1907. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 465 
THAT LOST JERSEY CATTLE REPORT! 
Papers Do Not Fit the Cows! 
\ 
J. J. Hemingway, secretary of the A. J. C. C., sends 
us a copy of that Investigating Committee’s report. It 
is signed by W. B. Dickinson, Dr. G. A. Dick and E. F. 
Carpenter. The executive committee passed the follow¬ 
ing resolution: 
Kesoi.vku: That we accept and endorse the report of the 
Committee appointed to investigate the charges; 
That we express to the Committee our thanks for Its com¬ 
petent services; 
That, from said report and from the hest information ob¬ 
tainable, through tlie Investigating Committee and other 
sources, as to the transactions, character and standing of 
the parties, in our judgment Dawley has not been guilty of 
substitution, wilful misrepresentation or fraud. 
That we blame Dawley, in the first instance, for not 
furnishing, more fully and promptly, the information to 
which Rogers was entited ; 
That we blame Rogers for his conduct on the 18th day 
of April, lOOfi, when, as we believe, Dawley made an honest 
effort to “straighten the tangle,” and for his attitude on 
April 3 and 4, 1907, when the Investigating Committee made 
repeated and persistent efforts to arrive at the facts. 
Resolved, further: That no transfer of the cow Dotshome 
Harmony be accepted by the Club, and that no progeny from 
said cow be registered, unless said cow shall have been first 
identified to the full satisfaction of the Executive Committee 
of tlie American Jersey Cattle Club. 
This full report would fill about four columns of The 
R. N.-Y. Most of it deals with the business transac¬ 
tions between Dawley and Rogers. We omit that, be¬ 
cause the Committee heard only Dawley’s side, and 
could not therefore present Rogers’ case fairly. Do the 
papers fit the cotvs ? That is the question we have asked 
of the Cattle Club, and we are pleased to give their 
answer. The Committee devote some space to explain¬ 
ing why Mr. Rogers did not present his testimony. This 
is the nut of it! 
At the reassembling of the Committee April 4, 1907, at 
10 o clock a. m., the chairman announced the decision of the 
Committee upon the question of permitting Mr. Rogers to 
have a personal representative present to take minutes of 
the hearing, giving its reasons therefor. Every effort was 
made by the Committee to have Mr. Rogers proceed with the 
hearing and submit his proofs, but he positively refused to do 
so unless he was permitted to have some one present to take 
minutes of the evidence, and upon the refusal of the Com¬ 
mittee to allow any one except its official stenographer to 
take the minutes, Mr. Rogers withdrew from the hearing. 
We deny that statement absolutely. Mr. Rogers was 
willing to go on without any representative if the Com¬ 
mittee would agree to give him a copy of the testimony. 
Even this courtesy was denied him, and his lawyer was 
right in refusing to continue. No lawyer acting in the 
interest of a client could do otherwise. 
Now, as to the papers, Rogers bought 10 head of reg¬ 
istered cattle from Dawley. It was claimed that three 
of them did not correspond with their papers. This is 
what the Committee says about one of them: 
Cow Marked “ 04." 
breeding could not be full sisters, since there was only 
a few months’ difference in their ages. Dr. Barber and 
Mr. Hunt both swore that it would be impossible for 
these cows to be full sisters. Now, here are the notes 
made by Dr. Dick and Mr. Carpenter: 
Cow Marked “59.” 
This is a black Jersey cow, indelibly marked “59” In 
her left ear. Tag in right ear, No. 59. Rings in nose. 
Identified to the Committee by Rogers as Queen Carey, 
and by Dawley as Matilda Naiad. Dawley said he placed 
ring in her nose himself, to prevent her sucking other young 
heiters, and was positive in his identification. When ex¬ 
amined by the Committee April 3 and 4, 1907, at the 
Rogers’ farm, she showed full mouth; corner teeth showed 
no wear; horn tips sawed off. showed no distinct ring, 
informed by Rogers that she dropped heifer calf November 
1G, 190G. 
In the judgment of the Committee this cow is, according 
to her mouth, between four and one-half and five years old. 
From her general appearance, she appears to have grown 
very thrifty, and shows evidence of forcing as testified to 
by Dawley. The forcing would account for the one year’s 
difference in the apparent age, and in the judgment of 
the Committee this animal could be Matilda Naiad. 
Notice that they say the cow could be Matilda Naiad. 
She could be the cow that jumped over the moon as well 
as any other cow, but Mr. Dawley, when he identified 
her, forgot that he had already given her another name. 
On May 17, 1906, Mr. Dawley wrote this to Dr. C. D. 
Smead: 
Dotshome Queen Carey, 193277, Nov. 30, 1901. (She is 
the black cow with the ring in her nose who was in 
asture with the other heifers, and through sucking them 
efore they came fresh brought them to their milk.) 
He has repeated the same statement in other letters, 
and on April 18 picked out this cow as “Queen Carey.” 
There was only one cow with a ring in her nose, and 
Dawley is on record as calling her “Queen Carey.” He 
evidently saw that this black cow did not agree in age, 
as “Queen Carey” is now nearly six years old. 
This cow was not identified by Mr. Rogers as Dot¬ 
shome Queen Carey. What he said was that this cow 
was first represented as Matilda Naiad and that she was 
represented in contract as Dotshome Queen Carey; but 
he has always claimed and still claims that he has never 
had any such cow as Dotshome Queen Carey. 
As for the cow claimed to be a sister of the other, 
there was no dispute about her, and these notes were 
made: 
Cow Marked “56.” 
This Is a black Jersey heifer, indelibly marked “56” 
in her left ear. Right ear tagged No. 56. Identified by 
both Rogers and Dawley as Helen Stanley. When examined 
by the Committee April 3 and 4, 1907. at the Rogers' farm, 
her teeth showed as follows, viz.; Middle incisors, first and 
second lateral incisors and right corner tooth up; left 
corner tooth just broken through ; right corner tooth shows 
no wear. Horn shows one distinct ring. Animal emaciated 
and In very poor condition. 
Told by Rogers that she dropped hull calf January 20, 
1906. 
In the judgment of your Committee, the teeth of this 
cow, “56,” show her to be four and one-half years old, but 
that she could be Dotshome Helen Stanley, as clajmed by 
Mr. Dawley. 
alone. Mr. C. I. Hunt was also present. He tells an¬ 
other story: 
I examined these cows, and I found according to all 
indications, just as Dr. Smead did, that a mistake had 
been made. C met Mr. Dawley at the Rogers place and 
said to him: “Now, Mr. Dawley, you can to five minutes, 
if you so desire, straighten out this tangle by naming these 
cows as you’ come to them,” his only reply being, “You 
show me cows here that I have never seen.” Turning to 
Rogers he said : “If you want trouble go ahead.” 
He also made the following affidavit, which the Com¬ 
mittee seems to have ignored entirely: 
Chester I. Hunt, beiing duly sworn, says that he resides 
at Hunt, N. Y. That on April 17th, 1906, he was at the 
farm of Mr. I. C. Rogers, at Dansville, N. Y., and there met 
Mr. F. E. Dawley. That Mr Rogers and deponent there 
requested Mr. Dawley to identify the cows and tell their 
ages as registered with the A. J". C. C., as he alone could 
straighten out the matter. He refused to do so, and Mr. 
Rogers amd deponent then told him that an impartial in¬ 
vestigation would be requested from the A. J. C. C. unless 
he could identify the cows and make the register papers of 
the A. J. C. C. compare with the cattle both as regards 
age and name. ITe then told deponent that he feared no 
investigation, as he already knew who would be on the 
committee in case an investigation was held. , 
CHESTER I. HUNT. 
The Committee might have had all the facts had it 
been willing to give Mr. Rogers a copy of the testimony. 
As it stands', on Dawley’s testimony alone they have 
demonstrated that the papers did not fit one cow, while 
on their recommendation the A. J. C. C. has stamped as 
bogus an animal which Mr. Dawley sold and transferred 
as a ourebred Jersey. 
EVENTS OF THE WEEK. 
DOMESTIC.—Governor Hughes’s public utilities bill was 
passed by the New York Senate May 22 by a vote of 41 to 
6 . Several amendments were presented by Democrats, but 
were voted down by the Republicans united by the caucus 
rule. The public utilities bill in its final form divides the 
State into two districts—'New York City and the rest of 
the State—and creates for each a commission of five mem¬ 
bers, with salaries at 815,000 a year, a counsel at 810,000 
and a secretary at 86,000. Each commission has authority 
to appoint necessary clerks, inspectors, experts and em¬ 
ployes, and to fix their salaries. An appropriation of 
8150,000 for each commission is provided. The commis¬ 
sioners must be residents of the district for which appointed, 
and must mot hold any official relation to or hold stocks or 
bonds in corporations belonging to the classes over which 
the commissions are to have jurisdiction. The term of 
office is five years, but the terms of office of the commis¬ 
sioners to be first appointed shall expire, respectively, on 
February 1, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913. The 
Governor may remove any commissioner for inefficiency, 
neglect of duty or misconduct in office after giving him a 
copy of the charges and an opportunity to be publicly heard, 
upon not less than 10 days’ notice. If the Governor deter¬ 
mines to remove, he shall file with the Secretary of State 
a complete statement of all charges and his findings- thereon, 
together with a complete record of the proceedings. Sal¬ 
aries and expenses in the first district for others than the 
commissioners, their counsel and secretaries shall he paid 
by the City pf New York. Each commission must make an 
annual public report, with recommendations as to legisla¬ 
tion, and abstracts of reports to it of the corporations 
under its supervision. The act abolishes the present State 
Roard of Railroad Commissioners, the State Commission 
of Gas and Electricity, the inspector of gas meters and 
the Rapid Transit Commission of New York City. By the 
abolishment of the latter board the extremely important 
powers and duties under the present rapid transit act are 
imposed on the commission for the 1st District. . . . 
Joseph T. Cowan, of Dallas, Texas, who was the prime 
mover to getting persons to supply him with money for 
the purpose of pushing the so-called Ilartsfield claim, was 
convicted May 22 of fraudulent use of the mails. Six 
counts in the indictment charged him with using the mails 
to collect money from people supposed to be heirs of the 
TIartsfieJd estate, which he said was in the heart of New 
^ ork City, on the pretext that a clique of capitalists in 
New York had offered him 8225,000,000 for his papers and 
titles, and that only such heirs as contributed would be 
recognized in the settlement of the claim. Cowan was 
first arrested In connection with the case several months 
ago, and gave bond. A few weeks later he attempted to 
commit suicide, but recovered from his wounds. . . Mrs 
McKinley, widow of the late president, died at Canton, O., 
May 26. Mrs. McKinley was Miss Ida Saxton and was the 
daughter of John A. Saxton, a banker of Canton, Ohio, 
and granddaughter of John Saxton, the veteran Ohio 
journalist, who in 1815 established the Ohio Repository. 
Mrs. McKinley was one of three children and was horn 
in Canton in 1847. . . . Thirteen dead. 22 badly Injured, 
nearly half a hundred suffering cuts or bruises and more 
tliam $100,000 worth of propertv destroved is the result 
of tornadoes May 25 in north Texas. The worst of the 
storm was at and near Wills Point where four persons 
were killed, and 19 houses destroyed. At Martins Mills 
three negroes were killed. At Emery, the county seat of 
Rains county, twenty cabins occupied bv negroes were 
blown to pieces. . . . Six men were killed and a score 
were injured by the explosion of an ammonia tank In Ar¬ 
mour & Company’s warehouse No. 10 at the Chicago stock- 
yards May 23. The deadly ammonia fumes penetrated 
every hall and department of the big building and many 
in the path of the gas were overcome. Ambulances from 
the stockyards police station and the fire department were 
hurried to the building and the work of rescue began at 
once. Several times policemen and firemen trving to pene¬ 
trate the interior of the building were themselves overcome 
and had to be carried out by companions. . . . Michi¬ 
gan was in the grasp of the worst May storm ever known 
in the State May 27. After violent rain and lightning 
storms May 25-26, the weather turned cold and in many 
parts of the State heavy snow has fallen. At Sault Ste. 
Marie there were six inches of snow. At Mackinaw the 
snow was driven by a forty-mile gale. Reports from the 
fruit belt are very discouraging, strawberries and fruit trees 
being in full bloom. At Cadillac there was six inches of 
snow, with a 30 degree temperature, and at Grand Rapids 
a typical Winter storm raged all day. Similar reports 
come from Saginaw, Travers City. Owosso, Alpena, Hills¬ 
dale and the whole northern peninsula. . . . Heavy 
frosts were general all over Nebraska May 26. Wheat was 
probably not injured, but rye suffered greatly. The corn is 
uninjured in most fields, as it had not yet sprouted. Market 
gardeners in Douglas County suffered 8200.000 loss. North¬ 
west Missouri was visited by a damaging frost the same 
date. The strawberry crop particularly suffered. The 
weather broke another record at Warsaw, Tnd., May 27. 
when a heavy fall of snow followed a sudden drop in 
temperature. At St. Louis, Mo., May 27. the thermometer 
stood at 42, the coldest May 27 in seventy-one years. 
FARM AND GARDEN.—The South Omaha Live Stock 
Exchange May 24 adopted resolutions in which the members 
agree not to sell heifers and cows to tne pacKlng houses 
in that city until the packers rescind their orders, taking 
effect May 27. to refuse to pay full prices lor came or those 
classes if, after being slaughtered, signs of tuberculosis or 
other diseases are found. Their action is due to the fact 
that the condemnation of this class of cattle is so heavy 
that the loss is too great and the risk too heavy. 
Prof. William R. Hart, of the Nebraska Normal School, 
has been named by the faculty of Amherst College, Am¬ 
herst, Mass., for the head of the new department of agri¬ 
cultural education, to lie established at Amherst with the 
beginning of the Fall term. The department aims to pro¬ 
mote agriculture both as an art and as a science, not only 
in technical schools, but more especially to work for the 
advancement of agriculture to the public schools. 
This animal is a fawn-colored cow, indeliblv marked “04” 
in her left ear. Has no ear tag. She was identified to the 
Committee by Rogers as Dotshome Harmony, and Dawley 
told the Committee that if Dotshome Harmony were in the 
stable he believed her to be this animal. 
When examined by the Committee April 3 and 4, 1907, at 
the Rogers’ farm, she showed full mouth, corners wearing; 
had six molars; middle Incisors not level, well-marked 
grooves on surface; horn tips sawed off; of large growth; 
smooth and distinct ring. Committee was puzzled by the 
horns; didn't know whether there were two rings or one. 
It is stated by Rogers that this cow dropped a heifer 
June 24, 1906, but that calf is dead. 
According to her teeth, this cow is between five and six 
years old, and from the evidence adduced she does not, in 
the judgment of the Committee, correspond to the registry, 
which shows her to have been dropped December 10,‘ 1903. 
Here the papers, do not fit the cows. The Executive 
Committee admit it by refusing to transfer her. Daw¬ 
ley sold and transferred her as a purebred cow, and 
identified her. This report entirely justifies the course 
of The R. N.-Y. . Had we not demanded the investi¬ 
gation a covv which the Committee now admits is im¬ 
properly registered would, with her progeny, have re¬ 
mained on the books of the A. J. C. C. But where is 
the cow that actually fits the papers delivered with 
Dotshome Harmony? She must be masquerading un¬ 
der another pedigree, which does not fit her. Just how 
did this error occur? Who was responsible for it? 
Was it an excusable error or a deliberate deception? 
These are questions that the A. J. C. C. should be able 
to answer by careful examination of Mr. Dawley’s 
books, and other evidence. It will not do to slur over 
this important point. Farmers will want to know how 
this error.of record came about, and who was respon¬ 
sible for it. The A. J. C. C. will be held responsible 
until it has exhausted every means of inquiry, and 
fixed the blame where it belongs. 
Next comes a cow which Dr. Samuel Barber and Mr. 
C. T. Hunt both pronounce eight years old. The Com¬ 
mittee say about her: 
Cow Marked “03.” 
Tliis is the animal called Matilda Naiad by Rogers and 
alleged by him to have beep tagged Kitty d’A., and identi¬ 
fied by Dawley before the Committee, April 3, 1907. as 
Queen Carey. 8 he is Indelibly marked “03” in her loft 
ear. When examined by the Committee April 3 and 4, 
1907, at the Rogers farm, she showed a full mouth; left 
corner tooth showed irritation of the gum and no wear; 
right corner tooth showed wear; middle incisors peculiar 
in the fact that they have a large longitudinal ridge on 
their surface; right middle incisor showed slight groove on 
the left side of the tooth; molars all up; horn shows one 
ring; no tag in ear. 
It is stated by Rogers that she dropped calf December 
4, 1905. This calf was examined by Mr. Carpenter and 
Dr. Dick on the morning of April 4, 1907, and his mouth 
showed eight temporary incisors, showing wear; four 
molars, first permanent molar up. 
In the judgment of your Committee this animal is five 
years old, and is the cow Dotshome Queen Carey, corre¬ 
sponding to the registry papers. 
Dr. Barber has practiced veterinary medicine for over 
25 years. Mr. Hunt has been a breeder of Jersey cattle 
for 12 years. They say this cow is eight years old. As 
we shall see, Mr. Dawley gave the name Queen Carey 
to another cow. 
One claim made by Mr. Rogers was that two young 
cows claimed by Dawley to be of exactly the same 
Dotshome Queen Carey—Dotshome Helen Stanley 
It is extremely difficult, in fact sometimes impossible, to 
tell within a year or a year and a half the age of a cow 
which is from three and a half to five years old. A cow 
carrying a calf may be forced, the calf itself may be forced 
or It may be naturally precocious, like individuals of the 
human race, amd so develop early. It Is not unusual to 
find a cow three and a half or four years old with a full 
mouth, and with teeth and other characteristics of a cow 
of five years; and therefore, taking into consideration the 
testimony of Mr. Dawley that some of these animals were 
forced, it is in the judgment of the Committee quite possible 
for Dotshome Queen Carey and Dotshome Helen Stanley 
to be full sisters. 
Now, Dr. Dick and Mr. Carpenter do not say defi¬ 
nitely that these cows are sisters. They say that one is 
4J4 years, while the other is' A l /> to 5 years. This cor¬ 
responds exactly with what Dr. Barber and M’r. Hunt 
claimed. We have Mr. Dawley on record as claiming 
that the cow with a ring in her nose is “Queen Carey,” 
a six-year-old cow! Now, in the case of “Dotshome 
Harmony” there was no possible way for the Executive 
Committee to dodge the fact that the papers did not fit 
the cows. How eagerly they jump at “quite possible,” 
“could be” and “might be” in their desire to defend the 
purity of their records! Dr. Dick and Mr. Carpenter 
could not remove the doubt from these cows; yet see 
how quickly this Committee runs to give Mr. Dawley 
the benefit of the doubt! 
The Executive Committee in its “resolutions” blame 
Dawley for not sending the papers promptly. This is 
what the Committee said—on Dawley’s evidence alone: 
However whether or not the cattle were all properly 
tagged by Dawley, it is evident from the correspondence 
passing between them that Rogers had confused the cattle 
and was unable to identify them to his satisfaction, amd 
that he lacked the certificates of transfei’, the register 
papers and the necessary information to enable him to do 
so. It appears that lie wrote to Dawley repeatedly for the 
papers and for information in reference to service and the 
coining in of the cows, and that Dawley delayed or wholly 
failed to give this information, and that in consequence 
Rogers found himself in difficulty with a Dansville bank, 
which was to accept the cattle as security in place of the 
engine which Rogers exchanged for the cattle. Rogers was 
entitled to this information, and the irritation caused by 
his failure to get it, was undoubtedly the beginning of this 
controversy. 
Mr. Dawley seems to have a habit of delaying such 
things. We have the record of another case where he 
sold an animal, but would not send the papers even 
after repeated urging—not sending pedigrees at all. 
The Committee also hlames Rogers, the complaint 
being based upon this report: 
Dawley did eventually send most of the papers to Rogers, 
and furnished information in reference to service, but by 
the time he had done so the identity of the cattle had 
become so confused that Rogers seemed unable to identify 
them by the papers, and on or about April 18, 1906, Dawley 
went to Rogers’ farm, accompanied by Dr. Henry Vaii 
Dreser. for the purpose of straightening out the tangle. 
From Dawlev’s testimony, corroborated by that of Dr. Van 
Dresser, we believe that be made an honest effort to identify 
the cattle for Rogers, but that he was prevented from 
doing so by Rogers himself. 
The delays and unsatisfactory answers of Dawlev, under 
the circumstances, were undoubtedly irritating: but'the con¬ 
duct of Rogers, April 18. 1903, when Dawley went to Rogers’ 
farm to identify the cattle, was entirely unjustifiable, and 
we therefore find that the blame for the failure of Dawley 
to identify the cattle should be shared by both. • 
This rests upon the corroboration of Van Dreser 
