THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
February 11, 
io6 
The Rural New-Yorker 
THE BUSINESS FARMER'S PAPER. 
A National Weekly Journal for Country and Suburban Homes. 
Established 1850. 
Herbert W. Col ling wood, Editor. 
DlS. WALTER VAN FLEET, 
Mrs. K. T. Hoyle, | Associates. 
John J. Dillon, Business Manager. 
SUBSCRIPTION: ONE DOLLAR A YEAR. 
To foreign countries in the Universal Postal Union, J2.04, 
equal to 8s. Cd., or 8% marks, or 10 Va francs. 
“A SQUARE DEAL.” 
We believe that every advertisement in this paper is 
backed by a responsible person. But to make doubly sure 
we will make good any loss to paid subscribers sustained 
by trusting any deliberate swindler advertising in our col¬ 
umns, and any such swindler will be publicly exposed. We 
protect subscribers against rogues, but we do not guarantee 
to adjust trifling differences between subscribers and honest, 
responsible advertisers. Neither will we be responsible for 
the debts of honest bankrupts sanctioned by the courts. 
Notice of the complaint must be sent to us within one 
month of the time of the transaction, and you must have 
mentioned The Rural New-Yorker when writing the adver¬ 
tiser. 
Name and address of sender, and what the remittance 
is for, should appear in every letter. 
Remittances may be made in money order, express order, 
personal check or bank draft. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER, 
409 Pearl Street, New York. 
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1905. 
TEN WEEKS FOR 10 CENTS. 
In order to introduce The R. N.-Y. to progressive 
intelligent farmers who do not now take it, we send it 
10 weeks for 10 cents for s'rictly introductory purposes. 
We depend on our old friends to make this known to 
neighbors and friends. 
* 
Last year, at the time for using it, we talked repeat¬ 
edly about water glass for preserving eggs. “The Busi¬ 
ness Hen" repeats the story. Now we receive letters 
from old readers who ask: “What is this water glass 
anyway?” If some one had advertised a “sure method” 
of preserving eggs and charged a dollar for the “secret” 
—our old friend water glass under a new name—those 
people would very likely have sent the dollar, saved the 
eggs and then perhaps criticised us for advertising a 
“fraud”! 
* 
Read that article on the first page about the parcels 
post in France. M. Barbe makes a powerful argument 
in favor of this just and simple service. The average 
American who does not own stock in some big express 
company will want to know why France can provide 
such excellent service for Frenchmen, while America 
refuses to grant it to Americans. The reason is very 
clear. Your average American is satisfied to let the ex¬ 
press companies decide such matters for him. He may 
not he exactly satisfied, but still he lacks the something 
necessary to make him get out and fight for his rights. 
We shall never have a parcels post while we sit down 
and sulk about it. It is one of the things which must 
be won, and not accepted as a gift! You will notice 
that in France they are well past the time when people 
ask whether railroads are public or private property. 
The shareholders are protected, and so are the railroad 
men, but the government controls. 
* 
We have several times referred to the fearful destruc¬ 
tion wrought by the Gypsy moth and Brown-tail moth in 
Massachusetts. These insects are fearful pests, destroy¬ 
ing not only orchard trees, but forest trees as well. 
The insects are spreading, and unless a general and com¬ 
bined warfare is made against them the fruit growing 
interests not only of the East, but of the entire country 
will be ruined. The fight against the San Jose scale is 
hard enough, but with these moths added the fruit 
grower may as well go out of business. These new 
insects can be held in check or even exterminated if the 
work is done thoroughly and at once. The job is too 
large for any single State—the National Government 
must handle it. This work is just as important as 
that of fighting the Cotton boll-weevil.- Massachusetts 
has shown how to kill these new insects—the National 
Government must now help us destroy them. Let every 
fruit grower join in the demand! 
* 
The demand for railroad legislation that will prevent 
some of the present abuses is overwhelming. Let no 
one makes the mistake of supposing that this is a new 
or sudden awakening on the part of the people. For 
years they have been thinking the matter over, but they 
have just come to the point where they are able to give 
fair expression to their thought. That is the way such 
things grow. The people discuss them, and study them 
sometimes for years, and it seems as if they were mak¬ 
ing no progress at all. At last the time seems right for 
action, and it appears that all the study and talk of the 
past has been useful, even necessary, in order to make 
true reforms possible. The evils of the “rebate" system 
and other methods of giving advantage to one shipper 
at the expense of another are well understood. There 
are few besides those who are profiting by these dis¬ 
honest methods who object to some form of legislation 
which will correct the evils. Even these men, if they 
were wise, would see that the more they object and the 
more they fight against public opinion the harder their 
position will be in the end. The temper of the American 
people at present is to he just and fair to recognize the 
rights of the rich as well as those of the poor. If, how¬ 
ever, the wealthy are not ready to join with the poor 
to kill out abuses of privilege or unfair advantage they 
must expect to have these things taken from them with 
no gentle hand. Many bills are being introduced in Con¬ 
gress. Evidently the object is to confuse the public and 
scatter the forces which demand legislation of some sort. 
Farmers are especially interested in this. They should 
put themselves solidly back of the plan to enlarge the 
powers of the present Interstate Commerce Commission, 
so that it may not only make rulings, but also enforce 
them. 
* 
Every year some one comes forward with new prep¬ 
arations for killing the San Jose scale. A farm paper 
claimed for a time that caustic soda was a sure remedy. 
We had neighbors who tried it without benefit—with 
injury to their trees. Its use is now largely given up. 
This year several so-called “remedies” are advertised. 
The object is to obtain a powder or liquid that will 
prove as effective as the lime and sulphur wash, and be 
easier to mix and apply. We tried one of these prep¬ 
arations, and found that it was fairly effective. On the 
strength of this experiment we felt justified in accepting 
the advertisement. Another preparation was offered, and 
we obtained a variety of reports from practical and pro¬ 
fessional men. These reports varied. It did not kill all 
the scale, and cost four or five times as much as the 
lime and sulphur. There was a general expression of 
opinion that the parties offering the “remedy” were hon¬ 
est, and that with further experimenting they might 
make an effective wash. We thought it safe to insert 
the advertisement, trusting to the common sense of our 
readers to use such an expensive wash in an experimental 
way. The proprietor complained because we would nof 
advise the use of his wash as we do limoid and kero¬ 
sene. The answer to this was easy, because all know 
that kerosene is an effective insecticide, and it seems 
likely that limoid is the best means of holding it up 
against the tree. The other remedy is an experiment. 
We have no right to do more than suggest its use in a 
small way; in fact, we have not even done that publicly. 
We are also criticised by some of the entomologists for 
printing the advertisements, since their experiments 
show that the materials have little value. For example, 
Prof. J. B. Smith tried “Consol” on peach trees and 
concludes that as it failed to kill the scales in Summer 
it is not likely to succeed as a Winter wash. In reply 
to this the manufacturers say that they now have a 
stronger and more effective mixture. We bring this up 
to show how difficult it is to decide such matters with¬ 
out doing injustice to somebody. We have generally 
found that readers of The R. N.-Y. can safely he trusted 
to settle matters of this kind with a fair statement of 
the facts. 
* 
THE “BEEF TRUST” DECISION. 
The Supreme Court has unanimously decided against 
the “Beef Trust” in the famous injunction case. As this 
is a matter of great importance to farmers we give a 
brief review of it. In 1890 Congress passed what is 
known as the Sherman act, which declared every con¬ 
tract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or 
commerce among States or with foreign nations to be 
illegal. It also declares that those who monopolize or 
attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire to monop¬ 
olize trade are guilty of misdemeanor. There have been 
various opinions about the constitutionality of this law 
and how far the courts could go in enforcing it. Under 
this act the Government brought suit against the “Beef 
Trust,” that is, a combination of meat buyers and packers 
who control about 60 per cent of the trade in fresh 
meat. It was claimed that this Beef Trust attempted to 
restrain trade in various ways. They conspire to prevent 
competition. The buyers of the various concerns agree 
upon a price and refrain from bidding against each other. 
They also induce large shipments of stock to a certain 
point by bidding up the price. When the yards are 
crowded they stop bidding against each other, lower the 
price and thus buy the stock for less than it is worth. 
They also conspire to fix prices for meat arbitrarily, and 
“blacklist” dealers who do not carry out their demands. 
They also secure “rehates” and special privileges from 
railroads which give them an unfair advantage over 
their rivals. 
The Government called for relief by asking the court 
to enjoin the “Beef Trust” from continuing each and any 
of these unlawful proceedings. The United States Cir¬ 
cuit Court of Illinois granted the injunction, thus making 
it definitely illegal for the “Beef Trust” to do these 
specified things. The “Beef Trust” through its lawyers 
demurred, that is, tried to delay. The court ordered 
them to answer the charges, but they refused to do so. 
The court accepted this as a confession, and the case 
went to the Supreme Court, the “Beef Trust” asking 
that the injunction be removed. The Government had 
merely to restate its case, point out that the “Beef 
Trust” confessed and give legal precedents. The “Beef 
Trust” claimed as its chief argument that the business of 
buying stock and selling meat is not interstate commerce, 
so that the National Government has nothing to do with 
it. What the court has actually decided is that the in¬ 
junction stands, that the National Government has juris¬ 
diction in such cases, and that under the Sherman law 
monopoly in restraint of trade can be punished. The 
Government cannot force the beef packers to bid against 
each other, but it can punish them if they conspire to 
destroy competition. Before this decision was rendered 
it was not known that the members of the “Beef Trust” 
could be punished for restraining trade. Now it is 
known that they can be. Thus it will be seen that this 
decision is indirectly of vast iipportance to business. 
No one expects that as the result of it the price of live 
stock will immediately rise, and the price of dressed beef 
at once drop. It will, however, give the Government a 
chance to punish illegal dealing, and if -this is done as 
it should be we shall gradually feel the effect of broader 
and fairer competition. The decision will also give the 
common people renewed confidence in their power, and 
renewed hope for their future. The forces of justice are 
now definitely arrayed against the powers that seek to 
restrain and monopolize trade. Judge Grosscup, who 
granted the injunction in this case, is quoted as saying 
that this decision opens the greatest National movement 
since the abolition of slavery, that is, to bring business 
back from the great corporations into the hands of the 
people. To us it seems to make clearer than ever the 
ultimate control by the Government of public utilities. 
The trusts are to kill themselves by their own selfish 
greed! 
* 
The Minnesota Experiment Station has begun the in¬ 
vestigation of fence wire, pipe and nails. With regard 
to nails many strange things come up. Some of them 
are stated in the following letter 
You will remember that before we began using wire nails 
there was a time when cut nails were made from soft steel. 
These nails were much tougher rv<an the cut iron nails, but 
were in use only a few years belore the wire nails came into 
use and displaced them. I am now trying to find out 
whether these cut steel nails were as subject to rust as the 
wire nails. Do you know, or can you find out from any of 
your readers who did building at the time the steel cut nails 
were in use, whether these nails rust as the wire nails do? 
I would like particularly to hear from anyone who used 
these nails in shingle roofs. I should also like to know 
whether there is any difference in the durability of nails 
used in pine and cedar shingles. Some people claim that 
the cedar shingles are at fault where comparatively new 
roofs are giving out, but I think the fault lies in the ma¬ 
terial in the nails. j. m. drew. 
Now here is a chance for readers to help. If any used 
those cut steel nails, will they please give us the facts 
about them? Be careful to state exact experience, for 
guesswork or mere observation will be of little value. 
BREVITIES. 
Laziness is a sit rust fruit. 
Those “extra fancy Baldwins!” Did any such apples ever 
leave your farm? 
The hollow concrete building blocks are said to he “beyond 
the experimental stage" in the West. 
A French expert, claims that risk of loss in transplanting 
budding trees is lessened by moving them in the dead of night. 
That auto fiend who recently ran a mile in 32 4-5 seconds 
is making a strong bid for first position in the galaxy of fools. 
What is the Apple Consumers’ League of Rochester, N. Y., 
doing when the hotels put wormy windfall apples on the 
table? 
We are now told to set a fence corner post by digging a 
fair-sized hole, putting the post at the center and pouring 
in a thin concrete to fill the hole. When this hardens it is 
said to hold the post firmly. 
A rural delivery man in New Jersey is said to have 
found the following note in a patron’s mail box : “Please 
feed the pigs. We have gone away for the day.” The next 
thing will probably be a request to work an hour at the 
wood pile or pitch on a load of hay. 
This comes from western New York : “A joke I heard to¬ 
day was on II. G. Manchester’s article of December 17 on 
feeding apple pomace to cows. Some men were discussing 
the question, when the joker spoke up, saying: ‘Why, that's 
the way they get apple butter.’ ” That is what you may 
call “butting in." 
The Smithville, Mo., Herald says that a young man in 
Platte County is in a quandary. He lives on a farm, but has 
been courting a girl in town. Finally he asked her to marry 
him. She seemed willing, but said she could never live on a 
farm. lie then proposed moving to town and engaging in 
some other business, and she said if he was fool enough to 
do that, she wouldn’t have him. lie is still figuring. 
A young man who asked advice about a short course at an 
agricultural college has finally decided: "I am going March 
1 to the Alfalfa section in New York to study Alfalfa and 
Guernsey cattle. Your articles last Summer have fired me 
on. I have had six years’ experience witli Alfalfa here, and 
know it can be grown if we meet the conditions.” 
