The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1885 
The New York Agricultural Department 
Commissioner George Gordon Battle, who has been 
investigating the Department of Farms ami Markets 
under the Moreland Act by appointment of Governor 
Smith, issued his final report on December 15. 
It is impossible to give any adequate analysis of 
this report in a single issue of a weekly periodical. 
The subject covers practically all the agricultural 
divisions of the State, and is of such vital impor¬ 
tance to the farming interests that we believe the 
different divisions of the report will be best treated 
with some detail in separate numbers. To those who 
have been familiar with the politics of the Agricul¬ 
tural Department of the State since its organization, 
there is little in the report that, is unexpected, and 
nothing that the well-informed will regard as sen¬ 
sational. To them the disappointment will be in the 
sparsity of detail rather than in the volume or nature 
of the revelations. 
As we hope to give in future numbers sufficient of 
the evidence to show the basis for the recommenda¬ 
tions of the report, and will thus leave conclusions 
on the facts to the judgment of farmers themselves, 
we refrain for the present from passing judgment 
of our own on the report or its conclusions. It is 
sufficient at this time to say that conditions have 
been revealed in the department by competent evi¬ 
dence that farmers of the State deplore. The best- 
informed among them knew that some of the con¬ 
ditions existed, and all felt that things were not as 
they should be. but meager as the report is in detail 
compared with the subject, the information furnishes 
sufficient facts to justify the farm demands to re¬ 
vise the department and correct abuses. 
As far as political party advantage is concerned, 
responsibility seems to us pretty evenly divided. It 
is true that one party has had more years of control 
of the department than the other, but when the 
opportunity offered neither of them made any at¬ 
tempt to correct the abuses that everyone knew ex¬ 
isted. Rather each in turn sought selfish advan¬ 
tage in working the system as it existed for its own 
immediate ends. 
Advantage was taken of the general protest against 
these conditions in the Department of Agriculture 
to promote a law for the organization of a Council 
of Farms and Markets. The alleged purpose was 
to take the Department of Agriculture out of poli¬ 
tics. but it was evident to those familiar with ad¬ 
ministrative policies at the time, and evident to 
everybody else since, that the alleged purpose was 
a mere pretense, and in practice it has been evident 
that the department has been dominated by politics 
more completely, if possible, than ever before. In¬ 
stead of correcting the abuses that existed, the 
council has permitted new faults to be introduced 
and encouraged the old ones to develop, and it is 
doubtful if any council provided under this plan 
would or could do any better. 
When the time comes in the discussion we shall 
show in many circumstances where we disagree en¬ 
tirely with the conclusions of Commissioner Battle, 
but we are frank to say that in even partially re¬ 
vealing conditions in the department he has rendered 
a service in giving farmers of the State an opportu- 
ritv and an incentive for rejuvenating the whole 
caricultural and marketing work of the State to 
their own advantage. In our judgment the troubles 
in the department are due to fundamental conditions 
and no temporary expediency will improve them 
very much. Mr. Battle advises the removal of Dr. 
Porter and Commissioner Wilson. It may be. and 
probably is, possible to find better qualified and 
more efficient commissioners than the men who now 
bead the two divisions of the department, but every¬ 
body knows that neither the commissioners nor the 
members of the council are independent agents in 
the management of a department or in the formation 
of its policies. The Commissioner of Agriculture 
never has been such a free agent, and the testimony 
before the commission gives some intimation of the 
real authority. Under conditions as they are and 
as they have been, if new men were put at the head 
of the departments they would be obliged to take 
orders from the invisible power that controlled it or 
give place lo someone who would. 
Commissioner Battle found some conditions in the 
milk business detrimental to the interests of the milk 
consumers of the city, but he does not seem to realize 
that these conditions are equally unsatisfactory and 
equally detrimental to the men who produce the 
milk, and he has drawn conclusions that are neither 
justified by existing conditions nor helpful to a 
proper solution of the milk problem. This, as we 
shall undertake to show later, is an unfortunate 
mistake, as it will undoubtedly detract from the 
fundamental recommendation in his report for a 
thorough reorganization of the department and a 
complete revision of the codification of the Food and 
Market laws. 
His general recommendations are to abolish the 
Council, and to redivide the Farms and Markets De¬ 
partment into its original elements, making an inde¬ 
pendent Department of Agriculture, Department of 
Markets and Storage, restoring the enforcement of 
health laws to the State Commissioner of Health, 
and putting the Weights and Measures under an 
independent head. He would have these heads ap¬ 
pointed by the Governor and directly responsible to 
him. He calls the creation of the Council of Farms 
and Markets a costly experiment, and says while 
there is no use of crying over spilled milk, there is 
at least no necessity for continuing to spill the milk. 
The council, he says, has proved it is a wholly use¬ 
less failure, and that there is no justification for 
extending its existence. 
Milk As a “ Public Utility ” 
The reconstruction committee has advised Governor 
Smith that it has reached the conclusion that the only 
way to meet the milk situation and secure public con-, 
fidence for the conduct of the industry is to place the 
distribution of milk on the basis of being a public utility. 
An examination of the records of the courts of this 
State and consultation with eminent counsel leads the 
commission to the conclusion that there are legal prece¬ 
dents which would justify such control. The commis¬ 
sion has instructed its committee to have legislation 
framed to bring about public utility regulation of the 
distribution of milk, and is in conference with the Legis¬ 
lative Bill Drafting Bureau of Columbia University 
to accomplish these ends. 
We have seen this move coming and have ex- 
I eeted it. We have had combinations of deal¬ 
ers for many years, in defiance of protest and law. 
Now that the dealers have worked down to practi¬ 
cally a single unit, they ask us to declare them a 
legal monopoly, and our reconstruction committee 
presents their request in a formal report to the 
Governor of the State. We did not like the milk trust 
when it consisted of many individual members com¬ 
bined in defiance of anti-trust laws, which probably 
had some restraining influence. Would we like it 
any better as a single legalized monopoly? They 
tell us that it would be a regulated monopoly, and 
prices would l>e fixed by the State. They are will¬ 
ing to be regulated by the State, and to have prices 
fixed by the State so long as they control the State. 
They are unwilling to believe that farmers yet see 
the joker in that innocent proposition. History 
shows no example of a monopoly in food distribution 
that failed to discourage production and no instance 
of arbitrary price-fixing that did not result in chaos 
to the industry. 
The milk trust and its political friends are push¬ 
ing the publicity propaganda for this measure. The 
people are being made familiar with it, but it should 
be defeated. 
The National Farm Bureau Meeting 
How the Chicago Meeting and the Western Farmers 
Looked to a New York Delegate. 
This meeting was called to form a National Farm Bu¬ 
reau organization that might be able, not only to 
strengthen and help the county and State work, but also 
to secure a square deal for the farmer in the national 
field. The delegates from 3.1 States were present, com¬ 
ing from States differing in organization, problems and 
economic conditions, but animated by common ideals. 
While the delegates differed as to some of the details 
they were practically a unit as to the underlying prin¬ 
ciples which should govern. The first and most prom¬ 
inent of these was the uncompromising Americanism 
which cropped out again and again; in the reply, by S. 
L. Strivings of New \ ork to the address of welcome in 
which he said: “Anyone who raises the red flag in 
America should be run out of the country at the point 
of a bayonet,” and in the resolutions adopted, as follows : 
“Wo unqualifiedly assert our loyalty to the principles 
of the freedom of the people, under our American insti¬ 
tutions. and while recognizing the right of any and 
every class of our people to associate themselves for ma¬ 
terial benefit, we just as strongly assert the right of 
every American citizen to the free and unhampered priv¬ 
ilege of disposing of his labor or products thereof as he 
may individually desire.” 
The same spirit was also shown in the discussion on 
the floor when delegates were reminded that the country 
was looking to the farmers as the great sane conserva¬ 
tive element of the population which had not gone on 
strike for a six-hour day or a 100 per cent raise in 
wages, but as usual was working eight hours a day twice 
•a day, once before dinner and once after dinner, to feed 
the world. 
After Americanism was evident the unalterable deter¬ 
mination of the delegates to secure through united ac¬ 
tion a ‘square deal” for the farmers of the nation. 
Heretofore the farmer has very largely been voiceless or 
represented by those with whom other interests have 
been paramount. It is hoped that this organization 
may furnish a medium through which all the Farm Bu¬ 
reaus of the country may speak with authority ou mat¬ 
ters of national concern to farmers. 
Not all the Southern States were represented, and the 
delegates from the South who were present seemed most 
anxious to find out all they could about the Northern 
methods and organizations, and willing to adopt the 
good things discovered. Their attitude of mind was 
shown by one delegate who said he would have to go 
home, and not only raise money enough to join the 
National Federation, but that he would have to reor¬ 
ganize their State. 
The “corn-fed” delegates from the Middle West w r ere 
a husky lot, and came to the convention with definite 
ideas of what they wanted and how to get it. While 
they did not differ from the other delegates in funda¬ 
mentals. they did differ on some details. They were 
after quick results, and as a means to that end wanted 
a large amount of funds, immediately available. They had 
a “vision” of fighting the packers and the elevator ring 
with big lawyers, big funds, and big noises. This in¬ 
volved the levying of a big membership fee of from 50c 
to $1 for each member of the State Federation. This 
would have automatically put all but the corn belt out 
of the game. 
New York also had a “vision,” but it was not so much 
a vision of dollars as a vision of service, and they could 
point to the accomplishments of the New Y'ork State 
Federation on an expenditure of less than $2,000 in 
1011) as a practical demonstration of their view. New 
York, backed up by New England, Dixie and the Pacific 
Coast, finally won out, and the membership fee was 
assessed on the basis of 10 per cent of the membership 
fees paid into the counties affiliated with the State Fed¬ 
eration and levied on the basis of the membership as 
of December 31 of the previous year, and payable in 
advance quarterly January, April, July and October. 
This will let all sections of the country participate and 
automatically adjust the payments so that the States 
having a low membership fee will pay less than the 
Mi(ldle_ West, where the farms are worth from $70,000 
to $125,000, and where the membership fee ranges from 
$5 to $15. The vital thing was to get things so ar¬ 
ranged that every section of the country could afford 
to come in. 
California sent a strong delegation, and they had 
a decided.influence in shaping the policies of the meet¬ 
ing. They said California was strewn with the wrecks 
of co-operative associations that died of too much 
money, and that where the carcass was there the buz¬ 
zards would be gathered together, and they stood for 
a careful and conservative program. 
One of the outstanding things of the meeting was 
that the better the delegates from the different sections 
became acquainted the better they liked each other. 
The convention demonstrated that New York was ahead 
of most of the other States in organization and in ac¬ 
complishments to date. Many of the States are still 
busily engaged in getting their State and county or¬ 
ganizations in shape to function properly, and to date 
have very little but membership campaigns to show. 
Another year will change all this, and give the farmers 
an organization thoroughly articulated from the indi¬ 
vidual farmer to a national machine that can deliver 
the goods. 
and led by the delegate from Vermont stood for a sane 
program that would give the farmers an instrument 
responsive to their control, and that rvould help to 
realize their ideas of a better country life, economically 
socially and spiritually. New York secured the vital 
things for which she contended; partly because many of 
tin- other States looked to New York as the pioneer in 
the movement and also largely through the team work 
of the delegation, the influence of some of the silent 
delegates being the most potent. 
. It really begins to look as though the time was draw- 
ing to a close in which economic conditions were so 
shaped that the cost of living was kept down bv forcing 
the farmers to feed the city at less than the cost of pro- 
diu-tu.n ; that legislators who want to regulate the sun 
will have to think about the farmer rather than about 
golf and that it will no longer be safe to pretend to do 
. o net.lnng /or the farmer and then do something to the 
farmer—\\ lcks bills, farm labor specialists, the farmer 
urged to co-operate to feed the world by the United 
StatesLovernmont and then prosecuted when he does it. 
stremrJh^will^Ka 8 - 1 for t] ? ls organization, and its 
strength will be in the complete organization, sound 
charter ^ iS b *i Sed ‘ and the strength and 
character of the officers and executive committee. 
H. C. MCKENZIE. 
matting use or tne Country Faper 
l-or the past few months I have been the town corre¬ 
spondent for the North Adams. Mass.. Transcript 
Some time ago I had a talk with the editor, and told him 
how biased many town and city papers seemed to be in 
^i" e ^. repo / te -^ 1 sl] £ KestP(1 th; B it would be an 
excellent thing for that paper to cultivate a little the 
armors point of view, open his columns to articles for 
the education of the public as to the real facts about 
farmers profits, and publish such articles or letters as 
flic farmers among his subscribers might send in. We 
had a good talk, and he saw the point I tried to make 
and expressed himself as being anxious to co-operate- 
sau he would be glad to do all he could, and would like 
nothing better than to receive and publish what his 
farmer friends might send in. 
Such men are scarce maybe, but I have an idea that 
the reason the farmer’s side is so seldom presented is 
that the farmers content themselves with grumbling at 
the injustice of so many news articles, when thev ought 
to make a more vigorous protest. Why not write a let¬ 
ter to the editor when an unjust or untruthful article 
appears? YS by let the “interests” do all the influenc¬ 
ing. I believe that there are many country and some 
city papers that will be glad to hear from agriculturists. 
Go less kicking and more constructive work, and don’t 
let the public hear one side only. 
I told the editor of the Trail script that I would like 
to write a short series of articles myself. I have only 
had time to. write one, but the editor published it and I 
am sure will be glad to yet the others. You have been 
advocating this procedure for some years, and I am a 
convert. I am not a regular farmer, but my heart is 
with the men and women who till the soil, and I want 
them to get a square deal; to get it, however, they must 
hrlp themselves; neither the Lord nor anyone else can 
do much for them unless they do. h. m. Eastman. 
Franklin Co.. Mass. 
B. N.-Y.—This first article by Mr. Eastman is a good 
one. and we expect to print it next week, as a sample 
of what country people can do to help their business 
