1906. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
7oi 
A CORRESPONDENCE WITH JAMES W. 
WADSWORTH. 
Mr. Wadsworth Asks for Justice. 
GbKeSEO, N. Y., August 21, 1006. 
Herbert IV. Collingwood, The “Rural New-Yorker.” 
Dear Sir: My attention lias just been palled to the en¬ 
closed clipping from The Rural New-Yorker of August 
4. 1006: 
“The two men who did most to defeat President Roose¬ 
velt’s call for a strong meat inspection bill are Congress¬ 
men Wadsworth, of New York, and Lorimer, of Illinois. 
Mr. Wadsworth thinks he can afford to snap his fingers at 
opposition, but Mr. Lorimer is hearing straight talk. A 
name recently applied to him is ‘butterinski.’ This refers 
to a habit of butting in where he is not wanted, and to his 
record on oleo and butterine legislation. The name is so good 
a fit for Mr. Wadsworth that he might well put it on." 
This statement on your part does me a great injustice, and 
I am sure, as a fair man, you will publish my statement, and 
the one made by Speaker Cannon (both enclosed) In answer 
to it. If these statements do not convince you as to what 
my exact position was in regard to the meat inspection hill 
I beg that you will refer them to President Roosevelt him¬ 
self for confirmation or refutation. 
Further along in your paper of the same date I find the 
following: 
“We are informed that James W. Wadsworth says that 
he doesn't care whether the Granges and farmers’ clubs in 
his district support him or not. lie says he is sure of a 
renomination, and once nominated not 100 farmers would 
ever cut the ticket. That, in substance, is what comes to 
us. It seems reasonable in view of the arrogant, lordly air 
of the man on former occasions. But what an insult that 
is to the farmers who have been sending Mr. Wadsworth to 
Congress! If they were sheep and cattle they would lie 
credited with a little more character. Possibly Mr. Wads¬ 
worth did not say these things, though they sound like him. 
If he did we have still another reason why he should be left 
at home.” 
In answer to this I wish to say the information upon which 
this Is based is absolutely unreliable. I and my forefathers 
have, for over one hundred years, lived among the farmers 
of western New York and they have sent me to Congress for 
20 years. My interests have been, and are, purely agricul¬ 
tural, and I do not think you can get any of my constituents 
to say that I am arrogant and overbearing, or that I have 
not looked after and guarded, to the best of my ability, the 
great agricultural industries of the whole country. As 
chairman of the Agricultural Committee of the House of 
Representatives for 10 years it is not for me to favor one 
agricultural industry to the Injury of another. 
Yours very truly, J. w. wadsworth. 
Does He Not Receive It? 
lion. .las. W. Wadsworth, Geneseo, N. Y. 
Dear Sir: I have your letter of August 21st. It would 
he a source of regret to us to think that The It. N.-Y. has 
been unjust to anyone, and it would be a pleasure to us to 
wipe any such injustice out. I have read the circulars you 
sent, and would willingly print them if they touched the real 
issue. In my judgment they do not strike the vital part of 
the question. These statements merely give reason to show 
that the meat inspection hill finally passed by the House was 
superior to the one first passed by the Senate. This is not 
the issue at all, but the thing that concerns us is your own 
connection with this bill and the influence you brought to 
bear upon it. You will agree with me that your statement 
does not cover this vital point, except in the most indirect 
way. I think we can touch the point in a simpler and more 
direct way in the following manner. 
We have obtained from a thoroughly reliable source much 
of the inside history of this Inspection bill. Permit me to 
give you a brief outline of what is recorded to us. Your 
statement appears to me much like the hands which travel 
around the face of the clock. I prefer to deal with the 
works behind the face, which are responsible for the move¬ 
ment. After reading this statement 1 will ask you to point 
out its injustice to you. 
It seems to be admitted by all that Mr. Lorimer of Illi¬ 
nois acted in the interests of the packers. He represented 
his district, and did not particularly concern himself regard¬ 
ing the desires of consumers. I am informed that when the 
question first came up you, without consulting the other 
members of the Committee, framed a bill yourself, which 
you finally submitted. This bill never received serious con¬ 
sideration, but I assume that it embodied your views. Will 
you send me a copy of this bill, that it may be compared 
with the one finally passed? This will show how your views 
were changed or modified. I am informed that but for you 
a serious controversy with the President would never have 
occurred. That seems to be admitted by the majority of 
those who know the facts. It seems idle to deny that several 
strong political and other interests distrusted you because 
of your previous record on the oleo question and your efforts 
to fight a former appropriation for meat inspection. Is it not 
a fact that this suspicion finally reached a point when you 
and Congressman Ixu-imer were plainly told by a member 
of your Committee that if you tried to “monkey” with that 
hill you would be buried by the Committee, by the House and 
by the country? You recognized the truth of this statement 
and let the bill alone. 
A bill finally came from your Committee, which you in¬ 
dorsed, but which drew from President Roosevelt about the 
worst rebuke known in Washington for years. You appar¬ 
ently made no effort whatever to strengthen the bill and 
amend it so as to meet the President's wishes. Had you 
been left in charge of the matter it is evident that there 
would have l>een no legislation, or else a measure which the 
President would sign and then severely criticise. This would 
have ruined any meat inspection bill, and it seems to be the 
general opinion at Washington that you were willing to let 
this come to pass. I am informed that at this crisis you 
left Washington. While you were gone. Congressman Adams> 
of Wisconsin, a member of your Committee, seeing the great 
dancer, and without help or hint from you, went to Speaker 
Cannon on Sunday afternoon and in a three hours’ talk made 
the situation clear to him. As a result of this Mr. Cannon 
went at once to the White House and asked the President 
to send for Mr. Adams, not for you. The President then 
learned the exact condition of affairs in your Committee;, 
some things he did not know before. The result was that 
Mr. Adams went over the bill with the President and rep¬ 
resentatives of the Agricultural Department until they finally 
agreed upon suitable amendments. All this time you were 
absent. W hen you came back and learned what had been 
done you were furious. You at first declared that you would 
have nothing to do with the changed bill, but after a lively 
interview with Speaker Cannon you, as is reported, were 
“brought into line." 
At the suggestion of Mr. Adams the bill which you re¬ 
ported was then recalled. Mr. Cannon and Mr. Adams took 
the new bill to the White House and to the Agricultural De¬ 
partment. They satisfied the President and Secretary Wil¬ 
son, and then went back to your Committee, to whom Speaker 
Cannon gave a personal address. The bill was reported and 
passed by the House at once, not so much through your 
efforts, but rather in spite of them. So, in brief, this is a 
part of the history reported to us. I will ask you to tell us 
what portion of it is incorrect. As it stands wherein have 
we done any injustice? 
It was reported to us. on what we consider good authority’ 
that you made uncomplimentary remarks about Granges, and 
farmers’ clubs. I observe that you do not positively deny 
it, but merely say the information is absolutely unreliable. 
Will you go further and say that it is absolutely false? If 
you were to make a positive denial we will gladly print it. 
It seems to be evident that the members of farm organiza¬ 
tions in your district, who evidently know you well, are op¬ 
posed to you and to your work in Congress. You have evi¬ 
dently given them offence in some way. Every day brings 
us letters from ybur constituents, which demonstrate this. 
The complaints against you may be briefly classified as fol¬ 
lows : 
You conduct or maintain a political machine composed 
largely of office holders and personal friends, which prevents 
liberty of political expression. It is strongly claimed by 
good men in all parts of your district that in a fair primary 
election or a free convention held to-day you could not 
possibly be renominated. Your record on the oleo legisla¬ 
tion is evidently opposed by a large majority of the farm¬ 
ers in your district, also your record on meat Inspection. 
It is also claimed that you oppose Federal aid to road im¬ 
provement and also the much needed parcels post. The 
people are supposed to support you in order to obtain what 
they want, not what you think they want or ought to have. 
If you oppose the things they desire they have a right to 
vote against you, provided the political machine will enable 
them to do so. 
You were never asked to injure anyone or any business 
when demand was made for a rigid inspection law. It is 
evident that if matters were left to you we should not have 
had such a law, which would have meant injustice to mil¬ 
lions of consumers. Possibly you refer to your action upon 
oleo legislation. In this case you will never be able to con¬ 
vince the dairymen of this country that you did not favor an 
essentially dishonest business at the expense of an honest one. 
That is the way dairymen throughout America regard your 
action. The Supreme Court has settled the legality of the 
matter, and common sense has settled the business part of it. 
both against the views you held at the time. I find a general 
expression of opinion among many leading farmers through¬ 
out the country that you are and have been fundamentally 
wrong with reference to agricultural legislation. It is felt 
that you do not believe that the Government should foster 
agriculture through the Agricultural Department or In other 
ways, and that you have opposed wise and needed appropria¬ 
tions like those for meat inspection. Our correspondence con¬ 
vinces me that leading men in many States subscribe to these 
views, and do not feel that you represent them fairly in Con¬ 
gress. This is our excuse for coming into this contest.'As chair¬ 
man of the Agricultural Committee you have become, in a 
way, a “National character,” and we are firmly convinced 
that the great majority of farmers throughout the country, 
at least those who give any attention to the subject, are 
not satisfied with your record and distrust you in view of 
your work in the past. I have replied to your letter frank¬ 
ly and I think you will agree with me that an expression of 
your opinion on these points will be of far more interest 
than your general statement ever could be. 
Yours very truly, Herbert w. COLLingwood 
Editor The R. N.-Y. 
’WINCHESTER 
REPEATING SHOTGUNS 
are strong shooters, strongly made and 
» 
so inexpensive that you won’t be afraid 
to use one in any kind of weather. 
They are made io, 12 and 16 gauge. 
A FAVORITE OF AMERICAN SPORTSMEN 
Sold Everywhere. 
Save Time. Labor and Monev 
Tills No. 3 Pennsylvania Thresher and Cleaner and Roller Bearing 
Level Tread Power is the best individual outfit for threshing rye, barley, i 
oats, flax, rice, alfalfa, millet, sorghum, timothy, etc. Will thresh and clean 100 to liO 
bushels of wheat per day. Also made in two and three horse sizes. Power can be used 1 
for cutting ensilage and dry feed, shelling all kinds of grain, to run the saw, green bone 
cutter, pump water, separate cream, churn, etc. Also make lever powers, Feed and Fn* 
silageCutters.Grlnders,Saws,etc. Heebner A Sons, 22 Broud St., I.ansdale, Pn. 
1, o GOG O t ,«J G O G O G OGO G O G O G O G O G «S 
,'GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOG 
o o O G O G O G OG OGOG OGOf 
s* *> r *v 0 't f 't r "i t* 10 -i c* •vc'*, ^ 
A Never Failing Water Supply, 
with absolute safety, at small cost may be had by using the 
Improved Rider Hot Air Pumping Engine and 
Improved Ericsson Hot Air Pumping Engine. 
Built by us for more than 30 years and sold in every country in the world. Exclu¬ 
sively intended for pumping water. May be run by any ignorant boy or woman. 
So well built that their durability is yet to be determined, engines which were sold 
30 years ago being still in active service. 
Send stamp for “04” Catalogue to nearest office. 
RIDER-ERICSSON ENGINE CO., 
35 Warren St., New York. 239 Franklin St., Boston. 
40 Dearborn St., Chicago. 234 Craig St., West, Montreal, P. 
40 North 7 th St., Philadelphia. 22 Pitt St., Sydney, N. S. W. 
Amargura 96, Havana, Cuba. 
Will You Let Us Send You a Sta=Rite 
Gasoline Engine on 30 Days’ Free Trial|? 
3£ 
Y ES, —we mean just exactly that, no more, 
no less; a BIG chance to try before you 
buy the best gasoline engine ever offered 
at the lowest price ever made for an en¬ 
gine of equal merit and quality. 
This is no ordinary opportunity, because the 
“Sta-Rite” is no ordinary engine, and the terms 
are such that you simply CAN’T refuse them, 
if you are in the market for the best form of 
farm power. 
We make no claims for the “Sta-Rite” that we 
do not PROVE. We stand ready to show YOU 
that this engine is the simplest, most economical 
and reliable engine on the market to-day. 
“Simplest” means fewest working parts; that, 
we can prove to you the first time you examine 
the “Sta-Rite” Engine. It is the most econom¬ 
ical because it is the simplest in construction, 
requires practically no expense for repairs, which 
are frequently necessary to keep the complicated 
sort of engines in good working order. 
The “Sta-Rite” saves fuel. It uses less fuel 
for the same amount of work than ANY engine 
on earth. We give you a positive, iron-clad guar¬ 
antee on this point. Worth having—isn't itT 
Three competing engines of standard make 
recently did tne same kind of work (ensilage cut¬ 
ting) for two days in the same field, under iden¬ 
tical conditions. One engine consumed 25 gallons 
of gasoline; another, 21 gallons; the "Sta-Rite,” 
only 11 gallons. 
How’s that for practical proof, Mr. Farmer? 
Reliability? Well, there’s just one right way 
Write for Our Free 
to settle that question; ask any one who has 
actually USED a “Sta-Rite” engine long enough 
to make his experience valuable. An ounce of 
PRACTICE is worth a ton of theory, we think 
when it comes to figuring on what a machine will 
or will not do. 
So, write us and we will send you a big list of 
people who KNOW what the "Sta-Rite” has done. 
* * * 
Now, remember, Mr. Farmer, that you can try 
a "Sta-Rite” engine BEFORE you buy. 
This is the only engine sold on such a wide 
open, liberal free trial plan. 
We can afford to make this offer because experi¬ 
ence lias PROVED that the “Sta-Rite” will meet 
every demand made upon it,and fully justify our 
unlimited confidence in its merits. 
So, let us send you one to test for thirty days 
in your own work under actual conditions as you 
find them on your premises. 
You will have nothing to pay, no notes to sign, 
no obligations of any kind except to give the 
"Sta-Rite” a fair trial for one month. 
If you want the best farm power ever invented; 
if you value an engine that will ALWAYS be in 
perfect working order, if you believe that economy 
of operation and absolute dependability are tilings 
worth having in an engine, take our advice and 
investigate the "Sta-Rite.” Do it to-day! 
There’s no time like NOW to begin looking into 
the things that will better our condition,—save us 
time, work and worry, as the ‘‘Sta-Rite” engine 
is guaranteed to do. 
OG 
->G 
Catalogue To-day. 
DREW ELEVATED CARRIER CO., 
Main Office, 128 Monroe St., WATERLOO, WIS. ; 
Eastern Branch, Rome, N. Y. Facftory, Racine, Wis. 
. AGOG AGOG AGd'Gd'GAG AGUGOGA' 'G^gOG-'GOG-'G »' G G d JG J G d G »'G d G »> G G G O G G O G «> G G G G O G O ' 'GAG.V 'G.V.OG J'.JGdG JGdf-d' ,'G«.'G~,'G« 
OG 
«>G 
