Iht RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
117 
The New York Agricultural Department 
Governor Miller recommends a reorganization of 
the State Agricultural Department. He would put 
it under a single head, and introduce important 
changes in administration, notably in the methods of 
indemnities for slaughtered diseased live stock. The 
Governor could not be expected to go into details, 
but these general suggestions indicate that he real¬ 
izes that the department is not just what it ought 
to be. 
Governor Miller, however, is badly advised, if he 
has been seriously led to believe that the Council of 
Farms and Markets may keep the department out of 
politics. Any reversion to that old pretense now can 
serve only to question the sincerity of a purpose to 
real reform. Bad as it was before, the new scheme 
plunged the department deeper into politics than 
ever before. The consolidation of the two depart¬ 
ments was brought about during the Whitman ad¬ 
ministration to please the speculative food trusts, 
and to reward a liberal campaign contributor by 
making a place for him. When fanners discovered 
the latter purpose they defeated it; but by that time 
the former purpose had been accomplished. 
In one way only has the department been removed 
from politics. It is no longer in controversy. Po¬ 
litical control of it by certain political leaders is no 
longer in doubt or in dispute. Under present ar¬ 
rangements their power is supreme and unques¬ 
tioned. Governor Whitman put a labor leader with¬ 
out agricultural knowledge or farm experience .at 
the head of it, and turned the administration of its 
affairs over to the worst and most discredited type 
C' xdirieians in the State. During 1918 the depart¬ 
ment was deliberately converted into a State polit¬ 
ical machine, and its revenues were largely indi¬ 
rectly diverted to political ends. If we want an 
agricultural department as a subsidiary of a State 
political party it would be difficult to devise a more 
perfect arrangement than we now have, and a re¬ 
organization of it would serve only to weaken it. It 
is. under the present law, beyond the reach of farm¬ 
ers, of the Governor, and of the Legislature itself. 
The fact that it is now under the absolute control 
of Republican politicians who have no responsi¬ 
bility to farm interests is not important. It would 
be no better under Democratic politicians. It has no 
resemblance to Republican or Democratic institu¬ 
tions. It is the Russian Soviet form of government, 
and is not defensible either in principle or in prac¬ 
tice. 
The truth is the department under the council has 
been a disappointment and a humiliation to farmers. 
This is without reflection on the present members of 
the council, who as a whole measure up as citizens 
to as good a type as we could expect. The germs of 
evil are bedded deep in the department itself, and no 
half-hearted reorganization from within will avail. 
A thorough housecleaning is needed; and to be ef¬ 
fective it must come from without, and not from 
within. We do not want any sham reorganization 
at this time. If it is to be touched at all, and all 
admit the need, let it be thorough and complete. 
New York is a great agricultural State. It has 
great agricultural resources. It has splendidly 
equipped farms, and skilled and intelligent farmers. 
Let us have an Agricultural Department worthy of 
it all. 
The department cannot be reorganized by its ow> 
employees, because their own positions are at stake: 
nor by institutional men, because they are more or 
less suborduiate to the political system. It cannot 
be reorganized by a legislative committee, because 
many of the incumbents and policies now retain their 
positions and prominence by political endorsements 
and influence. Farmers themselves are the proper 
authority to construct a law to reorganize the Agri¬ 
cultural Department, and to reconstruct it for service 
to themselves. The State has an abundance of farm 
talent qualified for the work; and if Governor Miller 
puts it into their hands they will make a good job 
of it. 
As to the Division of Foods and Markets, it was 
the only department of the State devised and organ¬ 
ized by farmers themselves for a specific purpose. 
They made it a separate department because they 
knew it would disturb powerful trust interests and 
incur their opposition. They knew how easy it is- 
for them to bring influences to bear quietly on sub¬ 
ordinates. They wanted a head to this department 
that they could see and reach and feel. If the de¬ 
partment was to be fought, they wanted to know 
who fought and to see the weapons. They could not 
know these things if the work were in the hands of a 
deputy under a Commissioner of Agriculture who 
could be reached from twenty different angles. The 
purposes of the department were defeated under the 
present plan. That was the principal reason for the 
change. 
If it is not to function it should be cut out, the law 
repealed and the money saved. To farmers, how¬ 
ever, it is the most important department of the 
State. Nothing would please farmers more nor serve 
them better than to restore it, and equip it under a 
single head to accomplish its original purpose, 
namely, the development of an efficient and economic 
system for the distribution of farm food products. 
A Case of Milk Inspection 
A neighbor sent word to board of health about my 
barns. On September 19, 1920, an official called at my 
tal-m, went everywhere and found fault with everything 
• -'I.y wife was ready for an asylum when I got home. 
,, r, 1 , 11 * ea Y e an y paper at all about what was wrong. 
On Tuesday, September 22, they refused my milk at 
creamery having notice from board of health that con¬ 
ditions were not right at my farm. I wrote for in¬ 
structions what to do to my barns. In a little over 
two weeks I had their paper of what they found fault 
with, lofty per cent of my neighbors’ barns were worse 
than mine. I whitewashed barn, which I always do 
every Fall and Spring anyway, bought one roll of roof¬ 
ing paper and lined a part of roof that was a little 
open and asked for a reinspection. After writing 
numerous times an inspector came on November 8 and 
gave me a perfect score and said he would report to 
creamery to take my milk on again. I heard nothing 
further and wrote several times, until December 23 I 
met creamery manager, and he said he had word to 
take my milk. Had these men the legal power to do as 
they did . It has been a serious loss to me. j. b. 
The agricultural law provides, that no person pro¬ 
ducing milk for the purpose of selling the same 
for consumption as such, or for manufacturing the 
same into butter, cheese, condensed milk or other 
human food, shall keep the same in utensils, cans, 
vessels, rooms, or buildings that are unclean or have 
unsanitary surroundings or drainage or in any con¬ 
dition whatsoever that would tend, to produce or 
promote conditions favorable to unhealthfulness or 
disease. The Commissioner of Agriculture should 
notify all persons, farms, associations or corpora¬ 
tions violating this provision so to improve the sani¬ 
tary conditions that the law will not be violated, and 
if such notice is complied with in 10 days time, 
Sunday excepted, then no action shall be brought 
for violation of the statute. The sanitary code also 
lias stringent regulations relative to the sale of milk 
products and local health authorities may increase 
the stringency of these regulations. Tf your milk 
was not produced under the conditions required by 
regulations, the creamery was within the law in re¬ 
fusing the milk. If. after giving you a perfect score, 
the inspector delayed his report for an unreasonable 
length of ti: to annoy you, or if in the discharge of 
his duty be -vent beyond the scope of his authority, 
lie would be liable to action; but precious little com¬ 
fort that is to a dairyman. When milk is scarce the 
farmer is not liable to be held up by inspectors. 
When there is a surplus, no one worries about incon¬ 
venience or loss to the producer. 
“ The Spirit of the West ” 
One of our readers lives in North Dakota, but still 
owns a farm in New York. lie gives us the following 
statement of contrast between Western and Eastern 
farmers. How near does he get to it? 
The man of the West believes in his country; thinks 
he has the best farm land out of doors; boosts its ■alue, 
its products, and will fight if you disagree with hbn. 
The tnan of the East has no faith in his country ; knows 
his land is worthless, his products are inferior, and 
so on. 
Here we have crop failure after crop failure. When 
I say crop failure I am talking about a matter you 
hardly comprehend. To illustrate, in 1917 I put just 
s’bout $3,000 into crops here; net returns were some¬ 
thing over $29 ; no possible chance to recover the dif¬ 
ference. That is a crop failure. But in spite of the 
fact that we have had many of them, and will have them, 
we have not lost faith in the country. We had a crop 
in 1909. one in 1912. a half of one in 1913, almost a 
fair crop in 11)14, a big crop in 1915, a failure, total, in 
1910, 1917. big crop in 1918. a failure, in 1919 and a 
rather light crop in 1920. In spite of this we are cheer¬ 
ful, believe that better days arc 1 coming; spend money 
to advertise our lands and our country. 
That is the “spirit of the West.” 
It strikes me that wlvm the great State of New York 
wakes up to its possibilities as an agricultural empire, 
and stoutly insists on it. goes into the nation and carries 
its fight to the front door of the other States, then and 
then only will the East come into its own. There are 
plenty of difficulties to overcome in the East. They are 
no greater, no more serious, than those that beset us. 
In the Fall of 1917 a man asked me to extend time of 
payment on a claim of $500. He said he had 800 acres 
plowed, had the seed and feed, but if compelled to pay 
that claim he could not farm all of this land. He owed 
a great deal of money, was 59 years old, and prospects 
were not bright. In 1918 he sold his wheat and got 
over 82;>,000 for it; had some rye and flax left to sell, 
had co head of cattle, plenty of horses, and so on. Then 
he was tempted, sinned and lost his pile. He bought 
more land, built better buildings, went into debt had 
a crop failure in 1919, a very light crop in 1920, and 
today he is worse off than he was in the Fall of 1917 
Much worse off. But that is the West. 
renditions there are not insurmountable. But the 
idea that the East is inferior, or that it cannot compete 
with the West, has gained so much prominence that it 
has become, in my judgment, the greatest handicap to 
successful farming in your States. o. p. j. 
Wholesale and Retail Prices 
Some New England readers have sent us the fol¬ 
lowing advertisement by a Boston firm and ask 
what there is to it: 
We find that a box of grapefruit or oranges retailed 
at $5 is divided up about as follows: 
Transportation . 
Picking and packing.. 
Broker at shipping end 
Commission merchant . 
Jobber . 
Retailer . 
23 per cent 
18 per cent 
3 per cent 
9 per cent 
.5 per cent 
25 per cent 
Leaving 17 per cent for the producer or grower. We 
propose to make it possible to show a saving on this 
83 per cent to the consumer of about 40 per cent by 
eliminating much of the expense shown, and make it a 
proposition from the grower to the consumer by one 
intermediate ^factor; in other words, what you are 
buying for $7 at this time, we will sell you for $4 50 
by the box. 
The firm is really selling the fruit in this way. 
It does a large wholesale trade, and this mail-order 
business is a side line to be used for disposing of 
any surplus fruit. The advertising pays by calling 
attention to this firm’s general business. They prob¬ 
ably lose money at times at this price. But where 
does the producer come in? 
The Rural Educational Committee 
X xeei X muse say tnat criticism of the Rural Educa- 
tional Committee as doing its work through “obscure 
or hidden methods” or to “force a change of the present 
system is unwarranted by anything that I, for one 
knovv about its organization or methods. Individual 
members of that committee doubtless vary widely as to 
their views on certain phases of the rural school prob- 
\ h Y r Y e Y s va, 'y as tb <> views of other people in 
different localities vary, hut I do not think that any 
individual is out at this early date in the survey of con¬ 
ditions to secure general acceptance of his or her ideas 
as to possible changes. 
We are just all studying and interested in a big prob- 
lem, and all want the best thing done in the end—and 
the end is a long way off and will be reached after the 
survey is made, and the survey is only an investigation 
by trained investigators whose names and reputations 
insure an impartial investigation. 
Then the committee will decide nothing; it has no 
mandate to do anything except to study, survey, inves- 
tjgate and recommend. The rural people of the State 
will have to say what they want done after the final 
report is made. The findings of the trained investigators 
employed by the committee will, however, be worthy of 
the serious and thoughtful consideration of all good 
citizens. There can be no doubt that no group of men 
and women in the State will be more interested or in a 
better position to give this survey intelligent considera¬ 
tion than will the several hundred district commis- 
sioners, three of whom are members of this committee. 
1 nblicity is what the committee wants—publicity as 
to all the weak spots in the present system, and all sug¬ 
gestions as to their remedy—and widest possible pub¬ 
licity of the findings of the survey staff. Then argue it 
out. Some good will surely come from such an earnest 
attempt as is now under way (with so many different 
groups represented) to find out the truth and‘put. things 
right. All the time it is the country boy and girl that 
is kept in mind; all for their sake and for no other rea¬ 
son whatever. Any attempt to start out with a decision 
already made as to some policy and to investigate with 
a view of finding evidence to support such a policy, is 
doomed to fail, and ought to. That different individ¬ 
uals will have opinions as to the best policy to pursue 
and will try to bring others to their way of thinking, is, 
of course, true. Discussion, which is sure to ensue, and 
which will probably last for a considerable length of 
time (doubtless for a year or two), ought to show which 
theories are right and which are wrong before there is 
any further attempt to carry any suggested scheme into 
actual practice. The people all over the State will have 
something to say about that, and after the township 
law experiment the State Legislature is likely to move 
slowly. 
< >f course the Legislature and the Governor have the 
final, say as to whether any changes should be made, 
barring minor alterations made by the State Educa¬ 
tional Department. Is there not a very general dispo- 
sition to let the rural schools alone until farmers say 
what they need and want? And is not the purpose of 
this Rural Educational Committee to find out exactly 
that very thing, viz., what farmers want? The survey 
is to throw light on the problem, to secure and furnish 
trustworthy evidence of what the real situation is Do 
you know what it is? Do I? Does anybody? We may 
know what it is in a school across the road, or in 
neighboring districts, but we ought not to jump at con¬ 
clusions and say that these conditions are general iill 
over the State. Someone must investigate, collect facts 
and data, and group and arrange these, ferret out, if 
possible, the causes of bad conditions and suggest means 
of improvement. Trained educational experts will do 
this work best, will they r ;) t? Their findings will be 
audited by the public and they will be able to put noth¬ 
ing through nor “over” that will not bear public scru¬ 
tiny. To cast discredit on the work of such a body of 
men before they begin it i6 not fair to them, nor to the 
cause of education, which is the cause of the children. 
HERBERT G. REED. 
