1 
7ht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
Developments of the Milk Strike 
The .second week of the milk fight opened with 
even more uncertainty and confusion than the first 
The reports were that about 75 per cent of the normal 
supply of milk came in on Monday and a little less 
on Tuesday. The members of the League stood firm. 
As the time went on they increased their determina¬ 
tion to fight for the principle of making their own 
price for milk. From Orange County, which ordi¬ 
narily ships 5,000 cans daily, dealers received about 
Jb cans from one station. The dealers, however, re¬ 
ceived considerable milk from the old producing ter¬ 
ritory, and had gone into distant sections for supple¬ 
mental supplies. Several co-operative plants, which 
during the last year were obliged to make independent 
contracts for their milk, were making regular ship¬ 
ments, and as this year the dealers were largely 
pooling their supplies this proved an embarrassment. 
1 n the old fight two years ago pooling was not allowed, 
and the shipment of milk to independent dealers was 
made an embarrassment to the big dealers, whereas 
at this time it favored them. Under these circum¬ 
stances producers were beginning to demand that all 
of the milk be held up, and news came from many 
sections that producers were willing to hold out on 
this plan all Winter. 
The fight has had at least one good and funda¬ 
mental effect already. For the first time since the 
original fight it has brought the executive committee 
of the League out squarely against the dealers’ 
privilege of continuously advancing the price to con¬ 
sumers and reducing the outlet for milk. It has now 
announced that it is ready to re-adopt the original 
plan of supplying milk to the stores for distribution, 
a?id to provide the facilities by the League for the 
delivery. This plan is the solution of the milk 
problem for both producers and consumers. 
On Tuesday evening, Jan. 7, Governor Smith came 
down from Albany to New York, with some members 
of the Legislature and city oflicials, and called in 
representatives of the Dairymen’s League and of the 
New York Conference Board of distributors. It is 
announced that a settlement has been practically 
effected, and that milk will be coining in freely before 
the end of the present week. On another page will 
be found later developments. 
Attacks Upon the Co-operative Law 
Another disturbing element of the present is rea¬ 
sonably sure finally to develop a lasting benefit to 
farm producers in all lines. Food dealers, and spec¬ 
ulators, and city employers of labor have always 
been unwilling to consider the farm a business 
proposition, and entitled to cost of production and 
profit which they demand for themselves. While 
expressing an interest in the farmer, it extended 
only to the point of making State appropriations to 
educate him to double his production that he might 
and agricultural work, to send delegates to a meeting 
yesterday, Dec. 31; also invited members of our new 
Legislature, but not many of them were present. 
Many subjects for proposed legislation were discussed, 
among them being the following: Hard roads, the man¬ 
ufacture and sale of hog cholera serum and virus, paying 
for tubercular cattle destroyed, a dog law, discrimination 
in tne sale ot farm products by wholesalers and others, 
fake live stock remedies, and several others that I do not 
just now recall. But what I started out to tell about 
principally was the proposed attack on the 35-cent 
dollar and the methods to be used. 
But first let me explain about some of the obstacles 
that we have been stumbling over. Some of our co¬ 
operatively organized grain growers tried to buy a seat 
on the Omaha Grain Exchange, price, $20,000. The 
growers offered to pay the price, but insisted on divid¬ 
ing any profits that accrued over and above expenses 
among their membership on the co-operative plan. The 
answer was, nothing doing. The live stock men tried 
to buy a seat on the Omaha Live Stock Exchange on 
same conditions as to profits. They, too, were turned 
down. They then tried at Sioux City and St. Joseph; 
had same experience. 
A year or two ago our Fruit Growers’ Association 
sent a mantto Lincoln to sell to the retailers in carload 
lots. The first week he did a big business. The next 
week nothing doing at all. One of the association offi¬ 
cers came to Lincoln to see what the trouble was. He 
could get no satisfaction till he*went-to a retailer friend, 
who explained matters. It seems that when the whole¬ 
salers found what was happening in the fruit line they 
promptly served notice on the retailers that if they were 
going to buy their fruit of the growers they could also 
get their vegetables, butter, eggs, etc., from them. That, 
of course, the retailers could not do, so were forced to 
drop the fruit growers. 
The cream and butter in this State is handled almost 
entirely by two or three big centralized creameries. 
Whenever a co-operative creamery starts up that seems 
likely to grow into a real competitor they kill it off by 
the simple expedient of paying a much- higher price for 
cream in that region than elsewhere, considering the dif¬ 
ference in transportation cost. The potato growers of 
the Western part of the State found it impossible to sell 
to retailers for some reason similar to what the fruit 
men bumped into. 
The meetiug at McKelvie’s office brought these facts 
out very clearly and forcibly. I certainly wish all cur 
new legislators could have heard the discussion. Yes, 
and the “cussin’,” too. The big business barons of this 
region seem likely to find themselves facing the demo¬ 
cratic producers across the “no man’s land” of our Leg¬ 
islature, with the consumers and retailers as very inter¬ 
ested spectators. Practically all of those present en¬ 
dorsed the sentiment expressed by several that all they 
wanted was a fair show, whether in selling grain, live 
stock, potatoes, fruit or other products, which is 
not now the case. There seem likely to be interesting 
times iu Lincoln this Winter, for big business is well 
entrenched, except that the old booze gang is entirely 
defeated and put out of control of the State Senate. 
Mr. McKelvie lias promised to recommend to our 
Legislature that they pass adequate legislation covering 
the subjects discussed. He will do it, too. I look for 
au especially big fight on the bills that may be introduced 
1)0 forced to sell two measures for the original cost 
of one. This class controlled the politicians, and 
they have been willing to pass co-operative laws and 
encourage farmers to organize to increase produc¬ 
tion. but just as soon as the organization was used 
lo help distribute the crop and get a living price for 
it protests were made, and appropriations were 
stopped. Our State and Federal governments have 
passed laws and spent money to organize farmers to 
help themselves, but as soon as they took the lesson 
and begau to help themselves, they were prosecuted 
for violation of law. In this State the law was 
amended to permit cumulative bargaining so that 
farm organizations could do openly what every other 
industry has been doing steadily and undisturbed 
for years. 
The demand to annul this amendment reveals the 
Insincerity of those who pretended that they were 
friendly to the farmer and wished to aid him. It 
also shows the confusion of mind in men who are 
really friendly to the farm. We are not a bit 
alarmed. The law will not be repealed to defeat its 
purpose. To do so tbe Legislature would have to re¬ 
verse its announced friendly policy of thirty years, 
and there is no danger of its doing anything of the 
kind. As a whole it is better to have the whole 
subject thrashed out now. It took a long time to 
get iu position where it has to he fa ceil on its merits. 
The law imposes an obligation on us to effect an 
economic distribution, and when we do so the city 
consumer will realize that it serves him as well as 
the farmer. 
The Farmers’ Battle In Nebraska 
•Here’s the story of a new attack on that 35-ccut dol¬ 
lar, with Nebraska’s new Governor-elect leading the pro¬ 
ducers ef his State. He invited some 20 State-wide ag¬ 
ricultural organizations, representing all kinds of farm 
regulating the grain exchanges, live stock exchanges and 
the wholesale grocers. j. h. tubbs. 
Nebraska. 
Amendments to the Commission Law 
Your editorials on the subject of commission merchants 
.and middlemen, appearing from time to time in The It. 
N.-Y., have interested me very much, the only objection 
being that you do not go far enough. On page 1342. 
under heading “Selling Farm Products,” among other 
things you say, “The risks of consignment have been 
reduced of late by the general requirements exacted of 
dealers under the present license system.” 
Iu 1013, the Legislature of the State of New York 
enacted Chapter 457, entitled “Sale of Farm Produce on 
Commission.” With the approval of the Governor, this 
became a law May 0, 1913, the same being an amend¬ 
ment of the Agricultural Law, and known as Sections 
2S2 to 2S9, both inclusive. Section 2SS applies to 
“Report of Sale to Consignor,” and is therefore of vital 
importance to the producer. This section obliges tbe 
commission man to keep a record of the goods sold, the 
selling price, the items of expense of selling, and this 
record, together with remittance iu settlement of the 
shipment, shall be mailed to tbe consignor within 4S 
hours, unless otherwise agreed. 
There is absolutely nothing in that or any other law 
applicable to commission men in tbe State of New York 
Which obliges them to disclose tbe name of the pur¬ 
chaser, or even keep a record of the purchaser. That 
is the weak part of that statute. We all know that a 
commission man would be criminally liable if he failed 
to account for the sale of produce entrusted to his care, 
and therefore I feel that this statute to be effective and 
have a deterrent influence over men who might be in¬ 
clined to sell at one price and report another ought to 
be amended. As tbe law now stands, lie can report 
“any old thing,” and the producer 10 miles or 500 miles 
away would not be the wiser. The license system of the 
Food Administration does not avail us iu this particular 
case. 
To make myself clearer, I will cite an experience I 
had iu the Fall of 1910. when our Dewey peaches were 
91 
coming on. These, as our output Is limited, always go 
to Buffalo. We shipped 175 seven-pound handle baskets 
to one concern and a like number to another, their 
places of business adjoining each other. At the end of 
the week I received an accounting from each. One 
reported 100 baskets sold at 30 cents each, balance at 
25 cents. Tbe other reported 100 sold at 25 cents and 
the remainder at 15 and 20 cents. Believing that I had 
been stung,” I wrote to the latter concern, asking for 
the names of the purchasers. All I got in return was 
an insulting letter, which in substance amounted to a 
request for an apology on my part. Suffice to say, I did 
not apologize, l>ut in my humble way endeavored to 
make it clear to those people that they were only my 
servants and agents, and that if a “near” neighbor 
could sell the same fruit, identically packed, for at "least 
$17 more on such a modest shipment, I was of the 
opinion that their methods of doing business were open 
to revision. 
Later in the season, when we were shipping Elbertas 
to New York, and my neighbors were getting at the rate 
of $1 per Jersey basket, I was being informed that mine 
had sold at 60 cents. Upon remonstrating with the 
agents, I was informed that the packages which we 
were using with so-called “see thru” covers, were broken 
ef IS 14, > ut mve stigation revealed the fact that most 
of this fruit was sold to sons of the concern to whom I 
was shipping In neither case did I get satisfaction. 
I then decided to take steps to do something tending to 
correct the existing evil, when Senator Elon R. Brown 
0 - c °tt Beach in the Fall of 1917. under the guise 
toir^ ar +T er e ^ rien( ^ 1 an ^ ostensibly for the purpose of 
in /w t ie . farmer ® pf things that might interest them 
business. This turned out to be a tirade against 
£*? v , ern °r °» tbe , State of New York, because of the 
public markets in New York, and the 
personnel of the management proposed, but assuring his 
hearers that he was not there in the interests of the 
commission men or middlemen. I sought an introduc¬ 
tion and asked him if he would father the move to 
present l a .y to compel commission men to 
disclose the names of the purchasers . He flatly refused 
1 stand for it, what do you want any! 
A month or two later, the American Fruit Grower 
formerly Green’s Fruit Grower . had an elaborate article 
on this subject and expressed the hope that such a 
statute would be made a national affair. Beinv'en¬ 
couraged by this and realizing that thousands of mv 
fellows in this State would be benefited by the change 
sought. I prepared a resolution embodying the section 
in question together with the words “and the name or 
names of the person or persons to whom sold, when re¬ 
quested by the consignor,” and presented the same at 
the meeting of the New York State Fruit Growers’ 
Association at Rochester in January last, asking au 
endorsement of the same, and urging the members to 
solicit the co-operation of their respective legislators 
By order of the president this resolutiou was referred to 
tlie committee on resolutions, to be reported upon two 
days later, notwithstanding my earnest protest that I 
would not be able to be present at that time. 
At the close of the meeting I was joined by a dozen 
members who expressed themselves quite emphaticallv 
as in iavor of this provision, and while discussing the 
same, we were joined by the president who stated, as 
aid Senator Brown, that he would not stand for it. On 
the last day of the meeting the committee appointed bv 
the president made an adverse report, without affording 
the members an opportunity of voting on it. If I am 
wrong in my conclusions on this matter, I would like 
to have an intelligent exposition and the reason why an 
agent m the line of business mentioned, should not be 
compelled to give his principal all the information he is 
entitled to. I hope you will pardon me for going into 
this thing at such length, but I believe the subject war- 
rants it. especially so as I have just read a dispatch 
published m our daily press from New York entitled • 
“Governor-elect Favors Laws to Lower Food Costs.” a 
copy of .which I enclose herewith. Among other things 
this article refers to vegetables. I do not grow vegeta- 
hies for the market, growing fruit ouly for sale. But 
there are hundreds of your readers who do grow vegeta¬ 
bles, and are obliged to work early and late to produce 
that stuff; m the end, they get very little for it, and are 
possibly string” by the fellow who sells it for them. 
Buffalo, N. 1. otto w. volgei:. 
Buying Farms on Contract 
I note au article on page 1406 which refers to letters 
from people who have but little money, but wish to buy 
a farm, yet cannot pay enough down so as to give a 
mortgage on the farm for the unpaid balance. We are 
solving that problem iu our county by selling or buying 
on the contract plan. For example, a farmer has suc¬ 
ceeded in saving $1,500, and has his farming imple¬ 
ments and stock, having perhaps lived on a rented farm. 
A 40-acre tract, with fair buildings, well, fences, drain- 
age, etc., on good Toad, mail route aud telephone service 
can be bought for $4,500. The man selling the farm can 
take the $1,500 as a guarantee payment, aud take a 
contract on the farm for the unpaid remainder, $3,000. 
at (i per cent, payable semi-annually, aud $100 payment 
every six months. If the owner wishes to help the pur¬ 
chaser, he may have the first payment at the end of one 
or two years, as may be agreed upon. This would give 
the purchaser a chance to make some improvement or 
stock up. as is usually the case iu making a change. 
You ask what advantage is this over taking a mort¬ 
gage? To the purchaser it is this: While he cannot get 
an exemption on a contract, he can get a larger risk 
To the man who sells or whoever finances the deal, the 
farm is still in his name, but the mau purchasing pays 
the taxes, while on a mortgage the man holding it pays 
the full amount of tax aud the man giving it pays on 
the farm. In the contract plan the purchaser agrees to 
pay nil taxes, keep the buildings insured, pay all assess¬ 
ments that are levied against the farm for roads, ditches, 
etc., and is not permitted to put any liens on the farm. 
An abstract of title is furnished to the purchaser, show¬ 
ing the property to be free from any encumbrances, and 
showing a good merchantable title. A deed is made to 
the purchaser and placed in escro, with a copy of the 
contract and the abstract, and at the end of the time 
agreed upon, if the purchaser has complied with all the 
requirements and paid the amount named in the con¬ 
tract. the deed is delivered to him. In case he fails to 
make the payments, or can dispose of it and have some¬ 
one else to assume the responsibility he loses what he 
paid in But a mortgage would do the same thing. We 
have a number of these contracts; all are making good. 
\A hit ley Co., Iud. albert bush. 
