1908. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
31 
TRUTH FOR THE COUNTRY GENTLEMAN. 
“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn 
me; If I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me per¬ 
verse.” Job, ix : 20. 
Our genial friend, Brother Tucker, of The Country 
Gentleman, breaks out once more in calling our well 
meant remarks “A Silly Lie.” We might envy the 
learning of one able to make such fine distinctions 
with adjectives, but the pitiable position of a man 
who has no other argument is not one to be desired. 
This is what Bro. Tucker calls “another untruth.” 
“ . . . That The Country Gentleman has dis¬ 
couraged thorough investigation of any charges against 
him.” ( Dawley). 
When The Country Gentleman gets cold Bro. 
Tucker seems to forget what he has written. Over a 
year ago he said: 
AVe printed two weeks ago in this department the official 
reply of the American Jersey Cattle Club to certain charges 
against that body that were unadvisedly admitted to the 
columns of Tub Rural New-Yorker; and thought the 
matter might as well be allowed to drop. But the breeding 
fraternity is very generally of a different opinion, resenting 
strongly what is'regarded as an attack on the whole indus¬ 
try. The resolutions adopted at the annual meeting of 
tin' New York State Breeders’ Association last week, and 
given in another column of this issue, are only a mild ex¬ 
pression of the feeling that prevails. It seems to us that too 
much is made of the matter, much more than its import¬ 
ance deserves—that is to say, its importance to the breed¬ 
ers. Our esteemed contemporary, unfamiliar with the sub¬ 
ject, has been tricked and misled into assuming a position 
of hostility to the interests of the purebred live-stock indus¬ 
try as a whole; but you know what Stephenson said when 
somebody asked him what would happen if a cow got in the 
way of his newfangled railroad train. lie did not appre¬ 
hend any very great damage—to the train ! Everybody 
would be sorry to see so good a paper as The Rural New- 
Yorker undertake the role of the cow. 
It doesn’t need an interpreter to show that here Bro. 
Tucker discouraged a thorough investigation. He 
advised all concerned to drop the case. He felt sure 
at that time that a poor, friendless man like Mr. 
Rogers had been laughed and crushed out of business. 
You couldn’t get Bro. Tucker within a mile of any 
righteous principle with a friendless man tied to it. 
It was very kind of our good brother to pat The 
R. N.-Y. on the head and say: “Now, be nice, little 
boys, and run home and play before you are hurt. 
This is a man’s game—no little boys are wanted!” 
We recently called upon the politicians of the Breed¬ 
ers’ Association to pass another “resolution.” They 
proved as meek as Moses—and yet far wiser than 
Tucker—for they kept quiet. But then Bro. Tucker 
was in a worse plight, for he evidently thought the 
Jersey breeders would cover up a fraud, and he stood 
ready to defend such action. He learned later that 
honest breeders repudiated his defense of dishonest 
methods. 
Then on January 24 our good brother again said: 
“There was and is absolutely nothing to investigate.” 
There is straight and clear cut opposition to an in¬ 
vestigation. It was so clear that it put the A. J. C. C. 
in a most embarrassing position, for they had never 
said any such thing. 
Bro. Tucker has also made personal appeals and 
scolding protests in his efforts to prevent the A. J. C. C. 
from reopening this case in the face of strong evi¬ 
dence. Tucker knew that responsible men had identi¬ 
fied some of the Rogers cattle as grades. Yet, know¬ 
ing this, he was willing to cover up rather than 
root out an evil. His private letters to protesting 
readers contain the same argument, and now the man 
actually has the assurance to say he never tried to dis¬ 
courage investigation, while in the same paper he 
prints this: 
All*. F. B. Keeney, Belvidcre, N. Y., a member of the 
Executive Committee of the American Jersey Cattle Club, 
has been selected to investigate certain new charges 
against Mr. F. E. Dawley. 
Here he tries to make his readers believe the old 
charges are not under investigation. Here is the 
Club’s announcement: 
“Resolved, That the President appoint one or more per¬ 
sons to investigate the purity of breeding of all animals 
bred by Mr. Dawley and entered in the Herd Register 
during the last six years, and the other matters covered 
by the charges, and report the result of the investigation 
to the Club at as early a date as possible.” 
And now read this statement of Bro. Tucker’s: 
The report of this committee, printed on page 533 of 
Tlte Country Gentleman, exonerated Mr. Dawley of all 
charges of wrong-doing, except delay in furnishing papers; 
and advised that one cow and her progeny be excluded from 
the register on account of Mr. Rogers having so mixed 
up animals and records that it was impossible to identify 
the animals. That ended that matter, so far as the Club 
is concerned. 
Now, this is what the investigating committee said 
about that cow April 4, 1907: 
According to her teeth, this cozu 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. 
And yet with this staring him in the face, Mr. 
Tucker has the supreme hardihood to say the cow was 
rejected because Rogers mixed up the records. It 
would be more sensible to say he mixed the horns and 
teeth. Some of these cows are still misfits, but the 
committee fitted nine cows to nine papers. It surely 
requires the wisdom of The Country Gentleman to 
explain how one cow and one paper can be mixed 
so you cannot identify the cow! It is too bad that 
Bro. Tucker in his great desire to “give all the facts” 
forgot to state that the committee did not hear Rogers’ 
evidence at all. On the strength of Dawley's evidence 
alone the committee said: 
It appears that he [Rogers 1 wrote to Dawley repeatedly 
for the papers and for information in reference to service 
and the coming in of the cows, and that Dawley delayed or 
wholly failed to give this information. * * * ilogers 
was entitled to this information and the irritation caused 
by his failure to get it was undoubtedly the beginning of 
this controversy. 
Thus Bro. Tucker knew that this committee held 
Dawley responsible for this controversy. He also 
knows that others have complained about delay in ob¬ 
taining such papers from Dawley. Yet he prints the 
following: 
A silly lie is printed by The Rural New-Yorker in 
saying that “The Country Gentleman Is rigid in its conten¬ 
tion that Mr. Dawley the Jersey breeder should be a dis¬ 
tinct identity from Mr. Dawley the conductor of farm¬ 
ers' institutes.” The Country Gentleman has never said 
anything that could possibly, he twisted into any such con¬ 
tention and we call the lie “silly,” because anybody who 
cares to do so can so easily satisfy himself that it is a lie, 
by running over the files of the paper. 
Bro. Tucker doesn’t even walk through the files of 
his own paper. Here is what he said about Dawley: 
But il is worth noticing that when Mr. Dawley took 
hold of the work the attendance was- only about 45,000 
in a year, and last year, with but $5,000 more appropria¬ 
tion, it was 137,000, and the interest better than ever 
before. He has been by far the most successful director 
of institutes the State has ever had. 
Why was it -“worth noticing” when no one had ever 
disputed Mr. Dawley’s ability to conduct these meet¬ 
ings? Our claim was and is that the character of the 
official must be judged by that of the man. Tucker 
replies to this lay printing again arid again this state¬ 
ment about Dawley, “the best director,” ignoring the 
serious charges which it knows were made against 
Dawley, the breeder. In a letter to Mr. Manchester, 
The Country Gentleman says: 
“Dawley has .been so much the best director of those 
meetings the State has ever had that there is no compari¬ 
son. That has nothing under heaven to do with his busi¬ 
ness in Jersey cattle as anybody might see. * * * * 
In another letter to a protesting reader it says: 
“Dawley’s management of the institutes is another mat¬ 
ter. He is so much the best director the State has ever 
had that there is no comparison. We have said so and 
shall say so whenever circumstances call for the remark. 
The business of the Country Gen t lent on is simply to tell the 
truth, the xvliole truth, and nothing but the truth." 
Here is clear admission that in his opinion, Dawley 
the breeder has nothing to do with Dawley the di¬ 
rector. Here is an extract from a letter written by 
one of Mr. Tucker’s recent subscribers last week: 
I do not feel that I can afford to support, even to the 
extent of one subscription, a journal which assumes the at¬ 
titude toward dishonesty in influential public officials which 
has characterized The Country Gentleman during the past 
year. While it is true that you disclaim any defence of 
Mr. Dawley your policy of contemptuous indifference to the 
serious charges brought against him by responsible indi¬ 
viduals and your editorial atacks upon a journal which has 
endeavored to secure justice for a comparatively helpless 
farmer show your true attitude in the matter quite as 
clearly as could the most frank defence of a man you evi¬ 
dently do not dare to become openly sponsor for. 
Tliis man is able to do some pretty effective “twist¬ 
ing,” and there are thousands like him who see the ugly 
picture revealed between the lines, and from it size 
up the author accurately. 
Why should Mr. Tucker go out of his way to praise 
Dawley, the director? He has done more of it in the 
past six months than in 12 years before. Mr. Dawley 
has suddenly become a frequent contributor to The 
Country Gentleman. Why? Now Mr. Tucker knows 
that he cannot defend Dawley the breeder on his 
record. Mr. Tucker’s opinion of Dawley is well 
known. Why, then, this sudden activity in behalf of 
Dawley the director? Air. Tucker does not dare 
offend the State Department of Agriculture. He 
knows that he must support the Department, 
right or wrong. He must thus ridicule Rogers, 
scold C. 1. Hunt and insult Squiers and every 
other honest man who dares tell the truth about tin's 
cattle case. If fidelity to the Department makes such 
demands upon Mr. Tucker lie must feel that he is pay¬ 
ing a large price for his privilege. His slick scheme 
of separating the man from the official has failed 
because he cannot pull them apart and must now carry 
the burden of the breeder. 
In all its unhappy turning and twisting The Country 
Gentleman has never admitted two principles upon 
which this case is built—like a house founded upon 
a rock. 
1. Any doubt about the truth of an animal’s pedi¬ 
gree must be settled promptly, be the complcdner rich 
or poor. 
2. A public official representing farmers, when 
brought face to face with serious charges, must clear 
himself or get out of office! 
In a controversy over these principles a public man 
must take one side or the other. As Tucker attempts 
a clumsy straddle farmers have the right to decide 
which way he is leaning. 
1 lie truth is that he evidently begins to see the 
handwriting on the wall. He did what he could to 
prevent investigation, because he reasoned that the A. 
J. C. C. would be willing to brush the appeal of a 
man like Rogers aside on a technicality. For thus 
ignoring the moral issue and the principle which has 
kept this case afloat he has been swept aside by the 
honorable Jersey breeders, who saw the shame of the 
position into which he tried to place them. 
EVENTS OF THE WEEK. 
DOMESTIC.—Because Mrs. Santino Mastrinola, a widow, 
of Charleroi, Pa., would not marry him, Joseph Rea, it is 
alleged, threw a dynamite bomb ‘through the window of 
her home December 25. Mrs. Mastrinola sustained a 
broken leg and other serious injuries, the house was set 
on fire, and before the flames could be extinguished they 
had been communicated to other houses in the neigh¬ 
borhood, entailing»a total loss of $10,000. . . . The 
liability of a water supply company for damages for 
poisoning its patrons by using lead pip' was recently de¬ 
cided by a jury in a Norfolk County, Mass, court. A ver¬ 
dict for $3,500 was awarded the plaintiff, a woman, against 
the Milton Water Company. The papers set forth that: 
from July 1, 1900, the defendant furnished the plaintiff 
with water through lead pipes, which water was unlit and 
unsafe for domestic use, and that she was made ill thereby. 
She sued for $20,000. The jury returned an answer of 
“yes” to the question whether there had been any negli¬ 
gence on the part of the defendant company toward the 
plaintiff.Fire deslro.ved nearly the entire block 
hounded by Mission, Jessie, First and Second streets, San 
Francisco, December 26. Several factories and stores were 
burned out, and the loss will amount to more than $200,- 
000. Most of the buildings destroyed were only temno- 
rary affairs, so that the loss was principally in stocks car¬ 
ried by the firms involved.Promoters, mine 
promoters and other persons convicted of using the mails 
with intent to defraud in connection with the sale of stock 
in tlte Lost Spanish Bullion Mines Company were sen¬ 
tenced by Judge It. E. Lewis in the United States District 
Court at Denver, Col., December 26. as follows: Georg' s. 
Dithers, Lee Dubers ami C. 1,. Blackwell thirty davs in 
jail and $1,000 fine each: William II. Wilson, W. B. Cam¬ 
eron, A. E. Keablor and Arthur Lawrence, fifteen days im¬ 
prisonment and $500 tine each: Arthur Levan and E. W. 
Sebben, $100 fine and costs, amounting to $200; R. C. 
Hunt and Dantou Pinkus, $50 fine and $150 costs. 
Senator Scott Introduced at Washington, 
December 21, a joint resolution providing for the ap¬ 
pointment of a commission to consist of three Senators 
and three Representatives to make an investigation into the 
rcent explosions in coal mini's in West Virginia, Penn¬ 
sylvania, Alabama and other States. The committee is di¬ 
rected to report to Congress and to make such recommenda¬ 
tions as may to them seem proper.The branch 
brewery of the Anheuser Busch Brewing Association, at 
Oklahoma City, Okla.. December 30, poured into a city 
sewer 2,300 barrels of freshly brewed beer valued at $1 "i- 
400. The new law of Oklahoma forbids the manufacture 
and sale of intoxicants. The beer had been made before 
the law became effective, but had not matured enough to 
be salable, and the State refused to allow its shipment 
to other States.Judge R. E. Lewis, of the 
Federal Court at Denver, Col., December 30. quashed ail 
indictments and sustained all the demurrers in coal land 
fraud eases, thereby releasing about 50 prominent defen¬ 
dants from prosecution.An explosion of fire 
damp December 31 entombed 30 miners in the Bernel 
Coal Mine, at Carthage. Socorro county, N. M., owned by 
the Carthage Fuel Company, it is believed that the mines 
are on fire as a result of the explosion. It is supposed all 
are dead, nine bodies having been taken out already. Forty 
men employed in the mine had not returned from dinner 
when the explosion occurred. . . . Relatives of the 
victims of the Iroquois Theatre fire held their annual me¬ 
morial service in Chicago. December 30. 'Pile memorial 
association desires to establish an emergency hospital on 
the site of the theatre where 600 persons lost their lives, 
but lack of funds prevents this and the building is still 
occupied as a theatre. 
My Price—tlae Lowest 
Ever Made on a High-Grade Spreader ^ 
' m n»»win-in'«i>"uiTimv'Tii~--——- — ««MM9i|miMnnai<R9R» 
m The ONLY % 
M Spreader v? 
0 Guaranteed for N 
/ 25 Years with a 
$25,000 Bond Guar¬ 
antee TO PROTECT YOU 
I am the 
ACTUAL 
MANU¬ 
FAC¬ 
TURER 
of 
Manure 
Spread¬ 
ers not 
a Jobber, 
so the Gal¬ 
loway really 
is sold from 
factory 
farm 
I Will Give You a Real SO Day Free Trial w * ja> me Money invouRg ocket 
OU don’t have to pay me or any one else a single cent on the price of 
my spreader before you try it or after you try it, if it doesn’t prove 
itself to be the best made. I am not beginning in the spreader busi¬ 
ness. I have built spreaders for years. So I know what beginners don’t 
know. I know how to and do build the Galloway Spreader so it can’t break 
and wear out where experimental spreaders are sure to break and wear out. 
I challenge any other manure spreader seller or manufacturer to put 
his spreader alongside of the Galloway in the hardest kind of a test. 
I don’t care what other spreader you try—it won’t cost you a cent to try 
the Galloway at the same time. So it’s certainly to your advantage to 
try the Galloway at no cost to you even if you do put up your money to try 
any other spreader. If the Galloway doesn’t beat any other that you try, 
all you have to do is return it at my expense and you’re not out a penny 
and you haven’t risked a penny. 
Galloway of Waterloo 
Send me a postal and I will 
send you, absolutely free, my 
special proposition to you and 
the Best and Biggest Manure 
Spreader,Book, Free. 
Galloway 
Wagon Box 
Manure Spreader 
T HE Galloway has the best improvements—all patented so 
you can’t get them on other spreaders. The Galloway is 
I make the only 70 bu. spread¬ 
er with wagon running-gear. 
Patented. It's something new. 
Worth $15 more than any 
other, and costs $20 less. 
•m 
M< 
The ONLY Spread¬ 
er with MALLEA¬ 
BLE and STEEL lor 
ALL Parts that 
break and wear 
out in other 
spreaders. 
Fits the 
wagon gears 
you already 
Lightest Dralt—Feeds as You Wish—and Is the Only 
Spreader that Fits Quickly and Easily to the Differ¬ 
ent Widths of Wagon Gears. 
.WILLIAM GALLOWAY, 669 Jefferson St., Waterloo, la. 
fl prompt delivery to you from Waterloo Factory or transfer points at Kansas City; Minneapolis; Madison, Wis., etc. 
ftw.w^ -o-^vuv-«tL^-riV IT -fflini-Tinin iimiiii - HHIMM I MliBMI ■wrUMHI— I i P I II 
The 
ONLYlfH 
End- 
less Apron 
Force Feed 
Spreader hi 
the World. 
Patented — 
Worth S25 on 
any Spreader, 
Costs you nothing 
on the Galloway. 
t . 
■» 
l) ’ I 
f; 
t: • i 
cut 
I in 
tit < 
