1008. 
A REVIEW OF THE CATTLE CASE. 
The almost universal interest in the now famous 
Jersey cattle case, and the frequent inquiries from 
newer readers as to its origin and principal features, 
makes a brief statement of the whole case necessary 
at this time. 
In November, 1905, Isaac C. Rogers, Dansville, 
N. Y., arranged, through correspondence, for the sale 
of a traction engine to Frank E. Dawley, of Fayette¬ 
ville, N. Y., and to take in payment therefor registered 
Jerseys, consisting of one bull and seven cows. Mr. 
Rogers stated in the correspondence that there was 
a claim by other parties against the engine, and 
Mr. Dawley described the animals that he had se¬ 
lected to be delivered in exchange for the engine. 
Mr. Rogers first shipped the engine to Mr. Dawley 
and then went to Fayetteville to accompany the cattle 
to his home. He objected to one cow because she had 
recently lost a calf, and to another because she had 
been dry for several months, and with Dawley’s con¬ 
sent accepted two other cows in their place. The next 
morning, however, he bought the two rejected cows 
on contract and took the whole 10 head to his home 
at Dansville, Mr. Dawley promising to send registry 
papers, transfers and dates of service later. Rogers 
kept writing for the papers and dates and Dawley 
kept delaying for some three or four months. When 
the papers finally came Rogers was unable to check 
them up so as to correspond to the cows, and his vet¬ 
erinary surgeon and two other breeders of his neigh¬ 
borhood were unable to do any better. After about 
three months of correspondence with Mr. Dawley, 
Rogers became suspicious of the whole transaction, 
and accused Dawley of misrepresentation and fraud 
in a personal letter. Dawley then went to Rogers’ 
place, accompanied by Mr. Henry Van Dreser, to 
check up the cows with the papers. He failed, how¬ 
ever, to do so, but gave the same name to two dif¬ 
ferent cows. Rogers then called Dr. C. D. Smead, an 
experienced veterinary surgeon, to examine the cows 
and estimate their ages. This Dr. Smead did before 
knowing where the cows came from. From Dr. 
Smead’s estimate the cows could not correspond with 
the papers. For example, two of the heifers being 
full sisters and not twins were estimated to have not 
more than three or four months’ difference in their 
ages. In the meantime Rogers demanded definite 
damages from Dawley. This demand Dawley called 
blackmail. Rogers then proposed an arbitration of 
the controversy by a committee selected by himself, 
Dawley and one independent man selected by the 
other two. This Dawley refused. Rogers then pre¬ 
sented a complaint to the American Jersey Cattle Club, 
but the Club did not consider the charges as pre¬ 
sented of sufficient importance to justify an action 
by them. 
The first intimation of the trouble came to Ttte R. 
N.-Y. in a letter from Mr. Dawley, forestalling a com¬ 
plaint from Rogers. The Rogers complaint followed 
ISAAC C. ROGERS. 
some time in April, 1906. This complaint was largely 
on the ground of the financial loss suffered by Mr. 
Rogers in the deal. This we refused to consider. 
1 he complaint, however, included the charge that 
some of the animals were not true to their registry 
papers. This being a matter of general interest, we 
concluded to look into this feature of the complaint. 
V c felt, however, that it was a matter for the Amer¬ 
ican Jersey Cattle Club, and we asked them to look 
into the complaint and straighten up the tangle. The 
Secretary replied that the investigation would be 
made, and subsequently the Executive Committee de¬ 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
cided that there was not enough in Mr. Rogers’ com¬ 
plaint, in view of the statement presented to the Club 
from Dr. Smead by Mr. Dawley, to justify an inquiry, 
and the matter was passed. It was at this time, in 
the, Fall of 1906, that the facts in the case were 
brought to the attention of the public by The R. N.-Y. 
The Jersey Bulletin, The Country Gentleman, the New 
York State Breeders’ Association, and rather gener¬ 
ally the attaches of the State Agricultural Depart¬ 
ment lined up either in defense or apology of Mr. 
Dawley. The balance of the people, irrespective of 
FRED. D. SQUIERS. 
interest or location, lined up on the side of our con¬ 
tention in the matter. This contention simply was 
that it was the duty of the A. J. C. C., in view of the 
complaint, to make a thorough investigation of the 
subject, and to make a pronouncement on the facts 
as discovered, whether for or against Mr. Dawley. 
In the early part of 1907 the complaint was revised 
and again presented to the A. J. C. C., and an investi¬ 
gation was ordered by a committee of three appointed 
by the Club. Mr. Rogers’ attorney and this committee 
could not agree, however, on the presentation of the 
evidence, the committee insisting that the inquiry be 
private, and Mr. Rogers, through his attorney, de¬ 
manding a copy of the testimony, which was denied. 
The committee finally condemned one cow as not true 
to her papers, without, however, criticising Dawley 
further than for a neglect in furnishing the papers. 
This mixed matters up worse than ever before, and 
increased the tension of the situation. As a result of 
the references made to it in The R. N.-Y. Mr. Dawley 
filed three suits in July, 1907, against The R. N.-Y. 
for $50,000 each for alleged libel. Previous to the 
filing of these suits, however, we proposed to Mr. 
Dawley on two different occasions that he submit to 
an open impartial investigation of the charges, and 
promising that if the committee exonerated him we 
would give him full and repeated vindication in the 
columns of The R. N.-Y. 
No sooner had the news of the. libel suits been 
published than friends of The R. N.-Y. all over the 
country began to send in information in regard to 
questionable transactions by Mr. Dawley in regard to 
cattle deals and other matters. One of these items of 
information was to the effect that Dawley bought 20 
head of grade Jerseys in the Spring of 1904 of one 
Squiers in T efferson Co., N. Y., and sold six or seven of 
them to H. Button, Cazenovia, N. Y., as purebred 
registered animals, together with the further intima¬ 
tion that some of the Squiers grades had also gone to 
Rogers. With some difficulty we found Mr. Squiers, 
and corroborated the story of his sale to Dawley. We 
also took Mr. Squiers to Button’s place, where he iden¬ 
tified one of his grade cows, and to Rogers’ barn, 
where he positively identified two of the cows that he 
had sold Dawley as grades. At the suggestion of 
another friend, we looked up Melvin Benedict, who 
had been Dawley’s herdsman for nearly seven years, 
and finally succeeded in inducing him to go to Rogers’ 
barn to identify the cows. He did not know Squiers, 
but he identified the same two cows as coming from 
Squiers that Mr. Squiers himself had previously 
pointed out as bred by him. The corroboration was, 
therefore, complete, and Benedict’s further story, cor¬ 
roborated as it was in many details by other testimony, 
revealed the worst state of substitution and fraud on 
the part of Mr. Dawley that has ever come to light 
in the registry and transfer of purebred cattle. We 
might have kept this testimony to ourselves and allured 
Mr. Dawley into court on his libel suits, and simply 
confused and overpowered him with the weight of the 
evidence. We chose to do otherwise. 
It was promptly on returning from our investigation 
that we had a call from Mr. H. E. Cook, representing 
Mr. Dawley and his associates in the Farm Institute 
work, with a view to stopping the public criticism of 
Mr. Dawley. We frankly told Mr. Cook everything 
that we had discovered. We told him that we did not 
pose as the especial friend of Mr. Dawley, but we 
assured him that we were giving him better advice 
than he would get elsewhere when we counselled that 
he settle with Rogers and Squiers for the damages 
they had sustained, and arrange with the A. J. C. C. 
to eliminate the grade cows from the registry. It was 
at this interview that we again suggested an investiga¬ 
tion and promised that if such a committee should 
exonerate Dawley we would fully vindicate him in 
The R. N.-Y. and permit him to pursue his libel suits 
afterwards. This proposition was again renewed to 
450 
Mr. Dawley and his attorney at the Syracuse Fair 
the following week. Both suggestions were rejected. 
It was not until the early part of July, 1907, that 
we had an opportunity to meet President Darling of 
the A. J. C. C. personally to exchange views and sen¬ 
timents with him. While we had supposed up to that 
time that we held opposite views and interests, we 
both discovered in a half hour’s interview that our 
interests, aims and purposes were identical; that what 
The R. N.-Y. contended for was just what the A. J. 
C. C. stood for in reference to the breeding and regis¬ 
tration of Jersey cattle in particular and in all classes 
of registered cattle in general. We found Mr. Darl¬ 
ing a fair, reasonable, high-minded gentleman, jealous 
of the records of the Club and of the character of 
its membership, and fully alive to the importance of 
maintaining an unsullied registry. When our investi¬ 
gations were complete the full details were given to 
Mr. Darling and to a number of his associates, and 
an investigation of the whole subject was ordered at 
the next meeting of the Executive Committee. Mr. 
Darling had difficulty, however, in finding a man cap¬ 
able and willing to assume the work. He wanted a 
man big enough to command the confidence of breeders 
generally; with ability enough to get the exact truth, 
and with courage enough to make his recommendation 
on the facts discovered without prejudice or favor. 
One man after another refused the task, and the work 
was finally confided to Mr. F. B. Keeney, a member 
of the Executive Committee. No better man could 
nave been selected for the work. Mr. Keeney took 
his own time, heard everyone on both sides of the 
subject that promised to throw any light on the con¬ 
troversy, and showed his great strength of character 
and purpose by quietly enduring criticisms for delay, 
conscious of his own earnest desire to get at the whole 
truth, and realizing only the serious nature of his own 
responsibility in the case. His report was unanimously 
accepted by the Executive Committee and also by the 
eleven Directors of the Chib, and it will be endorsed, 
not only by the Club membership, but by breeders and 
farmers throughout the whole country. 
Governor Hughes at first declined to investigate the 
charges against Mr. Dawley’s cattle records. He was 
induced to do this principally on the ground that 
Dawley had instituted libel suits against The R. N.-Y. 
which he had been unable to get to trial because of 
technicalities in the papers. Accepting this excuse, the 
Governor intimated that the suits would be tried in 
March. In order to test the matter we put the cases 
on the calendar ourselves, and have called it up five 
different times during March and April for trial. At 
the request of Mr. Dawley the court has at each time 
put them over. The Governor, in the meantime, had 
heard from the farmers in no uncertain tone, and he 
began to realize the importance of the principle in¬ 
volved. While he has now ordered an investigation, 
which is under way, the result puts the Agricultural 
Department in rather an embarrassing position, inas¬ 
much as it has retained at the head of an important 
bureau a man who has for two years been publicly 
accused of a serious crime against farmers, whose 
interests he was supposed to foster and protect. He 
yet retains the position. 
The action of the A. J. C. C., however, is so definite 
and clear-cut that it will inspire breeders to a renewed 
interest and a new confidence in the records of the 
Club. It seemed to many of us as the matter dragged 
along that the Club was remiss in the apparent delays, 
and this was undoubtedly true at the early stages of 
the controversy, which, however, grew out of the cir¬ 
cumstances surrounding the case and not, we are con¬ 
fident, in the intention of anyone connected with the 
MELVIN BENEDICT. 
management of the Club to palliate or cover up an 
offense, but we can all appreciate now the seriousness 
of the charge and the responsibility that rested par¬ 
ticularly on Mr. Keeney, and we have nothing hut 
commendation and admiration for a man or set of 
men who can quietly bear criticism without flinching 
in the performance of their duty, and refuse to be 
moved by pressure or influence until they had discov¬ 
ered the truth and deliberately announced their deci¬ 
sion. This the gentlemen of the Executive Committee 
of the American Jersey Cattle Club have done. It 
stamps them as the right kind of men for the posi¬ 
tions that they occupy, and the breeders of this coun¬ 
try owe them a debt of gratitude for their painstaking 
work. 
