The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
Union Labor and the Farmers 
la his opening address at the forty-first annual 
convention of the American Federation of Labor in 
the city of Denver, last week, Samuel Gompers, the 
president of the Federation, made a plea for unity 
of action between farmers and workers in other 
industries. 
“The enemies to the workers in industry.” said he, 
“are at work also in trying to drive back the position 
secured by the farmers of our country in these past few 
years. We must get nearer and closer to the men 
engaged in the agricultural work of America. The 
farmers, the men engaged in agriculture, the men en¬ 
gaged in industry must have a closer alliance and co¬ 
operation in order that we shall not be crushed by the 
reaction of captains of industry or princes of finance.” 
Irresponsible suggestions have been made before 
for a unity between farmers and organized labor. 
This is the first time that it has been openly advo¬ 
cated by the president of the Federation in a formal 
address. 
For many reasons co-operation between farmers 
and workers in the other industries is logical and 
desirable. Workers on the farms produce 87 per 
cent of the annual wealth in raw materials. The 
workers on the railroads and in the factories and 
shops take this raw material and in some cases in¬ 
crease its value by their skill and labor in changing 
it into new forms of utility. Much of the raw 
material of the farm is used as food for the workers. 
The utilities put into the raw materials from the 
farms and the mines are then sold back to the farms. 
The power of the farmer to buy is limited by the 
amount he receives for his raw material. lie can 
buy only in proportion to what he can sell. So, too, 
the workei’s in other industries can sell him back 
of the products of their labor only amounts sufficient 
to balance what they buy of him. The city workers 
are entirely dependent on the farmer for both food 
and raw material, and for consumers for the product 
of their own labor as a class. It is natural therefore 
that the suggestion to get together should come from 
the factory and transportation workers, and there 
is every reason to hope that the right spirit of co¬ 
operation would be a benefit to both. We believe 
that it would be. 
One of the first questions for discussion in the 
conferences between farm and industrial workers 
would be our system of exchange. The farmer today 
works close to 14 hours a day, and his wife, who 
contributes to production, works longer hours than 
her husband. The time of the skilled dairyman to¬ 
day is estimated as worth 28 cents an hour. Union 
laborers work 44 hours a week, or less than eight 
hours a day, and draw from a dollar to a dollar and 
a quarter an hour. 
In the exchange of any product of the farm for 
products of the factory the farmer exchanges three 
hours of his work for one hour of labor in the fac¬ 
tory. In many cases it is more. The equitable basis 
of exchange is the amount of labor required to pro¬ 
duce the commodities exchanged. Mr. Gompers is 
familiar with these economic facts. He is too far- 
seeing a man to suppose that this unequal system 
of exchange could be maintained in any scheme of 
co-operation that can be mutually worked out be¬ 
tween farmers and industrial workers. The only 
reasonable inference is that he is willing to forego 
any advantage that union labor now enjoys over the 
labor of the farm for the sake of the savings and 
mutual protection that would result to both as a 
result of co-operation between them. If this is his 
attitude lie is on safe ground. If, on the other hand 
he should fail in a voluntary distribution of fairness 
and seek to maintain a selfish advantage he would 
by such means simply create a suspicion of his 
motives and x'epel the men he seeks to attract. Any 
alliance between the farmer and industrial labor 
must be on 'the broad, open co-operative plan that 
rewards each member according to his merits. Even 
on this basis speculators and middlemen generally 
will oppose his suggestion. Politicians will discour¬ 
age it, but to us it seems like a sensible thing for 
the people who produce food and those who consume 
it to get as close together as possible and dispense 
with some of the speculators and other useless mid¬ 
dlemen who now fatten on the bounty of both of 
them. 
A Study of the Co-operative Laws 
Part II. 
Au opinion rendered by a firm of Rochester attorneys 
which has been construed as holding that it would be 
unlawful for a canning company to contract with the 
canning crops association and would leave them open to 
prosecution, when carefully read, draws no such con¬ 
clusion. They cite the anti-monopoly acts which I have 
mentioned above, and then in conclusion state that if 
the canners should enter into contracts with the canning 
crops association, which were in violation of the said 
acts , they would be liable to prosecution. They did not 
say that Article 13-A was “class” legislation or uncon¬ 
stitutional. nor did they say the proposed contract was 
so drawn as to violate the anti-monopoly laws, nor did 
they say it would be a violation for the canner to buy 
from or contract with the association. Of course con¬ 
tracts might be drawn which would amount to con¬ 
spiracy, even by associations incorporated under Ar¬ 
ticle 13-A. 
As to the act being “class” legislation, I would call 
your attention to the fact that a very large proportion 
of the acts relating to corporations, may, upon the same 
ground, be termed “class” legislation. Specific statutes 
relating to transportation, hanking and insurance have 
been enacted covering all the ramifications of these in¬ 
dustries. giving specific powefs and privileges to those 
engaged in the undertaking. Special statutes have been 
passed for the incorporation of churches, clubs, ceme¬ 
teries, educational institutions, associations, etc., and 
in each of these cases the acts have been compiled to 
meet the specific requirements of such undertakings, and 
are fully as explicit in that respect and grant fully as 
broad powers as does Article 13-A of the membership 
corporations law, Article 21 of the membership corpora¬ 
tions law. for the organization of consumers, or Article 
3 of the business corporations law, known as the busi¬ 
ness co-operative act. 
Further, if it is claimed that Article 13-A grants 
specific privileges to farmers because it permits only 
those engaged in agriculture, dairy or horticulture to 
take advantage of it. I will call attention to the fact 
that Article 3 of the business corporation law makes no 
such distinction and therefore gives the opportunity of 
any class of people engaged in any pursuit, except those 
pursuits like railroads, insurance,' banking or others 
which are organized under the specific laws, recognizing 
the public interests and the right of control, the privilege 
of incorporating, as set forth in Section 26 of the said 
statute, as follows: 
“'Section 26. Five or more persons may become a co¬ 
operative corporation, company, association, exchange, 
society, or union for the purpose of conducting a gen¬ 
eral producing, manufacturing, warehousing or mer¬ 
chandizing, processing and cleansing business, on the 
co-operative plan as limited in this article, in articles 
of common use. including farm products, food supplies, 
farm machinery and supplies and articles of domestic 
and personal use, buying, selling or leasing homes or 
farms for its members, or building, or conducting hous¬ 
ing or eating places co-operatively, by making, signing, 
acknowledging and filing a certificate in the form and 
manner prescribed by Article 2 of this chapter.” 
Under the provisions of this act already manufactur¬ 
ing, laundries and other undertakings are being carried 
on in this State co-operatively. Therefore, the claim 
that this is “class” legislation is absolutely without 
foundation. So far as canning interests are concerned, 
their objection is, in my opinion, based entirely upon 
the fact that they recognize the methods of exploitation 
as practiced in the past, cannot be worked under co¬ 
operative contracts. However, they are not bound to 
make contracts with the co-operative associations; if 
in their mind it is better for them to try to continue 
the methods of exploitation carried on in the past, 
rather than to place the industry upon a sound founda¬ 
tion, as it relates to grower as well as themselves, it is 
their privilege. However, they must recognize the fact 
that under this act co-operative associations are granted 
the privilege of canning and preserving, and I have al¬ 
ready advised the farmers that if they cannot comply 
with the terms offered by the canner, their only recourse 
is for them to construct canning plants to preserve their 
own products. This will be a new departure for the 
farmers of the East, but it has been practiced to con¬ 
siderable extent by the fruit growers of the Pacific coast 
very successfully. 
The canning corporation, like any other corporation, 
is co-operative in nature. A number of persons co¬ 
operate by investing their capital in an enterprise and 
incorporate under the statute especially adapted to the 
undertaking. This practice has been developing for 75 
years, until such corporations are engaged in all kinds 
of business. The farmers are now learning that the 
same methods of corporate activities are beneficial to 
them and assist them in making their business more 
efficient. In the case of the business corporations, they 
are formed principally to do business with the general 
public for the purpose of making profit for themselves. 
Incidentally they may do some business for their stock¬ 
holders. The farmers’ corporations are organized for 
the purpose of performing services for their members, 
but incidentally may render similar service to others, 
but in neither case are allowed to make profit for the 
corporation. 
Business interests which have been exploiting the 
unincorporated farmers are very loth to see the farmer 
organized, and are of course. influenced because of an¬ 
ticipated injury to their business. The question as to 
the future of agricultural production and the menace to 
the republic due to the flow of population from rural 
to the urban districts on account of the small remunera¬ 
tion as compared with other business enterprises, does 
not appeal to them. 
I am informed by a very intimate friend of the late 
Theodore Roosevelt that he was a strong advocate of 
farmers’ co-operative corporations. lie took the ground 
tiiat the great business prosperity of the nation was 
due to corporate activities; that because of the urban 
prosperity a rapid drift of population from country to 
city had been promoted ; that about 10 years ago the 
population of city and country had become unbalanced, 
and it behooved public authorities to set up an active 
campaign to stimulate the organization of corporations 
among farmers, so that rural life would become more 
attractive. 
My conclusion, based upon both opinions of attorneys 
in this department, and a very competent attorney out¬ 
side the department, is that our co-operative laws are 
not class legislation and are not unconstitutional. 
Farmers will continue to organize and incorporate 
associations to perform such kinds of service for them 
as can better be performed by such associations than 
they can perform by themselves. They will not attempt 
to limit production ; they will not attempt to form com¬ 
binations in restraint of trade; they are bound to work 
collectively to make agriculture (our basic industry) 
sufficiently remunerative as to render it possible to 
maintain the rural life of the nation so attractive, by 
building up rural schools, rural churches and rural 
recreations, and maintain rural homes in which our 
people will want to live ; they will do in the future that 
which they have done in the past—all they can to pre¬ 
serve integrity in the social, civic and political life of 
the nation. c. R. white. 
Director, Bureau of Co-operative Associations. 
859 
Annual Meeting Holstein-Friesian As¬ 
sociation of America 
RESULTS OF THE MEETING.—A series of com¬ 
promises made the results of the thirty-sixth annual 
meeting of the Holstein-Friesian Association of America, 
which was held in Syracuse. N. Y., on .Tune 1 and 2, 
less than had been looked forward to by members alive 
to the situation in the organization. The net results 
were: A reduction in transfer fees of from $1 to 50 
cents per animal, a change in officers, and the institu¬ 
tion of a program of economy forced by the vote to re¬ 
duce transfer fees. 
CONTROLLING POWER.—The meeting was com¬ 
pletely controlled by A. L. Brockway of Syracuse, W. C. 
Newman of W.valusing, Pa., and judge F. M. Peasley 
of Cheshire, Conn., president of the New England Hol¬ 
stein Association. These men among them held a ma¬ 
jority of the 13,000 proxies voted. It was their inten¬ 
tion to force the reduction of the transfer fee to 50 cents 
and to have 50 per cent of all transfer revenue go to the 
Holstein club in the States in which it originated, to 
secure the adoption of a districting plan by which the 
country would be divided into districts according to 
member population, and to shear the power of the board 
of directors and officers of the national association. 
LACK OF HARMONY.—The meeting shortly devel¬ 
oped into one of the bitterest in the annals of the asso¬ 
ciation. It was probably this aspect that forced the 
“insurgents,” or proxy holders, to forego some of their 
claims. For this reason no fight was forced on restric¬ 
tion of the power of the board and officers. A compro¬ 
mise was also effected on the vote to prevent the board 
of directors from taking any action to investigate the 
need's of a national home for all departments of the 
organization and to act upon its findings. As passed 
the vote referred the question to a succeeding annual 
meeting. 
THE DISTRICTING PLAN.—This, which was pro¬ 
posed by II. C. Reynolds of Clark’s Summit. Pa., pro¬ 
vided that the country be divided into 12 districts, 
and that 16 directors be chosen, one to represent each 
1,250 members. The plan was looked upon favorably 
by breeders, with the exception that it was believed that 
directors should be elected by the entire membership 
instead of from districts. Probably for this reason the 
question was referred to a succeeding annual meeting. 
THE TRANSFER FEE.—Breeders expressing their 
views subsequent to the meeting said they believed the 
compromise on the proposal of Mr. Brockway to reduce 
thi' transfer fee 50 per cent and to subsidize State clubs 
with 50 per cent of the reduced revenue was wrong. 
It was their opinion that the transfer fee should have 
been kept at $1 and the clubs subsidized. There is a 
coming belief that some form of support for State clubs, 
the greatest intermediary in buying and selling stock, 
should be established. If the transfer fee had been 
kept at its old figure and 50 per cent of the revenue 
transferred to State clubs, the two main objects of the 
proposal would have been retained, the national asso¬ 
ciation would have been forced to economize and State 
clubs would have secured support. As it now stands 
the national association will have to struggle along on 
revenues,decreased approximately $100,000, and State 
clubs on the uncertain revenues accruing from member¬ 
ship fees. It is not felt by breeders that the reduction 
will be a big help to the “breeder on the hillside,” who 
probably only transfers eight or 10 animals annually 
and thus is saved onlv four or five dollars. 
THE BUSINESS SESSION.—The business session 
was featured by rather bitter discussion that became 
acrimonious at times. But it was nothing to the storm 
which arose over the election of officers. Judge Peasley. 
leader of the proxy group, nominated Frank O. Lowden. 
former Governor of Illinois. The nomination 1 immedi¬ 
ately called for a determined onset of the other faction, 
members of which swore he would not accept the office. 
But .Bulge Peasley remained firm, and demanded a roll 
calk with the result that Governor Bowden was elected 
by a decided majority. 
NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS —A bitter tilt 
arose over the nomination of a vice-president. Several 
members sought compromise by suggesting D. D. Aitken. 
chairman of the meeting and president of the national 
association until the election of Governor Bowden, for 
the office. But Judge Peasley observed that he was 
“committed to the name of another man for the po¬ 
sition.” That man was George E. Stevenson of Clark’s 
Summit, Pa., and he was elected. Malcolm II. Gardner, 
superintendent of advanced registry, and F. I,. Hough¬ 
ton. secretary, were retained, their salaries cut from 
$6,500 to $5,000 annually. Wing R. Smith of Syracuse 
was also unanimously re-elected treasurer. Fred Pabst. 
Oconomowoe, Wis., was re-elected director. Dr. D. B. 
Armstrong, Pierrepont Manor, N. Y.; Prof. T. E. Elder, 
Mt. Hermon, Mass., and .T. M. Kelley, Baraboo, Wis., 
were elected to the board. Judge Peasley sought to 
have the remainder of the board elected to make their 
services legal. The association is incorporated in New 
York, and the 12 men were elected outside of the State. 
O. U. Kellogg, Cortland. N. Y., protested, however, on 
the ground that several Supreme Court justices had up¬ 
held the legality of their election in another State than 
New York, and that any move in the direction proposed 
by Judge Peasley would furnish a talking point for 
opposing counsel in the Cabana case, which the board 
is prosecuting. The point was well taken, and Judge 
Peasley dropped the point 
THE CABANA CASE.—The Cabana case came in 
for a good deal of discussion at the meeting. It was 
used as a basis to discover the line-up of votes by Presi¬ 
dent Aitken during the first, day’s session. The matter 
was a vote of confidence in the board of directors in 
prosecuting the case and in the Holstein cow. offered 
bv J. M’. Hackney, St. Paul. Minn., vice-president of 
the association. The proxy faction forced tabling of 
the resolution, and conclusively proved the control of 
the meeting they held by the vote. 
THE BREEDERS’ * VIEWPOINT.—The meeting 
was a cause of much soreness on the part of breeders. 
The vote on the floor was decidedly against the policies 
which Judge Peasley and his faction forced upon the 
association. But after some thought, following a night’s 
sleep, breeders expressed the opinion that the way things 
had gone weren’t bad at all, and that a little economy 
and change of administration might well prove the best 
thing that could happen to the national organization. 
The economy program was laid out at a meeting of the 
board of directors following the adjournment of the 
annual meeting. It was decided to cut out all extension 
work for the coming year; it was the extension policy 
of President Aitken that had largely caused friction: 
and to make, reductions in the salaries of all officers. 
At this meeting the four new directors tendered their 
resignations, claiming they w^re dissatisfied with the 
manner in which they had been elected. They were 
immediately reappointed by the board, in this way secur¬ 
ing a greater degree of harmony. v. 
