i89o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
3o5 
Business. 
“THE MIDDLEMAN.” 
The question : “ Is the middleman a necessary evil ?” is 
one that should not be decided hastily by any candid farmer. 
There are many farmers who have been bled by agents 
who would say, without a minute’s hesitation : “ Eliminate 
the middleman at once,” and in their declaration they 
would include all dealers in every branch of business. 
These are men who do not, as a rule, think very far ahead. 
Infidels would destroy the Christian religion, but they 
never succeed, because they can offer no code of laws for 
life and death that can begin to equal those found in the 
Bible. With the present generation of farmers, agents 
are a necessary evil. If all the middlemen in New York 
were swept out of existence to morrow, the farmers as a 
class would be in a terrible plight. We must not do away 
with these vnltures till the farmers are sufficiently edu¬ 
cated in business methods to do as other business men do 
in dealing with the manufacturers. Do not destroy the 
present method now unless you can replace it with a better. 
Under existing conditions the middleman is necessary; 
but the fact of his being necessary does not prove that he 
is not a parasite, living on the bone and sinew of the 
farmer. 
The R. N.-Y. is to be commended for its fairness in 
giving the middleman an honest trial before the high¬ 
est of all courts—public opinion—and it is well for the 
manufacturers to open the case, as they are always 
fluent of speech, while we farmers are not, so that their 
side of the question gives us something to talk about. Let 
us discuss some of their views. 
A “ Steam Engine Company ” says that they “ would 
like to reach the farmer directly, but the influence of 
middlemen is so great that it is impossible to do busi¬ 
ness without paying them a tax.” This company has 
the hardihood to claim that the manufacturers pay the 
tax and not the consumers. Gentlemen, your agent sells 
a farm engine for $150. He sends you the $100 and keeps 
the $50. That commission comes out of the hard-earned 
money of the farmer and you do not make the following 
entry in your booKS : “ Agent: To Cash, $50 for Influence.” 
You are, to a certain degree, mistaken about the im¬ 
mense influence that unscrupulous agents have over 
farmers. Make a good engine, sell it for an even $100, 
send it out on trial for a month, with the understanding 
that if it is satisfactory it is to be paid for, and that if 
not, it is to be returned to the nearest railroad station, 
where you will take charge of it. When manufacturers 
adopt this plan of doing business they will need no 
agents. 
“A Noted Carriage-Maker ” can see no way of dealing 
directly with the farmer. If that is an honest statement, 
he is either ignorant of the success of some of his competi¬ 
tors or else something is the matter with his goods. The 
Elkhart Carriage Company commenced business 16 years 
ago on rather a small scale and now its business is simply 
immense. It sells directly to the consumer and gives him 
the privilege of examining the vehicle, and if it is not as 
guaranteed in the catalogue, he need not take it and he will 
not be out one cent. This is an honorable method, and 
this company and a few others that follow the same plan 
deserve the rich success which they meet. The “Wind mill 
Company ” is fran k when it says : “ We need agents to work 
and talk up the trade,” and the trade in mills is a great 
thing, especially the profit part. A man who had been in 
the wind mill I usiness in Kalamazoo for eight years told 
me, a Bhort time ago, that a 10-foot mill and tower, all 
complete, did not cost $25, and yet the company has sold 
hundreds and perhaps thousands for $150. It would seem 
that there is a chance for reform in buying wind-mills. 
This spring in buying a mill I had a little personal experi¬ 
ence that shows up the profits of the business very well. 
A Halliday agent said that he would put up a mill for $75; 
he couldn’t possibly do it for less. In a few days another 
Halliday man offered me one for $45, and I finally 
bought one for $35, and didn’t have to pay for it 
till it had worked all right for a week or two. “A 
Wind-mill Company ” and, in fact, all other manufac¬ 
turers want agents who will talk men into buying things 
they do not want; but a man is a fool to buy anything he 
has no use for. Very true; but you and I and every one 
else have been fools some times in our lives. A man pre¬ 
sents himself at the desk of the manager for some large 
machinery concern and applies for a position as agent. He 
is requested to give his qualifications; everything is satis¬ 
factory and he is almost engaged when the manager says: 
“How would you go to work to sell a man a machine if he 
said he didn’t want it.” The would-be agent replies; 
“ Why, if a man did not want a machine, I would go 
on and leave him alone.” 
“ Very well, sir, we do not want your services. We 
want men who will sell machines to people whether they 
want them or not.” 
The good agent in the manufacturer’s eyes is one who 
will go up and down the earth seeking whom he may 
devour. He scents a customer afar off and, like the mythi¬ 
cal vampire, sncks his life-blood. His motto is a common 
one nowadays : “ Every man for himself and the devil 
take the hindmost.” After he has received his pay for a 
machine forced upon some poor struggling man, he cares 
not whether his victim lives or dies. This sketch is not 
overdrawn, for in the West thousands of farmers lose their 
farms and homes every year, and drift God knows whither 
because they were inveigled into buying things they did 
not want. Then the agency system is of a demoralizing 
nature. It has become a standard saying that “ you can¬ 
not believe a deacon under oath after he has sold binders 
for a month.” It is almost an impossibility for any man 
to sell a machine without lying about it, no matter what 
his intentions are. Eliminate the agency system and the 
world will be better. Temptations will be fewer for men 
to engage in a business where falsehoods and misrepresen¬ 
tations are elements of success. There is no use in dis¬ 
cussing the views and answering the arguments brought 
forth by each manufacturer, as one firm’s opinions are 
similar to those of the rest. They are all willing to deal 
with the consumer if they could, but to them the middle¬ 
man is necessary to increase their sales and, consequently 
their income. It is a matter of selfish interest with them, 
for they do not care how much money comes out of the 
farmer as long as their business is booming. 
Now the manufacturers are few in number ; while their 
patrons are numberless. We have the power in our own 
hands to do away with the middlemen and we can do it in 
two ways : first, by dealing with reliable firms that are 
willing to ship us goods on their merits. That plan would 
do away with the argument that farmers will not buy a 
tool they have not seen; for who would not order an Acme 
harrow, a Hudson cultivator or any other tool with the 
understanding that if it were not as represented it would 
not be paid for. If farmers would unite and stick to this 
plan, all manufacturers would in time be compelled to sell 
directly or close up shop. Then again, if the middlemen’s 
profit were given to the farmer, manufacturing would be 
greatly stimulated because consumers would buy more of 
everything if they could buy at wholesale. I dare say 
that there are a score of men in this vicinity that would 
buy Keystone hay-loaders if they could buy them at the 
wholesale price of $35 instead of paying $60, and if this is 
true of hay-loaders it is likely to be true of all labor-sav¬ 
ing machinery. A man has $135 with which to buy new 
machinery. He needs a binder and a hay-loader. That 
money will buy only a binder to-day, and the farmer will 
continue to pitch on his hay with a fork. If he could buy 
at wholesale, his $135 wculd buy both machines. Second, by 
forming alliances and having co-operative stores we could 
buy not machines only but everything we use in the house¬ 
hold, at wholesale. The average retailer calculates on 
making a profit of at least 33% per cent on his goods, and 
if he turns $4,000 worth of stock over three times a year 
his profits will amount to several thousand dollars. I am 
told on good authority that there are successful co-opera¬ 
tive stores in operation down South that handle $12,000 
worth of goods a year at a total expense of less than $500, 
or a trifle over four per cent, on the stock. This certainly 
is economy in buying and there is practically no limit to 
co-operative buying when the stores or farmers’ clubs are 
managed in a business-like manner. The North Carolina 
method of buying through State, county and town agents 
is to be commended, as in this way the State agent gets 
wholesale rates for each individual member of any 
Grange. 
The manufacturers make a strong point when they say 
that the middlemen are necessary in orderto keep a supply 
of repairs near at hand. True, with the great majority of 
machines made to-day repairs are very necessary ; but 
what we want are machines made after the plan of “ The 
one-hoss shay, that was built in such a logical way,” 
that, finally, after 100 years of use, it went to pieces all at 
once and nothing first, just as bubbles do when they burst; 
for in such case repairs would never be needed. This repair 
business is a great thing for the manufacturers. A few 
miles from here there is a plow concern that is making a 
good safe income by buying up old iron at half a cent a 
pound from the farmers and selling it back to them in the 
form of plow points at six cents a pound. That’s a good 
business; isn’t it ? 
The system of price lists in vogue is a very misleading 
one to the ordinary buyer. To illustrate: A man wants 
to buy a “ Milburn Wagon,” and he goes to the agent, 
who shows him a price list in which a certain wagon is 
listed at $110. Now, he says : “ I stand in with the com¬ 
pany, have a big business with them and I will sell you 
this wagon right down cheap, seeing it’s you ; $70 is the 
price if you won’t tell anybody about it.” The farmer 
goes home delighted, thinking he has made a great bar¬ 
gain because he has bought a wagon for $40 less than the 
list price. Poor, deluded man! The catalogue price is 
$110, but the discounts are 50 per cent, and 10 per cent, off, 
and the agent’s profit is $20. This high listing is a delu¬ 
sion and a snare, simply designed to protect the ageDt and 
keep the wool pulled well down over the consumer’s eyes. 
The discounts mentioned above may seem large; but there 
are several lines of hardware in which the following dis¬ 
counts are allowed : 75 per cent., 10 per cent, and five per 
cent, off the list price. [Though pretty well acquainted 
with the hardware trade in all its branches, we never 
heard of such discounts on any article. If given, the total 
discount would not be 90 per cent.; but 75 per cent, off the 
full bill; 10 per cent, off the ^remainder, and five per cent, 
off the residue.—E ds.] If ‘middlemen were things of the 
past, manufacturers could reach the public through the 
newspapers and the mail. Continuous advertising through 
the press and in the right papers always has its effects. 
Most manufacturers do not advertise enough. They are 
afraid the editors and publishers will make too much 
money, and yet the same firms keep eight or ten men on 
the road at an expense of $3,000 each per year, soliciting 
and collecting. 
There is a well-known carriage firm about 100 miles from 
here, that used to pay $24,000 a year to traveling men. Two 
years ago every man was taken off the road and part of 
the money was spent in advertising. Witness the result; 
at the expiration of the first year under the new regime 
the company was 5,000 vehicles behind its orders, and its 
business has been steadily increasing ever since. I have 
an unlimited faith in judicious, persistent advertising. 
The time is near at hand, brother farmers, when we can 
deal directly with the manufacturers and they will be glad 
to sell to us. Large corporations are doing away with 
jobbers now, the smaller middlemen and retailers will go 
next, and in a little while there will be no barriers between 
the producer and consumer. The former make machines 
to sell and the latter buy them to use, therefore both 
parties should work together for their mutual good. 
EDWARD F. DIBBLE. 
LIVE STOCK INSURANCE. 
1. Do you insure the lives of your stock ? 
2. Do you prefer the old established fire insurance com¬ 
panies, or do you patronize the companies which pro¬ 
pose to insure stock against disease or accidents ? 
3. Is live stock insurance designed for the common 
farm animals or is it oiily for the high-priced thorough¬ 
breds? 
From John W. Aiken. 
I only insure the lives of a part of my animals—about 
80 Percheron stallions and mares—and these are insured 
in the regular fire insurance companies against death by 
fire and lightning. I have had no experience with any 
live stock insurance company ; but I believe the business 
can be best done by such companies. I do not think it 
would be advisable for the average farmer to insure his 
animals, that is, common farm animals; but should the 
animals be valuable on account of their good breeding, I 
should be in favor of insuring them, provided companies 
could be found that were perfectly reliable, so that while 
a man was paying a big premium he would be sure ol his 
pay in case of a loss. I believe live stock insurance will be 
a success as soon as the State takes as much precaution 
against fraud in mutual live stock insurance companies, as 
it now takes against swindling in fire insurance companies. 
Scipio, N. Y. 
From W. L. Elwood. 
I carry what is termed the blanket policy on all of my 
stock. This is simply against fire and lightning. I cannot 
afford to insure all of my stallions against death from any 
cause, as it would cost me seven per cent, or eight percent., 
and the death loss would not be heavy enough in the course 
of a year, so that it would pay me to insure at this rate. I 
believe it is not a bad policy for a man, if he is not well-to- 
do, to carry an insurance policy on his horse, say the first 
year, at least, until the horse has partly paid for himself, 
and; in this way, of course, some of the risk is taken off 
his hands. 
DeKalb, Ill. 
From Geo. E. Brown. 
I have no personal dealings with any of the live stock 
insurance companies that have done business in the 
United States as, on so large a stock as I have carried for 
many years, I can take the insurance better myself than 
get others to do it. 
I think that, as a rule, live stock insurance companies 
have not been a very great success in the United States ; 
that is, insuring against death by sickness or accident has 
not become so general in this country as it has in England, 
and the business being comparatively small, the rates are 
correspondingly high—I think something like eight per 
cent.—and the companies that I have heard of have limited 
their risk to about $1,000 on any single animal. I know of 
no fire insurance companies that take any risks of this 
nature. As to the advisability that the average farmer 
should insure his stock, I should be inclined to doubt it at 
the present rates. I presume the reason of the high rates 
asked is because of the great risk of unscrupulous parties 
taking advantage of them to dispose of their stock at good 
figures by dishonestly causing the death of the animals. 
Aurora, Illinois. 
From Smiths, Powell & Lamb. 
We insure our live-stock against fire and lightning only. 
We have divided our insurance among a large number of 
fire insurance companies which have been recommended 
to us as being good, but we have not personally investi¬ 
gated their responsibility. Without studying the matter 
in all its bearings more fully, we would be inclined to 
think that companies already existing and doing business 
could do this work better than special companies formed 
for the purpose. It would seem to us desirable for farmers 
to insure their stock at their actual value against fire and 
lightning. We are not aware that at the present time 
there are companies in existence which insure live-stock 
against death, though there may be such. Several years 
ago companies of this kind were organized in various sec¬ 
tions of the country, but we believe they were of short 
duration, and we understand that the cause of their brief 
existence was the fact that many animals were insured at 
a fictitious value, and were liable to die soon after. There 
is, however, in our judgment, no good reason why a live¬ 
stock company’s business could not be done as safely as 
any other, and to the advantage of all parties, providing 
there could be a guarantee against dishonesty and de¬ 
ception. 
Syracuse, N. Y. 
From J. C. Hamlin. 
I HAVE no confidence in any company that insures live¬ 
stock against death, and as I do not insure the lives of my 
stock, I have had no experience in this line, but have no 
confidence in the ability of any company now running, or 
any that could be organized, to pay death losses on stock. 
I would certainly advise the farmers to insure could a per¬ 
fectly responsible company be lound for this purpose; but 
I do not see how it would be possible. 
Buffalo, N. Y. 
From Miller & Sibley. 
We must admit that we are not sufficiently well posted 
to answer as we would like. We insure our stock with 
regular fire insurance companies against loss by fire, but 
we must admit to a very strong prejudice against mutual 
life insurance companies. There is such a wide variation in 
the degree of care exercised by individual owners, that one 
who takes good care of his stock and uses all necessary 
