The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
597 
What the Milk Situation Needs 
T HE gross price for February milk as announced 
by the pool was $1.90 per 100 lbs. The deduc¬ 
tions were 5 cents for certificates and 8 cents for 
expenses, or 13 cents in all, leaving $1.77 cash re¬ 
turns to producers. 
.Sheffield Farms Association returned $2.35; and 
the non-pool all-milk price was $2.30. The return 
by the Eastern States groups was $2.35 flat, no fat 
test, for the highest record reported by a single 
plant, and the average for the four plants reporting 
was $2.10 on 3 per cent basis. 
The following table shows the difference between 
the gross price as figured out on the prices and per¬ 
centages of the class price plan, as compared with 
the gross price reported. The explanation of this 
difference was made by Mr. Slocum and Mr. Sexauer 
on this page last week: 
Class 
% 
Price 
Percentage 
Class 1 . 
X $2.33 
= $1.30 
Class 2A .... 
. 20% 
X 2.20 
= .44 
Class 2B . . . . 
. 3% 
X 2.25 
= .0675 
Class 2C .... 
. 3% 
X 2.25 
= .0675 
Class 3 . 
. 11% 
X 2.05 
— .2255 
Class 4A . . .. 
. 6% 
X 1.6S5 
= .1011 
Class 4B .... 
. 2% 
X 1.405 
= .02S1 
Gross price per cwt.$2.2297 
Gross price reported.. 1.90 
Not accounted for . $0.3297 
Deductions for certificates.05 
Deductions for expenses.08 
Total . $0.4597 
The total volume of pooled milk as reported was 
163,635,709 lbs. At .3297 cents per 100 lbs. the dif¬ 
ference unaccounted for is $539,992.91. This differ¬ 
ence between the total value of pooled milk for the 
month at pool prices and the gross price reported is 
greater than the monthly average difference for the 
year. The total for last year, however, amounted to 
a little more than $4,500,000. This item as explained 
by Mr. Slocum in our interview with him last week, 
is due in some measure to losses in operating weak 
plants, but principally due to cutting liquid milk 
prices in up-State cities and on the New York City 
platform. 
There would be no profit at this time in analyzing 
the causes or attempting to place the responsibility 
for the present condition of the milk business. We 
do not think that the rank ana file of producers 
either in the pool or out of it care now about these 
academic questions. The pool management predicts 
that under present conditions matters will continue 
to grow worse instead of better. 
This is not the concern of poolers alone, nor of 
non-pooler alone. It concerns every dairyman, 
whether pooler or non-pooler, and whether in 
an organization or not. The situation demands 
immediate action. The dairy industry cannot stand 
46 cents per hundred out of a milk price already 
scandalously too low\ February milk at $1.77 per 
100 lbs., with feed and labor and other supplies at 
present prices is a crime; and if we all lie supinely 
on our backs and allow’ this condition to continue 
until individual producers are ruined and the indus¬ 
try is scrapped, no one but Charity will ever write 
the word “courage” in our epitaphs. 
What is needed now is a conference of the wisest 
dairymen of the State to work out a plan to stop the 
warfare and get everyone working together for the 
dairy cow. 
Borden’s Dividends 
T HE Borden Company's annual report shows a net 
income, after payment of all expenses, including 
taxes, of $21.40 a share on its common stock of $21,- 
368,100 par value. The dividend last year, for 1922, 
was $21.94. The 1923 sales were larger than the 
previous year*, but increased operating expenses 
slightly reduced the net profit. In addition to the 
dividend, $2,863,389 was added to surplus, which now 
totals $10,681,389. The net operating profit is give) 
as $5,629,182. 
Good Horse Sense 
There is a lot of good “horse sense” in the letter of 
Clarence Johnson on page 475. If The It. N.-Y. could 
come out and advise both poolers and non-poolers to get 
together in some way, and try such an arrangement as 
that, I could work with you with all my heart. 
New York. O. w. mapes. 
LARENCE JOHNSON’S suggestion is not new. 
He expressed the same thing some years ago in 
The R. N.-Y. when we offered prizes for the best co¬ 
operative plans and policies for the League. In a 
general w T ay it was one of the factors in the original 
working plan developed by the State Department in 
1916. The principle is already in use in other sec¬ 
tions now. Alone it would not completely solve the 
problem, but it is one of the principal factors of a 
comprehensive plan. Mr. Johnson's proposition is to 
"give the man who will contract for a fixed amount 
the year around the fluid price.” and pay him the by¬ 
product price for the excessive variations. Then, if 
we adopt the policy of selling to the distributor his 
daily requirements of liquid milk and cream, and no 
more, at a fair price made by the producers, the 
word “surplus” would disappear from the dairyman’s 
vocabulary. 
We have no hesitation in repeating our advice to 
all poolers., and non-poolers, whether in groups or 
not, to get together on these suggestions, or any pol¬ 
icy that will work. 
Levy Dairy Company Indicted 
HE January grand jury of Oneida Co., N. Y., 
filed a bill of indictment against the officers of 
the Levy Dairy Company on charge of conspiracy in 
1922 to defraud the Dairymen's League Co-operative 
Association to the extent of $44,318.97. The indict¬ 
ment came to light last week in an argument before 
the court in the City of Utica to dismiss the indict¬ 
ment. The decision was reserved. The complaint 
was based on an alleged false milk report. Since 
the alleged offense, the Levy plants were purchased 
by the League, and William A. Levy, one of the in¬ 
dicted officials, acted for a time as manager of the 
plants for the League. 
^Making the Records 
I N recommending the Sapiro co-operative bill the 
agricultural committees of the Senate and Assem¬ 
bly, as well as the lawyers and promoters and lead- 
ers concerned, went squarely and openly on record 
in favor of the proposition that delegates are bet¬ 
ter qualified to choose the management of farm or¬ 
ganizations than farmers themselves by direct vote. 
While approval of the delegate proposition seemed 
to be unanimous at the Albany hearing save for our 
exception, The R. N.-Y. is equally on record in op¬ 
position to minority rule and in favor of local au¬ 
tonomy and responsibility w T ith a direct control of 
co-operative organizations by a direct majority 
vote of the members. 
Everybody knows that the delegate system makes 
it easy for a small minority group to get and hold 
control of the management and to fix its policies. 
The expense of perpetuating it is heavy, and the 
farm must pay it. The burden becomes more than 
the farm can stand. Numerous failures can be cited 
under that plan. Permanent success under it has not 
been recorded. 
When a farmer has an opportunity to express his 
will in a direct vote, with the conviction that the 
vote will be honestly counted, he will submit to the 
majority decision even though he is in the minority, 
with the conviction that, if right, he will win a ma¬ 
jority to his side later. Under such circumstances 
he will stick. If, however, he sees a minority group 
always in control, he knows that he has no means of 
changing a management or policies to which he is 
opposed, and his only recourse is to stay out or, if 
already in, to get out. This is the point which causes 
splits and divisions in our farm organizations. The 
principle is fundamental. It is easily understood. 
We believe farmers will readily see the logic of it. 
The minority centralized control in co-operation 
was tried out in our savings and loan associations 
for half a century, and the result was losses and 
tragedy, humiliation and scandal. When we finally 
changed it, and adopted the decentralized direct ma¬ 
jority control, we created the finest co-operative plan 
in the world in our present savings and loan system. 
The Village Bee Bill and Others 
The village bee bill naturally brings to mind other 
village nuisances much more frequent and annoying 
than bees, which, under normal conditions, pay pretty 
strict attention to their own business. In fact, I think 
cases are rare where bees trouble anyone at a distance 
say of 200 ft. from the hives. Certainly such cases are 
not so frequent as to call for any special legislation. 
Anyone keeping bees should have a little regard for his 
neighbors in the placing of his hives. Such matters 
would be better settled amicably between the parties 
concerned. However, if the bee question must be a sub¬ 
ject of legislative discussion, why not take up, also, 
some other matters much more disturbing to the neigh¬ 
borhood tranquility than bees? Now, there is the ma¬ 
rauding hen, for instance. I would suggest a bill pro¬ 
viding that all hens kept within 1,000 ft. of a neighbor¬ 
ing vegetable or flower garden be confined within a 
wire enclosure not less than 8 ft. in height, resting on a 
concrete foundation; said foundation to extend 12 in. 
into the ground, to prevent the hens from flying 
over or digging under. Such a law would go far to¬ 
ward avoiding ill feeling and actual feuds among neigh¬ 
bors. 
I would suggest also a bill providing that all roosters 
kept within 500 ft. of a neighbor’s bedroom window be 
confined at night within boxes whose covers are so low 
that the roosters cannot stretch their necks to crow. 
(The poetical effect was not deliberate on the part of 
the writer; it merely happened so.) 
I would further suggest a bill to the effect that all 
rain barrels be provided with a wooden cover, sealed by 
the sealer of weights and measures, the weights in this 
case being a stone placed on said cover to hold it down, 
and the measure being the aforesaid measures taken to 
prevent mosquitoes from congregating around and about 
and depositing their eggs within said rain barrels. 
These are a few common nuisances in urgent need of 
immediate legislation. Doubtless the reader may recall 
others of equal importance. w. I. b. 
B. N.-Y.—Surely the mosquitoes hatched in the com¬ 
mon rain barrel are a worse nuisance than bees! 
An Opinion on the School Bill 
My attention has been called to the fact that you and 
the very fine paper you publish, The R. N.-Y., are de¬ 
cidedly opposed to the enactment into law of the pro¬ 
posed education law, so-called, being Senate Bill No. 126, 
introduced by Mr. Downing. I want to commend you 
most heartily for this stand. If the people of the State 
appreciated what chains would be forged around them 
by this measure, and what needless expense with so 
scanty real returns to them would follow, they would 
revolt, and I am speaking advisedly. 
You may have heard it stated that many of the county 
superintendents were in favor of this proposed measure, 
and perhaps certain organizations of principals. Has 
it occurred to you that they would not dare to counter 
the State Education Department by being against the 
department’s measure, as this is? Such individuals, 
composing such groups, have to acquiesce in the de¬ 
partment’s wishes in such matters, or they have no 
standing in court—that is, before such department. I 
know that well enough both from observation and ex¬ 
perience. Also remember that this originated from the¬ 
orists in said department, and not from practical edu¬ 
cators and lowers of children. I am rejoiced that you 
have knowledge of what you are talking about and also 
have the courage of your convictions, orin q. flint. 
Greene Co., N. Y. 
A Country School Teacher Talks 
When 1 hear or read about the “advantages” of the 
city or town for children over the country I see red. It 
indicates to me a sort of pity or condescension on the 
part of the speaker that is ill-placed and provocative to 
a thoughtful person. “Give the country children the 
advantages of the city ones,” they wail. “Bring them 
to our schools till we show you how they .should be edu¬ 
cated—what they should be taught. Take them away 
from the hard and isolated life of the farms.” 
There came into my school recently a shining example 
of the results of city schooling; a boy of 14, bright, 
alert, worldly-wise, able to swear fluently, chew and 
smoke like an expert, steal money or match pennies to 
buy it, play hookey, tell lies to cover up, etc. A boy 
who had been in school steadily since he reached school 
age, and who ought to be in eighth grade at least. But 
he was so far from it that he had to go in sixth for 
arithmetic, geography and spelling, and beginning fifth 
for English. 
It may be argued that he is just one and not typical. 
I maintain he is typical, for I could cite many instances 
I have personally known somewhat similar. Certain it 
is that the individual in a large group cannot be taught 
as well as in a small one. If he is idle or careless or 
slow he cannot get that personal attention from the 
teacher like in a .small school, and soon drops down or 
out. We know it is true that “two heads are better 
than one.” Yes, and it is true, too, that two dozen 
heads can think of, plan and execute more mischief than 
two or three. I have taught country schools for 15 
years, varying in size from four to 40 pupils, and I have 
observed conditions carefully outside of this, and feel 
strongly that the city or town school has no advantages, 
educational or otherwise, over those of the “little red 
sehoolhou.se.” Where were the strongest, ablest busi¬ 
ness men and statesmen of all our country’s history born 
and bred and started firmly on" their ways? Recall 
Washington, Lincoln, Clay, Garfield, Jackson, Grant, 
and many others. 
The hardships of getting an education, the physical 
work of the farm, the care of and responsibility for farm 
animals, the necessity for employing their own wits for 
diversion and entertainment, all tend to character¬ 
building. Therefore, I say bring the high school to the 
farm child, not the child to the town to that high school. 
Do the short-sighted people who advocate the latter 
realize what this tendency means? Educate the farm 
boy and girl where they are. Teach them the things 
they should know to make the boys better farmers and 
the girls better wives for them. Teach them the love of 
the land they work, that we may have a nation of home- 
owners—prideful home-owners — who make strong, 
stable, dependable citizens; not slum dwellers, birds of 
passage, discontented wanderers forever decrying the 
rottenness of things they do not help to remedy. The 
strong nations of all times were and are those whose 
people were rooted in the land. 
Do not forever harp on the “advantages” of the town 
to those boys and girls of ours till their plastic minds 
are filled with desire to escape their lowly estate and 
attain the pot of gold at the rainbow’s end. Let the 
fight for our rural schools go on, and may the gratitude 
of those benefited be yours when right shall at length 
prevail. M - A • 
New York, 
