238 
l'HE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
March 2'.* 
The Rural New-Yorker 
* THE BUSINESS FARMER'S RARER. 
A National Weekly Journal for Country and Suburban Homti. 
Established 1850. 
Herbert W. Collingwood, Editor. 
Dr. Walter Van Fleet, ( Associates 
Mrs. K. T. Boyle, ( Associates. 
John J. Dillon, Business Manager. 
SUBSCRIPTION: ONE DOLLAR A YEAR. 
To foreign countries in the Universal Postal Union, Jii.Ol, 
equal to iss. (id., or b 1 /^ marks, or 1U!& francs. 
“A SQUARE DEAL.” 
We believe that every advertisement in this paper is 
backed by a responsible person. But to make doubly 
sure we will make good any loss to paid subscribers 
sustained by trusting any deliberate swindler advertising 
in our columns, and any such swindler will be publicly 
exposed. We protect subscribers against rogues, but we 
do not guarantee to adjust trilling differences between 
subscribers and honest responsible advertisers. Neither 
will we be responsible for the debts of honest bankrupts 
sanctioned by the courts. Notice of the complaint must 
be sent us within one month of the time of the trans¬ 
action, and you must have mentioned The Rural New- 
Yorker when writing the advertiser. 
Name and address of sender, and what the remittance 
is for, should appear in every letter. 
Remittances may be made in money order, express 
order, personal check or bank draft. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER, 
409 Pearl Street, New York. 
SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 1902. 
We are informed that the anti-oleo hill will be 
called up in the Senate as soon as the bill for the 
protection of the President is disposed of. That’s 
right, first protect the President and then protect the 
cow. The cow will step aside for the occupants of 
the White House—but she comes next! 
* 
Mr. Cox hits the bull’s eye in that old orchard dis¬ 
cussion on the first page, when he says that if “the 
man behind the work is up-to-date” there is fair 
chance of success. It looks easy to some people to fit 
up an old apple tree and make it shake off its bad 
habits and bear good fruit, but it isn’t all in the saw 
and spray pump by a good deal. It is the “man be¬ 
hind the work” who makes it go—not the man in 
front of the w'ork—he either holds it back or is run 
over. 
* 
Many an agricultural writer has killed his opportu¬ 
nity for real usefulness by trying to “boom” himself 
or his own business. People look for the core of an 
article. They will fight shy of the man who is simply 
framing words around “something to sell.” Do we 
mean to say that only those should write who have 
nothing worth selling? No, because those who are 
able to produce salable things ought to be the best 
teachers if they would teach and not attempt to trade 
at the same time! 
* 
We have talked cow peas for several years, yet 
many of our readers have no clear idea of what the 
plant looks like. The picture on our first page is a 
good likeness of a genuine friend of agriculture. It 
is all there, even to the nodules on the roots. It has 
been said that these nodules are well named because 
they help put the fertilizer bill to sleep! As will be 
seen, the plant somewhat resembles a bean vine in 
its habit of growth, yet it makes a much longer and 
heavier vine. As we have often stated, the cow pea 
will give best satisfaction on poor land, or on farms 
which have considerable waste laud which has gone 
out of cultivation. It is not a crop for rich land, but 
as a “90-day clover,” it will work wonders in restor¬ 
ing wornout old fields to fertility. It makes a re¬ 
markably good use of the mineral fertilizers—potasli 
and phosphoric acid. It may be called a whole ferti¬ 
lizer factory for, with these minerals provided, in a 
naturally poor soil it will obtain nitrogen from the 
air, and thus furnish a complete fertilizer for subse¬ 
quent crops. 
sic 
The Senate has passed the bill granting subsidies 
to American ships. This proposition has been before 
Congress in one form or another for many years, and 
its chances for passage in the House are said to be by 
no means bright. The project is, of course, favored 
by those who are interested in the shipping trade, and 
by many manufacturers and merchants who believe 
that our trade with foreign countries is sure to be 
greatly enlarged. The strongest opposition to the 
measure comes from farmers and agricultural sec¬ 
tions. The chief argument to be made against the 
bill is that it carries the principle of class legislation. 
Ninety per cent of its direct benefit will go to a small 
class—ship builders and traders who have as little 
need of Government assistance as any people in the 
country. The benefit, if any, to farmers will be small 
and indirect, while they will pay their full share of 
the expenses. Our “statesmen” sometimes wonder 
wny the American farmer does not take what they 
are pleased to call a “broad” view of public matters. 
The farmer begins now to realize that many acts of 
legislation since the Civil War have been so very 
“broad” that they have squeezed him into a narrow 
corner. It is one of the strongest features of Ameri¬ 
can society that the farmer is forced by the very na¬ 
ture of his business to be conservative and not in¬ 
clined to move too fast. 
If any of our readers have a new breed of sheep to 
boom we refer them to the figures given on page 237. 
Here is a sheep that did a man’s work, which at the 
rate of 10 cents an hour, amounted to $35.95 in the 
courseofa year! In addition the sheep gave $3.10 worth 
of wool, besides setting an example of industry to 
every man on the place. In truth we doubt whether the 
average hired man would do 10 cents’ worth of work 
while the sheep was separating the cream. He would 
be more likely to stand around and brag about his 
woolly friend! But taking the figures as they stand, 
what is to prevent some smart fellow from figuring 
about as follows: “It has been demonstrated that 
one sheep has earned $35.95 in one year on a tread 
power. My sheep are better for this work than any 
other breed. Therefore, if a farmer will keep 200 
sheep he can easily clear $7,190 per year!” That is 
nonsense, you will say, yet it is no worse than some 
of the stories told about the possibilities of new seeds 
or plants! If you can see the folly of the above propo¬ 
sition and then invest money in the highly-colored 
“novelties” you certainly have no business to whine 
when Nature pricks the windbag of the introducer. 
* 
On page 143 of The R. N.-Y. one who signed him¬ 
self “Happy Farmer” advocated the plan of growing 
as much as possible of the family food on the farm— 
thus saving butcher’s and grocer’s bills. Next came 
“Jolly Farmer,” who, though a fruit grower, went 
yet further and advocated Belgian hares to shave, 
down the meat bill. Now comes a bee and fruit man 
on page 22G, who takes issue with the others. This 
man is a specialist, who believes that by carrying all 
his eggs in one or two baskets he can take better care 
of the eggs. He prefers to pay cash for some of the 
things which other farmers try to produce at home. 
Our friend’s very argument shows that some farmers 
are bound to conduct a general-purpose farm and 
would not be likely to succeed with a special crop. 
They will never handle a large amount of cash during 
the year, and if they can turn their labor to the pro¬ 
duction of various home supplies that would mean 
cash if bought they are wise to do so. The farmer 
who is handling a crop which enables him to turn 
his labor easily into cash would not perhaps be wise 
to try to raise his own bread and meat, for the money 
obtained in an hour’s work with berries or onions 
might pay for 10 hours’ work with wheat or corn. On 
the other hand the reverse may be true, and an hour’s 
work with wheat or in a garden may produce more 
food than 10 hours’ work with potatoes or grass 
would buy for cash. 
* 
There is much to gratify National prid? in the new 
census reports. The tremendous aggregate of wealth 
and power indicated by the enormous footings in 
every department of American energy is most stimu¬ 
lating, and causes many to lose sight of some less 
pleasant features. While the incomes of the small 
capitalistic class have increased at a rate never 
equalled in the world’s history, those of the immense 
majority of producers have gained little if at all, and 
great masses of laborers, such as those employed in 
the countless manufacturing industries of Brooklyn, 
N. Y., have suffered an actual diminution, as shown 
by census figures, of 20 per cent of their previous earn¬ 
ings. This is in the face of an average increase for 
the last three years of 40 per cent in necessary living 
expenses, which is felt by everyone. It is bad enough 
when an income is fixed and limited to be forced to 
expend $14 where formerly $10 would be sufficient, 
but when only $8 is earned in place of a previous $10 
the reduction is cruelly grinding. In some industries 
there have been slight advances in the rate of earn¬ 
ings, but in very few instances is the gain equal to 
the increased cost of living, and the real purchasing 
power of the employed masses, constituting the most 
reliable market for farm products, has, on the whole, 
been sadly diminished. The one favorable aspect of 
the greatest importance—while it lasts—is the very 
general employment of labor, often enlarging the fam¬ 
ily income, though the individual worker may get 
less, actually and proportionally, than during previous 
decades. The farmer should be keenly interested in 
the causes of conditions tending to diminish the com¬ 
fort and prosperity of the producing classes, of which 
he is most conspicuous and necessary member, and 
should not hesitate to advocate reforms looking to¬ 
wards a fairer distribution of the products of toil 
when he becomes convinced of their advisability. 
Martin A. Knapp, chairman of the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission, in a recent lecture at Cooper 
Union, in this city, said: “No service which the Gov¬ 
ernment undertakes can be more useful, and no duty 
which rests upon it is more imperative, than to se¬ 
cure for the public always and everywhere equal 
treatment by every railway carrier. When to the 
natural advantages of capital are added arbitrary de¬ 
ductions from charges commonly imposed, the com¬ 
bination is powerful enough to force all rivals from 
the field. If we could unearth the secret of these 
modern trusts, whose quick-gotten wealth dwarfs the 
riches of Solomon, and whose impudent exactions put 
tyranny to shame, we should find the explanation of 
their growth in the methods by which they have 
evaded the common burdens of transportation. No 
body of men can acquire $100,000,000 in a score of 
years without grossly defrauding their fellows by se¬ 
curing rates and facilities for public carriage of which 
others are deprived. That is the sleight-of-hand by 
which the marvel is produced. Deprived of special 
and exclusive rates—an advantage far greater and 
more odious than exemption from taxation, these 
trusts would be shorn of their advantages and di¬ 
vested of their principal danger. I think it scarcely 
too much to say that no aggregation of capitalists, 
no combination in the field of industry can be of seri¬ 
ous or at least of permanent peril, if rigidly subjected 
to the rule of justice and equality in all that pertains 
to public transportation.” 
We learn that agents for various “moth traps” are 
reaping a rich harvest among fruit growers in some 
localities. As is now pretty well known, these traps 
are made on the principle of a lamp, surrounded by 
an arrangement of reflectors, and hung over a shallow 
dish. This dish contains water or kerosene. The trap 
is operated at night, the bright light attracting cer¬ 
tain insects which fly to it and fall into the liquid. 
Farmers are told that these traps will take the place 
of spraying outfits, and that orchards can be kept free 
from injurious insects without the use of poisons. Of 
course this argument is an attractive one, and we can 
well understand that a good talker may be able to 
convince some farmers that the scientific men do not 
know their business when they advocate spraying. 
Sometimes when the trap is set at night, morning 
finds the dish well filled with dead insects. “I told you 
so,” says the moth-trap man, “here they are dead!” 
It makes little difference to him that probably 90 per 
cent of the insects are helpful rather than injurious— 
friends rather than foes—yet it makes all the differ¬ 
ence to the fruit grower. We do not recommend the 
“moth trap” because the best entomologists declare 
that it does not catch the insects that do us most 
damage. Some of our worst insect foes do not fly at 
night, and hence would never go into the trap. It will 
without doubt catch many of the night flyers, but we 
have no confidence whatever in the statement that 
it will keep our orchards free from the Codling moth! 
* 
BREVITIES. 
It’s hard to corner the square man. 
What trass for shade? Orchard trass! 
To try to milk butter fat out of a beef will fill both the 
pail and the pocket with grief. 
Cow pea notes! The Whippoorwill, the Whippoorwill- 
will whip the fat fertilizer bill. 
The Civil War gave old farmers good prices, yet some 
of them did not succeed in hanging to a share of the 
price. 
If words would kill anything there should be little Oat 
smut left in the country after the formaldehyde bom¬ 
barding. 
What have our scientific men done at hybridizing 
clovers? There is a useful field here that might well be 
cultivated. 
Oats and peas. Sow them early. Five pecks of peas 
per acre on the bare ground or on the rough furrows and 
worked in deep. Then the oats on the surface worked in 
shallow. Canada peas, remember—not cow peas. 
During the past Winter the ground was covered with 
from two to four feet of snow in many orchards in west¬ 
ern New York, and when the snow went off this Spring 
it was found that a large per cent of the young fruit 
trees were girdled by the large field mice. 
The plan of reseeding a wornout pasture is a tough 
one—tougher because it is a vital one on some farms. 
There is not, apparently, much use trying it unless the 
surface of the soil can be at least scratched over. Nature 
may reseed by scattering the seed on the surface, but 
man finds it a harder job. 
The Michigan State Horticultural Society held a Win¬ 
ter meeting at Frankfort, Benzie Co., in this northern 
part of the fruit belt. The meeting was well attended 
and enthusiastic. President R. M. Kellogg said it was 
the strongest meeting they had ever held. The members 
from the southern and central part of the State were 
cordial in their assurance that this region has a grand 
future before it in fruit growing. The addresses and 
answers to questions were very interesting and instruc¬ 
tive and the discussions animated. 
