28 
THE-RURAL NEW-YORKER 
THE 
Rural New-Yorker, 
TIMES BUILDING, NEW YORK. 
National Weekly Journal for Country and Suburban Homes. 
ELBERT S. CARMAN, EDITOR8. 
HERBERT W. COLLINGWOOD, 
Rural Publishing Company: 
LAWSON VALENTINE, President. 
EDGAR H. LIBBY, Men. e er. 
RURAL NEW-YORKER, 
THE AMERICAN GARDEN, 
OUT-DOOR BOOKS. 
Copyright, 1890, by the Rural Publishing Company. 
SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1891. 
A steer “ kicks v without science or sense. 
Hence the expression ! 
Wk are told that political parties “will never 
make any progress until forced to do so.” Is that 
statement correct? Yes, if by “ political party ” is 
meant politicians or party representatives. There 
seems to be something about the atmosphere at 
Washington that changes a Congressman as soon 
as he gets inside the Capitol. It is well enough to 
keep him constantly reminded of his duty—what 
he was sent to Congress for. 
A simple circumstance sometimes forces eco¬ 
nomic changes that are far-reaching in importance. 
For example, barrels are scarce and high in Louisi¬ 
ana this season, and sacks have been brought into 
use. The first experiment having proved success¬ 
ful, many planters advocate an extended use of 
this form of package. This is for the raw sugar— 
why not for the refined as well ? We would like to 
buy sugar in 30 or 50 pound sacks, and so would 
others. 
Attention is called to “Notes from the Rural 
Grounds ” this week. For five years we have 
asked our land what quantity of potato fertilizer it 
would respond to by yielding profitable crops ? 
The results are before the reader and the answer is 
plain and emphatic. What do you think, farmers ? 
Assuming that these experiments have been carried 
on in a careful, conscientious way do they not 
teach a very valuable lesson? The lesson is a tell¬ 
ing one to us. May not similar experiments pay 
you far beyond the cost of conducting them? 
Under “Farm Politics” this week will be found 
quite a fierce fusilade from the “practical men” 
who seem to believe that there is far more in the 
man than in the legislation. Well, fire away, 
friends, don’t lose your temper—that’s all. We 
would like to give just as much space to the other 
side next week. We want everybody to feel free 
to take a hand in this discussion. In our judgment 
one man started on the road to just reasoning is 
worth a dozen mere listeners. Step forward and 
state your views fearlessly and briefly, only don’t 
call names and make faces and label it “argu¬ 
ment.” 
Mr. C. S. Rice made a good point in a recent ad¬ 
dress at a farmers’ institute when he said: “If 
you cannot sell your farm but are not badly in 
debt it makes really very little difference whether 
it is valued at $25, $50, or $100 per acre. The Bible 
injunction: ‘Be content with such things as you 
have,’ may mean to you, be content with your farm 
and home.” Why not ? If you are satisfied with 
your home—if it is home to you. in fact, should 
you worry about the price others are willing to pay 
for it? If you are anxious to sell out and get away 
from it, that’s another matter. By the way, what 
do you want to sell your home for ? 
The daily press is filled with rumors and reports 
of the formation or attempted formation of still 
more “trusts.” The people are led to believe that 
the number of these iniquitous combinations is being 
constantly increased to prey upon the public. 
Every meeting of any particular class of manufac¬ 
turers is heralded as an attempt to form a new trust. 
While combination seems to be the order of the day 
among all classes, a great deal of this cry is all 
nonsense. A combination is not necessarily a trust; 
neither is it necessarily iniquitous and inimical to 
the public weal. On the contrary, many combina¬ 
tions are of immense advantage to consumers. 
There are economies and advantages possible to as¬ 
sociated effort that are entirely out of the question 
with individual operators. Some months ago the 
papers were filled with reports and denunciations 
of the great book trust then just formed. For years 
the competition among publishers of school books 
had been intense. High-salaried agents and various 
expensive methods were necessary to induce school 
boards and others to adopt particular series of books. 
The result was outrageous prices for books which 
were a necessity to all having children to educate. 
The American Book Company was a combination 
of these publishers with a view of doing away with 
this disastrous and expensive competition and fur¬ 
nishing cheaper books. This has been done in some 
places, but whether the reduction has been made 
general we do not know. We know that a large 
JAN. ro 
reduction has been made possible without any 
decrease in the publishers’ profits. The American 
Harvester Company recently organized and famil¬ 
iarly known as the Harvester Trust, estimates a 
saving of $10,000,000 annually over the old com 
petitive agency system of selling and expensive 
advertising. The large number of expensive trav¬ 
eling salesmen is dispensed with. It will of course 
be a hardship to the latter; but their number is 
small compared to the number of purchasers they 
have been fleecing for years. Whether this enor¬ 
mous saving will go entirely into the pockets of the 
manufacturers, or will be divided with the consum¬ 
ers in the shape of cheaper machines, remains to be 
seen. If the latter, then this and other similar 
combinations will prove a blessing to the country at 
large. _ 
Mr Hodgman on page 24, seems to have little or 
no respect for what is known as “organized labor.” 
In referring to the brutal force of some of the acts 
of labor organizations, he unquestionably states 
one side of the case accurately. The boycott and 
the “ firing out of scabs” are certainly brutal. The 
writer has gone through both of these interesting 
performances. A young man with whom he is 
closely connected was once stoned away from hard 
and unpleasant work because he could not join a 
“union.” At another time he started in to learn a 
business. Believing that the only way to reach the 
top was to force himself there he was willing and 
anxious to work early and late at any job that 
offered—glad of any opportunity to get ahead. The 
other workmen objected to this because they had 
established certain hours and rules for labor. The 
“boss” was finally obliged to discharge the writer 
in order to satisfy the rest. If this constituted all 
we know about these “unions,” we should have no 
respect for them; but there is another side. They 
do teach men to read and think, they do teach co¬ 
operation. They lay a foundation for system and 
order without which progress in any good cause 
is impossible. Down with the cruel brutality of the 
boycott, but on with the organization with its pos¬ 
sibilities for temperance and united action towards 
right. In our just denunciation let us learn to 
leave the good for praise. 
The First Farmer President! Who will be the 
next one? 
What has become of the proposed “trust’’that 
was to be formed by leading nurserymen ? Let’s 
hear from these gentlemen ? The avowed object of 
this trust was to increase prices of nursery stock 
which, it is claimed, are now far too low. What¬ 
ever the object, the result would be left to the 
“ small nurserymen,” who sell directly to the farm¬ 
ers. When an article is protected by a patent, a 
copyright or a monopoly ownership, as in the case 
of coal or oil, it makes a sound foundation for a 
trust. Not so with nursery stock. We wonder if 
our friends have money enough to prove this fact 
by actual experiment. Further, will the dear pub¬ 
lic of farmer buyers be anxious to purchase trees 
and plants of a monopoly? Or will they prefer to 
purchase of the little fellows who are left out of the 
trust and the host of new ones who will spring up, 
following the combination as mushrooms follow 
rain ? 
A number of the papers are much concerned be¬ 
cause the Alliance at Ocala passed a resolution con¬ 
demning the Lodge Election Bill now under debate in 
the Senate. Their objection is that this is a purely 
f iartisan measure, and that by opposing it the Al- 
iance ceased to be an independent body, but dis¬ 
tinctly indorsed one of the great parties. We 
merely refer to this here as a little instance of the 
way the Alliance is just now being criticised and 
advised by the press of the country. It is very sel¬ 
dom that a body of representative men can “ in¬ 
dorse ” one party and still make the other smile. 
The Democrats, for example, claim that this “in¬ 
dorsement” pledges the Alliance to several other 
Dcmoratic doctrines. The Republicans assert that 
this “indorsement” killed the third party in the 
Northwest and “ shows the old soldiers that the 
Southern Alliance men are working only for the 
Democratic party.” The action of the convention 
looks about a fair stand off so far its injury to either 
party is concerned. The political papers every¬ 
where are doing their best to magnify the mistakes 
or unwise suggestions of the Alliance. No organi¬ 
zation or party ever yet tried to rise and prove its 
strength in the face of a fiercer opposition. It will 
surely be like pure gold if it comes through the fire 
of party hate and misrepresentation—or, deadlier 
still, party flattery. But if its critics have not the 
courage to tell the story of the good it has done by 
the side of the mistakes it has made, they 
must know, if they know anything, that the 
good is never lost. History ought to tell them 
that the years burn away from such move¬ 
ments all but the true and just. What they 
sneer at now may be only needed fuel for this 
burning. The spirit of the Farmers’ Alliance, the 
cry for justice, rude and untrained though you 
may consider it, will never be stifled. Under one 
name or another it will continue to call until you 
will be forced to listen to it. 
The Louisiana Experiment Station did good and 
useful work in conducting a business experiment in 
marketing potatoes in Chicago. The potatoes were 
grown in the ordinary way and shipped to market 
just as any farmer would ship them. Such exper¬ 
iments are popular because they reach the people, 
being right in the line of every-day farm work. 
Mr. Churchill at the Geneva Station, told us of a 
somewhat similar plan he had in mind. He pro¬ 
posed to sort apples by size and appearance, wrap 
the handsomest in paper, put the next best in neat 
packages; in fact, make several grades each packed 
by itself. These were to be shipped to the gtner al 
market to see if there would be any distinction made 
in the price and if the extra care would pay. We 
wish he had carried out this plan and made it the 
theme for an illustrated bulletin. It would have 
had a wider circulation than any two of the bulle¬ 
tins the station has sent out, and done the station 
much good. We would also like to see the Geneva 
Station try something of this sort with its butter. 
Test the market value of different grades and differ¬ 
ent methods of butter making. We believe the 
people want such work. 
There are many great, strong, healthy men in 
this country who are loudly shouting that “farmin’ 
don’t pay.” There is little evidence in the general 
appearance of their farms to warrant a denial of 
the statement. In the midst of this general com 
plaint it is refreshing to find a farmer who does 
make farming pay. The latest successful farmer to 
report to us is a 15 year-old boy in a little Massa¬ 
chusetts town. His “ farming ” was done in 
“spare moments” during the summer. Here is 
his letter: “ I have raised on a piece of land 100 
feet long and 100 feet wide $08 worth of pansies, 
plants and flowers; $24 worth of celery plants, and 
$10 worth of peaches, making a total of $108. I did 
not let any weeds grow. Moreover, I gave away 
lots of flowers, and one bushel of peaches, besides 
using four bushels and lots of celery in the family. 
Moral; don’t cultivate more than you can take 
good care of and you will prosper.” How about 
the “ moral ” in this letter?. Does it hit you at all? 
Is it just and fair? If this young farmer carries 
out his plan of intensive farming all through life— 
lives up to his “moral” in fact—the chances are 
that his farming will always pay. Is it not so? 
BREVITIES. 
Dry wood pile. 
Makes wife smile. 
Fire burns bright, 
Biscuits light. 
Steady beat, 
Well cooked meat. 
Wholesome food 
All feel good. 
Stomach tilled. 
Morals frilled 
Hammer hate! 
Frost feeds on fat. 
Shovel yourself out! 
Cultivate warm feet. 
Snow is poor hen food. 
Going to keep a diary ? 
Kill the cat, fat the rat. 
Have no respect for evil. 
A SHARP saw, saves “ jaw.” 
Steamed hay makes slick hogs. 
A LOW manger needs a short lift. 
Are you trying to fertilize the river ? 
Does wisdom tarry in your school-house ? 
Sufficient unto the hour is the evil thereof. 
Blow off your steam on “ Farm Politics ” page ! 
Take clover into partnership with you this year. 
The legs of manure, nitrogen; the stomach, potash; the 
brains, phosphoric acid. 
The article on Amber Cane, page 26, tells the whole 
story from the standpoint of a 200-acre farmer. 
It is impossible for a bird to sustain itself in the air 
without muscular effort. If you cease to work and think, 
you will “go down.” 
IF you should walk into your house some day and say to 
your wife • “ My dear. I want you to go right to town and 
pick out a new dress”—would you frighten her ? 
A FRIEND in New Jersey writes as follows : “ Dr. Kedzie 
is an able man—of course he is, how can he help it with 
such a head on his shoulders ? ” Young man, it isn’t the 
size of Dr. Kedzie’s head that counts, it is the quality and 
quantity of the gray brain matter in it. 
A Western correspondent says that “if green man¬ 
uring were as exhaustively discussed as the commercial 
fertilizers the average plain farmer would benefit largely 
by being induced to practice a system profitable and yet 
economical.” We presume he refers to farmers in the 
Eastern States, and there is much truth in what he says. 
Last week a correspondent described a change in the 
farming of southeastern Wisconsin. Hefe is a section 
once famous for its fine-wooled sheep. Now the sheep 
have disappeared and truck farming and dairying occupy 
the farmer’s attention. This week we print a letter from 
a Dakota correspondent who states that wheat growing is 
giving place to sheep herding. These changes are going 
on all over the country. Nothing can stand still and 
grow. It is the farmer who thinks out these changes and 
keeps ahead of them who succeeds. 
