7ht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
201 
A Referendum Vote for Country People 
Here is Your Chance to be Heard 
FARM REFERENDUM 
No. 1. 
Shall the New York State daylight saving law be 
repealed? 
Yes 
No 
No. 2. 
Shall the agricultural law of New York State he 
completely revised where needed, and jokers re¬ 
moved? 
Yes 
No 
No. 3. 
Shall the Commissioner of Agriculture and the 
Commissioner of Foods and Markets be elected by 
direct vote at general elections? 
Yes 
No 
No. 4. 
Shall the State create commissions arbitrarily to 
fix the price of any farm product? 
Yes 
No 
No. 5. 
Shall the dog law limit the amount to be paid for 
fancy animals or fowls? 
Yes 
No 
No. 6. 
Shall the State school laws be amended so as to 
take some of the present arbitrary powers from the 
State Department? 
No 
No. 7. 
Do you favor a referendum vote like this to rep¬ 
resent farm demands at Albany? 
To vote make a cross (x) in the blank space. If 
you do not want to cut the paper, write the numbers 
on a plain shee 1 of paper or postcard and write 
“Yes” or “No” after the numbers. 
We would like to have* an answer to the above 
seven propositions from our farmers in New York 
State or elsewhere. The principle applies any- 
where. Any adult member of the farm family is 
entitled to vote, including the hired man. City 
subscribers will please mark “city” on the paper. 
It will not matter whether the name is signed or 
not. We believe a vote from 50 per cent of our 
readers in New York State would control action on 
any one or all of the propositions. 
I.eading officials at Albany give little attention to 
the spokesmen for agriculture, because the spokesmen 
are uot agreed among themselves, and the officials 
know they do not receive their authority from the 
rank and file of farmers. This situation is frankly 
admitted by all. The only remedy is a dii’ect com- 
mand from the farmer himself. 
It is argued by some that farmers will not take 
the trouble to vote on a refei’endum. Some go far 
enough to say that farmers do uot have sufficient 
information to vote on important State problems, 
even if they would vote. We dispute both of these 
arguments. We believe farmers will do their part 
in this work just as soon as they see a system in 
use that will make it possible for them to select 
their own spokesmen and to present their own de¬ 
mands. It would be too much to expect that th y 
will always vote right, but the majority cannot 
possibly be wrong in the future as many times as 
the politicians have been wrong in the past. It 
must, besides, be conceded that the farmer will 
vote conscientiously for his own interest, and if 
lie makes a mistake once he can he trusted to cor¬ 
rect it the next time. Iu this country our institu¬ 
tions are founded on the principle of majority rule, 
and there is no good reason why farmei*s should al¬ 
ways he controlled by a minority. We believe a 
farm referendum properly conducted would not 
only fairly represent farm sentiment hut also that 
the judgment would be good and sound. 
At best, a vote as here suggested is imperfect 
and incomplete. To he entirely satisfactory it would 
need to be conducted by an oi’ganization, and every 
farmer iu the State provided with a ballot to vote 
by mail, and the ballot should provide the means by 
which the voter could choose his spokesmen. This 
is little more than a suggestion. If the response 
justifies the attempt, other oppoi’tunities may be 
offered provided the occasion ai'ises. We believe 
that farmers as a whole.want to use their influence 
for the good of the industry that they represent, 
and we know that if they do so in some such way 
as here suggested they can have auything they want 
in reason. 
This test will at least show what percent in New 
York State are willing to go to some pains to ex¬ 
press their preferences. Do not leave it for “George 
to do.” Give us your own sentiment. 
The Farmer and Country Papers 
We have often told our readers that country peo¬ 
ple should learn how to dominate the rural papers 
or the daily papers iu the smaller cities. As these 
papers must depend on farmers for support they 
should in turn support the interests of farmers. 
Here is an interesting ease right in this line. First 
comes the following letter: 
Tiie enclosed clipping is from the Belmont Dispatch 
of January 9, 1920. The resolution is from the Bel¬ 
mont Grange. Iu an interview with the proprietor of 
the “Farmers’ Grocery” today he said the whole thing 
was a mistake of the printer; that the advertisement 
did not appear as he had written it; that he would 
correct the same iu the next issue in a way that would 
be satisfactory to the dairymen of this section, and 
thanked me very profusely for coming to him and giving 
him a chance to square himself before the resolution 
was printed. And I believe that he will. The Belmont 
Grange will not allow any sheet of this kind to 'put one 
over’ on the farmers with impunity. i. g. hali.. 
The advertisement to which Mr. Hall objects fol¬ 
lows : 
: BUTTER IS TOO HIGH 
: We have good substitutes 
: Swift’s Premium Oleo. Golden Oleo 
: Spredit and Nuco Nut Oleo 
: Also Our Special on 
: Alco Nut and Cupid Nut at — lbs. for $1 
: THE FARMERS’ GROCERY, FLOUR, 
: FEED AND SEED STORE 
: Herman J. ‘Gaits, Prop. 
And liei*e is the resolution adopted by the Bel¬ 
mont Grange: 
M hereas, the farmers of this town are principally 
engaged iu the production of milk: and, 
Whereas, butter is one of the products of milk; and. 
Whereas, there appeared in the Belmont Dispatch of 
January 9. 1920, an advertisement headed (in large let¬ 
ters) “Butter Is Too High” over the firm name of “The 
Farmers’ Grocery”; and. 
Whereas, butter cannot be produced profitablv at 
tiie present market price, and also when the food value 
of butter is compared with butter substitutes the price 
of butter is not too high; be it, therefore. 
Resolved, that Belmont Grange No. 1243 does herebv 
object and protest against the publication of such mis¬ 
leading and erroneous statements; and be it further 
Resolved, that the proprietor of said store be re- 
quested to change either the wording of the advei-tise- 
ment or the name of his store. 
That settled it apparently, so far as that grocery 
store is concerned. Whatever may be said for the 
town and city press, a newspaper published iu a 
dairy section should not permit direct competition 
of this sort to its “leading industry.” Now let the 
Grange go out after the farmers who arc selling 
milk or batter ami using substitutes! 
Governor Smith and Speaker Sweet on 
Agriculture 
Governor Smith’s speech at the annual meeting of 
the New York State Agricultural Association, held 
in Albany last week, was the one unexpected feature 
of the convention. At the outset he said he had 
something oil his chest, and he proceeded to get rid 
of it. As Governor of the State he said he was not 
satisfied with the agricultural regency. The Council 
of Farms and Markets, he thought, was not giving 
the State service in proportion to its cost. Too much 
of the appropriation goes to pay political salaries, 
and too much fox* gathering statistics far away from 
the point of contact. The total budget approved for 
agriculture, for the next fiscal year, beginning July 
first, is $3,155,120.80. The Department of Agricul¬ 
ture gets $392,000, and the Foods and Markets gets 
$205,000. Under the present form of regency the 
State cannot get full returns for that appropriation. 
He found no fault with the personnel of the council: 
but he insisted that you cannot get the results from 
a council of 10 men that comes fi*oxn a centralized 
authority or one responsible head: and the attempt 
to take the department out of politics was not en¬ 
tirely successful. It was like the report of the suc¬ 
cessful surgical operation—but the patient died. 
“If you ask me to say quick what I should do. I 
would, if the Legislature is willing, stand for a lump 
sum appropriation and reorganize the department 
from top to bottom. Without any red tape I am 
willing to put the work in the hands of a man who 
understands the work. Agriculture, next to educa¬ 
tion, is the most important department of the State. 
It needs the biggest man we can get. I would, if 
necessary to get that man, pay from $15,000 to 
$25,000 a year for him. and take his appointment out 
of partisan politics. You can name him in the bill, 
or appoint him by the Legislature. Get a big man. 
clothe him with authority and responsibility, and 
we will get results. He should have authority to 
direct the expenditure of the whole agricultural 
appropriation, directing the State Fair, the county 
fairs, and unifying all the State agricultural insti¬ 
tutions.” 
Speaker Sweet presided at the evening session on 
Tuesday, and introduced the Governor. Mr. Sweet 
spoke of the worthy traditions of the society, and 
encouragingly of the Agricultural Department. He 
referred to the reorganization of the Council of 
Farms and Markets, and the impi*ovements which 
resulted from the new appointments. He said that 
producers and consuuiex-s had already benefited from 
the organization of the Department of Foods and 
Max-kets. He was especially generous in his praise 
of the oi’iginal work of the Department, which ixe 
helped create, and iu many ways encouraged. 
The attendance was not large. This was probably 
due to the storms that interfex*ed with travel, and 
to shortage of help at the farms. The battery of 
speakers, however, was full and good. More details 
will follow next week. 
Officers elected were: President. Dr. W. H. Jor¬ 
dan, Geneva. Vice-presidents: First District. An¬ 
drew Scliriber, Chester; Second District. Henry L. 
Wardwell, New York; Third District. Gilbert M. 
Tucker, Albany; Fourth District, Seth Strickland. 
Carthage; Fifth District. W. X. Giles, Skaneateles; 
Sixth District, John G. Pendleton, Owego; Seventh 
District, W. G. Markham, Avon; Eighth District. 
Clarence Potter, Gowanda; Ninth District, Frank 
Brinkerhoff, Briukerhoff. Secretary. A. L. Brock¬ 
way, Syracuse: treasurer. Harry B. Winters. Albany. 
Executive Committee: John Y. Gerow, Washington- 
ville; F. W. Sessions, Utica; W. H. Manning, Sara¬ 
toga; C. Fred Boshart. Lowville. 
New York Dogs and Sheep 
Dogs kill 5,000 sheep annually in New York State. 
Believing that the function of a newspaper is the dis¬ 
semination of subject matter, which will be for the 
public good, the Ontario County Sheep Growers’ Co¬ 
operative Association requests that you publish the 
following figures, which are obtained through the 
courtesy of D. W. McLaury, Director Bureau of Animal 
Husbandry. Duriug the period from July 1, 1917. when 
the State adopted the present dog license system, to 
January 21, 1920. “Old Dog Tray” demonstrated his 
faithfulness by killing 12.675 sheep and lambs, injuring 
6.030. while 42,576 were chased and worried. The State 
paid, or will pay, as claims for past year have been 
audited, the neat sum of $389,053.52 as Tray’s mutton 
chop bill. From March 1, 1918. to March 1, 1919, there 
\\ ei*e 5,So9 sheep killed. 2.910 injured, and claims paid 
of $180,475. Statistics carefully tabulated since 1900 
abundantly prove that the dog is a mighty impediment 
to the sheep industry, and bear out the assertion that 
the annual loss from dogs exceeds 5,000 head. Great 
ado has been made in newspapers because wolves (?) 
have occasionally been seen iu various parts of New 
York State. If wolves were to cause a loss approxi¬ 
mating the above no effort would he spared to eradicate 
so destructive a menace. Yet our dogs are licensed to 
kill sheep and destroy, and the public looks ou with 
unseeing eyes. If the sheep industry ever reaches its 
deserving place iu New York agriculture better protec¬ 
tion must be assured. lewis f. allex. 
Secretary Ontario County Sheep Growers’ Co- 
opera t i ve Assoeiation. 
