‘Iht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
97 
A Discussion of Rural Education 
A strong representation of the patrons and taxpayers 
of District No. 35, town of Owego, Tioga Co.. N. Y., 
met Dec. 4 to discuss the proposed new education law. 
B. L. Hughes, who for years has followed the progress 
of public and professional opinion regarding the rui'al 
schools, gave a detailed explanation of the plan under 
which the machinery of the Education Department is 
designed to work in the event of the passage of the bill. 
The discussions that followed were of such character 
that diverse opinions soon crystallized into complete 
harmony, and further consideration was regarded as 
useless. A committee was then elected and instructed 
to make a written report of the meeting, and to em¬ 
body therein such statements, resolutions and recom¬ 
mendations as were agreed upon, and to prepare and 
dispose of copies of the same in the manner best suited 
ro attain the end in view. The sentiment of the meet¬ 
ing was unfavorable to such a radical change in the 
existing system without the initiative, or at least the 
co-ordinate action of those most directly concerned—the 
patrons and taxpayers themselves. The report of the 
committee follows: 
Whereas, we, the patrons and taxpayers of District 
No. 35, town of Owego, Tioga Co., N. Y., in common 
with the other rural communities of the State, are con¬ 
fronted with propositions in the proposed new school 
law, which, it seems to us, should not be forced to an 
abrupt issue without the sanction of a stronger and 
much more representative sentiment of those most di¬ 
rectly affected than its proponents can claim for it at 
present, this committee desires to make a number of 
observations and suggestions for the consideration of 
those whose duty it will likely be either to pass or to 
reject the bill. 
In considering this measure, the sponsors and pro¬ 
moters of the proposed legislation have apparently taken 
for granted: 
1. That we do not completely understand the condi¬ 
tions that threaten the usefulness of our present rural 
education system. 
2. That we are not sufficiently interested in the wel¬ 
fare of our children to make the effort necessary for 
the correction of such defects as we may know to exist; 
hence it follows that we are miserly in our appropria¬ 
tions and unappreciative of the motives prompting the 
activities of those that would make the suggested 
change. 
3. That we have not an adequate idea of the impor¬ 
tance of higher education. 
4. That statements disclaiming any intention of en¬ 
forced consolidation should pass unchallenged, or that 
greater economy in administration will follow as the 
result of the more liberal allotment of State funds. 
5. That the failure of the rural schools to function 
satisfactorily under departmental patronage is due more 
to failure in local administration than to possible errors 
in departmental policies. 
6. That there is no remedy for our peculiar ills ex¬ 
cept the legislative panacea 'they themselves desire to 
prescribe. 
If the above reflections upon tine mental equipment 
of the rural people prove anything at all. they prove 
what has often been asserted; to wit, that the various 
committees involved neither understand the rural situ¬ 
ation nor are they in real sympathy with the people 
whose educational interests they feel conscientiously 
moved to espouse. 
We do not deny that there is some truth in these 
allegations, and are willing to bear our part of the 
blame; but who does not know that in nearly every 
case where the school fails to measure up to the ex¬ 
pected degree of efficiency, the failure is not due to the 
local officials, who have recourse to no effectual remedy? 
The trustee mast hire the teacher from the list of certi¬ 
fied applicants, and the destinies of the boys and girls 
must be placed in the hands of the certified incumbent. 
Have we forgotten that the trustee does not teach the 
school ? Then why blame him for what others, wholly 
independent of him, are at least partly responsible? 
We believe that no suggestive reform that does not take 
these points into consideration is worthy even of pass¬ 
ing discussion. To pursue this phase of the subject 
further might well be regarded as a breach of profes¬ 
sional courtesy, hence we leave it with the expressed 
conviction that these administrative changes cannot.ac¬ 
complish the desired result. 
In our estimate of higher education we are not un¬ 
mindful of its importance to those qualified to acquire 
and make proper use of it. But we are emphatically of 
the opinion that the present tendency of the advanced 
school is to educate the boys and girls a/way. from the 
farm instead of toward it. Hence we are able to accord 
the recent proctorial fantasy, a higher education for 
all, only our conditional approval. In fact, we believe 
that a well-fabricated eighth-grade course so adminis¬ 
tered that it will become -a real life element in the 
future of the boy or girl, must serve a more practical 
purpose in the battle of life than can be possible of 
many so-called courses, which are really not educational 
at all. 
Educational facilities are npw such than anyone of 
sufficient energy may not be denied the benefits of such 
courses as are best adapted to his own plans for a life 
work. But we assert without fear of contradiction that 
young men and women not possessed of sufficient energy 
to acquire the mental polish desired under the present 
fostering conditions can make the world no better by 
virtue of having acquired it under the pampering pat¬ 
ronage of those who would unwittingly divest them of 
an initiative energy sufficient to accomplish by their 
own efforts what others seem determined to accomplish 
for them. This pampering process can bequeath us 
nothing more substantial than a pseudo-professionalism, 
with which the world is already overstocked, and with¬ 
out which society would be better off. 
While the sponsors of the bill maintain that enforced 
consolidation is not contemplated, we have not failed to 
recognize in it several features by virtue of which, we 
believe, that home rule in school administration cannot 
long survive. If this be not the real purpose of the bill, 
we fail to find adequate reason for its present exploita- 
tion without even the ghost of a home initiative. 
We cannot but believe that these sponsors know our 
present laws, with little amplification, may be made to 
cover every contingency arising from weak districts de¬ 
siring to combine for mutual advantage. If we are 
wrong in this conclusion, then must we aver that the 
comprehensive administrative machinery provided by 
the bill is out of all proportion to the changes contem¬ 
plated by it; in which case we wonder at the dearth of 
practicability on the part of those who conceived it. 
We question neither the good intentions nor the in¬ 
tegrity of those in charge of the State’s educational ma¬ 
chinery. But we assert again that they do not under¬ 
stand the situation in regard to our rural schools. It 
is largely by reason of this that errors have crept into 
the system, else have been allowed to remain there, 
which should have been rooted out long ago by the con¬ 
certed action of both the State and local authorities. 
The rural schools have not done the thorough work 
they should have done, and no one knows it better than 
we. But the same may be said of the majority of 
schools, especially of those of the smaller villages, of 
which the committee makes little or no complaint. 
Hence we find no substantial reason for abandoning our 
own schools in favor of others that are subject to the 
same criticisms. We blame no one in particular. These 
mistakes are necessary steps in their evolution. But 
the fact remains that the system needs improving all 
along the lines, especially in the country and in the 
smaller villages. Let us look at the facts as they are. 
The only sensible question is, “How can it best be 
done?” 
The sponsors of the bill seem to take it for granted 
that the consolidated school, which in many cases means 
union with existing village schools, will solve the prob¬ 
lem. We take issue with the conclusion. What is the 
use of mixing theoretical vagaries with the facts? In 
addition to the severe inconveniences and insufficient 
guardianship incident to overland 'transportation, no one 
with an eye single to the best interests of our future citi¬ 
zens can or will deny that moral conditions in the 
population centers, especially the smaller villages, do 
not compare with those in most of our rural communi¬ 
ties. We believe we voice the opinion of 95 per cent of 
our people when wo pray for ways and means whereby 
we may be able to keep our children away from the con¬ 
taminating influences of the cigarette, the filthy and 
profane speech, the billiard hall, and the loafing habits 
so rampantly prevalent in many of these centers, and 
which thrive there of necessity, not because their ideals 
are essentially different from ours, but because of the 
greater density of population and the closer personal 
contact necessarily entailed thereby. The committees 
of investigation have apparently failed to take account 
of these most important points, hence again we reiter¬ 
ate, “They do not understand our rural conditions.” 
We agree with II. G. Wells, the eminent writer, that 
the paucity of real teachers is much greater than is 
generally believed. No one can deny that the success of 
the school depends more upon the character and general 
efficiency of the teacher than upon everything else com¬ 
bined. Hence in the process of reorganization this 
point should receive by far the greater consideration. 
We call the attention of the reader to the fact that our 
various normal and training schools, at enormous ex¬ 
pense, are turning off large numbers of graduates every 
year. Still the demand continues. This means that a 
far greater number of inexperienced teachers are taking 
up positions for various reasons vacated by their pre¬ 
decessors, than the best interests of the schools will 
allow. The teaching personnel is essentially evanescent, 
whereas it should be as permanent as it is possible tO' 
make it. We suggest that an effort be made to change 
the occupation from a temporary one to that of a real 
vocation. With this end in view, we wish to endorse 
the committee’s plan of stabilizing the teacher body by 
State patronage in the way of a bonus sufficient to make 
it an object to teachers of unquestionable merit to make 
teaching their life work. This effort should be espe¬ 
cially directed to the employment of male teachers as 
least disturbing to the balance between supply and de¬ 
mand as entailed by the irremediable propensity of the 
average schoolmarm to follow the occupation only until 
the matrimonial alliance commands her presense else¬ 
where. 
In view of the far-reaching results that come of con¬ 
scientious work in the schoolroom, we wish to emphasize 
the necessity of taking into account the possession of a 
qualification of relatively greater importance than that 
of a supposedly high type of preparatory education. The 
present trend of the training schools seems to be in the 
direction of perfected scholarship, while the most im¬ 
portant qualification of all, that of natural fitness, re¬ 
ceives but meager consideration. An experience of 
many years has taught us that the teacher possessed of 
a natural aptitude for managing and training children 
in the home, even though her mental equipment be lim¬ 
ited by a dearth of scholarship, is likely to be possessed 
by a breadth of soul and a plentitude of sympathy for 
which no amount of book learning can compensate. 
As much as possible, teachers reared in the country 
and understanding conditions there, should be em¬ 
ployed in the rural schools. We see no way to effect 
this change except by making it an object for those dis¬ 
tinctly qualified by nature for this work, to qualify 
scholastically for it, and to take and nourish it as a 
life work. 
In conclusion, this committee believes that if these 
suggestions be followed, the question of consolidation 
will eventually solve itself as a natural conclusion, 
which will at least preclude the necessity for the estab¬ 
lishment of a pedagogical paternalism over a people in- 
ferentially not of sufficient intelligence to know what is 
best for them. 
Approved and signed by the following committee on 
statements and resolutions: 
frank b. tracy. Chairman ; 
Edgar lewis, Trustee; 
MINNIE H. CAIRNS, 
B. L. HUGHES. 
Apalachin, N. Y. 
The Heart of the Milk Question 
In your issue of January 5, you asked for an expres¬ 
sion of opinion from the dairymen as to what keeps the 
dairymen apart. First let us see what has caused this 
separation. Our best surgeons remove the cause before 
they attempt to heal the wound. 
As a preface to these brief remarks, permit me to go 
back to the September and October strife of the year 
1916, which resulted in what seemed to be a victory 
for the producers. Since that time and by reason of 
the experience gained by the dealers in buying col¬ 
lectively, this collective buying system has to a large 
measure offset, if not entirely eclipsed that victory. The 
strike of 1916 and 1919 is frequently referred to as a 
winner. Is there any comparison between the strike 
of 1916 and 1919? I think not. The strike of 1916 
seemed to be in determined hands, and those in control 
seemed to have perfectly good reasons for the price 
asked. Therefore the producers won. In 1919 the 
strike was called on a price figured, if not fixed, by the 
Federal Food Commission and not by League officials. 
I am informed that the League demanded a price that 
conditions did not warrant, and consequently lost. A 
few dealers received milk for the full month of Janu¬ 
ary, 1919, others for only 10 days from January 21 
to February 1. It was a blind mistake not to investi¬ 
gate the warehouses of the condenseries before the price 
was demanded. 
Now as a result, the officers, who are onlv servants of 
the producers who have to pay them, usurped the 
power of the producers and put across the pooling plan 
in 1919. If they knew where their stakes were set or 
what they were looking into, they were careful to con¬ 
ceal it from the producers. The close relationship be¬ 
tween the officers of the League and some of the Bor¬ 
den’s and ex-Borden’s companies has been closer than 
has been profitable for the producers. This one reason 
is sufficient for a good many to shun closer relation¬ 
ship in the future with these men. 
Question No. 1. What is keeping our dairy group 
apart? 
Answer: The present break caused by a few men and 
women who seem to have the time and care to go and 
try to convince the producers that by getting together 
they will cure all their ills. As some express it, 
they have been stung until they are blistered all over. 
Question No. 2. In what broad way can they work 
together ? 
Answer: First clean up the framework and the foun¬ 
dation of the present group that has controlled for the 
past five years. Let in the light on their activities and 
expose the men who tried to distort the facts and be¬ 
little the cause of getting together two years ago. 
Our best builders are careful to make their founda¬ 
tion firm and solid and continue with the best material 
obtainable. If the dairymen are to succeed, they must 
be the judge of the timber they use, or there will be a 
repetition of the Country Milk Company. The enter¬ 
ing wedge of 1919 is still working its way into the 
dairymen’s poeketbook, and will have to be removed 
before you can heal tbe wound. rural resident. 
Trouble With the Trespass Law 
Pheasants are getting to be pests in some sections 
here, pulling corn when it. is coming up so it has to be 
entirely replanted. On Long Island hunters are al¬ 
io wed 30 birds in a season ; here, three cocks only 
Judge John Ford lived when a boy, on his father's 
farm next to mine. Ilis brother James is now on the 
farm. Last Spring the pheasants spoiled his first 
planting of corn, and the second planting did not do 
well; was very late and part of it is in the field now. 
I. sa w as many as 50 pheasants digging the corn at one 
time. Why not allow us 30 birds here the same as on 
Long Island ! I posted my land and one open day a 
hunter within 20 rod's of four “no hunting” signs went 
into my orchard and shot a pheasant. I asked him to 
show me his license. He would not, so I took hold of 
the bird and would not let go until he showed me his 
license. He started to hit me over the head with his 
gun, and when 1 would not let go, lie stepped back 
and pointed his loaded, cocked gun at me, saying 
“Drop it or I will blow your head off.” I am not 
much use, head off or on, but I did not drop the bird, 
and the hunter went off. I should have arrested him 
on the spot. lie was a foreigner, and one I had never 
seen before. The hunting law is all one-sided now. 
Hunters should be obliged to get permission from the 
owners before going on a farm. W T e feed the pheasants 
the year around and own them. Why should hunters 
have a right to take possession of property? 
Orleans Co., N. Y. Clark allis. 
Two Ways of Telling a Snow Story 
HE daily papers have been printing the tale of 
a farmer who capitalized a big snowdrift to 
the tune of $24 per day. One Dennison Densmore of 
"Vermont tells the story. Although it was a cold 
day, he was evidently quite “Het up.” He said: 
After trying various methods to extract the leading 
car we found that it would be impossible to do so 
unless we obtained a shovel. 
Hie drift was directly in front of a farm house, so 
naturally we went to the house to procure the necessary 
shovel. We found the farmer in the barn, and al¬ 
though there were several shovels in sight he refused 
us permission to use one and refused to sell one of the 
implements. 
He did, however, agree to pull each car through the 
drift with a team of horses for $2 a piece. Finally 
it was agreed that we would pay him the amount de¬ 
manded, being of the opinion that after one or two 
of the vehicles had been pulled through the other ma¬ 
chines could follow in the path that had been made. 
My car was third in line and after the first two had 
been drawn through the drift I started to negotiate the 
snow bank without the assistance of the team. To my 
surprise, the farmer and his assistants not only 
blocked the highway with his team, but one of the men 
started to shovel snow back into the highway. It cost 
each of the drivers of the 12 machines $2 apiece to be 
pulled through the drift. 
Now there are two sides and sometimes three to 
every story, and we may as well have both. Rev. 
A. E. Canpier of the local Methodist Church gives 
the other side. 
Now as to the truth of the statement that the farmer 
made $24 on that day. If our drummer friend from 
Vermont means that the farmer earned this amount of 
money that day, I agree with him most heartily, but 
if he means that he got $24, I say he is misinformed, 
let the farmer speak for himself. He says, “I have 
lived in that same house for over 30 years and die 
snow has always drifted very badly at that corner. 
During that period of time I have worked every Win¬ 
ter assisting autoists, and I could not tell you how 
many cars I have pulled out of the drift with my team. 
Prior to the Sunday in question I had never received 
a cent for my labors.” 
On this particular occasion I am told that this farm¬ 
er, his two sons and his team worked all day drawing 
autos out of the drift. How many cars they drew out 
is uncertain, as after the thirtieth the farmer seems 
to have lost count. After having worked hard for 
many hours, the farmer turned to his boys and said: 
“I’ve been working at this job for over 30 years with¬ 
out getting a cent. I think it is time I got something 
for my labor.” He decided, therefore, that if any 
more cars came along he would charge to draw them 
out. Soon after this a car became stalled and shortly 
after, 12 of them were lined up along the road. 
_ The farmer did not refuse to sell a shovel for the 
simple reason he was never asked. Further, he had 
only one shovel there, not a supply of them, as Dens¬ 
more said, and that one shovel the local mailman was 
using at the time a little further down the road, where 
his car was in a snowbank. The farmer tells me that 
he ought to have had a supply of shovels there. 
Now as to what he actually charged the motorists. 
He says the first three paid him $2 each, .and the next 
two paid him $1 apiece. Beyond that he did not get, a 
cent. When tin* farmer had pulled the first two cars 
out of the drift he turned back to the third and said: 
“Do you want the team to pull you out?” 
The motorist said he needed no assistance, but later 
he asked the farmer to pull him out, which was done. 
