364 
MAY 9 
T 
separate stalls and eat linseed-oil meal, oats, bran and corn 
meal. Nothing has ever paid me better than raising 
lambs; but of course one must know when and how to 
feed them. T. S COOPER. 
Lehigh Co , Pa._ 
LIME FOR ROSE BUGS. 
Early in June, 1888, I received from Mr. E. A. Dunbar, 
of Ashtabula County, Ohio, a query as to the most promis¬ 
ing method of preventing the injuries of the Rose Bug; 
and in reply suggested that he spray the crops affected 
with a dilute whitewash, made by adding a peck or so of 
lime to a barrel (50 gallons) of water. In reply Mr. Dun¬ 
bar wrote, under date of July 23, 1888, a letter in which 
he said • 
A thorough application of the remedy advised by you 
was undoubtedly the means of saving me many dollars 
worth of fruit, for which result I feel profoundly grateful. 
The bugs appeared this year about June 12. One appli¬ 
cation of a coal oil emulsion to a few grape vines and rose 
bushes killed most of the bugs which were there, but 
others soon came and for these the remedy was of no use. 
I then mounted my Field force pump on a 40-gallon cask 
set on stone-boat. I slaked about a peck of lime for each 
barrel, or 40 gallons of water and the motion of the 
stone boat kept the lime in suspension. With one man to 
hold the pump, and another to direct the spray on one side 
of one row at a time, as fast as the horse walked down the 
row, we soon had the vineyard thoroughly whitewashed, 
the wash being well on to the fruit, and under the 
leaves I was disappointed at first in the apparent results, 
as the bugs continued to be quite numerous, but after a few 
days they cleared out, having hurt the grapes very little, 
and I have a heavier crop than for several years past. 1 he 
west side of the peach orchard being nearest the house, 
aud showing very few bugs, I did not visit the east side 
for several oays, and when 1 did, the bugs had got a good 
many peaches. I at once whitewashed the peach orchard 
in the same manner as the vineyard, with the exception of 
one row, and the bugs all emigrated to that row in course 
of a day or two. 
In 1889, Mr. Dunbar “ applied a good whitewash spray to 
what he wanted to save from theRoseBugs and they staid 
away.” 
At the Northern Ohio institutes last winter I was often 
asked for a preventive of Rose Bug injury, and generally 
related Mr. Dunbar’s experience, suggesting that the ad¬ 
dition of crude carbolic acid to the mixture would make It 
more effective. I have lately received accounts of two ex¬ 
tended trials of the method with differing results. Mr. S. 
Justus, an extensive fruit grower of Lake County, Ohio 
writes under date of June 22, 1890: 
I have been practicing the suggestions made by Mr. 
Weed, in a paper read at our institute last winter, and 
have been using lime to get rid of Rose Bugs on cherries 
aud grapes. I sprayed half my cherries and left the rest— 
the same kinds and equally full of fruit—and not a cherry 
Is leit on those not sprayed, while the sprayed trees are 
full of good fruit. I have spent five days with four hands 
in spraying 18 acres of grapes, and have saved most of the 
crop, while on about two acres not sprayed the pests 
stripped the vines nearly clean. Several neighboring vine 
yards are entirely stripped of their crop. I used about 
bushel of lime to 100 gallons of water, and added one 
pint of crude carbolic acid. I used some dry lime, but 
found spraying better and easier. No one need be afraid 
of using lime as strong as it can be used in the spraying 
pump, as we made some of the foliage as white as snow in 
midwinter without any bad effects. 
The other experience is that of Mr. F. C. Miller, of Tus¬ 
carawas County, Ohio, who reported at the recent summer 
meeting of the State Horticultural Society, at this station, 
that he had sprayed grapes and other crops with the lime 
mixture thoroughly without beneficial results. But he 
had sprayed all the plants, leaving none for the bugs to 
congregate upon, as did the gentleman whose experience is 
given above. He also used no carbolic acid in the mixt¬ 
ure, and probably the beetles were thicker with him. 
In the light of these experiences it seems to me that it 
wo lid be worth while for fruit growers in Rose Bug 
regions to give the carbolic acid lime solution a thorough 
trial, leaving one or two rows at occasional intervals for 
the bugs to feed upon. Possibly it might pay to destroy 
them on these check rows with pyrethrum or paddles. 
Ohio Experiment Station. CLARENCE weed. 
Farm Politics. 
Here it is proposed to discuss with freedom and fairness, ques¬ 
tions of National or State policy that particularly concern farm¬ 
ers. The editors disclaim responsibility for the opinions of cor¬ 
respondents. The object is to develop a true and fair basis for 
organization among farmers. Let us think out just what we want 
and then strive for it. 
SENATOR PEFFER AND THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY. 
W. O. Pcffer is the first man elected to the United States 
Senate by farmers as a party. Senator Palmer was elected 
by a combination of Democrats and farmers; so was Sena¬ 
tor Kyle of South Dakota. Mr. Peffer was elected by men 
pledg id against both the old parties. How will he stand 
in the Senate? He used to be a Republican and because 
he did not help the Democracy of Illinois to ratify the 
election of General Palmer, it has b ?en claimed that he will 
act with the Republicans on all important matters. The 
new Senator in his own paper, the Kansas Farmer, tells the 
people of Kansas what he proposes to do in the Senate. 
After stating that he has left the Republican party for 
good because it refused to listen to the demands of the 
farmers and workers for free silver coinage aud a repeal of 
the McKinley Bill, he says: 
Do not understand that I expect to make a little party of 
my own, or that I expect to unite with any half doz m men 
and thattcge her we shall form a little party, unwilling to 
act with any person who does not go as far as we do, or 
does not believe just as we do; nothing of the kind. I ex¬ 
pect to so behave as to win and to hold the respect of my 
lellow Senators. I expect to be practical in all things. 
Our people expect of me a strong, persistent, courageous 
movement in the direction of more money and a reduction 
of interest r ites. They expect of me to urge a reduction 
of many of t he tariff duties. They expect me to insist upon 
an act providing for the free coinage of silver. They expect 
me to guard the rights of the old soldiers. They expert 
me to favor the abolition of the national banking'system. 
They expect me to favor measures wh'ch will divorce the 
HE RURAL NEW-YORKE 
government from all banks of issue, and to restore to gov¬ 
ernment the power which justly aud constitutionally be¬ 
longs to it of making money for the people. They expect 
me to favor measures which will get that money to the 
people directly without the intervention of any interest¬ 
charging agencies. They expect me in short to assist in 
every honorable way to relieve the people of their burdens. 
They shall not be disappointed. 
It must be understood, however, that in the Senate 
there are 86 members, and a majority of the members 
must be obtained before the p issage of any measure can 
be effected. Now, I expect to pursue a manly course, and 
to assist all of my fellow Senators in the passage of any 
and every measure which looks toward the promotion of 
the general welfare, no matter whether it be above or be 
low the standard we in Kansas advocate. And in return, 
I expect to ask them, every one of them, without any re¬ 
gard whatever to their party politics, to assist me in the 
passage of the same class of measures. In other words, 
while I am radical and expect to be radical in aim, yet I 
do nob expect or intend to refuse any assistance which 
will give me even a part, be it ever so small, of what we 
want. 
When a fireman undertakes to ascend from the street to 
the top of a lofty'building he does not wildly and rashly 
undertake to leap from the sidewalk to the cornice, but 
he sets up a ladder and he goes one round at a time, until 
the height is attainei. So in this matter. We are aiming 
at thorough and complete reform. We will get just as 
much of It as our fellow members can be induced to give 
us. I expect to treat Senators as statesmen, not as pirty 
politicians. I do not expect to ask any man what his 
politics is, nor to care anything about what party he be¬ 
longs to. I want votes. Tne people may expect me to act 
along the line of practical statesmanship, aiding my fellows 
and asking them to aid me in all measures looking to the 
relief of the people. 
Such are the views of the first farmers’ Senator. It 
will be interesting to see how they work with the old- 
timers in the Senate. _ 
“THE SINGLE TAX” AS A MORAL ISSUE. 
Show Us the Original Land Title! 
In commenting on the communication on the single 
tax by A. C Carpenter, in the issue of April 25, The 
Rural says : ‘‘This is an economic question ; wouldn’t it 
be advisable, therefore, to discuss it on economic princi¬ 
ples, without any reference to the supposed intention of 
the Creator in the matter ? ” No doubt this is very com¬ 
forting advice for those who, by their control of natural 
opportunities for production, are enabled to appropriate 
to themselves the fruits of the labor of others; but it is 
impossible to eliminate the design of the Creator from the 
problem; it will not disappear at anybody’s dictum. 
Private property in land, like slavery, rests upon the 
assumption that the Creator intended that s >me of his 
children should exist on the earth only at the pleasure of 
others of his children, while the theory under discussion 
assumes that the immortal declaration of Jefferson was 
something more than a meaningless jingle of words, and 
that each of God’s children is equally entitled with every 
other to enjoy those bounties which are provided for the 
use of the race. This is the fundamental difference be¬ 
tween the two theories, and it is impossible to blink it out 
of sight. The Rural also says : “ Farmers and other land 
owners have paid for their land.” We ask to whom the 
compensation went ? Trace the title to the Maker of the 
land ; show his signature to the original conveyance, and 
we will acknowledge its validity; otherwise not. The 
Rural’s question, “ Their land would go into a general 
taxable pool; what equivalent would the rest of the com¬ 
munity put into it ? ” is answerel by the statement that 
under the single tax no value would go into the “ general 
taxable pool ” except that which the community creates. 
Providence, R I. G. D. L. 
The Moral Side Worth Considering. 
On page 324 The R. N.-Y. suggests that many single¬ 
tax advocates are religious only for the purpose of push¬ 
ing their doctrine. Extensive acquaintance among them 
leads me to resent the suggestion. I j udge that no class of 
people is more conscientious, or has a stronger faith in 
the wise purposes of the Creator. To me it is not at all 
probable that the bulk of them believe that if Ged had 
‘‘any such design” (as theirs) He would have found 
means to carry it into execution long ago. They rather 
believe that, in the matter of l$ud tenure, just as in that 
of slave holding, God’s plans take time for fulfillment. 
Also, it is not true that the single tax is solely au econo¬ 
mic question. The proposition is claimed to be more than 
a mere fiscal contrivance. It is expecte'd to right a glar¬ 
ing and continuing ethical wrong. I am anything but 
orthodox, but I feel that Henry George has never occupied 
a more fit position than when, on a Sabbath Day, in the 
pulpit of a consecrated edifice, he has preached what seems 
to him to be true. Let The R. N -Y. ignore the moral 
aspects of the question, however, if it can ; but let it look 
on both sides of the economic ones. The single tax would 
come, in part, from the pockets of some farmers. Are these 
to be therefore the losers by the change ? Does an intelli¬ 
gent investigator of farm finance count all expenditures as 
loss ? Should not gains be considered and a balance be 
struck? It is claimed that the average landowning 
farmer, when relieved of all national taxes and profits on 
them, of all indirect bonuses to “ protected ” producers, 
and of all State or local taxes on personality and real 
estate improvements, would be better off, even as a tax¬ 
payer, if the single tax were to be adopted. Can The R. 
N.-Y. dispute so little as this successfully ? “ Farmers and 
other landowners have paid for their lmd” May they 
not yet doubt whether they have any better title to it be¬ 
cause it has been bought and paid for ? May they not see 
that they have possession, a valid title to the improve¬ 
ments which have been made by their predecessors, and as 
good a right as anybody to the pure location value of their 
holding; but that this is all ? Is not a land title, like a 
chain, no stronger than its weakest part ? May it not be 
important to note that, no more than deeds which conveyed 
the ownership of a black man’s person, do their parchments 
bear the signature of the Master of the Universe ? People, 
siys The R. N.-Y., have, as a rule, invested money and 
R. 
labor in land improvements. Their land would go into 
a general taxable pool. “ What equivalent would the 
rest of the community put into it?” Is this altogether 
ingenuous? Would “improvements” go into the pool? 
Here is another point: The R. N.-Y. knows that there 
is a large and growing number of farmers who are 
renters. I Invite it to look at the single tax from their 
possible standpoint. It would lessen their rent, and at 
once put a stop to the taxation of them and their fami¬ 
lies, indirectly and directly, by National, State and local 
taxes, bonuses, licenses, and profits on such. Here is 
apparent a possible large gain to a number of R. N.-Y. 
readers. What are the “economic principles” which 
should prevent a renter from having a definite idea that 
there is something for him in the single-tax proposition ? 
Again, is the scheme really novel ? Was not the theory 
of ancient English feudal tenure very similar—viz: that 
land-holders should, in return for spefial privileges, fur¬ 
nish public revenues ? It may be true that farmers gen¬ 
erally believe that if “ the Nation” wants to tax land values 
alone, compensation should be forthcoming. It is equally 
true that farmers who believe this have not the advantage 
of knowledge which continue 1 discussion^n The R. N.-Y. 
columns may give. Certainly, the question of compensa¬ 
tion has not been shunned by Mr. George. 
Kings Co., N. Y. GEORGE WHITE. 
R. N.-Y.—This paper does not even pretend to have 
reached any final conclusion on the single tax question, 
nor does it wish to take any particular side in the dis¬ 
cussion. It has merely put into words one or two of the 
chief objections to the measure entertained by many 
intelligent farmers who have bestowed any thought on it, 
and asked a pertinent question or two in the hope of satis¬ 
factory answers from the advocates of the proposed system. 
Do our readers think such answers have been given ? The 
discussion is young yet, however, and better things may 
be expected later on. With regard to the moral aspect of 
the question, to most readers the drift of the above ar¬ 
ticles will seem to be towards nationalization or confisca¬ 
tion of property in land, the most ancient, and hitherto 
“sacred” of all kinds of property. According to our pres¬ 
ent system of ethics, wouldn’t such a measure be immoral 
rather than moral ? If the system is so obviously moral as 
most of its supporters would have us believe, how is it 
that none of the churches or creeds of the day has sanc¬ 
tioned it ? We merely throw out an Inquiry or two in the 
hope of eliciting calm,‘rational and intelligible answers. 
The farmers of 1 he country would, most likely, be more 
seriously affected than any other class by the adoption o f 
the system; to those, therefore, and to the apostles of the 
new doctrine we cheerfully leave the discussion. 
FARM POLITICS IN K4NSAS. 
Reading “ What’s the matter with G .men?” in The R. 
N.-Y., brings to my mind the condition of many farmers 
in Kansas. I came to the State 21 years ago with an ox 
team and $120 in money. I bought 40 ac :es of land, making 
a small cash payment on it. Since then I have purchased 
more land as my means would justify. Now my property 
would probably sell for $18,000. So I have no reason to 
complain. I have succeeded best in raising fruit and 
grain. The former I have sold generally on the trees to 
shippers, the apples g )ing to Colorado and Texas. I have 
provided a good storage place for my grain and have gen¬ 
erally held it until there was a partial failure in crops, 
when it would bring me a very remunerative price. 
The trouble with the farmers of Kansas to-day is this: 
A few years ago there was a great boom in farm lands here. 
Speculators bought up land, making a small payment at 
the time of purchase; they would then mortgage it for all 
they could get, and then sell their interest in it, subj set to 
the mortgage, for all they could get. Many farmers seeing 
others rapidly getting rich, mortgaged their farms, very 
of&en buying more land with the money they received. 
After a while the boom began to die out; the speculators 
left, but the mortgages remained on the farms. A great 
deal of land is mortgaged for more than it would sell for. 
A good many mortgages are now coming due, and but 
few that occupy the laid are able to pay. From this comes 
the movement of the Kansas farmers for a government 
loan at two per cent interest, giving farm land as security. 
Whether legislation can help the farmers out-or not is yet 
to be determined. scott elliott. 
Anderson Co., Kansas. 
A Woman on Ministerial Politics.— In The Rural of 
January 24, page 64, F. W. Towle makes the positive as¬ 
sertion that ministers have the right to preach politics 
from the pulpit. Will Mr. Towle tell us where in the Ne ir 
Testament we may find political authority given to the 
ministers of the gospel ? Jesus said: “ Go preach the gos¬ 
pel to every creature,” not politics. Oi, no I Why? Be¬ 
cause ministers would make an opening in God’s church 
for the devil to pat his wedge in. The clergy are paid to 
preach the gospel; if politics is preached it is a fraud and 
dishonesty, for in doing so the clergyman is not doing the 
work he is paid for; but the work of the devil. He sea - 
ters the flock, sows discord, hatred and heresy. Assuredly 
the members of every congregation are politically antago¬ 
nistic, and many know more than the minister about 
secular affairs, and could give him good advice, even 
though he be a Talmage or any other big gun. Ministers, 
a'ter all, are only men. A minister chosen by God to 
preach the gospel looks to his Heavenly Master for pay, not 
to one-sided politicians “for his bread and butter.” For 
29 years I have been educated up and educated down in 
partisan politics, and am ready to graduate; others 
have gone through a longer or shorter course, and have 
graduated, or are in a fair way to do so. Now, in church let 
us have pure gospel, which commands God’s ministers to 
keep themselves unspotted from the world. 
Rockland Co., N. Y. A free thinker. 
