270 
March 24, 
TIIE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
The Rural New-Yorker 
THE BUSINESS FARMER'S PAPER. 
A National Weekly Journal for Country and Suburban Homes. 
Established 1850. 
Herbekt W. Collingwood, Editor. 
Dk. Walter Van Fleet, I A . 
Mrs. E. T. Kovi.k, ^Associates. 
John J. Dillon, Business Manager. 
SUBSCRIPTION: ONE DOLLAR A YEAR. 
To foreign countries in the Universal Postal Union, $2.04, 
equal to 8s. Gd., or 8 % marks, or 10% francs. 
“A SQUARE DEAL.” 
We believe that every advertisement In this paper Is 
hacked by a responsible person. Hut 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 auv 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, MARCH 24, 1906. 
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 strictly introductory purposes. 
We depend on our old friends to make this known to 
neighbors and friends. 
* 
As stated last week, the Committee on Agriculture 
will recommend that the free seed distribution be given 
up. The fight will come in the House of Representatives, 
when Congressmen will fight hard to save this petty 
form of “graft.” There will be no better time to kill 
it off than now. No sound argument can be made in 
favor of this distribution. There are half a dozen solid 
arguments against it. 
* 
The following note seems to require little comment: 
Santa Rosa, California, March 0, 1906. 
Mr. Burbank’s subscription to The Rural New-Yorker 
expires about April 1st I think. Please discontinue. Mr. 
Burbank lias been a subscriber to The Rural New-Yorker 
for 36 years. lutiier burbank. per p. h. o. 
Of course we would like to have Mr. Burbank round 
out a full half century of usefulness as a subscriber. 
Sorry to see a good man deprive himself of the benefit 
of useful and truthful, if unpleasant, advice! 
* 
The loss of trade with China which this country has 
sustained seems to be one of the most unfortunate and 
inexcusable things that has happened in a long time. 
A few years ago Americans had the China trade in their 
hands. It was only necessary to develop it and adapt 
packages and grades of goods to suit the people. Now 
the Chinese have declared a “boycott”—that is, refused 
to buy American goods. The chief reason for this is the 
exclusion of Chinese from this country and the insult¬ 
ing treatment to which educated Chinese have been sub¬ 
jected. This is sure to make trouble for years. 
* 
Last year H. O. Mead wrote for us a strong article 
on the arrogance of auto drivers and the effect upon 
farmers. Now the president of a great university comes 
forward in a magazine article, using Mr. Mead’s lan¬ 
guage almost word for word. No use expressing sur¬ 
prise at such things. The R. N.-Y. is read by all classes 
—from tramps to college presidents. We try to make it 
the fairest and best expression of farm sentiment and 
opinion that goes into print. Naturally articles which 
express such things accurately are copied—generally 
without credit. 
* 
The following note comes to us from Maryland: 
I said to a rural carrier not long ago that I hoped we 
would soon have a parcels post; that it would make the 
rural service more helpful and self-supporting. Said he, 
“The day the Government makes a pack horse out of me, 
that day I resign.” Perhaps the fear of extra work makes 
other post office officials loth to recommend and urge a 
parcels post. Why is it that men will move heaven and 
earth to obtain a position, and then immediately begin an 
agitation to raise the salary and keep the duties down to 
the lowest possible limit? 
The chances are that few tears would be shed if this 
man rfid resign. More likely, however, you could not 
drive him out of his job with a pitchfork. It is come to 
a nice situation when public servants are so afraid of 
work that they will try to hold up a needed reform. 
The carriers are not all of this mind. We know some 
who want a parcels post, knowing that it will make the 
rural routes more necessary and profitable, and thus ad¬ 
vance their own chances. Keep at your Congressman 
and pin him down to a statement of what he will do. 
We seem to have started a discussion in the fol¬ 
lowing: 
On page 196 I come to the paragraph: “Which would 
you bet on to come in ahead, the farmer who will work 
and won’t study, or the farmer who will study but won’t 
work?” 1 Knew a man who always had another fellow 
between him and hard work, but be bad, as his neighbors 
called it “a long head on him"; a thinking fellow; he 
accumulated lots of land and other property, and had 
generally a mortgage on the hardworking farmer's farm; 
he is dead now. IBs son, a hardworking fellow but head¬ 
less, has hard work to make a living and keep intact the 
accumulations of his father. Yes, I would bank on the 
studious farmer. J. H. B. 
Who else thinks that head will beat heels? 
* 
Readers who have asked about “nitro-culture” are re¬ 
ferred to the articles on page 255. It seems that the 
Department of Agriculture now uses tubes for sending 
out the culture, yet they will not say that the dried cot¬ 
ton method has failed. We have criticised officials of 
the Department for permitting exaggerated stories of 
the benefits to come from these cultures to get into 
print. It is fair to say that many of these wild state¬ 
ments have been made by irresponsible reporters who 
make their living preparing such “big stories” for the 
press. As a rule the larger the story the better the 
price, and of course the Department cannot head such 
fellows off. Since the above was written a circular has 
come from the Department which states that there has 
been a slight improvement in the quality of the “cul¬ 
tures” offered for sale. Out of 19 samples tested one 
was called very good, five good, three fair, two poor and 
eight worthless! 
* 
The articles on city farm help present a plain state¬ 
ment of one farmer’s experience. On the whole, we 
think this is more favorable than the average. Without 
doubt there are good men now wandering about the city 
who would be glad to get jobs on farms. It would be 
hard to find them. Most men do not want to leave the 
city. They might be willing to try farm work, but they 
would soon miss their old haunts and become restless. 
At some of the missions here it is claimed that the men 
are not alway well treated in the country. Too much is 
expected of a green man and they feel that people are 
suspicious of them. We have heard people speak of 
the benevolent aspects of the case. In theory it is a 
noble thing to take a man from the city and give him a 
chance to reform—on a farm. The farmer’s family must 
be considered, too, and we should be slow to take a 
strange man who knows the tricks of city life into the 
farm family except for work. 
* 
We still receive letters asking about the culture of 
ginseng. Here is one: 
The case is this. Through the very strong recommenda¬ 
tion of a friend I bought and planted in Pennsylvania 5,000 
roots. I have now moved down here to Virginia and lifted 
and brought roots along. I have heard lately that the 
cultivated roots are not liked by Chinamen as well as wild 
roots and not sought after. I am in a quandary, not 
knowing whether to plant roots here or try to sell them. 
Can you accommodate me with any information? It is a 
serious matter with me. c. w. T. 
We have never grown ginseng as a crop, or tried to 
sell it. It seemed to us from the first that ginseng 
culture was a gamble, with Chinese superstition holding 
all the good cards. At several times we have inter¬ 
viewed dealers who buy the crop here and send it to 
China. Without exception they say that while the Chi¬ 
nese will buy the wild root at a good price, they refuse 
to take the cultivated root. So far as we know there 
has been no change in this situation. The reasons given 
for the failure are that the Chinese ascribe superior 
qualities to the wild root, and that the Japanese and 
Koreans are growing the crop extensively. Some of 
the growers of ginseng are still hopeful. They think the 
Chinese boycott upon American goods has hurt, and 
that dealers are trying to corner the market. Our own 
opinion is that the ginseng “boom” is over, and we 
feel sorry for the hopeful and trusting people who paid 
their hard-earned money for “that which profiteth not.” 
* 
THE CASE OF “DENATURIZED ” ALCOHOL 
As most readers of agricultural papers know, efforts 
are being made to remove the revenue tax of $2.08 per 
gallon from alcohol after it has been “denaturized,” so 
as to be no longer drinkable. This is an important mat¬ 
ter, and we shall give briefly the facts and arguments on 
all sides. The alcohol is to be “denaturized” by adding 
to it wood alcohol—a poison—pyridine, a vile-smelling 
chemical, bone oil, turpentine or other substances. These 
chemicals would make the alcohol poisonous, and so 
offensive in taste and smell that no one will drink it. 
Chemists differ in opinion as to whether such alcohol 
could be refined and made drinkable again. Some say 
no—while others say it could be done by a costly and 
complicated process which would cost more than the 
manufacture of whisky in the first place from corn. 
A fair statement seems to be that the amount of drink¬ 
able alcohol would not be largely increased by this 
“denaturized” product. The benefit to the public is be¬ 
yond question. We must understand that wood alco¬ 
hol is obtained from smoke when charcoal is burned or 
wood is distilled. This wood alcohol is a poison, and ' 
is very dangerous to health. Painters and others who 
handle it freely have lost both sight and hearing. Ow¬ 
ing to the high tax on grain or potato alcohol the wood 
alcohol is used for some purposes, but for many things 
it cannot be used in place of the other. For example in 
heating or lighting the wood alcohol would be offensive 
on account of its smell—which is worse than gasoline. 
Quart for quart, grain alcohol carries more heat or en¬ 
ergy than gasoline—and gives no offensive smell. With 
the tax removed, the alcohol could be sold to compete 
with gasoline, and would in time replace it, and also 
to some extent wood and coal. Every quart of it thus 
used would provide a new use for some farm product— 
such as grain, potatoes or sugar beets. Anything which 
contains starch or sugar could be made into this fuel 
alcohol. Instead, therefore, of depending upon monopo¬ 
lies for coal and oil, farmers would grow in their own 
soil their needed fuel and light. New lamps, stoves and 
motors are being invented which would without doubt 
help to break down various forms of monopoly. 
Again, alcohol is indispensable in chemical industry, 
in the preparation of pure drugs, in making ether and 
chloroform, smokeless powder and in a thousand other 
necessary things. Germany now has a great advantage 
over this country in the manufacture of such articles, 
because the Germans have no tax upon such alcohol. 
Many kinds of chemical industry are prohibited in this 
country because the price of alcohol is so high. With 
the revenue tax removed without doubt such industry 
would be increased. The increased use of alcohol wouid 
to some extent affect the price of potatoes or corn. We 
think the greatest effect would be noticed in years of 
plenty, when the surplus would be made into alcohol 
and stored for future use. This would steady prices 
instead of largely increasing them. In a general way, 
therefore, the removal of the tax would benefit farmers, 
both in providing a new source of fuel and light and 
also a new market for certain crops. It will make 
cheaper drugs and certain other articles, provide labor 
for working people and give a new competition for the 
present monopolies of power, fuel and light. On the 
whole, the public will be benefited industrially by it. 
Who, then, oppose it? The manufacturers of wood 
alcohol are enabled by the present tax to charge exorbi¬ 
tant prices. For example, the wholesale price of grain 
alcohol is given at $2.30 per gallon. The tax is $2.08, 
which leaves the real price at 22 cents. The wholesale 
price of wood alcohol is 70 cents—which would not be 
possible if the tax were removed so that grain alcohol 
could be sold for what it is really worth. The next 
strongest opponent Is the Standard Oil Company. This 
opposition is due to the fact that cheaper fuel alcohol 
will compete with the products of petroleum and go 
part way toward breaking down a monopoly. It will 
thus be seen that the chief opposition comes from those 
to whom the present tax gives a form of privilege or 
monopoly. There is also some opposition from temper¬ 
ance people who oppose anything that will increase the 
manufacture of intoxicants. It seems to us, however, 
that the manufacture can be supervised so that the good 
will greatly out-balance the evil. 
BREVITIES. 
“Mapes, the hen man,” will have his say again next week. 
We use pure white lead and oil for painting the stubs on 
pruned trees. 
Now that the apple supply is running short, read the 
articles on keeping apples at home. 
No practical farmer can succeed when the entire spirit 
of the family is for fun and easy living. 
“We live in an age of chemical terror,” said Representa¬ 
tive Murdock at a hearing on free alcohol. 
An Ohio reader says lie owes The R. N.-Y. 52 big hugs 
each year. Nothing like getting close to the people. 
Don’t try many new methods of culture like Clark gras's 
or Stringfellow fruit culture unless you are able to stand up 
and smile at criticism. 
Now, can’t you try this year to crowd the manure a little 
closer, try to grow more on fewer acres, and sow some such 
crop as cow peas on the poorer soil? 
The Georgia Experiment Station concludes after consid¬ 
erable experiment that, the “nitro-culture” for the cow pea 
is not needed on most of the soils of that State. 
Skunks are said to kill chickens. IIow then was the 
“chicken taste” taken out of those shown at Fig. 108, page 
254. They are stuffed—the most practical way of curing 
bad habits in some things. 
As you grow older try to pick up some of the enthusiasm 
of youth. It is like connecting a storage battery with a 
fresh dynamo. Use the power not to Imitate youth but 
make it over to enforce the things that go with maturer 
years. 
When note was made of Wm. Ball’s great crop of sugar 
beets we received the following from a Michigan reader: 
“We raise some sugar beets in Michigan. The Lansing 
Sugar Co. gave prizes for the best four acres and the 
best two acres. The best produced less than 15 tons, net, 
of beets. I see on page 139 New York farmers get from 
18 to 28 tons; f/ood land!” For answer we print the 
article by Mr. Ball on page 255. 
