190 ( 5 . 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
847 
IS IT A WHITEWASH? 
The American Jersey Cattle Club Challengedl 
From time to time complaint is made that either 
through fraud or carelessness, purebred cattle are sold 
which do not possess the blood or pedigree claimed for 
them in the registry certificate. Such complaints strike 
at the foundation of the purebred cattle business. Any 
suggestion of it, backed up by ordinary facts, ought to be 
investigated at once. As well play with fire in a powder 
magazine as to ignore any fair complaint of fraudulent 
dealings. We make the following statement because it 
seems to us that such fair complaint has been ignored. 
Late in the Fall of 1905 a well-known farmer and 
business man bought a small herd of Jersey cattle from 
a well-known breeder. No names are given at this 
time, though it may be necessary to give them later. 
The men are referred to by us as buyer and breeder. 
The buyer went to the breeder’s farm and selected the 
cows and heifers. The breeder claims that he told the 
buyer the Jerseys were a job lot of stock. He also 
says that he told the buyer all about the animals; their 
defects and their poor qualities. The animals, however, 
were sold as purebred, and certificates of registry in the 
American Jersey Cattle Club were given. The dates 
of birth of all the animals were furnished. 
After keeping the cattle some time, the buyer be¬ 
came suspicious that some of them were not the animals 
described in their certificates of registry. He made 
various demands for adjustment, which, it is claimed, 
the breeder either ignored or refused to satisfy. Finally 
the buyer went to the A. J. C. C., asking for an inves¬ 
tigation. For months no satisfaction was given him, 
and he finally appealed to 
The R. N.-Y. to help him 
get the matter definitely 
before the club. After 
studying his statement and 
charges, we decided that 
the questions of price, the 
terms of sale and pay¬ 
ment, and the condition of 
the animals ought to be 
settled between them¬ 
selves, man and man, be¬ 
ing no concern of ours. 
The charge of false regis¬ 
tration, of substituting 
one animal for another, is 
a different thing. This is 
a public matter, and we 
considered it our duty, in 
the interests of our read¬ 
ers and the public gener¬ 
ally, to ask a full investi¬ 
gation. Briefly stated, the 
charges are that several 
of these cattle are so dif¬ 
ferent in their actual ages 
from the statement of ages 
given by the breeder in 
the certificates, that they 
cannot be the animals, 
which these certificates 
describe. If this be so, it 
is evident that either 
through carelessness or 
fraud, other cattle were substituted for those described 
in the certificates. 
In order to prove his charge, it was necessary for the 
purchaser to establish the exact ages of the animals. 
To do this, he had the cows examined by a number of 
good judges, including two veterinarians and a well- 
known Jersey breeder. This breeder wrote us as 
follows: 
“I am satisfied in my own mind that a mistake has 
been made in the ages of these cattle as registered, 
whether intentional or not I am not prepared to say.” 
* * * * * “It seems to me a question bejween 
Mr. —-, the breeder, and the A. J. C. C. 
I surely hope the A. J. C. C. will make a thorough 
investigation for the benefit of the club. If breeder is 
wrong he should be dealt with; if right, he should be 
cleared of all suspicion.” 
The buyer employed a veterinarian of national repu¬ 
tation to come to his farm, examine the cattle and 
mark their ages. This was done before the veterinar¬ 
ian knew where the cattle came from. He stated that 
one cow was, in his opinion, but three years old, while 
the certificate of registry claimed that she was dropped 
in the Fall of 1901. Another cow registered as being 
dropped in June, 1903, is claimed to be a full sister of 
the cow which the veterinarian pronounced as three 
years old. In other words, the mother of these sisters , 
must have dropped one in June and the other in the 
Fall of the same year. Still another cow registered as 
a two-year-old, dropped in December, 1903, was called 
five years, coming six by the veterinarian. Another 
cow which the breeder claimed was dropped in August, 
1903, was pronounced, at least, seven years old. The 
buyer claims that the breeder came to his farm and 
marked these cows in person. He also claims that other 
good judges of cattle, including farmers and breeders, 
agree that the ages of the cattle are as stated by the 
prominent veterinarian. It will be seen that these are 
definite and serious charges. If these cattle are as old 
as those who have examined them agreed they cannot 
be the ones named in the certificate, or else the certi¬ 
ficate was wrong. 
But what does the breeder say? He insists that the 
cattle are properly registered, and that they are in each 
and every case the animals named in the certificates, 
and the ones selected in person by the buyer. He 
accuses the buyer of falsehood and attempted black¬ 
mail. On the other hand, the buyer makes the very 
serious charge that the breeder boasted that he knew 
who would be appointed by the A. J. C. C. to investi¬ 
gate, if any investigation was made, thus inferring 
that he had the power to influence such investigaton. 
This charge alone openly made ought to be enough to 
compel the A. J. C. C. to investigate at once, because 
its honor and character are impugned. 
After learning who the breeder was the veterinarian 
who examined these animals and gave their ages, 
wrote the breeder, advising him to arbitrate or settle 
the matter. The breeder did not answer this letter. 
The veterinarian then advised the buyer that he would 
write again repeating his advice, and if the breeder 
failed again to answer he would give the buyer a 
written statement as requested. The breeder replied 
to this letter, but insisted that the animals were prop¬ 
erly registered and described. He gave the following ex¬ 
planation as to the cattle: 
This lot of young heifers are a hunch that were kept in 
the barn until they were about 18 months old, and were 
forced just as heavily as we could possibly force them. 
Some of the same lot were sold for show animals, which 
were put out in the ring last Fall. Everyone of them was 
born with from four to eight well-developed teeth and they 
have been precocious and strong, hearty animals. They 
were not bred as early as we have usually bred our heifers, 
as I was anxious to try the fad of growing them and 
developing them to come in when about 30 months old, but 
the experiment so far as these animals were concerned did 
not turn out well, and, as I say, they were sold as a job lot. 
To this the veterinarian replied as follows: 
Your explanation of the pushing of these heifers hard 
in early life will account for the early shedding and 
development of their teeth. I, therefore, see no material 
difference in your statement and my opinion regarding ages. 
This was said in spite of the fact that he had just 
found a difference of three years in some of these 
cattle as compared with their registry certificate. 
Later the breeder expressed a willingness to arbi¬ 
trate, but the buyer now declined and made complaint 
to the Secretary of the A. J. C. C. There were long 
delays, and we were asked to help bring about an in¬ 
vestigation. One of the cows in question in the mean¬ 
time became diseased, and is liable to die before the 
matter can be settled, thus destroying part of the evi¬ 
dence. In response to our letters and personal inter¬ 
view the secretary of the club assured us that as soon 
as possible the executive committee would make a 
thorough and impartial investigation. We were in¬ 
formed by the secretary # that charges were presented 
by the buyer in proper shape with affidavit. This 
affidavit presented statement regarding his cows, giv¬ 
ing the ages claimed by the breeder and the opinion of 
the veterinarian regarding the same animals. Having 
been assured by the Secretary of the A. J. C. C. that 
a thorough and impartial investigation would be made, 
we took his word for it and waited patiently for sev¬ 
eral months. Judge of our astonishment when after 
dallying over six months the executive committee re¬ 
fused to investigate the charges. The excuse offered 
is that the buyer’s charges were not corroborated, 
while the statement of the breeder was. The buyer sent 
a statement, which was accepted by the secretary as 
“proper,” and no request made for anything further. 
We have given an exact statement of the case, with¬ 
out argument or prejudice. Needless to say we are 
not satisfied with the action of the executive committee 
of the A. J. C. C. and we intend to find out if the rank 
and file of Jersey breeders are willing that serious 
charges of this sort are to be brushed away in this 
manner. We do not think they are. If we were in the 
place of this breeder, we would not rest over night 
until the most complete investigation was demanded 
and made, for no whitewash can ever entirely take out 
the taint of suspicion. The buyer of these cattle is to 
become a breeder of Jerseys. If, as is charged, this 
man is guilty of falsehood or attempted blackmail, the 
public should be warned against him. He will become 
a menace to the Jersey breeding industry otherwise. 
In either event the executive committee of the A. J. 
C. C. has dodged the issue and is either whitewashing 
a mistake or a fraud, or, on the other hand, is letting 
a worse offender go unpunished. The cattle are plainly 
marked. Let a committee of reliable and honorable 
experts go and tell their ages. The A. J. C. C. owe this 
to their members. They owe it to one or other or 
both of the men accusing each other. They owe it to 
the correctness and integrity of their records. But 
above all, they owe it to 
the honest farmers and 
breeders, who, relying on 
the accuracy of these ped¬ 
igrees, pay big prices for 
the animals described in 
them. It is in the interest 
of such farmers and 
breeders that The R. 
N.-Y. asked for a full and 
impartial investigation. It 
is in their interest that we 
now repeat that demand. 
We believe that every 
honest American breeder 
will join in this demand, 
and none with more 
promptness and insistance 
than the great army of 
men who breed Jersey 
cattle, and who have their 
best interests at heart. 
PAPER ROOFING. 
Mapes, the hen man, 
evidently means to put a 
good roof on that hen. 
barn. That is, compara - 
tively good, for that is the 
way we must study the 
roof matter. I put on a 
two-ply tar paper roof on 
a building six years ago, 
and it was all repapered 
this Summer by me, the south side having the 
third layer in that time. I found that a two- 
ply paper would separate under the heat of the 
sun in Summer, and that injured the roof very much. 
Then tar paper soon rots, as the sun and weather 
soon destroy it. This time I put on a single felt 
paper that is saturated with asphaltum, and it seems 
likely to wear well—if I keep it painted. But there is 
good and poor asphaltum, and even the best will not 
stand the weather well. I made a comparison of the 
cost of roofing here, with the following result: Tin, 
six cents per foot, under side only painted, and laid, 
$7.68; best shingles, eight inches to weather, 18 inches 
long, $10; paper, $4.50. Tin is not worth considering, 
as it is so poorly made, and will rot in a very short 
time, even if kept painted. Paper is a good makeshift, 
as it was with me, for the dollars were scarce. If 
you do use a paper for the roof, see that you have a 
perfectly solid boarding beneath it, for if there be 
anv holes or cracks the roof will ndt last as long as it 
will under the best conditions. That was the trouble 
with the roof that I have just repapered; it was laid 
on old boards; I did not know better then. I have a 
porch roof on the north side of the house that I laid 
with the two-ply paper, and it is apparently perfect 
after three years of service; I will now paint it, not 
with tar. but with oxide of iron and linseed oil paint. 
I don’t know how it will wear then, but will see later. 
I have just built a henhouse and papered it with the 
asphaltum paper that I have mentioned, on hemlock 
boards. I shall paint it in the Spring. I think that 
the best paper roofing might be made with linseed oil 
as the medium for saturating the same, but this of 
course would be very much more expensive than tar or 
asphalt. My advice is to lay as good a shingle roof as 
possible, if you can spare the money, but otherwise 
lay a good single-thick paper, hoping that before it 
wears out your finances will allow you to renew it 
with shingles. a. K. 
Chester Co.. Pa. 
