Tht  RURAL  NEW-YORKER 
999 
The  Farmers’  Party  in  Ontario  Canada 
WE  have  found  it  next  to  impossible  to  obtain 
a  fair  statement  regarding  the  outcome  of 
the  recent  election  in  Ontario,  Canada.  A  few  years 
ago  a  farmers'  party,  known  as  the  United  Ontario 
Farmers,  swept  the  province  and  obtained  control  of 
the  government.  They  put  through  some  progres¬ 
sive  legislation,  an1  proposed  much  more.  It  seemed 
as  to  an  outsider  as  if  they  had  a  sure  thing  when 
they  came  before  the  people  a  few  weeks  ago,  but 
the  fact  is  that  they  were  “beaten  to  a  frazzle,”  as 
Roosevelt  once  said.  The  conservatives  or  tories,  who 
seem  to  represent  the  reactionary  or  hard-shelled 
element  in  Canadian  politics  are  back  in  power  with 
a  tremendous  majority. 
Now  Ontario  is  really  an  agricultural  province — - 
a  majority  of  the  voters  are  farmers  and  country 
people.  How  then  can  it  be  that  a  farmers’  party, 
put  in  power  by  farmers  and  openly  in  favor  of 
farm  legislation,  has  met  with  this  great  defeat? 
The  same  thing  has  happened  on  this  side  of  the  line 
in  States  like  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Colorado  and  Da¬ 
kota.  We  have  seen  the  farmers  in  these  States  rise 
up.  weld  themselves  together  into  parties,  and  gain 
control  of  the  State  government.  Then  after  a  few 
years,  they  fall  apart,  and  are  beaten  so  that  the 
party  seems  to  fade  away.  While  political  condi¬ 
tions  in  Canada  are  different  from  ours,  and  while 
the  Canadian  mind  is  different,  human  nature  is 
much  the  same,  and  we  find  that  the  Ontario  farm¬ 
ers'  movement  has  slipped  back  very  much  as  it  has 
on  this  side  of  the  line. 
They  were  evidently  forced  by  the  radicals  in  their 
party  to  attempt  more  than  they  could  take  care  of. 
That  is  usually  the  case.  There  is  always  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  hot-headed,  impulsive  people  who  are  never 
satisfied.  They  want  every  thing  at  once,  regardless 
of  the  condition  of  public  opinion.  The  cooler  heads 
know  that  they  cannot  go  any  faster  than  the  aver¬ 
age  mind  will  work.  The  radicals  demand  every¬ 
thing  at  once,  promise  too  much  and  attempt  to  pick 
things  before  they  are  ripe.  This  frightens  some  of 
the  conservative  farmers  who  come  in  to  help  the 
movement,  and  they  are  scared  away. 
Then  we  must  remember  that  old  party  ties  are 
very  strong.  When  men  have  been  brought  up  in 
some  particular  political  party  they  dislike  to  leave 
it  permanently.  The  Populists  at  one  time  domi¬ 
nated  several  Western  States,  but  when  the  party 
broke  they  went  back  to  their  old  Darties.  Most  of 
the  Progressives  who  went  out  with  Roosevelt  went 
back  when  the  movement  failed.  As  nearly  as  we 
can  get  at  it,  the  Ontario  farmers  won  because  thou¬ 
sands  of  conservatives  went  over  to  them.  These 
conservatives  did  not  get  all  they  wanted,  or  thought 
the  farmers  were  going  too  fast,  and  they  quit  the 
movement.  The  same  thing  has  happened  over  and 
over  in  national,  State  or  city  campaigns  and  it 
seems  to  indicate  the  futility  of  attempting  to  or¬ 
ganize  independent  parties  to  promote  anything  like 
class  legislation. 
It  also  seems  that  the  liquor  question  entered  into 
the  Canadian  election.  As  is  the  case  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  the  large  cities  are  “wet,”  while  the  rural  dis¬ 
tricts  are  “dry.”  The  farmers  have  put  through 
some  strict  prohibitory  laws.  The  cities  resented 
this,  and  were  joined  by  many  conservative  country¬ 
men  who  opposed  the  farmers’  movement  on  per¬ 
sonal  grounds.  While  it  is  said  that  on  a  popular 
vote  Ontario  would  vote- “dry,”  the  cities  are  “wet.” 
and  with  their  system  of  representatives  can  control 
the  Legislature.  These  are  the  chief  reasons  given 
us  for  the  election  result.  The  farmers’  movement 
is  not  dead,  and  the  party  will  be  kept  alive,  but 
the  result  seems  to  show  that  third  or  outside  par¬ 
ties,  built  on  some  class  or  business  agreement,  can¬ 
not  succeed  permanently.  The  average  man  is  too 
fixed  in  his  political  habits. 
The  Committee  of  Twenty-one  and  the 
School  Bill 
1  That  is  this  Committee  of  Twenty-one  you  keep 
referring  to?  Who  are  they  and  where  do  they  come 
from?  What  have  they  done?  What  authority  have 
they  to  try  to  change  the  school  lairs  of  New  York? 
I1ESE  are  actual  questions  asked  us,  not  once, 
but  many  times.  It  would  be  discouraging  to 
the  members  of  the  committee  to  realize  that  any 
fair  proportion  of  rural  people  in  New  York  ask 
such  questions,  but  the  truth  is  these  and  many  sim¬ 
ilar  ones  are  constantly  coming.  As  a  part  of  our 
plan  of  making  this  school  problem  clear,  we  intend 
to  get  down  to  fundamentals. 
The  following  letter  will  explain  the  starting  of 
this  committee : 
As  I  recall,  at  a  meeting  during  Farmers’  Week  in 
connection  with  the  Rural  Education  Department  of 
Cornell  University,  part  of  the  program,  a  symposium 
upon  the  rural  schools,  was  under  discussion,  and  the 
writer  in  an  address  suggested  that  a  committee  of  fif¬ 
teen  be  chosen  by  five  of  the  leading  farm  organizations 
— three  each — to  study  the  school  situation  and  report. 
This  suggested  number  was  increased  by  the  addition 
of  two  more  organizations,  thus  making  a  committee  of 
twenty-one.  The  plan  suggested  was  that  each  of  the 
several  organizations  to  be  represented  should  choose 
by  their  own  method  three  of  their  members,  who,  with 
a  like  number  from  others,  should  meet  and  form  an 
organization  for  permanent  work. 
The  organization  suggested,  while  giving  place  to  the 
educational  agencies  in  the  State,  also  was  formed  with 
due  consideration  to  the  rural  farm  organizations,  such 
as  the  Grange,  Farm  Bureau  Federation,  Home  Bureau 
Federation,  and  then  the  department  superintendents, 
and  lastly  the  department  of  Cornell,  under  whose  spe¬ 
cial  auspices  the  part  of  the  program  of  Farmers’  Week 
was  being  held  when  the  matter  was  first  proposed.  The 
writer  pleads  guilty  to  having  been  one  of  the  first,  if 
not  the  very  first,  to  make  the  early  suggestion  for  the 
Committee  of  Fifteen,  as  above  noted. 
This  is  absolutely  correct  as  I  recall  it,  and  gives  the 
first  background  for  the  later  shaping  and  work  which 
took  place.  s.  l.  strivings. 
To  understand  this  fully  we  must  go  back  to  the 
old  township  school  law.  The  changes  which  that 
law  brought  about  were  not  well  understood  by  the 
rural  people  until  actual  enforcement  made  them 
clear.  rfhat  bill  was  “jammed”  through  the  Legis¬ 
lature  by  a  very  close  vote,  and  by  some  rather 
questionable  wirepulling.  We  believe  that  if  more 
time  had  been  spent  in  making  the  provisions  of 
that  bill  clear,  country  people  would  have  given  it 
a  fair  trial.  As  it  was,  they  felt  that  an  effort  had 
been  made  to  “put  something  over,”  and  they  rose 
up  in  one  of  the  most  remarkable  political  revolu¬ 
tions  ever  known  in  New  York.  Without  organiza¬ 
tion  or  previous  work  with  the  Legislature,  they 
forced  a  repeal  of  the  law,  without  constructive 
legislation  to  provide  a  substitute.  It  was  a  tre¬ 
mendous  exhibition  of  power,  and  it  was  the  mem¬ 
ory  of  it  which  compelled  the  last  Legislature  to 
refuse  to  pass  the  bill  now  under  discussion. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  all  or  practically  all  of  the 
people  who  are  now  urging  the  new  law  were  in 
favor  of  the  old  township  law,  or  felt  that  it  had 
not  received  a  fair  trial.  The  weakness  of  those 
who  defeated  the  township  law  was  that  having  ac¬ 
complished  their  object  they  dropped  their  organiza¬ 
tion  and  made  no  effort  to  present  a  new  law,  or 
suitable  changes  in  the  old  law.  Of  course  school 
laws  like  everything  else,  should  be  progressive, 
and  should  be  improved  to  suit  new  conditions.  It 
is  clear  that  the  friends  of  this  old  township  law 
kept  up  their  organization,  such  as  it  was,  and  pre¬ 
pared  to  bring  about  the  old  result  by  new  methods. 
The  tremendous  revolution  over  the  township  law 
evidently  convinced  them  that  what  we  may  call  an 
open,  frontal  attack,  could  not  win.  The  plan  of  this 
Committee  of  Twenty-one  was  adopted.  It  is  one 
criticism  of  this  committee  that  its  members  were 
“hand-picked” — which  means  that  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  membership  of  the  various  organizations  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  selection.  At  any  rate,  it 
seems  evident  that  all  or  practically  all  of  these 
members  favored  the  township  law,  and  we  think  it 
can  fairly  be-  said  that  the  prime  object  was  to  sug¬ 
gest  a  bill  which  should  be  based  on  the  general 
principles  of  that  old  law,  with  such  improvements 
as  seemed  desirable.  We  think  these  men  and  wom¬ 
en  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  this,  provided  they  did 
it  openly  and  with  a  clear  understanding  of  just 
what  they  intended  to  do.  We  do  not  think  they 
have  made  their  objects  entirely  clear,  and  that  is 
why  we  are  taking  space  to  analyze  the  bill  fully. 
We  shall  go  on  to  tell  how  the  bill  was  prepared  and 
who  prepared  it. 
Wool  Handling  in  Connecticut 
THE  Connecticut  Sheep  Breeders’  Association 
continues  to  manufacture  wool  into  blankets 
and  overcoats  and  suitings.  Most  other  organiza¬ 
tions  seem  to  have  given  up  this  practice,  and  read¬ 
ers  have  asked  how  the  Connecticut  men  are  able  to 
continue  it.  The  following  statement  of  methods  is 
made  by  Henry  Dorrance,  secretary  of  the  associa¬ 
tion  : 
The  main  object  of  the  association  is  to  help  the  pro¬ 
ducer  to  market  his  wool  to  his  best  advantage.  Three 
circular  letters  are  sent  in  the  Spring  to  all  the  known 
wool  growers,  stating  what  the  association  will  manu¬ 
facture.  and  what  the  cost  of  manufacturing  will  be  to 
the  producer.  Then  notice  is  given  of  the  date  and 
place  where  the  wool  will  be  collected  for  shipment 
(usually  a  railroad  freight  station).  The  farmers,  when 
they  bring  in  their  wool  pay  down  5c  per  lb.,  which 
covers  the  cost  of  freight  and  collection  expenses,  the 
balance  of  manufacturing  costs  being  paid  when  the 
finished  product,  is  ready  to  return  to  the  producer,  who 
sells  his  finished  product  instead  of  his  wool,  or.  upon 
his  application,  the  association  helps  him  sell  his  pro¬ 
duct,  and  after  deducting  cost  of  selling  and  delivering, 
returns  the  balance. 
The  0.  S.  B.  A.  uses  nothing  but  the  virgin  wool  that 
comes  right  from  the  farmers.  This  wool  is  sorted  into 
seven  different  lots,  and  each  lot  is  used  for  that  to 
which  it.  is  best  adapted,  and  for  which  it  is  most 
valuable. 
The  C.  >S.  B.  A.  makes  articles  only  of  the  highest 
quality.  This  year  the  wool  is  manufactured  into  bed 
blankets,  a  plaid  back  Whitney  finish  overcoat,  and 
men’s  worsted  suiting  made  of  two-ply  double  and 
twisted  yarn,  both  warp  and  filling.  In  cases  where  the 
farmer  had  to  have  his  money  immediately  the  associa¬ 
tion  paid  him  for  his  wool  at  the  time  of  collection,  a 
price _  somewhat  above  the  market  price.  The  advan¬ 
tage  is  extended  to  all,  without  regard  to  the  amount  of 
wool  he  has  or  whether  he  is  a  member  of  the  associa¬ 
tion.  We  trust  to  his  honor  to  support  the  association. 
Sometimes  our  trust  is  well  placed  and  sometimes  fit  is 
not.  Last  year  the  smallest  amount  received  from  one 
person  was  G  lbs.,  and  the  largest  was  3,343  lbs.,  but  the 
cost  for  handling  and  manufacturing  was  the  same. 
This  year  we  have  taken  several  lots  from  outside  the 
State,  the  difference  in  cost  being  only  the  extra  cost  of 
transportation  from  their  point  to  Plainfield.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  method  of  pooling  is  of  great  advantage 
to  the  small  producer,  as  well  as  the  large.  We  have 
finished  our  collecting  and  shipping  for  this  season,  so 
cannot  accept  any  more  wool  this  year,  as  the  mills  will 
not  handle  small  lots.  iienry  dorrance. 
Tax  Exempt  Farm  Tools  in 
Massachusetts 
1.  I  have  been  assessed  and  taxed  by  this  town  on 
my  incubator  for  several  years  past.  Under  the  fol¬ 
lowing  ruling  by  the  Supreme  Court  would  not  incu¬ 
bators  be  as  reasonably  classed  farming  utensils  as 
trucks,  and  therefore  be  tax  exempt? 
‘The  full  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  yesterday  held 
in  a  suit  brought  by  G.  Thorndike  Trull,  a  Lowell 
farmer,  against  the  city  of  J^owell  for  an  abatement  of 
a  tax  of  $84  assessed  on  four  automobile  trucks  he  uses 
on  his  farm,  that  the  trucks  were  farming  utensils  and 
were  exempt  from  taxation.” 
2.  As  this  is  only  a  ruling  and  not  a  new  law,  would 
I  be  able  to  recover  for  past  taxes,  collected  in  error’ 
Incubators  cost  about  $3,500,  and  are  probably  assessed 
at  one-half  or  two-thirds  that  sum;  rate  of  taxation 
around  $30  per  thousand.  j.  ^  g. 
Massachusetts. 
R.  N.-Y. — This,  of  course,  refers  to  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  law.  We  understand  that  the  Commissioner 
of  Corporations  and  Taxations,  after  a  conference 
with  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  made  up  a  list, 
of  tax-exempt  farm  implements.  No  incubators,  of 
any  kind,  are  on  the  list.  The  question  of  tax- 
exempt  incubators  was  put  up  to  the  Attorney- 
General  and  he  ruled  against  them. 
A  Farm  Woman  on  Schools 
The  best  thing  in  the  recent  issues  to  my  mind  is 
your  work  on  the  report  and  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  of  Twenty-one.  I  took  pains  at  great  sac¬ 
rifice  to  attend  two  meetings  last  year,  one  in  Utica  and 
one  in  Syracuse,  before  the  report  was  completed,  and 
then  one  in  Tully  after  the  report  was  ready  to  be  ex¬ 
plained.  There  I  saw  very  few  really  rural  par- 
cnts  oi  fai  mers  ready  to  listen.  I  liave  read  every- 
thing  I  could  about  the  work  and  plans.  There  is  much 
that  I  do  not  understand  now,  though  I  was  never  told 
I  was  dull.  Me  need  better  schools.  We  must  have 
better  teachers.  I  taught  10  years.  'We  need  equaliza¬ 
tion  of  taxes.  We  need,  badly  need,  more  help  in 
these  lull  districts.  We  need  more  consideration  for 
the  children  who  live  over  two  miles  from  the  school 
house.  It  may  be  that  this  new  recommended  law  will 
accomplish  much  and  fill  these  needs.  But  there  is 
going  to  be  a  loud  protest  when  old  district  boundaries 
are  changed,  and  when  more  boards  are  organized  to 
control  the  rural  schools. 
There  is  one  thing  that  should  be  granted.  The  State 
should  have  more  confidence  in  her  teachers,  and  allow 
part  of  a  child’s  promotion  to  depend  on  daily  work 
and  not  all  of  it  on  the  final  examination.  If  they  do 
not  want  to  give  50  per  cent  credit,  make  it  40  per  cent 
Everyday  work  well  dove  is  worth  10  times  a  jumbled 
ciamming  for  a  final  test.  Mabel  f.  e  berry 
New  York. 
Questions  About  a  Federal  Land  Bank 
Loan 
In  anticipation  of  applying  for  a  loan  from  the  Fed- 
eial  Land  Bank,  I  would  be  glad  if  you  would  explain 
briefly  how  the  mortgage  would  be  handled  in  case  the 
owner  of  property  later  found  it  desirable  to  sell' 
\\  ould  the  stock  in  which  borrower  invested  be  repaid 
and  the  moitgage  canceled,  and  would  new  ^owner  need 
to  make  an  independent  application  if  he  wished  a  sim¬ 
ilar  loan?  T  ,,r  ‘ 
which  the  Federal  Land  Bank  held  a  mortgage  In 
fact,  the  selling  of  the  farm  would  be  easier  as  the 
financing  of  the  property  would  already  have  been  made 
by  the  owner  who  took  out  the  loan.' 
The  stock  which  each  borrower  holds  in  the  local  loan 
association  as  an  investment  should  be  purchased  bv  the 
new  owner  of  the  farm.  This  stock  represents  5  per 
cent  of  the  original  amount  of  the  loan,  and  should  be 
held  by  the  owner  of  the  farm  on  which  the  mortgage 
has  been  placed.  The  owner  of  this  association  stock  is 
entitled  to  the  dividends  which  the  Federal  Land  Bank 
declares  to  the  association,  and,  in  turn,  to  the  borrower 
I  lie  last  dividend  declared  by  the  Federal  Land  Bank 
was  at  the  rate  of  7  per  cent. 
The  sale  of  the  farm  does  not  cancel  the  mortgage  or 
its  terms  in  any  way,  the  new  owner  simply  assuming 
and  agreeing  to  pay  the  mortgage  on  the  property  in 
question,  just  the  same  as  if  he  had  taken  out  the  loan 
himself. 
When  a  borrower  through  the  Federal  Land  Bank 
sells  his  farm  it  is  important  that  he  notify  the  secre¬ 
tary-treasurer  of  the  local  loan  association,  or  the  bank 
so  that  the  fire  insurance  on  the  buildings  can  be  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  new  owner  and  not  become  invalidated 
Also,  so  that  the  bank’s  records  on  the  stock  and  the 
loan  can  be  made  clear. 
If  the  owner  decides  to  pay  up  his  loan  in  full  when 
he  sells  his  farm,  he  will  be  reimbursed  for  the  par 
value  of  the  association  stock  which  he  holds,  whereas  if 
he  sells  the  farm  and  the  loan  is  not  paid  up,  the  new 
owner  will  pay  him  for  the  stock,  and  he  in  turn  will  be 
reimbursed  when  he  sells  again  or  pays  the  loan  in  full. 
E.  H.  THOMSON. 
President. 
