  stock  and  capital  were  hustled  to  a 
territory  where  they  would  be  exempt  from  taxation, 
they  would  soon  have  but  little  value,  as  there  would 
be  more  there  than  enough  to  satisfy  any  possible  de¬ 
mand.  The  principle  that  all  property  receiving  pro¬ 
tection  from  the  government  should  pay  its  share  of 
the  cost  of  that  protection  is  just  and  right,  but  prac¬ 
tically  it  has  not  been  made  to  work.  The  present 
system  is  seriously  defective,  unjust  and  burdensome 
upon  those  who  are  least  able  to  bear  taxation,  and  the 
subject  demands  the  ablest  minds  of  our  country  to 
develop  some  system  of  taxation  by  which  all  inter¬ 
ests  shall  be  subserved  and  none  injured,  with  the  result 
that  a  good  degree  of  prosperity  may  be  enjoyed  by  all. 
Pres.  N.  Y.  Farmers’  League.  geo.  t.  powell. 
Poor  Man’s  Farm  vs.  Rich  Man’s  Stallion. 
This  letter  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  class-legislation.  It  is  a  clear  and  able  presenta¬ 
tion  of  the  doctrine  now  held  to  be  fundamental, 
“Everyone  for  himself  and  devil  take  the  hinder- 
most.”  Mr.  McCabe  leaves  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
the  reader  of  the  end  he  has  in  view,  viz. :  that  certain 
men  shoull  pay  both  their  own  and  somebody  else’s 
taxes.  Of  course,  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  that 
antiquated  rule  that  “  taxation  should  be  equal,  that 
all  according  to  their  abilities,  should  share  its  bur¬ 
den.”  He  makes  an  admission,  however,  which  will 
startle  many  readers.  In  this  country,  for  many 
years,  taxation  has  been  looked  -upon  as  harmless. 
Boldly  has  it  been  proclaimed  that  it  makes  no  dif¬ 
ference  how  much  we  pay  in  taxes ;  that  the  govern- 
