Milk Affairs in the Courts 
Last week Justice Claud R. A1 verson of the Su¬ 
preme Court issued a temporary injunction forbid¬ 
ding the officers of the Dairymen’s League, Inc., and 
the Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association, 
Inc., and The Local Milk and Cream Company, Inc., 
of New York City, to discriminate against non¬ 
poolers in the sale of milk or in the price paid for it. 
The action is brought by the Lowville Milk and 
Cream Company, Inc., a farm-owned co-operative 
creamery company at Lowville. N. Y., against the 
League, the pooling association and the New York 
milk dealer which has contracts to buy the milk of 
the Lowville plant. The trouble grew out of the 
action of the officers of the League in selling non¬ 
pool milk and giving the dealers the option of paying 
for it at the same price they pay for pooled milk, 
or at a lower price. The difference in some eases is 
as much as $1.10 per 100 lbs. The attorney of the 
dealers’ association gave the opinion that it Would 
be unlawful to pay two different prices for the same 
milk. Some of the dealers followed his advice and 
paid all alike on the 15th. Others waited until the 
25th to get the lower price from the League, and 
paid on the lower basis. The difference was extra 
profit for the dealer. It also gave the dealer who 
took advantage of the low price an advantage over 
his competitors in the city for the sale of milk to 
stores, chibs, hotels, etc. 
The Local Milk and Cream Company, of which N. 
A. Van Son is president, has the contract for the milk, 
one with the League, one with the pooling associa¬ 
tion. and one with the Lowville Milk and Cream 
Company, Inc. lie received a letter from the League 
giving the low price for October as $2.27, to be paid 
for non-pool milk under his contract with the League. 
In an interview he stated that about SO per cent 
of the Lowville milk came from non-poolers, and the 
difference ran into considerable money. He was 
friendly to the producers, and wanted to see them get 
their full pay for the milk, but he was embarrassed 
by competition with other city dealers, who took 
advantage of the opportunity to buy milk at the 
lowest price offered them by the League, and de¬ 
cided to let the farmers bring suit, so that the right 
of the organizations to make two prices could be 
settled in the court. 
The injunction restrains the League and the pool¬ 
ing association from fixing a lower price for the non¬ 
poolers than for the poolers at Lowville. It also 
restrains the League and the association from doing 
anything to prevent the producers at Lowville from 
disposing of their milk without restraint or inter¬ 
ference. It also restrains the League and the asso¬ 
ciation from furnishing milk to the New York dealer 
at a lower price than the regular price for pooled 
milk, and restrains the dealer from buying it under 
such terms, or from doing anything that would com¬ 
pel non-poolers to sign the pool contract, or as an 
alternative sell their milk at a lesser price than is 
received by the association for similar milk at Low¬ 
ville. 
The complaint charges that the duty of the League 
was to sell the milk at the best price obtainable, and 
that it sold the milk of its members at a lower price, 
in violation of its contracts with members, for the 
purpose of forcing them into the pool against their 
interests and wishes. It further charges a con¬ 
spiracy between the three defendants to create a 
monopoly and discriminate against non-poolers. 
The Lowville plant was a heavy loser three years 
ago in the Country Milk Company, which was or¬ 
ganized and conducted by It. D. Cooper while presi¬ 
dent of the Dairymen’s League. No accounting was 
made during the brief operation or since, but the 
losses have been estimated above a half million. 
Being a farm-owned plant, the producers at Lowville 
took their share of the loss. 
The defendants are ordered to show cause in the 
Supreme Court, at Syracuse, on December 10, why 
the injunction should not l>e continued during the 
pendency of the suit in the trial courts. 
The School Meeting at Poughkeepsie 
A meeting of the Committee of Twenty-one was 
held at the court house in Poughkeepsie November 
20. It was well attended, and from start to finish 
the interest in its proceedings was well sustained. 
One thing at least was demonstrated, and that is 
that these meetings are bringing out much and lively 
discussion of rural school problems in New York 
State. During the morning session the Department 
of Education had its innings, with Dr. R. F. Snyder 
for spokesman. lie gave a report of conditions 
found during a survey of a number of one and two- 
room schoolhouses in various parts of the State. 
The RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
Taking the score card of the department as a stand¬ 
ard. many were found defective as to light, ventila¬ 
tion. air space, seating, etc. These conditions, as we 
know, are being gradually changed, and the school- 
house as described by Whittier, with 
Warping floor, the battered seats, 
The jack-knife’s carved initial, 
The charcoal frescoes on its wall, 
is rapidly becoming a mere reminiscence of the past. 
In our own district we have now a commodious two- 
room structure, built in accordance with specifica¬ 
tions of the State. 
At the close of Dr. Snyder’s remarks the meeting 
was thrown open by the chairman, E. R. Eastman of 
the Dairymen’s League, for general criticism and 
discussion of the problems which had been presented. 
This free forum is the strong point in all these 
meetings, and a feature which cannot be too much 
encouraged. It brings to the fore a lot. of valuable 
comment, which must be of the greatest service in 
the guidance of the Committee of Twenty-one. It is 
to be remembered that their one object is to get in 
touch with public sentiment, and so discover what 
improvements in the rural school system are most 
urgently needed. Were one to venture any sug¬ 
gestion as to the conduct of their meetings, it would 
be to keep the colleges and State department in the 
background and on the defensive. Let each meeting 
be primarily a free forum, conducted, of course, 
along parliamentary lines, and with due regard to 
the amenities of discussion. These were practically 
the conditions during the afternoon session of the 
Poughkeepsie meeting, which opened with Prof. G. 
A. Works of Cornell in the chair. One of its out¬ 
standing features was an address by “the Hope 
Farm man” of The R. N.-Y. Mr. Collingwood was 
at his best, and held his audience intent upon his 
humor, pathos and criticisms of our modern schol¬ 
astic methods. All that he said was worthy of 
serious consideration, and his opinion that we need 
but few fundamentals, well taught, was quite in line 
with recent utterances of Dean West concerning 
public school education. 
If there was one subject upon which the meeting 
seemed to be' united, it was that of taxation, which 
was ably presented by Prof. Works. It looks as if 
some new unit of taxation for schools were coming, 
either State, county or town. The friends of the 
“old red sehoolhouse” were out in full force. Con¬ 
solidation. and the antiquated curriculum of the 
high school, came in for their share of criticism. We 
were glad to see Prof. Works go on record as opposed 
to the present high school course of study. 
We hear more or less about giving the country 
children equal educational opportunities with those 
of the city, but that is not what they need. Give the 
farm boy and girl rather such education as will lead 
them to see something of the beauty around them, 
and to draw inspiration from their daily contact 
with nature as a companion arid co-worker. The 
high schools now are in the grip of the colleges. 
What have they to give that will develop interest in 
life in the open, the vital matter for our country 
children? The Committee of Twenty-one is doing a 
good work. Let us hope that their labors may lead 
to the solution of some of our problems and the bet¬ 
terment of our rural schools! c. w. s. 
An Experiment in Democracy 
In a recent editorial you say that the movement to 
elect Elbert S. Brigham as Senator from Vermont is an 
experiment in democracy. Will you tell us just what 
you mean by that? J. b. l. 
With pleasure. By democracy we mean govern¬ 
ment or a decision of policy by a majority of the peo¬ 
ple. Most “experiments” in this line thus far have 
been with radical measures, an upheaval of senti¬ 
ment or a ripping up of old-time habits or convic¬ 
tions. The experiment we hope to see tried in Ver¬ 
mont is of another sort. The State is essentially an 
agricultural country. It never can be anything else. 
Its people are, as a rule, conservative, thrifty, or¬ 
derly. well informed and independent, and very intel¬ 
ligent. It would be no more than natural that such 
a State and such a people should be represented at 
Washington by solid men who represent in their 
business and in their lives the highest type of Ver¬ 
mont’s basic industry. It cannot be said that Ver¬ 
mont people are making the most of the opportunities 
of democracy when they permit a comparatively 
small group of men to band them candidates who do 
not fully represent the basic industries of the State. 
Mr. Brigham represents Vermont agriculture as few 
other men have ever done. He is a genuine Vermont 
farm product—a solid, substantial, clean man. He 
is conservative enough to hold Vermont to her best 
traditions, and progressive enough to keep her fully 
in the procession. We are prepared to show from 
1431 
our canvass that Mr. Brigham is the personal choice 
of plain people who are not affected by personal pol¬ 
itics. The force of the sentiment for him through 
the State of Vermont would astonish politicians if 
they could see the correspondence. He is not work¬ 
ing for any nomination, but is attending to his busi¬ 
ness of Commissioner of Agriculture, and that makes 
the “experiment” all the more interesting. Do the 
sensible and conservative farmers of Vermont want 
to be represented by a man of their own class? Do 
they want to show the nation that, they are capable 
of selecting their own man? That is what we mean 
by an experiment in democracy! 
Hunters are Killing Cattle 
Beaver Brook, N. Y.—The hunters are getting in 
their deadly work in Sullivan County, N. Y., under 
the new law as fully as under the old law. John 
Ness, of this place, woke up one morning recently 
and found a two-year-old Holstein heifer dead and 
riddled with rifle balls and buckshot. The animal 
lay 50 yards from the house, and had been shot 
during the night by hunters, who used spotlights, 
and mistook the heifer for a deer. 
“The Ness property is located in the heart of the deer 
country. He owns 1.100 acres, and has it posted against 
trespassing and hunting, and has not given any hunters 
permission to hunt over his lands th-is season. On 
Thursday night, at about 10 o’clock, he heard several 
shots, which appeared to be some distance away, and 
he did not go out to investigate. The following morning 
he discovered the dead heifer.” 
R. N.-Y.—We have already two other cases where 
cattle were shot by hunters. The hunters escaped, 
and there is no trace of them. There is no recom¬ 
pense for farmers, though the State licensed the 
hunters, and is therefore responsible for them. 
Red Hook, N. Y. —The hunters infesting this part 
of Dutchess County are growing more numerous and 
bolder. They come out from the cities, and often 
hire a local guide to permit shooting on liis> own 
place, and lie then leads them over the neighboring 
farms, breaking down fences and gates, destroying 
crops and killing poultry and domestic animals. 
There are many big estates in this section, but the 
hunters do not bother them. They go to the small 
farms. Last week A. J. Link had a registered ram 
beaten over the shoulders by gunmen so badly that 
it died two days later. He paid $25 for it as a small 
lamb for breeding purposes. The new law is no 
more effective than the old one. Any form of post¬ 
ing is merely a recognition of the hunter’s pretense 
that he has a right to hunt on cultivated lands. Tin- 
farmer owns the lands, and produces and feeds 
everything on it. No man should be permitted to 
trespass on the farm without written permission of 
the owner, and the State should take it upon itself 
to enforce respect for the farmers’ rights, just as it 
protects city realty owners from trespass and pilfer. 
Our nuts and apples and other fruits need protection 
as well as our fields and birds. 
Such Hunters are Murderers 
On October 22 we missed our fox terrier dog, and 
after two weeks’ continuous search found her in a 
remote corner of the farm, brutally clubbed over the 
head, evidently with the butt end of a gun. We were 
husking corn in the fields about 200 yards away at the 
time of her death, which was between 11 and 12, 
“hunters” being around in numbers all day. 
The facts of the case were sent to our daily papers 
with the request that they allow the use of their columns 
to lay before the public a situation that started as an 
unmitigated nuisance, has now become a menace and. 
if not curbed, would end in tragedy. Both papers re¬ 
fused to publish the letter, but offered to print a news 
item of their own. I enclose their version, which shows 
their conciliatory attitude toward the miscreants, who 
do nothing but mischief, and their contempt for the 
farmer, who pays for all. 
In this case a valuable dog’s life was clubbed out by 
a semi-barbarian to whom the State had granted a 
license to carry a gun and roam at will over my property 
without asking my consent. 
It is impossible for people whose only idea of pleasure 
is to go out and kill something to realize the sorrow 
brought on our family by the killing of an animal who 
was part of the family in the house and a constant 
companion to me in the fields. I would gladly have 
sacrificed every animal on the farm could I but have 
saved my faithful little friend. 
If the argument put forth for limiting national arma¬ 
ment is sound—that the possession of arms leads to 
■belligerency—what can be said for the State putting 
guns into the hands of a host of half-developed men and 
irresponsible boys to go out to kill and destroy property 
without the least regard for “he rights of the owners? 
Such a state of things must stop. Why not have a 10 
years’ hunters’ holiday? w. T. 
Ulster County, N. Y. 
R. N.-Y.—That would suit us well. There are 
hunters who act like gentlemen, and who would never 
think of murdering a playful little dog. There are 
others whose minds have never emerged from the age 
of barbarism and who should never be permitted to 
handle a gun except under army discipline. How shall 
we handle such wretches without being unfair to the 
decent citizens? 
