59o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
SEPT. 6 
body knows, can provide an excellent spray by pinching 
the mouth of the hose with their fingers. We want some¬ 
thing that can be used at the end of a long stick if neces¬ 
sary. This Professor Bailey has provided for, in the device 
shown at Figures 247 and 248. We show two drawings of 
the nozzle, taken from Bulletin 18 of the Cornell Station. 
That shown at Figure 247 is designed for a bush nozzle. 
At A is a bit of rubber tube, about an inch long, which is 
slipped over a thin brass collar or cylinder. The tube lead¬ 
ing from the pump is attached at B. C is a shank for at¬ 
tachment to a stick. A string is secured in the lever at D, 
Bailey Bush Nozzle. Fig'. 247. 
and this passes to the hand of the operator, who, by tight¬ 
ening or releasing the cord, varies the spray instantly. A 
ring can be secured in the end of the cord, and this can be 
held in place by allowing it to drop into notches on the 
stick. When the rubber tip becomes worn another can be 
slipped on. Professor Bailey says this is by far the most 
satisfactory bush nozzle which he has ever tried A single 
spraying early in the season with this nozzle and Paris-green 
kept the bushes clean nearly the whole season, although 
the young worms were very numerous. The other nozzle, 
Figure 248, is designed for spraying large trees. Like the 
bush nozzle, the essential feature of this is the compress¬ 
ing of the end of a hose. In ordinary hose the webbing 
soon becomes loose at the end and causes the spray to split, 
so that Prof. B. was obliged to substitute a strong, pure 
rubber tube, to the end of which the hose is attached. This 
tube, E, is pushed through, and a trifle is cut off as soon as 
the end becomes worn. The nozzle is secured to a stick of 
the required length by which the operator elevates it 
toward the tree, and the spray is regulated at will by means 
of the cord attached to the lever, F. A set-screw in front 
of the lever adjusts a clamp which holds the tube in place. 
All things considered, this is the best nozzle for spraying 
large trees which Prot. B. has tried. The adjustment of the 
rubber tube is somewhat perplexing, however, but this can 
no doubt soon be remedied by the substitution of a rubber 
thimble made for the purpose. This device is not patented. 
The little brass attachment will doubtless be offered for 
sale by seedsmen. As we remarked about Prof. Babcock’s 
milk tester, a few such simple and yet useful contrivances 
will pay the entire cost of the experiment stations. 
Wagon Seat Spring. —There used to be a time when 
men claimed that it did not pay a farmer to ride on a 
spring seat. Those were the days when it was held that 
we must be “trained for toughness,” or, in other words, 
that we must make our work as rough and hard as pos- 
Bailey Tree Nozzle. Fig. 248. 
sible because that fitted us to handle even harder and 
rougher jobs. The advice Is now changed, for now we 
know that this “ toughness ” only knocks more vitality 
out of us than we can put back. Of late years a great ad¬ 
vance has been made in seat springs. What seems to us 
about the best is made in Cincinnati, O., of one continuous 
piece of steel, curved and coiled so as to give all the 
“spring ” desired. It needs only four bolts to fasten it to 
the seat and wagon. This seems like an excellent device, 
though we have not tried it. 
Another Potato Sorter.— The following note de¬ 
scribes a tool that ought to be salable if it can be manu¬ 
factured cheaply enough: “ In The Rural for August 
9, is a letter from Hoover & Prout on potato sorters, and 
they say the man in Westchester, Pa., Is the first one in 
the United States who wants a sorter for two sizes of pota¬ 
toes, and they go on to say that their machine can be 
wrapped with twine so as to sort out another size. They 
also say they can file and make it larger. Likewise they 
speak of the Collins machine being undesirable on account 
of the wire in it running in a continuous coil from one end 
to the other, so that potatoes lie in this without rolling 
over or moving out. I have a machine made on a different 
principle and free from all these objections. It sorts out 
three sizes of clean potatoes and bags them completely if 
desirable. The screws also can be cnanged for different 
sizes in one minute, and any size the market requires can 
be turned out. The seed potatoes also will be clean and 
nice and the smallest will tbe salable for yeast. All the 
work can be done at one operation, and the machine can 
be worked by a boy at the rate of 100 bushels per hour.” 
Lewistown, Pa. V. S. 
Fruit Sorters.— People are evidently getting tired of 
sorting fruit by hand. Within the past year several ma¬ 
chines have been introduced for separating large fruits from 
the smaller, and there are others to follow. Of course 
these machines do not pick out decayed fruits or those that 
are injured by insects. This must still be done by hand; but 
“sorting by size” makes the hard work very light. We 
A Fruit Sorter. Fig. 249. 
show two of these machines this week, that our readers 
may know what they are like. That shown at Figure 249 
is very simple. The principle is much the same as that em¬ 
ployed in the Collins potato sorter. The fruit is poured in 
at the top and simply rolls through the cylinder, dropping 
out between the wires. The other shown at Figure 250 is 
A Fruit Sorter. Fig. 250. 
far more elaborate and consists of a series of sieves with 
meshes of different sizes. These machines are largely ad¬ 
vertised in the California papers and seem to find ready 
sale. 
IVomans IVork. 
CHAUTAUQUA’S KITCHEN PRIESTESS. 
BRIGHT correspondent of one of our exchanges gives 
a serious account of an extempore dinner which she 
prepared for an unexpected company of five who descended 
on her just at dinner-time, of course on a day when she had 
not meant to get dinner at all, and there was “ nothing in 
the house.” She describes how she concocted a “ lovely” 
chicken pie, scalloped potatoes, and other dainties from 
one slice of bacon, one hard-boiled egg, two slices of bread, 
one oookie and a half, and the drumstick and wing of a 
chicken, and proudly summoned her guests to this excel¬ 
lent dinner, after first running out to the garden for a cab¬ 
bage plant and a few graceful onion tops for a boquet! 
Then she goes on to say : “ The above is all a lie, every 
word of it; but it is exactly as true as the nonsense of the 
same kind one reads in the domestic columns of some news¬ 
papers. You cannot make something out of nothing in 
the culinary line any more than you can in any other way, 
and if people must write fiction, I wish they would choose 
something else than cookery.” Then follows a rather 
wicked little fling at “ tin soups and croquettes,” and at 
keeping house, furnishing and dressing well on “ nothing ” 
a year. 
No one who has had any experience in housekeeping, but 
will at once agree with the lady who hurls such telling 
shot at some of the idols of household writers of the day, 
for it cannot be denied that some of the articles are just 
about as sensible as she makes them out; still, in her de¬ 
sire to make a point, she is quite as exaggerative in the 
opposite direction as many of the writers whom she criti¬ 
cises, for there is no possible question that in many fam¬ 
ilies one-third of the expense of living might be saved by 
the careful frugality which looks well to saving the “ left¬ 
overs ” and serving them in new and palatable forms, and 
it is a fact that these side dishes are often the most appe¬ 
tizing of any that find their way to the table. 
As if for the purpose of being a noticeable comment on 
the ideas quoted above, the same mail brought us, in 
another exchange, an article describing some of Mrs.Emma 
P. Ewing’s work in teaching housekeepers at Chautauqua, 
with the heading : “Living on Nothing a Year,” the very 
idea that proved so objectionable to the lady critic. Now, 
Mrs. Ewing directs a culinary department in Purdue 
University, Indiana, where she ranks as one of the teaching 
faculty, and it is said that during the winter she travels 
about as a “ sort of gastronomic evangelist.” Her depart¬ 
ment at Chautauqua is one of the most popular (some say 
the most popular) as well as one of the most useful among 
those devoted to women at this famous school, and she 
here gives practical illustrations of her theories—rolls 
dough, prepares stews, and makes coffee in a way to put an 
expert to shame, and to make the mouths of her audiences 
water, so they say. She insists upon it that the table need 
never be expensive except when bad cooking involves 
waste (here her ideas touch Mr. Atkinson’s at one point at 
least), declaring that it Is possible to feed people well at an 
expense of $1.50 per week for each person. She states that 
in Boston at one time she was feeding a family at $1.75 a 
week each, at the very time the Boston papers were de¬ 
claring it to be an impossibility, and that she had fed a 
family of four for seven weeks in succession for $42, or $1.50 
a week for each member. This is about 30 cents a meal 
for a family of four, or more than one-half more than the 
25 cent dinners for six that have been so much commented 
on. But it should be noticed that Mrs. Ewing claims to 
have fed her family well. Of course, there is a great dif¬ 
ference of opinion as to what constitutes a good table, and 
it may be too that $6 a week for four persons will not be 
considered cheap by many of our farmhouse readers. 
Vegetables are considered very cheap living, as a rule, on 
the farms, for farmers judge of them by the prices which 
they receive, which are apt to be low. But when the 25 
cents a bushel which the farmer receives for soiree vege¬ 
table product, becomes, let us say, 25 cents a peck to the 
consumer, vegetables become quite an item of expense and 
are looked at with much more respect. A family of our 
acquaintance, living not 20 miles from New York, find that 
some portions of the year, one vegetable for the table (be¬ 
sides the omnipresent potato) costs fully as much as the 
meat for the same meal. Again, many of the farmer’s 
standbys, the things which he provides for himself and 
counts at first cost, and with which he is regaled day 
after day until he turns from them in loathing—or at 
least his children do—are the most expensive for those 
who are compelled to buy all their supplies. Salt pork, 
for instance, if boiled, is as expensive a meat as any that 
ordinary purses invest in. 
One great difficulty which people have in providing 
bills-of-fare which do not exceed in cost those so frequently 
published, is that they will not use the cheap things. It 
may be remembered that in a review of the Scotch Cookery 
for Workingmen’s Wives, it was noted that the poor of 
Glasgow had foresworn oat-meal, considering it a badge of 
poverty. This is just a reference in point. Mrs. Ewing’s 
bills-of-fare do include cream, fruits, porter-house steak, 
veal chops, roast beef, spring chickens and other quite ex¬ 
pensive foods; but they also include, in much larger pro¬ 
portion, the cheaper vegetables, soups, oat-meal and rolled 
barley, rice, etc., and there was no cake. The expense as 
given, covered everything, except the work of the assist¬ 
ant, which no one would think of counting in the cost of 
the dinner itself. Mrs. Ewing defined her object as being, 
not to see how cheaply they could live, but how well they 
could live at small expense, and her plump appearance 
would seem to indicate that she had attained at least a 
part of her object, and lived well. 
Although there are always ideas to be gained from what 
scientific students of cookery have to put forth, house¬ 
keepers in farm kitchens often find difficulty in adapting 
the schemes to their circumstances. Too many of them 
find that their better halves will eat pie, and hot bread, 
and immense quantities of butter, etc., while they will 
not eat the soups, salads and oatmeal, and the grains which 
form such a large part of cheap bills of-fare. Beans are 
well known in the farmer’s kitchen ; he can raise them 
himself. But split peas, which are nearly as cheap, as 
nutritious, and excellent for a variety, are seldom found 
there. Rice pudding is made rich and hard with eggs, 
when by using the right proportions, and careful cooking, 
it might be creamy and delicious without the expense of 
eggs. 
lUi.srcllnncou.s' 'Julmtisinfl. 
In writing to advertisers, please mention TnE R. N.-Y. 
PACKER’S 
Cutaneous Charm. 
Prepared In the form of a lotion, is Indicated In the treatmentof Chronic 
forms of Skin Disease. It has been used with remarkable success in 
cases of 
Obstinate Skin Diseases, 
which had long resisted medical treatment. A Pleasant Remedy to use, 
almost magical In Its rapid effects. 
Although prepared for the use In the treatment of Chronic Skin 
Diseases, as Chronic Eczema, Salt Rheum, Tetter, Scull, Psoriasis, 
Prurigo, Milk Crust, etc., It has become a 
Household Remedy, 
almost Invariably effectual In the more common affections of, and in¬ 
juries to, the skin. Itching, Chapped and Chafed Skin, burns, Frost¬ 
bites. Bruises, Inflammations, etc., yield like magic to its lullueuce. 
«** A Suggestion to Hufferers from Eczema or Salt-Ithetim.— 
Try Packer's Charm and Packer’s Tar Soap upon one hand, and 
continue the best medical treatment you know of upon the other. We 
have friends who have tested the merits of the Charm and Tar Soap 
I n this way, greatly to their and our satisfaction. 
Packer’s Cutaneous Charm Is sold by Druggists at 35 and 50 cents 
per bottle. Special bottles in wood case only are mailable. Price, 35 
cents, postage paid. Remit In postal note or stamps. 
THE PACKER MFG. COMPANY, 
No. ioo Fulton Street, New York. 
