OCT. 18 
7io 
FARMERS' CLUB—DISCUSSION. 
Who Owns the Farm? 
Edwin A. Curley, Kings Counts, N. Y. 
— John Smith has a farm out in Colorado. 
He has a warrantee deed, but he is depend¬ 
ent on an irrigation company for water, 
and this costs $3 per acre every year. His 
farm can be worked only by him subject to 
that charge, and the irrigation company is 
landlord No. 1. He has to send his produce 
to market by rail. The average freight 
c’-.arges are one-third of the value of the 
produce. His warrantee deed does not run 
against the railway company, which is his 
landlord No. 2. He has to buy groceries, 
clothing, implements, etc. The3 r come from 
distant markets at an average freight 
charge of 20 per cent, which also goes to 
landlord No. 2. The average tariff charges 
on John Smith’s groceries, clothing, im¬ 
plements, etc., would be about 40 per cent, 
if all these things came from abroad. The 
American manufacturers put their prices a 
little lower to hold the market, so that the 
tariff charge on the goods that he buys 
averages about one-third, and the tariff is 
John’s landlord No. 3. Next come the State 
and local politicians. They have to be fed, 
and so while they come after the irrigation 
company, the railroad company and the 
tariff, their title is absolute against John 
Smith, and he will have to payor be evicted 
by due process of law. The local politician 
is landlord No. 4. John Smith borrowed 
some money at 12 per cent, and a bonus, 
with which to make some needed improve¬ 
ments. For this he gave a mortgage on 
the whole farm, and the mortgagee, a man 
not to be trifled with, is landlord No. 5. Now, 
with the irrigation landlord taking $3 an 
acre; the railroad landlord taking one- 
third of what he sells, and one fifth of what 
he buys ; the tariff landlord taking one- 
third of what he buys ; the local politi¬ 
cian dipping his hand into the remainder, 
and the mortgagee taking 12 per cent., it 
may be quite worth John Smith’s while 
to consider who owns the farm. 
John Smith’s brother William remains 
on the old homestead in Connecticut. He 
has no irrigation landlord to pay, but his 
crops are less certain than John’s. The 
landlord exacts so large a share that he has 
to cut down an orchard of grafted fruit 
and convert it into a meadow, because he 
cannot afford to send apples 60 miles to 
New York, in competition with those that 
come 600 miles from the West. The State, 
county and town landlords take a portion 
each ; he has six per cent, to pay on that 
mortgage he gave to John for his share of 
the homestead, which John sold to James 
Banker and which Banker threatens to fore¬ 
close because the farm is not worth as much 
as it was then, and it is growing less valu¬ 
able. William is careworn and weary, but 
still he works early and late, striving 
against the inevitable, and says to himself 
so often that he really believes it, “ I own 
the old homestead.” 
Nothing Like Stable Manure. 
F. P. Root, Monroe County, N. Y.— 
Tnere is a prevailing opinion among 
farmers of Western New York, and perhaps 
all the Eastern States, that the Chicago 
fresh-meat trade has so abundantly sup¬ 
plied the markets that the stall-feeding of 
cattle cannot, as in past years, be followed 
without loss, and many who have hereto¬ 
fore made winter-feeding a branch of their 
farm system, have abandoned it owing to 
the unremunerative prices obtainable for 
the stock. Such a course must be a sad 
calamity to our country. It is certain that 
a large portion of the land must be devoted 
to the production of grain and vegetables 
to be sold either in their raw state or man¬ 
ufactured into meat for the markets. It is 
also certain that we must meet the compe¬ 
tition of Western products either in the 
raw or manufactured state, and, in the 
main, the price of meat will correspond 
with the price of the feed which produces 
it, and while I admit that the prices for it 
in the past have been unremunerative to 
the Eastern farmer, is it not equally true 
that the prices of wheat, corn, barley, oats, 
rye, etc., have been unprofitable to the 
grower ? I believe that could the farmer 
keep as exact an account of the cost of 
growing a crop of grain as he does of the 
outlay for fattening stock, he would find 
grain-growing but little more remunerative 
at the prices which have prevailed during 
the past four years. There is no greater 
loss to the Eastern farmer in selling beef 
cattle at *4 per 100 pounds than in selling 
wheat at 80 cents per bushel, or barley at 
50 cents—the customary prices of late years. 
It is not, however, to the relative profits 
of these different branches of farming that 
the Eastern farmer should pay chief at¬ 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
tention. Our farms are losing their fer¬ 
tility and manures are required to restore 
what has been lost, and in its absence the 
ordinary farm crops cannot be profitably 
grown. The large quantities of straw and 
stover from our grain crops should be fed 
to stock to increase the supply of manure, 
and this is the cheapest means of restoring 
fertility. We do not accord to stable 
manure its full value for our farms. 
Every increase in the growth of our crops 
should afford additional material for the 
manure heap, and by the application of 
this to our land the supply will be largely 
increased in future. Many farmers are in¬ 
clined to rely upon commercial fertilizers, 
paying little regard to the stable as a 
source of supply; but while we should 
not abandon the use of the former we 
should increase the supply from the latter 
as the more valuable. On looking over 
the condition of farms in Western New 
York one can plainly see the difference 
between those where cattle, sheep and hogs 
have been fattened as a branch husbandry 
in common with grain growing, and those 
where little or no attention has been given 
to stock raising. In unfavorable years, like 
the past, the increased productiveness of 
manured lands has been more marked than 
in ordinary seasons, but at all times and on 
all lands, the farmer’s success will depend 
largely on the amount of manure he has to 
apply to his soil. Farms that have been 
run down by taking everything off and re¬ 
turning nothing, in the way of fertilizing 
material, have not paid for cultivation the 
past year; for owing to floods in spring and 
drought in summer, the soil became so hard 
and baked that crops could not grow. An 
illustration of this was seen on some lands 
which I have rented for several years past. 
No stock was fattened there and but little 
manure was applied, and though commer¬ 
cial fertilizers were used in spring, the crops 
will not pay for cultivation, and appear to 
have been little benefited by the fertilizers. 
On my home farm, however, where I have 
kept and fattened stock in past years, crops 
are nearly as good as the average in previous 
years when the conditions were more favor¬ 
able. Farming cannot be made profitable 
without the use of animal as well as com¬ 
mercial manures, and the best way in 
which the common farmer can obtain the 
former is by feeding stock for the butcher. 
If by doing so, no direct profits are realized, 
the increased productiveness of the farm 
due to the judicious use of the manures 
made, will afford abundant compensation. 
The common practice of using commercial 
fertilizers as a substitute for stable ma¬ 
nures, is, I think, unwise. While the real 
elements of plant food exist in mineral fer¬ 
tilizers the soil becomes inert and unpro¬ 
ductive without the enlivening influence of 
stable manure. 
Population vs. Fertility. 
W. G. Waring, Blair County, Pa.— 
When we consider the general and great 
increase of population in all well-ruled 
countries, and then think of the continual 
waning of soil fertility, the serious thought 
follows closely that a time must soon 
come when the annual food production can 
not be made sufficient to supply all the 
mouths. Many writers refer, especially of 
late, to the impossibility of restoring to the 
fields the precious elements of plant nutri¬ 
tion which are carried away, and which 
eventually go down the rivers to the sea. 
When the earth was young and liable to 
cataclysms, the bottoms of lakes and seas 
became in turn dry land abounding in 
fertility; but even that violent and life- 
destructive meaus of renewal is not to be 
expected in the future. The soils that lose 
their store of nitrogen, phosphate or potash 
can never have them restored in adequate 
amount while man exists upon the earth. 
But, besides loss by cropping, the soil is 
liable to great loss from leaching, and still 
more, in many places, from being washed 
away bodily, more or less, every time it is 
plowed. Large areas, once worked with 
the plow, have been reduced to sterility and 
converted into ranges, first for sheep and 
then for goats, and the time must come, 
but more slowly, when the ground will no 
longer yield a bite even for these close- 
biting animals, an l when man will be no 
longer able to derive from it any form of 
food. 
Pruning and Thinning Grapes. 
Thaddeus Smith, Pelee Island, Lake 
Erie.— All vineyardists know the impor¬ 
tance of properly pruning the vines to pre¬ 
vent the injurious effects of overbearing and 
keep them under control, and when it is 
properly done the fruit buds are thinned out 
and the best results secured. Extensive 
vine growers do not thin by pinching off 
buds or clipping out clusters when young. 
Such a practice would be too tedious and 
expensive. Indeed it can be adopted only 
by amateurs and those who are trying to 
get snow clusters regardless of expense; nor 
is it necessary, for as good results can be ob¬ 
tained by proper pruning. How should 
vines be pruned to get the largest number 
of pounds in the smallest number of clus¬ 
ters? There are so many things to be taken 
into consideration that this question can¬ 
not be answered directly. The method will 
depend on the variety of grape, its habit of 
growth, the soil, the degree of vigor of 
growth of the individual vines, the way 
they are planted and the system on which 
they are trained. The injurious effects of 
improper pruning and overbearing are 
many. The grapes do not ripen well and 
are of inferior quality, and the wood does 
not ripen, to the injury of the following 
year’s crop. But there is such a thing as 
pruning so excessively as to lessen the crop 
to such an extent as to render it unprofit¬ 
able without materially Increasing the 
quality or value of the product. 
Those Three Political R’s. 
A. L. Crosby, Catonsville, Md.— Dr. C. 
M. Depew recently addressd 12,000 farmers 
at the New \ork State Fair, and I give a 
few extracts from his speech as reported in 
a “protection” paper. “There are now 
imported into this country, yearly, articles 
worth over $300,000,000, the direct products 
of the farm. If by intelligent legislation 
this money could find its way to the agri¬ 
culture of our land, the benefits Would be 
incalculable.” As the speaker ffi*fi T,rf l?<3l'tor 
of Laws,” as the majorities in (382q?i^§s ?Br 
many years have contatned^finWWftte*' 
“Doctors” of the same sort and of the 
same political faith, why have we lacked 
the “intelligent legislation” necessary to 
make this money “ find its way to the agri¬ 
culture of our land ? ” During the past 25 
years the “benefits” resulting from “in¬ 
telligent legislation” would have caused 
the sum of $7,500,000,000 to “ find its way to 
the agriculture of our land.” As this 
enormous sum did not find its way to the 
farmers, the legislation, presumably, has 
not been “intelligent.” The question 
arises: To whom did the “ benefits ” of 
all these billions of dollars go ? If not to 
the farmers, was it to the manufacturers ? 
“ The farmers’ organization should in¬ 
scribe upon its banners the ‘ three R’s ’— 
Reciprocity, Retaliation and Revenue,” 
As Dr. Depew explained this, he meant 
“ reciprocity” with other countries; “re¬ 
taliation” if they refused his brand of 
reciprocity, and "revenue” from a high 
tariff. He did not tell the 12,000 farmers 
how they were to get any “ benefits,” ex¬ 
cept that if wo retaliated sufficiently we 
might force France and Germany to take 
more of our farm products ; but as we sell 
all we produce any way, and those two 
countries never pay high prices for what 
they buy, Dr. Depew did not show clearly 
that the farmers would receive any benefit 
from the “ three R’s.” 
“ We have made remarkable strides 
within the last year in the direction of the 
practical application of the idea of ‘ Amer¬ 
ica for Americans.’ ” How ? By letting in 
hundreds of thousands of poor foreigners, 
and giving all who wanted them practically 
free farms and setting them up in business 
in competition with Americans? By letting 
foreign plutocrats get possession of im¬ 
mense tracts of land and rent it to Ameri¬ 
cans, the rent going to Europe? By allow¬ 
ing foreign capitalists to buy some of our 
most productive industries, the profits 
from which are to be spent in Europe ? 
“ We have been brought into closer re¬ 
lations, and have better understandings 
with other countries upon the North and 
South American continents.” Yes, our 
“ closer relations ” with Canada enabled an 
enterprising shipper there to send a car : 
load of potatoes to Cincinnati the other 
day at a cost of 77 cents per bushel deliv¬ 
ered, to be sold in competition with the 
product belonging to “ Ohioans of Ohio,” 
who were getting $1.25 per bushel for their 
miserably poor crop I But the “relations ” 
are not “ close” enough to allow Canadian 
coal to be laid down in our large cities at a 
figure that would break the price the coal 
barons put on protected American coal! 
THE THREE It’S. 
Reciprocity. —If it were necessary to 
protect our manufacturers at the expense 
of our farmers until they, the manufac¬ 
turers, got firmly established and could 
successfully compete with those of other 
countries; is it not about time that the 
farmers should be protected even if the 
manufacturers make smaller profits ? 
Retaliation. —Dr. Depew advocates re¬ 
taliation as a remedy. Does he realize that 
if the present state of affairs continues 
much longer, the farmers will be compelled 
to retaliate, though not upon innocent 
foreign countries ? They are beginning to 
see that “intelligent” legislation is mak¬ 
ing them poorer, year by year, while manu¬ 
facturers, corporations, trusts, etc., are 
growing richer ! 
Revenue. —We can see plainly whence 
the revenue is derived and also how it is 
sqandered—and why? We can under¬ 
stand why the tax on tobacco is al¬ 
lowed to remain or be increased: why 
Congress refused to include “oleo” in 
the provisions of the “Original Pack¬ 
age Bill ; ” why many millions are 
given in pensions to soldiers who never 
asked or expected any; and as a result of 
these and other like causes, why the farm 
revenue has fallen in many cases far below 
the expenses ! The farmers’ organization 
may take Dr. Depew’s advice and inscribe 
on its banners the “three R’s,” but they 
will not take his application of them I 
“ City Training for a Country Life.” 
Good Preparation. 
W. D. K , Chicago, III —On page 603 
The R. N.-Y. answers my former com¬ 
munication. When I wrote I did not see 
the construction that might be put on my 
letter—that I was attempting to make a 
small kitchen garden a model or practical 
lesson for a larger farm. I well know that, 
in all kinds of business, methods which are 
successful on a small scale, cannot be 
always used on a large one on account of 
the expense. My reason for saying any¬ 
thing about my two years’ taste of the 
work, was to couvey the idea that I could 
manure, plow, mow, plant, hoe and har¬ 
ness, and knew how to mend and take care 
of farm appliances. I know these things 
not merely in theory but also in practice. 
I do not use my kitchen garden as a school 
for learning how to do the work of a truck 
farm ; but to keep my hand in, and for the 
health I find in the work. My two years’ 
experience in the South gave instruction in 
the practical part of farm work, including 
clearing the land from stumps, plowing, 
putting in the seed, making a compost of 
fish, muck, etc., hoeing, preparing vege¬ 
tables for market, and marketing them by 
peddling in the town. I have therefore 
had a taste of the practical part of the 
business. My wife was born and raised In 
an agricultural village in Scotland, and 
has been an out worker. (In Scotland the 
farmers hire their men and often make a 
stipulation that the man’s family will 
furnish him so many out-workers.) My 
father-in-law is a hale aud hearty old man 
who has worked among cattle—“ Angus, 
doddies, etc.,”—for the past 50 years. My 
children are unknown quantities regarding 
work, being almost babies. What I wanted 
and needed was to learn something about 
the science of farming, the reasons for the 
various operations, also the nature of the 
manures. This information I am gradually 
mastering. My next step will be the prac¬ 
tical management of hot-beds and cold, 
frames. Then my attention will go to the 
care and management of stock. 
THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE. 
A carefully considered article on the 
above subject appeared in a late number of 
our respected contemporary, Garden & 
Forest. We quote portions to which we 
desire to reply: “ Not long ago we pub¬ 
lished a complaint that young persons 
were repelled from the study of botany be¬ 
cause of the hard Latin and Greek names 
which were given to the plants. We have 
never discovered any basis for this charge, 
and find no reason to believe that the 
science would have more devotees under 
any system of nomenclature which could 
be devised. It is not meant by this that 
scientific names of plants could not be 
improved or that better rules for naming 
them could not be framed, but there is no 
evidence that the imperfections of the sys¬ 
tem are so serious as to deter any one from 
studying plants or to hinder to any ap¬ 
preciable extent those who have begun the 
study. A new charge, but one somewhat 
similar in its character, has recently been 
made, which perhaps deserves a word of 
consideration. In his address before the 
Florists’ Convention, Mr. E. S. Carman, 
while recognizing the necessity of a plant 
nomenclature of general application, and 
therefore accepting Greek and Latin names 
as the best, stated nevertheless that the 
words which botanists use to express pro- 
