‘Pit RURAL NEW-YORKER 
The Hearing on the School Bill 
F ARMERS of New York State did themselves 
credit at the hearing on the school bill in Al¬ 
bany on March 19. About 1.000 of the finest type 
of men and women ever seen in Albany, went to the 
Capitol to tell legislators the country sentiment in 
every corner of the State on the proposed measure. 
They told their story in simple, straight language 
that was eloquent because every line of it breathed 
impulses of sincerity and conviction. When they 
got through the committee understood that they are 
as much opposed to the present school bill as they 
were to the old township school bill that they in¬ 
duced the Legislature to repeal six years ago. 
These farmers, in a remarkably clear presenta¬ 
tion!. showed that while it was claimed that no con¬ 
solidation of schools was contemplated, the clear 
purpose and intent and mandatory effect of the bill 
was and is and will be consolidation. They ex¬ 
plained in simple language easily understood the 
effect on the community, the home and the child of 
the destruction of their schools, which for centuries 
have been the civic centers of farm communities and 
the cradle of our best type of American citizenship. 
Among other things they exploded the oft-repeated 
theory that the cities pay the greater part of the 
school expense of the country. The record as shown 
now is that the City of New York collects for 
State school purposes a little above .$4,000,000 in its 
tax assessments and receives from the State more 
than $17,000,000. Not only so. but the cities and the vil¬ 
lages of the State receive back from the State treas¬ 
ury for school purposes a larger percentage of their 
assessed valuation than the country districts. Nor 
is this all. The record of the hearing now shows on 
State and National authority that farm property 
pays a higher rate of fixation than any other class 
of property in the State, and that the farm in¬ 
come pays substantially a rate 50 per cent higher 
than the rate paid by all other classes of income 
combined. This paper had the privilege of putting 
these figures in the record. They caused astonish¬ 
ment even with members of the committee and 
newspaper reporters who had been accustomed to 
other stories. The facts caused some consterna¬ 
tion to promoters of the bill, who have been telling 
quite a different story. While there was an evi¬ 
dent anxiety on the part of the proponents of the 
bill to cast doubt on the accuracy of the figures, no 
one had the courage or the facts to challenge the 
figures, and in fact some of their own men were 
obliged to confirm them. 
Finally the farmers denied the contention that 
the highly organized city school gave children su¬ 
perior educational advantages to the one-room 
school house. They analyzed the standards of schol¬ 
arship, showed that the city schools produced stand¬ 
ardize*! automatons in bulk, while the country 
school developed the latent talent of the individual 
child and taught it to think and reason for itself, all 
of which resulted in the making of real men and wo¬ 
men. 'i'he test of the schools is the products they 
turn out. and the record of all time is that the coun¬ 
try schools have turned out more than their share 
of the successful and able and distinguished men of 
this country. 
Besides the farmers who opposed the bill, there 
were about 400 to 500 present. These included 
legislators and people who seemed to be neutral. 
While it is probably true that a small number of 
farmers there favored the bill, the bulk of those who 
appeared for it were teachers and superintendents. 
Department of Education representatives, and 
spokesmen for Home Bureaus, and Farm Bureau or¬ 
ganizations, and institutions. It is proper to ob¬ 
serve that many if not all of these had their ex¬ 
penses paid out of public moneys, including pay for 
their time. Many of them had a personal interest in 
the bill, in the prospects of higher salaries and 
greater powers under it. The farmers who came to 
oppose it, came long distances at personal inconveni¬ 
ence and some hardships. They paid their own ex¬ 
penses. 
The proponents of the measure argued that it is 
not a consolidation measure; but when pressed to 
answer a question based on the language of the bill, 
they evaded a direct reply because if they answer¬ 
ed in the affirmative, which would be the evident 
correct and truthful answer, it would refute their 
own contention artfully advanced, and if they an¬ 
swered in the negative they would admit that the 
provision for consolidation in administration is man¬ 
datory. 
One feature was apparent by inference, but not 
emphasized for lack of time and opportunity in re- 
buttal. The proponents of the bill alleged that they 
contend only for better schools for country children 
and payment of the cash by larger taxable units. 
The State is the largest and the logical unit of tax¬ 
ation for such purposes, and there is no need of a 
special complicated bill for the purpose they allege. 
The Legislature may put the extra money required 
in the appropriation bill, and the superintendent of 
schools may apportion if to the country schools as 
lie proposes to do. This can all be done this year, 
and not wait for another year or more as the bill 
provides. If there is no other purpose why not do 
it this simple, prompt and efficient way? 
Altogether it was a great day. It will result 
ultimately in a fairer treatment of country schools 
by the State, provided the patrons keep up a vigil¬ 
ance for them. The day confirmed our confidence 
in the intelligence and ability of the farmer to do 
things for himself and our admiration of the 
straightforward way lie goes about it when once 
stirred to action. The incidents of the day magnified 
our pride in the men and women of the New York 
State farms. 
Wants to Check the Returns 
at least, surprising, 
approximating $ 11.50 
the League mainige- 
I he cancellation period being safely past, it should 
now be possible to ask the above question without the 
imputation that if is intended as hostile propaganda. 
Something seems to be the matter, surely. The writer 
felt, on receiving his December check, that the pool 
price was unnecessarily low, and so did a little figuring, 
basing his calculations on the prices published in the 
League Scum and many other papers, including The 
R. N.-Y., and the tables showing the amount of milk 
disposed of in the different classes, given in the state¬ 
ment sent with the check, and also printed in the 
League A eies. 
The result was, to the writer 
It showed a gross pool price 
instead of the $2.25 declared by _ 
ment. This discrepancy was brought to the atteiitioi 
of the speaker from the League offices at: New Yort 
at the annual meeting of our local, lie professed igno¬ 
rance, honestly, I believe, not being familiar with tlx 
work of the pooling department, but took the figure? 
hack to New York with him. with the promise that 
they would be taken to headquarters, and a satis 
factory explanation returned. No such explanation wa? 
received. 
Still thirsting for knowledge, I then wrote to tin 
League offices at New York, merely asking how they 
figured the pool price so much lower than I did A 
non-committal and rather evasive reply, which ex 
Plained nothing, was received. A full statement of tin 
figures and the conclusions suggested by them was then 
sent, with the suggestion that any essential errors in 
these figures and conclusions be pointed out. Briefly 
stated, these conclusions were that there was apparently 
a loss of over 90 cents per cwf. on all milk handled iii 
League plants, or over 25 cents per cwt. when spread 
over all of the pooled milk; that such losses are unsus¬ 
pected by the rank and file of the League, and are 
apparently kept carefully in the background. 
. ' 0 toiNieer to this letter iras received. An analysis 
ot the prices and classifications of other months shows 
practically the same result. The League seems to be 
dropping into some bottomless hole over $400 000 per 
month, which is totally unaccounted for 
*o I ,.V Ta o U o ,,ary 54 per oeut ,,f tIie milk was (’lass 1 at 
.S-.4-: 25 per cent was Class 2 at about $2,:i0. and 
12 per cent was Class 5 at $2.10. a total of 89 per cent, 
and yet the gross pool price declared was $2' 
Tf seems to me that the time has come when every 
pooler should be made aware of this condition of affairs 
and demand that it be remedied. Having as vet been 
unable to find anyone who can give a satisfactory 
explanation of these things. I pass the question on to 
you. What is the matter with the League? And what 
are you going to do about it? dairyman ’ 
( henango Co., N. Y. 
HTHE December pooled milk was 164,865,124 lbs.. 
A and the average gross price $2.5187 per 100 lbs. 
l be management announced a gross price of $2.22 
The difference was $0.2887 per hundred and a total 
difference of $475,905.61. As a difference occurs 
monthly, and is not accounted for, the member asks 
"hat becomes of the money? 
On request. President Slocum and Director 
Sexauer made the following explanation: As only 
about 70 per cent of the returns are in bv the tenth 
of the month the announced gross.price is always 
an estimate. The differences, however, are due to 
the fact that in up-State cities, including Buffalo. 
Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Hudson Fails, Scran¬ 
ton and other places, there is a competition for the 
fluid milk market, and if the pool stood firm for 
Class 1 price it would lose its outlet in these cities. 
Consequently it cuts its Class 1 price in these 
markets. 
Much the same condition exists in the New York 
City market. The pool sells milk by the can on the 
platform in New York. It meets competition there 
of other farm groups and other dealers, and is 
obliged to cut the price to maintain its outlet. Milk 
has recently sold in New York at $2.40 a can or six 
<( nts a quart, and New York City has contracted for 
milk for its institutions at 7.2 cents a quart. The 
pooled milk sold at reduced prices both in New York 
and in the up-State cities is Class 1 milk; but since 
it does not bring Class ? price it reduces the gross 
returns. Again, some of the pool country plants do 
not have volume enough of milk to run at a profit. 
555 
Originally there was milk enough in the neighbor¬ 
hood to run the plants profitably, but part of it 
no longer goes to the pool, and the smaller volume is 
handled at a loss. Those who remain, however, are 
members, and the management feels that it must 
keep such plants open to take the milk of members. 
Another cause of shrinkage is the attempt to put 
a new product on the market. The plants producing 
the new product do not always return full class 
price for the milk consumed, and cannot be expected 
to do so until a demand for it has been established, 
'file sum total of these shrinkages make up the 
differences in the gross price per 100 lbs., and in 
the gross totals. 
Mr. Slocum and Mr. Sexauer believe that, the 
difference between the averaged weighted classified 
price and the gross price will increase regularly as 
competition becomes more general and increases in 
intensity. They also believe that price of liquid milk 
under this competition will be still lower and prob¬ 
ably reach the butter and cheese level for all milk. 
The only alternative would be an organization to in¬ 
clude all producers, and elimination of competition 
between producers and producing groups for the 
liquid market. 
A New Co-operative Law Proposed 
T HE so-called Napiro lull to authorize the in¬ 
corporation of co-operative associations in New 
York State and to authorize foreign associations or¬ 
ganized under similar measures to do business in 
New York State was introduced on March 12, and 
a hearing on it held by the joint agricultural com¬ 
mittees on March 17. There are two co-operative 
laws already on the statute books of the State. 
These are not repealed by the proposed new law. 
If passed it will provide a third. It permits any 
association now existing under the old laws to re- 
incorporate under the new law. .lust- why the lull 
was introduced this late in the session, and rushed 
to so early a hearing, is not indicated in the face 
of the bill, nor did if develop in the hearing. 
'fhe bill provides for the incorporation of co-op¬ 
erative associations to do business without profit 
with or without capital stock; and to elect directors 
ill districts by delegates. It provides that five-year 
contracts may la* made with producing members, 
and penalties for breach of contract. It also pro¬ 
vides that any person or firm buying the produce of 
a member who defaults on the contract becomes 
liable to the association in a civil suit for damages. 
The bill makes it a misdemeanor for any person to 
maliciously or knowingly spread false reports about 
the finances or management or activities of an as¬ 
sociation. and provides a fine of $500 to $1,000, and 
the offender becomes liable to the aggrieved associa¬ 
tion in the sum of $500 besides. Of course, no one 
has any business to spread false or malicious in¬ 
formation about any association or any one or any 
thing, but we already have laws to deal with such 
offenders, and the effect, if not the purpose of in¬ 
serting it here, may be to suggest that those who 
cannot remain silent can safely indulge only in 
piaise of associations and their management. 
The primary purpose of co-operation is a benefit 
to tanners, and it has in our judgment, great pos¬ 
sibilities in that direction: but if those benefits are 
ever realized they must come through the control 
and management of the associations by farmers 
themselves. If they leave it to others they simply 
add another section to fhe chain of middlemen and 
increase their distribution expense. To manage the 
business themselves farmers must have simple sys¬ 
tems of organization and business. Complicated 
legal machinery is not suited to them, and is too 
expensive for them. For this reason we feel that 
the local association federated together for mar¬ 
keting and other common purposes is better adapted 
to farm purposes than the centralized type of or¬ 
ganization. 
Even when the centralized form is adopted there 
are certain interests of the individual member that 
should be protected. The position of the associa¬ 
tions is being strengthened as experience suggests, 
that m itself is proper, but not a single provision 
appears for the protection of the individual mem¬ 
ber or for members as a whole. 
This bill, however is only a permissive law. Its 
fault is largely that in it. we lose the opportunity 
of making a model co-operative law. When it conies 
to organizing under it farmers may insist an op¬ 
portunity to fully discuss and pass upon the ma¬ 
chinery of organization created under this law, and 
provide in some measure for their own information 
and protection. 
