1275 
Wayne County Farmers and Mr. Betts 
T>o the farmers of Wayne County, N. Y., wish to 
he represented at Albany hy Mr. Betts? That is 
one nf the biggest questions in this campaign. It. is 
probable that never before—certainly not since the 
Civil War—has a political contest in a New York 
county sized itself up as this one has done. Let us 
see wlvat this means. Wayne County covers 624 
square miles, and in 1915 had a population of 53,470. 
It is an agricultural county—there being no large 
cities and few if any industries which are not de¬ 
pendent upon agriculture or fruit growing. The 
people of Wayne County are of superior intelligence. 
Its schools nre noted for efficiency, and there are 
many college graduates. The Orange is very strong 
in Wayne County, not only in numbers but in live 
influence. No other county of its size can show so 
many active members of the strong farmers’ and 
fruit-growers’ association. The church organizations 
are very strong and active. In no county of rural 
New York has there been a stronger spirit of in¬ 
dependence, or a stronger expression of the evident, 
truth that an agricultural community should he rep¬ 
resented in public life by one who is identified with 
farming, and who by record and open profession 
stands for the farmer. 
Politically Wayne County is strongly Republican. 
The following figures give the vote last year for 
various candidates: 
Governor. 
Rep. 
Dem. 
. . . 8,603 
3,312 
<'ongressman. 
. .. 3.317 
3,037 
State Senator. 
. .. 8,670 
3.045 
Assemblyman. 
... 8,922 
2,90!) 
It is not likely that on any straight political issue 
Wayne County has ever elected a Democratic Assem¬ 
blyman. That might be possible with such an issue 
as is now being developed, as most of us can remem¬ 
ber the famous Wadsworth campaign, when it 
seemed a hopeless task to overcome a great majority. 
The contest against Mr. Betts will he made in the 
primary election for the nomination. 
Would Mr. Betts fairly represent the farmers of 
Wayne County? What does he know about their 
needs? Is he in sympathy with them, and does ho 
have their confidence? Is his record such that thev 
can count on him to stand for their interests through 
thick and thin without hitching? Should they, in 
justice to their business, send any man to Albany 
who does not size up to these requirements? 
So far as we can find out, no one, not even Mr. 
Betts himself, pretends that he is a farmer. We 
find no agriculture in his record except, a rather 
shady connection with beet sugar. As for possessing 
the confidence of farmers, Mr. Betts enjoys the 
distinction of being the only public man representing 
agriculture whose resignation was demanded by the 
farmers! The State Grange, numerous subordinate 
Granges, the New York State Fruit Growers and 
many other farm organizations demanded forcibly 
that Mr. Betts resign as secretary of the Food Com¬ 
mission. The farmers of Wayne County were fore¬ 
most in this demand. One of the things to be de¬ 
cided in this campaign is whether such farmers 
mean what they say, or whether, when it comes to 
a question of politics, they will subordinate their 
own interests. 
Mr. Betts belongs to the old school of politicians, 
and rather glories in being known as a political 
“boss.” It is believed that his object in seeking this 
nomination is two-fold. First, he intends to show 
that farmers will not stand together for inde¬ 
pendence in political action. If he can show that 
farmers will walk up and support him because he 
holds control of the machine, every old political 
hack in the State will take courage and any hope 
of political reform will he lost. Second, Mr. Betts 
evidently has his eye on something larger. If he 
can go to Albany this year he can follow up with 
an election to the State Senate, to Washington, or 
even make a try for the Governorship. Surely such 
things might be possible to a man if he can make 
the intelligent and prosperous farmers of Wayne 
County eat their words and support him after de¬ 
manding his resignation. 
We put the question in this plain and sober way 
because it is something which Wayne County farmers 
alone can answer. It will mean much to farmers 
everywhere. In the Republican primary Rev. J. L. 
Cann is running against Mr. Betts, lie came into 
the canvass through the backing of the churches 
and the Granges, because those organizations be¬ 
lieve that. Mr. Betts, in his expressed beliefs and in 
his views of life, does not represent what is taught 
and stood for in these organizations. There never 
has been anything quite like the campaign now 
running at white heat in Wayne County. Tt is local 
in its issue but national in its results. What has 
Wayne County to say? Do her farmers want to be 
represented by Charles II. Betts? 
The RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
That “35-Cent Dollar” 
Some years back our readers sent us from all 
parts of the country the return records they re¬ 
ceived for farm food products in the city markets, 
both local and metropolitan. We went into the local 
stores and priced and bought the same grade of 
goods, and figured the share of the consumer’s dollar 
that went baek'to the farm. While there were 'wide 
variations we could never make it average above 
35 cents. 
'I bis estimate was challenged and disputed, and in 
some quarters ridiculed, as unscientific and incon¬ 
clusive. Federal agents at first set the farmer’s 
share above 50 cents on the dollar, in a tentative 
report, but. while no exhaustive investigation has 
been made, (lie tendency has been to reduce the first 
Government estimate, and 35 cents has been quite 
generally accented as the pivotal point for the pro¬ 
ducer’s share. We, of course, never made any pre¬ 
tence of an exhaustive or scientific investigation 
of the subject. For our purpose none was needed. 
Everyone knew just how our estimate was obtained. 
It was practical and conclusive as far as the inquiry 
went. 
Recently we have had an endorsement of our 
method of approaching the subject. Some days 
back five representatives of Farm Bureau organiza¬ 
tions from the Middle States visited Washington to 
confer with the President. They paid $11 for a 
lunch at a restaurant, and figured out. that the re¬ 
turn to the farmer for the amount of food they ate 
would be just S2 cents. Tn this case the producer 
received less than eight cents of the dollar. These 
five farmers did a good service for their industry. 
It may not be scientific or conclusive; but it would be 
hard to find a more convincing proof of the causes 
of the high cost of living. 
Co-operative Societies Discuss the Situa¬ 
tion 
Co-operation progressed beyond the individual farmer 
stage at a meeting held at the Chamber of Commerce 
in Rochester, N. Y., July 24. to consider ways and 
means whereby the Eastern Fruit and Produce Ex¬ 
change might act as a selling agency for the various 
co-operative fruit and vegetable associations that have 
been organized in Western New York. 
The meeting was called by the Bureau of Co-opera¬ 
tion of the State Department of Farms and Markets. 
It was attended by representatives of the various co¬ 
operative associations in Western New York and by 
Farm Bureau officers and committeemen. The propo¬ 
rtion to reorganize the Eastern under the present co¬ 
operative law of the State, mo that it might become an 
agent of the co-operatives, was discussed pro and con, 
the trend of the discussion being that it was probably 
desirable, but that it would be useless to attempt to 
work it out unless there were enough co-operatives 
interested to bind themselves to support the proposition. 
This evident tendency upon the part of farmers to 
insure the success of co-operatives that they are now- 
forming. by binding the individual to fulfill his obliga¬ 
tions. is becoming more and more apparent at all their 
meetings. Experience has proven that a good many 
men talk co-operation in selling their fruit in the Spring 
of tin* year, but change their mind when the fruit is 
actually for sale. This has caused the failure of more 
co-operatives than any other single cause, and farmers 
are wise in determining to eliminate it in the future. 
The proposition of a single organization acting as 
an agent for a number of local organizations that are 
all packing the same brand is an attractive one. There 
are, for example 10 single packing-houses in Niagara 
County that all pack the Cataract Brand. The pack 
of one association is not large enough to make much of 
an impression on the market. The pack of all 10 
pooled, however, becomes a real factor. The conference 
appointed a committee of C. R. White, chairman ; C. L. 
Fox, Niagara: It. J. Shepherd, Genesee; C. F. Mason, 
Wayne, and Fred Ilopkins, Steuben, to proceed with 
the proposition, and when it is in satisfactory shape 
to present it to the various local associations for their 
endorsement. 
Standardizing of Chemical Fertilizer 
The fertilizer manufacturers have started what 
seems to us an excellent plan for standardizing 
brands of fertilizer. Their plan is to have definite 
high-grade analyses for various crops. These will 
be arranged for different soils or conditions. For 
example, a potato fertilizer designed for use in a 
light soil would have more nitrogen or potash than 
one designed for a heavier soil. These things have 
all been carefully considered, and mixtures have 
been worked out from practical experience as well 
as scientific test. The chemical analysis will be 
uniform, varying to suit locality, climate and soil. 
The quality of mixed fertilizers will bo raised under 
this plan of standardizing. The many low-grade 
mixtures will be given up, and no mixture will be 
offered which falls below a certain total percentage 
of actual plant food. Through this plan a long list 
of inferior brands will he dropped, standard for¬ 
mulas will be adopted, and more actual plant food 
put into each ton of mixture. It is a good plan, and 
we hope farmers will fall in with it at once. Such 
standardizing is as necessary as that worked out 
in the working parts of automobiles and tractors. 
We shall be able to tell better what plant food we 
are buying, and through the higher grade of standard 
goods we shall obtain the plant food cheaper than 
before 
That Guaranteed Price of Wheat 
A Disadvantage and Loss to Wheat Growers 
FIXING TIIE PRICE.—In the Fall of 1910 and 
the Spring of 1917 the farmers of the United States 
sowed crops of Winter and Spring wheat which they 
expected to sell in rhe world's market at a price deter¬ 
mined hy the world’s relative supply and demand of 
this commodity. Tn limes past a large world wheat crop 
had brought the producer prices ruinously low ; on the 
other hand, short crops had brought higher prices and 
a recoupment. The crop of 1917 was short, and the 
demand large from the countries engaged in the war. 
In the Spring of 1917 May future wheat sold for $3.18 
per bushel on the (’hicago market, when trading in 
futures was suspended. In August, 1917, the President, 
under authority given him hy the Food Control act, ap¬ 
pointed a commission of 11 men to determine what was 
a fair price for wheat. In the words of Mr. Hoover, 
“These men came to the unanimous conclusion that 
$2.20 for No. 1 Northern, at base markets, represented 
a fair average profit to the farmer, and the Food Ad¬ 
ministration was directed by the President to maintain 
that price.” 
LITTLE COMPLAINT.—Although this price was 
$1 per bushel below the price for which wheat of the 
1917 crop had already sold, and although Mr. Hoover 
stated in a public address that he agreed entirely with 
the contention of some farmers that they would have 
received $5 and perhaps $10 per bushel for wheat had 
it not been for the restraints imposed by the Govern¬ 
ment. there was nevertheless no substantial body of com¬ 
plaint from wheat raisers, even though in some sections 
of the country the fixed price resulted in an actual loss 
to the grower, and at certain periods of the year a 
farmer who sold his wheat could not buy back corn or 
barley for cattle food at the price which he received 
for his wheat. Government price-fixing of wheat in 
1917 probably resulted in keeping in the pockets of con¬ 
sumers and out of the pockets of farmers from one to 
two billions of dollars. 
I HE CONST MERS’ SAVINGS.—The food control 
ar-t carried a minimum guaranteed wheat price of $2 per 
bushel for the 1913 wheat crop and the President'fixed 
the price at $2.20, the same as 1917, which price was 
increased to $J.26 in order to absorb the 25 per cent 
increase in freight rates ordered by the Director-General 
of Railroads. Concerning the price for which this crop 
of wheat might have sold had the price not been con¬ 
trolled, Mr. Hoover said: “Altogether the balance of the 
supply and demand for our present wheat now looks 
as though we might see wheat at $3.50 per bushel, as it 
was in 1917, if there is a fr^e market.” Therefore, upon 
Mr. Hoover’s estimate (and no man is in a better po¬ 
sition to make a correct estimate), the consumer was 
again saved over a billion dollars by Government control, 
which saving was at the expense of the producer. 
PROMISED RELIEF.—In August, 1913, the Na¬ 
tional Agricultural Advisory Committee, upon which I 
served as the representative of New England, was called 
to \\ ashington to advise what, in the language of the 
Eqod Control act, would be a reasonable guaranteed 
price for wheat, in order to assure producers a reason¬ 
able profit. The committee heard the evidence and re¬ 
ported unanimously that an increase of 20c per bushel 
would be necessary to equalize partly the higher costs 
of labor and supplies since the Garfield Committee 
found $2 20 a fair price in 1917. and recommended 
$2.46 as the guaranteed minimum. The President, how¬ 
ever, on September 2. 1918. issued a proclamation fixing 
the guarantee at $2.20 per bushel, but with the follow¬ 
ing qualifications: 
“In issuing the Government’s guarantee of the same 
Price for the 1919 wheat crop that was guaranteed for 
the 1913 crop. I wish it to be understood that in the 
Spring of 1919 I will appoint a disinterested commission 
which will secure for me the facts by that time disclosed 
as to the increased cost of farm labor and supplies, 
using the three-year pre-war average prices of wheat, of 
labor and of supply costs as basis, and that from this 
information I shall determine whether there should be 
an increase in price above the present level and, if so, 
what advance, in order to maintain for the farmer a 
good return.” 
The commission promised by the President was not 
appointed in the Spring of 1919 because the war had 
ended, and the Government had announced a policy 
of discontinuing control of prices of all commodities. 
It was expected that wheat of the 1919 crop would be 
sold on the basis of the world price, subject to the Gov¬ 
ernment’s making good its guarantee of $2.26 to pro¬ 
ducers. It now develops that the wheat crop of this 
year is disappointing. 
PRESENT CONDITIONS.—The average farm price 
of wheat in the United States is $2 05 per bushel and 
the average_farm price for Europe's 15 consuming coun¬ 
tries is $3.75 per bushel. With a free market, therefore, 
we may expect that American wheat will seek the higher 
market and command a higher price than the President’s 
minimum guarantee. Prices of corn, barley, cottonseed 
meal and other concentrates are now so high that a 
farmer cannot afford to sell wheat and buy back these 
commodities to feed his stock. However, on August 8, 
the President, in his address to Congress on the high 
cost of living, had this to say about wheat prices: 
“* * * Wheat shipments and credits to facilitate 
the purchase of our wheat can and will be limited and 
controlled in such a way as not to raise but rather to 
lower the price of flour here. * * * The price of 
wheat is lower in the United States than in Europe and 
can. with proper management, be kept so.” 
it seems, therefore, without the appointment of th> 
commission as promised to ascertain whether the guar¬ 
anteed minimum price of wheat is fair to the producer, 
the President lias determined to. in effect, make such 
minimum a maximum by controlling foreign shipments 
and credits so that the product of the American pro¬ 
ducer will not sell for its full value iu the world market. 
Without argument as to the justice of such a procedure, 
it may be predicted that the American consumer may 
again be saved another billion dollars, at the expense of 
the producer, if this policy can be carried out. Is it 
fair then, for the consumer to complain that the Govern¬ 
ment's guarantee has operated to his disadvantage? 
ELBERT S. BRIGHAM, 
Agricultural Commissioner of Vermont. 
NVe never could get a good catch of clover by plowing 
up an old meadow or pasture and seeding in the Spring. 
The weeds and foul grass smother up the clover. 
