1896 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
151 
FARMERS’ CLUB DISCUSSION. 
(CONTINUED.) 
in one house 160x16 feet, with seven- 
foot posts in front and three-foot posts 
in the rear, and a shed roof covered with 
paper. One hundred feet of this house 
had perches, and 60 feet were for a 
scratching and laying house. The house 
was never closed in the daytime, no mat¬ 
ter what the weather was, and at night 
the doors were closed with a wire screen. 
The condition of the hens in the large 
house was far ahead of those in the small 
yards. 
Shall Poultrymen Stamp Eggs ? 
O. W. Mapes, Orange County, N. Y. 
—On page 104, you say that “retailers 
object to the practice followed by some 
producers of fancy eggs, of stamping 
the name and date on each egg. They 
object to the name because they are 
thus advertising another man to their 
own customers.” Iam sorry to see you 
add, “ This is reasonable.” It seems to 
me that such objectors are running on 
an extremely narrow-gauge road. Is it 
not about time a producer be given an 
equal footing with a manufacturer ? 
These same retailers would have no 
scruples about serving their customers 
with a bottle of ink, for instance, or a 
cake of soap with the manufacturers 
name stamped on it. Or if it happened 
to be a can of tomatoes, or of fish, he 
would point with pride to the name on 
the package and remark “ Mr. So-and- 
So never puts up inferior goods.” There 
is no use “ kicking against the pricks.” 
The day is coming when farmers will 
step up and take their place on an equal 
footing with other classes, and it is com¬ 
ing fast. 
The other objection that in case of a 
glut when eggs have to be held, the 
date gives away the old eggs, has more 
force; but it would also protect the 
producer and hasten the eggs out of the 
hands of speculators. Any method 
which will shorten the journey between 
producer and consumer will be hailed by 
the latter with delight. 
R. N.-Y.—If you are buying eggs to 
sell with your own would you wish to ^ 
let those from whom you bought, use 
their own trade-mark ? | 
J. V. C., Sparkilu, N. Y.—Why, if a 
man wish to create a trade on his special | 
quality of eggs, would it not be well to 
stamp a design such as a star, hen or 
other trade-mark, which would neither 
interfere with the commission man’s 
trade, nor give away the date ? If they 
were found of extra quality, that brand 
would be asked for. 
Crimson Clover in Wisconsin. 
C. A. S., Whitehall, Wis.—I sowed 
some Crimson clover iD corn on light 
soil July 24 ; some came up the third day. 
Also some about August 15, which came 
up quickly. It did not grow very well 
until after the corn was cut, owing to 
the weather being so dry ; but it made a 
fair growth late, and went into winter 
quarters looking green and nice. I sowed 
one-fourth acre on low, black muck land 
in September, when I sowed some rye. 
The piece is sheltered, and snow stays 
on till late. I thought that I might get 
some seed from that, as it looked nice 
when the snow came ; I will report in 
the spring. 
Some Potato Points. 
G. M. B., New Franklin, Pa. —My 
little Carman No. 1 potato did well—a 
level full half-bushel is the crop, and 
fine potatoes they are, too. I noticed in 
a paper recently that some one urged 
that the potato is the cause of seven- 
tenths of the cases of dyspepsia ; the 
trouble is likely to be found in the man¬ 
ner of preparing them. I know people 
who would risk a little dyspepsia, could 
they earn the potatoes. Our good old 
physician used to say, “Let your chil¬ 
dren eat all the raw potatoes they want; 
keeps ’em healthy, ma’am.” Five-cent 
potatoes would rule me out; our land is 
good, but stony, and they cost me sev¬ 
eral times five. I sold at 25 cents in 
October, and they retail at 50 to 60 cents 
now. The R. N.-Y. No. 2 is a good 
potato to sell by weight. 
FAKE ADVERTISING. 
The reader may recall the advertisement of the manufacturers of the so called U. S. 
Separators, which appeared in a recent issue of this paper. 
A couple of years ago this U. S. concern scattered broadcast a circular asking, “ Who was 
the son of Annanias and Sapphira?” This question, it has been said, was answered, when a 
conspicuous official of that Company testified a few months ago in the trial at Newfane, Vt., 
of an action to compel Francis Batchelder & Co., of Montpelier, Vt., to pay for certain U. S. 
separators which could not be made to do what had been claimed for them, and in which suit 
Batchelder & Co. were, of course, successful, largely by reason of the curious testimony of this 
conspicuous witness, who is said to claim such ancient, if not enviable, ancestry. 
One might be uncharitable enough to assert that the author of this advertisement to which 
reference is made as having appeared in this paper two weeks ago was this same scion of 
Annanias and Sapphira. 
The Vermont Farm Machine Company tries to belittle the effect of the Decree of Infringe¬ 
ment of the De Laval patents given by the United States Courts against Samuel Hotchkiss, 
and publishes what purport to be letters from said Hotchkiss, his financial backer in illegal 
infringement (whom it terms “the largest merchant in Downsville,” and both of whom are at 
this time agents for the sale of the U. S. machines), and from a user of one of such infringing 
machines whom the De Laval Company, in the enforcement of its lawful rights, enjoined from 
the further use of such machines. 
The statement purporting to have been made by Hotchkiss that his lawyers assured him 
that the De Laval infringement claims could not be sustained if contested, is untrue, and we 
challenge Hotchkiss (or any one else—except the person who testified at Newfane) to make this 
statement under oath. Hotchkiss’ attorneys were the well-known firm of Risley, Robinson & 
Love, of Utica, N. Y. Hotchkiss abandoned the further and final contest of the case against 
him because he was assured by his attorneys, after a thorough investigation by them of the state 
of the art, that it was a waste of money to proceed further, and that he was sure to be beaten. 
These attorneys also assured other infringers of the same patent who were equally interested in 
the result with Hotchkiss that they could do nothing, and finally actually refused the proffered 
financial support of an outside infringer, so hopeless did they consider any attempt to answer 
the De Laval testimony which had been put upon record. 
After Hotchkiss and Hulbert, his financial backer, had begged and pleaded with the 
De Laval Company, for better prices and greater consideration than the De Laval Company 
gives to the honest and direct buyers of its machines, they went to the Vermont Farm Machine 
Company, and, it is said, obtained from it a lot of machines at less than half the price it charges 
to other buyers of its machines, and in this way some few of the previous users of the infringing 
Hotchkiss machines have been induced to try the U. S. at about half price, with the further con¬ 
sideration presumably of such untrue and misleading statements as those now published—while 
Hotchkiss and Hulbert are active agents for the sale of U. S. machines. 
We leave the public, including the few who have been deluded into buying U. S. machines 
at full prices, to judge of these matters for themselves, and we challenge the denial under oath 
(by any one—except the person who testified at Newfane) of any of these assertions. 
And since the Vermont Farm Machine Company introduces the subject, we avail of the 
opportunity to announce for the information and caution of whomsoever it may concern, that 
we are assured by counsel, including the most emininent patent attorneys in this country, 
Harding & Harding, of Philadelphia, and Banning & Banning & Sheridan, of Chicago, that the so-called 
U. S. machines do infringe the De Laval patents ; and that we have only delayed prosecuting the makers 
and users of such machines from the fact that other suits are now pending which equally affect 
the so-called U. S. machines, and also from the fact that the present U. S. machines have been 
apparently but temporary and unsatisfactory makeshifts in style of construction, since the makers 
have devised and applied for patents upon various new and presumably improved forms of con¬ 
struction, which still more broadly and openly infringe certain of the De Laval patents. Their 
machines most recently shown at the Experiment Stations are newer in style, but while further 
infringing do not embody the extreme encroachments upon the De Laval patents, which it is 
their apparent purpose to attempt. 
Makers and Users of all infringing machines may depend upon our sustaining and 
enforcing our just equitable rights in due season, and are again cautioned in this respect. 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO. 
New York, February 14, 1896. 
A ■ | p 30-acre farm, located on 
A I P main road betweefi Spring- 
field and Hartford. In¬ 
quire of F. J. PEASE, 242 State St., Hartford, Conn. 
S SAW MILL. 4 H. P. and 
larger. Corn and Feed Mills 
Hay Presses & Water Wheels 
DELOACH MILL MFG. CO.. Box 367, Atlanta, Ga 
First Lessons in Agriculture. 
By F. A. Gulley, M. S. This book discusses the 
more important principles which underlie agri¬ 
culture in a plain, simple way. It is just what 
the practical farmer, without a knowledge of 
chemistry or botany needs. Cloth, $1. 
The Rural New-Yobkkb, New York. 
THE KIND YOU WANT 
There are no better 
Drilling Machines 
than ours For gas. oil and water 
Go down from 10 to 2600 feet 1 
sizes. Send for catalogue and 
prices of machines, tools, sup¬ 
plies. etc. Free. 
Star Drilling Maohine Co. Akron,(X 
Cider Machinery.—Send for catalogue to Boomer A 
Boschert Press Co.. 118 West Water St., Syracuse, N.Y 
IT 
WILL 
PAY 
to get our la¬ 
test Cula- 
loi-ue of tho 
line 
111 Y Tnm C on Earth. Apostalwtll bring It, 
IlM I I UULg Alsovaluable information about 
lluylng and Huy Burns. Our slings handle 
straw, fodder and all kinds of forage, and work wi th 
any elevator. Now is the time to prepare for 
harvesua Write at once. Address 
LOUDEN MACHINERY CO., Folrfleld, low*. 
