1906. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 5o3 
FARMERS AND THE RETAIL TRADE. 
A Needful Amendment in Minnesota. 
GROCERS AGAINST FARMERS.—I am very 
much pleased at your interest in the matter of the bill 
allowing farmers and gardeners the privilege and right 
to sell their produce, grown by themselves, wherever 
they pleased, without paying a license therefor. 'I he 
whole trouble originated with the Retail Grocers’ Asso¬ 
ciation of this State, who have always opposed the pro¬ 
ducer peddling or selling direct to the consumer. 1 he 
Grocers’ Association has been in existence here for over 
20 years, and I have been informed that 
the National Association had its origin 
here. They have been successful in shap¬ 
ing legislation beneficial to themselves, 
and, like a great many other organizations 
of business and laboring men, get so they 
want everything in sight. Many years 
ago the legislature of this State passed a 
law forbidding class legislation of any 
kind. Some smart attorney for the gro¬ 
cers discovered that a license imposed on 
anyone for the privilege of peddling would 
cover all classes peddling. Consequently 
at the instigation of the grocers, the in¬ 
spectors began making arrests of farmers 
for selling their produce in that manner. 
Like your people, we maintained that as 
we produced the stuff we sold, and only 
sold what we grew ourselves, we had a 
right to sell as we pleased. There were 
a number of arrests made in the Summer 
of 1903, but no organized resistance was 
made until the latter part of September of 
that year. On the 22d of that month a 
Mr. Jenson of this place brought a load of 
70 bushels of cantaloupe melons on the 
market, staying from early in the morn¬ 
ing till 1 P. M., during that time only sell¬ 
ing six baskets. This was at the time of a 
glut in the melon market. At one o’clock 
he started for home, selling his melons 
from house to house, and bringing them 
direct to the consumer. They sold fast, 
but lie had not proceeded far when he was 
arrested, taken before the municipal court and found 
guilty of peddling without a license. He obtained a 
stay of proceedings, and I issued a call for a meeting 
of farmers and gardeners, with the result that we raised 
over $320. We hired a lawyer, and appealed the case 
to the Supreme Court of the State. In a few months 
we got a decision against us and sustaining the lower 
court. I have been told that some of the leading gro¬ 
cers were very much elated at the outcome, and said 
they had us just where they wanted us. The same 
Spring of 1904 the grocers brought pressure to bear 
on the city council, raising the license to $50 a year. 
They wanted it $100. The 
same thing took place in St. 
Paul. This license is called 
a police regulation, putting 
the tillers of the soil in the 
same class with saloons and 
other shady kinds of busi¬ 
ness. Minneapolis and St. 
Paul have market places; 
I think they arc the only 
towns in the State having 
them. The regular garden¬ 
er does not wish to make a 
regular thing of peddling, 
but in a time of a glut they 
want that privilege if they 
wish, and they do not like 
the idea of a few grocers 
regulating the business of 
the thousands of farmers 
in the State. 
“CLASS LEGISLA¬ 
TION.”—Alvin Rowe, a 
market gardener of St. 
Paul and member of the 
Gardeners’ Association of 
that city, concluded to run 
for the Legislature, and if 
possible help straighten the 
peddler matter out. He was 
elected all right, taking his seat in the lower house at 
the beginning of the season of 1905. We all had the 
idea that all that would be necessary would be a straight 
bill forbidding imposing any license on producers sell¬ 
ing their own stuff. But we soon ran against the class 
legislation law, and it was said that if it would be pos¬ 
sible to pass such a bill it would stop the licensing of 
any peddling of any kind. Of course that would be op¬ 
posed by all cities, and never could have been passed, 
so the bill was withdrawn. That was the time the presi ¬ 
dent of the State Grocers’ Association, at a meeting, 
congratulated the members of the Association on their 
supposed victory. During this time we had good legal 
advice. Our attorney advised us to bring a bill before 
the Legislature proposing an Amendment to the State 
Constitution to be submitted to the people at the next 
general election next November. Mr. Rowe accord¬ 
ingly introduced the bill. He was successful in getting 
it passed, but only after a stubborn fight in the lower 
house. It was referred to the judiciary committee, 
who, for reasons best known to themselves, held on to 
it for weeks, trying to get it changed, so that if it had 
passed it would not have been worth the paper it was 
written on. For instance, one of the changes made was 
this: The bill read: “Any person may sell or peddle 
the products of the farm or garden occupied and culti¬ 
vated by him without restrictions.” This looked all 
right on the face of it, and Mr. Rowe was so advised 
by several attorneys who were members of that com¬ 
mittee. The bill was submitted to our attorney, who 
said it looked all right, but was all wrong, as if we 
attempted to have anything like that passed they would 
raise the cry that we could sell anything, good or bad, 
without inspection, and they would have killed it at the 
polls. The assistant attorney general said the same thing, 
but after holding it to within a few days of the ad¬ 
journment of the Legislature Mr. Rowe got it before 
the house, where it passed with a good majority. It 
passed the Senate unanimously under suspension of 
the rules the last day of the session. In voting on an 
amendment it must have a majority of the votes cast 
to pass, which is one reason so many amendments to the 
constitution are lost, as so many vote who do not vote 
on the amendment, and of course are counted against it. 
Some of the village councils are beginning to “catch on” 
to what they can do under the present conditions, such 
as the village of Degrafif, which imposes a fine or license 
of $10 a day for anyone selling dressed meat to con¬ 
sumers. They are not even allowed to rent a tempor¬ 
ary place, but must be regularly in the business. 
POOR BUSINESS POLICY.—Minnesota is strictly 
an agricultural State. All other business depends on 
the prosperity of her farmers. Such tactics are mighty 
short-sighted policy for any State to pursue. Since the 
bill has passed the Legislature the grocers have kept 
very quiet, their hope is that we will not obtain a ma¬ 
jority of the vote. We would welcome a controversy 
in the papers; it will enlighten the public as to the situ¬ 
ation. I have written every paper in the State, inclos¬ 
ing circulars, asking them to publish them. Some of 
them have done so. We are also getting 
a list of all the supervisors and town 
clerks in the State, intending to send them 
posters calling attention to the matter. 
We intend to make a campaign in the twin 
cities just before election, calling the con¬ 
sumers’ attention to the matter. This is 
new business for us; we do not have any 
funds to work with, only what we raise by 
subscription, and so many are willing for 
the other fellow to go ahead while they 
hold back. I think that the idea of the 
Grocers’ Association is to have this thing 
extend over the whole country. During 
the session of the Legislature the National 
Association was in session, I think in In¬ 
diana; they sent word to their friends to 
kill the bill at all costs. It is a strange 
thing that the farmers of this country do 
not wake up; if they hung together in 
such matters they could do as they pleased. 
So far it has only been men selling vege¬ 
tables, fruit and meat that have been af¬ 
fected, but if the matter is not checked 
everything produced on a farm will be in¬ 
cluded, butter, eggs, etc. N. H. reeves. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
PLANTS POISONING GROUND. 
We are often asked if buckwheat will 
not “poison” the ground for potatoes, so 
that the latter crop will not thrive. We 
think that as buckwheat and potatoes are 
both heavy feeders on potash the cause of 
failure in the potatoes may be because the buckwheat 
took nearly all the available potash in the soil. A reader 
questions this explanation, and refers us to the Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture. In reply to questions Prof. Mil- 
ton Whitney writes us: 
“This Bureau has made a number of investigations in 
which it was shown beyond reasonable doubt that plants, 
or at least some plants, do excrete organic material 
which is poisonous to the plants themselves. Whether 
or not this excreted material would be poisonous for 
any other crop we are not at the present time able to 
state, as our investigations have not gone sufficiently far 
in that direction. In so far 
as our studies have gone 
it would appear that the ex¬ 
creta from one plant is not, 
as a rule, inimical to the 
growth of an entirely differ¬ 
ent species. Moreover, there 
is evidence that noxious or 
toxic substances sometimes 
accumulate in detrimental 
amounts in the soil other¬ 
wise than from plant ex¬ 
creta, for instance through 
bacterial agencies, induced 
by special conditions in the 
soil. As we have made no 
studies on the relation of 
potatoes to buckwheat, the 
specific case raised in your 
letter, wc are not in a posi¬ 
tion to say whether or not 
these ideas apply to this 
particular case. Neither are 
we able to deny the valid¬ 
ity of the explanation which 
you have advanced, namely, 
that the buckwheat on ac¬ 
count of its being a heavy 
consumer of potash, has 
taken all of the available 
potash out of the soil, leaving none for a crop of po¬ 
tatoes. We do not, however, think the explanation 
is entirely satisfactory, since it has been repeatedly found 
in our studies that when a soil has been leached of pot¬ 
ash, either by percolating water through it or by 
growing plants in it, the concentration of the soil mois¬ 
ture very soon returns to its original concentration, when 
the soil is allowed to stand. I would repeat, therefore, 
that it is impracticable for us to offer a positive opinion 
concerning this case of potatoes following buckwheat, 
and we would not undertake to do so without making a 
special investigation.” milton whitney. 
Chief of Bureau. 
A NEW HAMPSHIRE PEACH ORCHARD. Fig. 204. 
THE POULTRY BUSINESS AMONG THE ROCKS. Fig. 205. 
