256 
'THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
APRIL i9 
he can procure repairs quickly and get suitable instruc¬ 
tions for operating the machinery which he has purchased. 
From a Feed-Mill Manufacturer. 
In our judgment in many instances and with many 
kinds of goods the agent is necessary, but in the case of 
feed mills he is wholly unnecessary. The farmer gener¬ 
ally would save money by buying directly from the manu¬ 
facturer. Practically we would be willing to give up local 
agents and give the farmers the advantage of an increased 
discount; but as it is now, we are forced to give agents a 
better discount than we could afford to give farmers because 
they represent our goods and urge their sale in many in¬ 
stances, and we can generally make contracts with them 
for a certain number of machines to be taken during a 
season, so that we can depend on something definite in re¬ 
gard to trade. 
From a Harvester Manufacturer. 
WK most emphatically say that the agent or middleman 
is a necessary evil. We are compelled to keep large stocks 
of repairs at various points throughout the different States 
In order to supply our. customers when their machines 
break down or partially wear out, and a failure to do this 
would naturally make more or less delay during the sea¬ 
son when our customer is reaping his harvest. A promi¬ 
nent corporation in our line has for the past two seasons 
endeavored to do away with the agency system, and we 
think the single difficulty in distributing repairs will 
eventually cause the concern to return to the agency plan. 
If our trade were all cash, we would deal with the farmer 
directly, and to good advantage, but, as the majority of 
the trade is on long time, it is advantageous to have first- 
class agents on whom we can depend to look after the re¬ 
sponsibility of the purchasers and see to the taking of se¬ 
curities where they are necessary. 
From a Plow Company. 
From our standpoint we think it hardly practicable for 
any factory to deal directly with the consumer, although 
if it could be done, no doubt something could be saved for 
both. That question is now being agitated in the West by 
the Wheel and Farmers’ Alliance, which seek “ to dis¬ 
pense with the middleman.” To the Rural’s first ques¬ 
tion we answer: “We do not know.” To its second, we 
reply: “Yes.” To its third: “Yes.” As to its fourth 
the answer would largely depend on circumstances yet to 
be developed as to whether any alliance between manufac¬ 
turers and farmers could be made permanent. The pres¬ 
ent Farmers’ Alliance seeks to buy goods directly from 
factories paying cash for all their purchases, which is cer¬ 
tainly commendable ; but upon investigation we find that, 
as a rule, a large majority of the farmers do not pay cash f 
but buy on time, hence the Alliance cannot or will not 
order for them, and there is no practical method whereby 
farmers can get goods from manufacturers on time unless 
through some agent who has some knowledge of the bus¬ 
iness and is known commercially. 
Again, farmers will be very loth to purchase or even 
send for goods which they do not know how accurately to 
describe, and quite likely the goods the Alliance 
would recommend would be entirely new to its patrons 
and perhaps inferior in their estimation to those with 
which they are acquainted. 
The Alliance, as we understand the matter, does not 
propose to have any store-house at all. [Oh, yes. The 
Texas Alliance already has a large one at Dallas, and the 
Georgia Alliance is about to establish a great distributing 
depot at Atlanta. It is the intention of the order to sup¬ 
ply its members with goods through these agencies; but 
experience aud time will be needed to make an assured 
success of the undertaking.— Eds.] There would be some 
inconvenience therefore should they want any repairs; for 
instance, for binders or reapers, as it would necessarily 
take up much time to get them directly from the manu¬ 
facturers. 
Again, suppose that a binder, or sulky plow, or a 
thrasher does not satisfy the purchaser after trial, or that 
he is not familiar enough with it to set it to work properly. 
The manufacturers now have agents to adjust all such 
cases, and if the agents were dispensed with no factory 
would be likely to want to send an expert, say, 500 miles, 
more or less, to look after such cases. We do not look upon 
the project with much hope of success. 
From a Michigan Manufacturing Company. 
From past experience we do not believe the implement 
dealer can be dispensed with, nor do we think it would be 
for the farmer’s interest that this should be done. He is 
really the man who stands between the farmer and 
manufacturer to protect both from loss, and while it is 
true that there are some implements which have been so 
thoroughly tried that the farmer would run no risk in 
sending his money for them directly to the manufacturer, 
had it not been for the dealer their reputation would not 
have been established, and the farmer would know nothing 
about them, and to dispense with him would almost totally 
prevent the introduction of new and improved implements. 
When a new tool is first put out, it is more or less 
imperfect; but it must be tried by the farmers all over the 
country before its imperfections are fully ascertained. 
Farmers, as a rule, are not experts, and they condemn 
machines for the most trivial causes, many times through 
their not understanding how to operate the implement or 
have it properly set up. The implement dealer has 
experience in this business, teaches them how to use the 
tools or machines, finds out their imperfections, and by 
his suggestions the faults are corrected and the implements 
made successful. There is no class who are more necessary 
both to the manufacturer and farmer than the implement 
dealers. The farmer can order his groceries or staple dry 
goods with safety without the aid of the middleman, but 
in the implement trade it is absolutely necessary that some 
one who has experience should place the goods in the hands 
of farmers; and we think farmers make a grave mistake 
in trying to dispense with agents. Their margins are not 
large, and where there is one who gets rich at the business, 
there are a score who either fail or only make a lair living. 
There is, however, a very large amount of unnecessary 
cost to the implement dealer in selling goods and for this 
the farmers are largely to blame. If they would go to 
their implement dealers and buy their goods for cash, 
instead of forcing the dealer to spend days and sometimes 
weeks in selling an implement, then the dealers could 
afford to handle the goods on smaller margins. In some 
sections farmers are now making a proposition to the im¬ 
plement dealer to pay him a commission of 15 per cent 
above the cost of his goods and deal for cash only, and we 
think that if they were in a position to do this the imple¬ 
ment dealer would be glad to accept it; but the fact is 
that there is but a limited number of farmers who are 
able to pay cash, and the dealer has no faith in the sincerity 
of such promises. The farmers might perhaps buy a small 
portion of their goods for cash, while the remainder would 
be sold on time, and the same amount of drumming would 
be required to sell the goods, and a large amount of 
unnecessary expenses would have to be incurred to get the 
pay. Then, too, farmers in many cases don’t realize how 
badly they want an implement until it is placed on their 
farm, then they see how almost indispensable it is, and the 
most successful implement dealers are those who take the 
goods right to the fields and put them at work, and let 
the farmer realize what they will do, as it is easier in 
many cases to sell in this way than to talk them into buying 
at their stores. We are glad, however, to see a disposition 
on the part of farmers to remedy this evil, and we think 
that if they will make an effort to pay cash for their goods 
and save the dealer the expense of collecting,and if they can’t 
pay the cash, if they will settle for their goods when they 
take them out, and try to put the dealer to as little expense 
as possible, instead of putting him to all the trouble they 
can (as many now do), they can save something, and the 
implement dealer will make quite as much money as he 
now does, or more. 
From a Leading Plow Company. 
To MAKE a correct answer possible several things must 
be considered and the difficulties they involve must be 
solved. First, as to credit: farmers must either always 
have a surplus of cash'on hand so as to pay for their goods 
on delivery, or they must establish a credit as business 
men do, and maintain this credit by paying promptly 
when the debts fall due. At present many farmers’ notes 
are in very limited demand, because of the uncertainty of 
their payment at maturity. Sickness, partial loss of 
crops, or the hurry with spring work is a sufficient excuse 
for many farmers to postpone the payment of their obliga¬ 
tions indefinitely. Years ago when competition was less 
and margins larger manufacturers could carry the notes 
of their customers till paid; but with multiplied competi¬ 
tion, profits are reduced to the lowest possible amount, and 
to make.anything at all the manufacturer’s capital must be 
turned several times in a year, and so long as the payment 
of farmers’ notes is so dilatory as it is now this cannot be 
done. A mutual confidence between farmers and manu¬ 
facturers must be established and maintained. It will 
not do for farmers to regard manufacturers as a set of men 
who sit up at night, planning how to make their wares of 
the least possible value and how they may get an advan¬ 
tage over their customers. Manufacturers, on the other 
hand, must not regard farmers as a lot of detectives 
always on the watch expecting some advantage and com¬ 
bining to defeat them in the collections of their just 
claims. An impression prevails among manufacturers 
that it is useless to undertake to . force the collection of a 
claim against a farmer, no matter how just it may be, be¬ 
cause he will demand a jury trial and the jury will be 
composed of neighboring farmers who will many times de¬ 
cide the case on the supposition that the manufacturer is 
trying to get an advantage over the farmer and ought not 
to be allowed to collect his claim, just or unjust. Farmers 
must also learn to operate the machinery successfully, or 
give a satisfactory reason for their failure, or be willing 
to pay the manufacturer enough to reimburse him for his 
time and expense in imparting this information. The 
amounts of sale and the difference in freights are other 
considerations to be taken into account. A manufacturer 
can produce machines cheaper in large quantities and 
can. of course, sell them for less. Then much lower 
freight rates can be obtained on car-load lots than on 
smaller quantities. The middleman gives larger orders 
and prompter pay and expects therefore a reduction in 
price. He ships in car-load lots and gets the benefit of lower 
transportation charges and puts the results of these two ad¬ 
vantages together for his profit. In addition to this, he is 
more or less of an expert, and can operate the machines and 
teach others to do so, saving time and money and danger of 
loss to both manufacturer and farmer. When these exist¬ 
ing hindrances are removed we shall “ be willing to give 
the farmers who deal directly with ” us “ the advantage of 
a portion of the agents’ commission?” Until this happy 
day has arrived we prefer to adhere to our old methods of 
sale. 
From a Western Manufacturer. 
To sell directly to farmers would be found very impractic¬ 
able and ruin any implement manufacturing concern that 
would depend for its whole support upon sales secured by 
that method. In the first place, the farmer would not want 
to buy a machine until he had seen and examined it, which 
would be impossible for him to do, if he bought it directly 
from the maker, being at so great a distance from the 
factory. In the second place, there are no means by which 
the manufacturer could find out the farmer’s financial 
standing, so in doing business directly with the farmer, it 
would have to be done on a cash basis, that is, the farmers 
would have to send cash with their orders, which they 
would not be willing to do until they had seen the 
machine. Then again, the farmer does not usually buy a 
machine until about the time when he wants to use it, and 
the manufacturer could make no calculations upon the 
amount of machinery that he would have to make up and 
have ready for the season. The manufacturer has to buy 
his stock sometimes a year before selling the goods, and in 
dealing directly with the consumers he would have no 
assurance as to the prospect of selling them, and the un¬ 
certainty would be very hazardous to his business; whereas 
under the present system, as almost all orders are received 
from agents before the goods are manufactured, the manu¬ 
facturer knows just what to do—how many goods to 
make. In a widespread country like ours, if the machines 
are placed in the hands of dealers all over the country in 
advance of the season, the farmer has an opportunity of 
looking over the dealer’s stock, and getting whatever he 
wants at the time he needs it. Moreover, in shipping goods 
to great distances from the factory, we always ship them n 
car-load lots, and thereby save a good deal in freight charges, 
and this saving benefits the farmer. It would be impos¬ 
sible to come into personal contact with the farmers all 
over the country. The manufacturer comes in personal 
contact with the dealer, and the dealer comes in personal 
contact with the farmer. The dealer is assured that if the 
goods fail to give satisfaction, the manufacturer will stand 
ready to make amends, and the dealer coming iu contact 
with the farmer, gives him the same assurance. The 
farmer knows the dealer with whom he trades, and would 
not know the manufacturer personally, consequently he 
would not have the same confidence in the manufacturer 
as he would have in the local dealer. 
Again, the expense of selling single machines all over 
the country—the office work, correspondence, and the 
handling of machines—would be very much greater under 
the proposed system than under the present one, and any 
attempt to make the innovation would force the manufac¬ 
turer to charge more for his goods. Where a manufactur¬ 
ing establishment like ours, sends goods all over the 
United States and foreign countries, the extra amount of 
work, correspondence, etc., in attempting to sell our ma¬ 
chines directly to the farmers would be enormous, and it 
would not be practicable to undertake it. We never fail 
to sell machines to farmers when they order from us and 
accompany the order with the cash or indorsed paper 
where we have no agent, but in nine cases out of 10, they 
prefer to buy from their local dealer, at whose place they 
can see the machine and make their own terms. The 'dea 
of buying machinery directly from the manufacturers is 
a very good one in theory, but a very poor one in practice. 
A few years ago we tried the experiment of putting a ma¬ 
chine directly before the farming public; we advertised it 
all over the country in over 100 newspapers at a great ex¬ 
pense, offering it at wholesale price, aud to forward it on 
receipt of the money accompanying the order, and the re¬ 
sult was a miserable failure. We had plenty of corres¬ 
pondence, but no orders, the farmers preferring to buy 
from local dealers rather than to send the money with their 
orders to a distant locality. The present system of placing 
the goods in the hands of agents at convenient points 
throughout the whole country is the only practical one. 
Any one who attempts to do business in any other way 
will make a mistake. We do not object to sell goods di¬ 
rectly to farmers; but we find it impracticable to carry on 
our trade in that way. 
From an Eastern Manufacturer. 
It appears to us that one of the greatest difficulties in 
the way of such an arrangement is the extreme reluctance 
the average farmer has to doing business by letter, and 
the consequence is that the manufacturer who attempts to 
deal directly often gets left even if his goods are of 
superior merit. 
The country is so flooded with circulars and other 
printed matter that they fail to strike the people with the 
force which they formerly had, and the result is that the 
manufacturer who depends upon the mail fails to get the 
order which is secured by his competitor who has his 
case presented personally to the intending purchaser by 
himself or agent. Our observation has been that the 
agents do not receive any more compensation than they 
should, when the time spent and efforts made to secure 
sales are taken into consideration together with the fact 
that they are often obliged to divide their profit with the 
purchaser in order to get the order. Still if the middle¬ 
man could be got rid of altogether the manufacturer 
would be able to furnish goods at lower prices than under 
the present system: agents’ commissions and the expenses 
of traveling men must always be considered in making up 
prices for manufactured goods. The present large pro¬ 
duction and sharp competition force manufacturers of all 
kinds to look closely to every item in the cost of producing, 
aud are a sure check on exorbitant prices, and it is safe 
to assume that if the expenses of the traveling men and 
the commissions to agents could be avoided, the consumer 
would get the benefit of the reduced cost 6f production 
and sale. We are sure that the manufacturers would be 
glad to deal directly with consumers if it could be done in 
all cases ; but as things are at present it would be hardly 
practicable. 
IHiiSceUancowss Advertising, 
In writing to advertisers, please mention the R. N.-\ . 
When Baby was sick, we gave her Castoria, 
When she was a Child, she cried for Castoria, 
When she became Miss, she clung to Castoria. 
When she hud Children, she gave them Castoria 
