The  RURAL  NEW-YORKER 
1549 
New  York  Farmers  Oppose  the  School  Bill 
Joint  meeting  of  all  districts  in  town  held  at  Sen- 
net,  N.  Y.,  sehoolhouse  (No,  7)  ;  130  there.  Vote 
against  the  bill  was  unanimous.  A  committee  of  three 
leading  citizens  was  appointed  to  draw  resolutions  to 
that  effect,  and  send  to  our  representatives  in  the  Legis¬ 
lature.  mrs.  John  waldron  (trustee). 
HAT  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  reports  sent  to  us. 
They  represent  more  than  1,000  school  districts 
in  New  York  State.  These  reports  are  still  pouring 
in.  These  meetings  ran  in  numbers  from  seven  to 
nearly  200  voters.  In  most  cases  names  of  all  voters 
are  signed  to  resolutions.  We  have  been  unable  to 
count  them  all,  but  it  seems  evident  that  these  re¬ 
ports  already  represent  more  than  50,000  voters— 
with  many  more  coming.  Out  of  the  entire  lot  there 
were  not  20  meetings  where  the  school  bill  was  en¬ 
dorsed. 
We  are  safe  in  saying  that  never  before  in  the 
history  of  New  York  country  districts  has  there  been 
such  an  expression  of  volunteer,  independent  opinion 
as  was  given  on  the  night  of  Tuesday,  Dec.  4.  We 
want  to  be  careful,  and  not  make  extravagant  or 
unfair  statements,  but  we  honestly  believe  that  the 
farmers  of  New  York  never  before  gave  such  em¬ 
phatic  and  general  expression  of  their  desires  re¬ 
garding  a  great  public  question  which  directly  af¬ 
fects  them.  All  reports  agree  that  the  school  meet¬ 
ings  were  the  largest  in  many  years.  In  at  least  90 
per  cent  of  them  the  vote  against  the  proposed 
school  bill  was  unanimous.  We  did  not  fully  realize 
until  these  meetings  were  held  and  names  were  ac¬ 
tually  signed  to  resolutions  how  unpopular  this  pro¬ 
posed  bill  is  in  country  districts. 
We  believe  these  meetings  represent  the  freest, 
most  independent  expression  of  farm  opinion  that 
we  have  ever  had  in  the  State:  It  was  all  volunteer 
work.  There  was  no  organization,  no  fund  of  money, 
no  official  patronage  or  power.  At  the  request  of 
some  of  its  readers  The  R.  N.-Y.  issued  the  call, 
and  the  farmers  did  the  rest.  We  are  frankly  aston¬ 
ished  at  the  outcome.  We  had  no  idea  there  could 
be  any  such  outpouring.  In  many  parts  of  the  State 
the  night  was  rainy  and  the  roads  deep  in  mud,  yet 
still  they  came.  In  one  big  district  every  voter  was 
present  except  one  sick  man,  and  he  sent  his  vote 
of  protest.  One  man  addressed  a  meeting  of  S5  and 
then  rushed  away  and  spoke  at  another  meeting  of 
104.  Both  voted  unanimously  against  the  bill.  In 
several  places  meetings  were  called,  but  through 
some  mistake  the  sehoolhouse  was  not  opened. 
Groups  of  people  came  through  the  rain  and,  rather 
than  give  up,  held  meetings  by  lantern  light  and 
voted  against  the  bill.  In  one  case  the  meeting  was 
held  on  Monday  night,  and  on  Tuesday  the  leaders 
went  out  to  other  districts  to  help.  All  this  was 
done  by  volunteers — men  and  women  of  intelligence, 
who  realized  that  they  must  give  full  and  forcible 
expression  to  their  views  if  they  ever  expected  to  be 
noticed.  They  felt  that  they  were  denied  any  other 
form  of  referendum,  and  they  felt  that  all  the  ma¬ 
chinery  which  has  been  created  in  their  farm  organ- 
zations  is  working  against  them.  The  spirit  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race,  and  particularly  those  who  live 
in  the  country,  is  for  law  and  orderly  proceeding. 
These  people  in  the  school  districts  operated  in  an 
orderly  manner.  They  organized  their  meetings,  elect¬ 
ed  officers,  called  for  a  full  discussion  of  the  bill,  and 
then  \  oted.  In  most  cases,  after  the  voting,  every 
man  and  woman  present  signed  the  resolution.  In 
many  cases  they  elected  a  permanent  campaign  com¬ 
mittee  to  keep  up  their  work.  We  have  been  accused 
of  leading  “an  ignorant  and  irresponsible  mob,”  but 
there  was  nothing  of  that  in  the  orderly  and  serious- 
minded  army  which  marched  to  the  schoolhouses  on 
Dec.  4  and  took  part  in  as  solemn  a  referendum  as 
New  York  State  ever  witnessed. 
We  could  fill  half  a  dozen  copies  of  The  R.  N.-Y. 
with  reports  and  resolutions,  some  of  them  as  fine 
and  well  drawn  as  any  we  have  ever  seen,  but  the 
following  states  the  case  simply  and  briefly : 
The  seal  has  been  set  on  that  moment  of  time  we  call 
Dec.  4,  1923,  and  I  am  pleased  to  submit  the  following 
report  of  the  farmers’  meeting  scheduled  for  this  locality 
on  that  date. 
Farmers  from  all  over  the  township  of  Glen,  Mont¬ 
gomery  Co.,  N.  Y.,  and  some  from  the  outside,  assem¬ 
bled  on  the  evening  of  Dec.  4  to  discuss  and  vote  their 
sentiments  on  the  rural  education  bill  prepared  by  the 
Committee  of  Twenty-one.  Sixty-six  people  were  pres¬ 
ent,  and  a  considerable  number  of  these  took  a  prom¬ 
inent  part  in  the  discussion.  The  general  provisions 
of  the  bill  were  explained  first.  Following  this,  discus¬ 
sion  centered  about  those  provisions  which  had  been 
least  explained,  or  concerning  which  a  satisfactory  ex¬ 
planation  had  not  been  made  by  the  Committee  of 
Twenty-one  and  other  proponents.  The  contentions  of 
the  backers  of  this  bill  that  it  is  not  a  consolidation 
measure,  that  there  would  be  more  local  control,  that 
taxes  would  be  lower  on  the  average,  and  that  the  bill 
has  the  backing  of  a  majority  of  the  farmers,  were  em¬ 
phatically  refuted.  Attention  was  also  directed  to  the 
line-up  of  those  who  are  striving  to  have  this  bill 
passed  at  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature.  It  was 
disclosed  that  the  Committee  of  Twenty-one  is  strongly 
backed  by  Governor  Smith,  who  favors  compulsory  con-' 
solidation  at  once ;  Dr.  Frank  P.  Graves,  Commissioner 
of  Education,  who  is  fighting  for  a  consolidation  bill ; 
the  tremendous  power  exercised  by  the  College  of  Agri¬ 
culture  at  Cornell,  which  functions  chiefly  through  the 
local  county  Farm  Bureau  and  Home  Bureaus,  the  pol¬ 
icies  of  which  organizations  are  controlled  by  Cornell 
by  law;  the  house  of  delegates  of  the  New  Y’ork  State 
Teachers’  Association  ;  the  New  York  State  Federation 
of  Labor,  which  would  be  benefited  by  the  construction 
of  countless  centralized  schools,  and  the  motor  bus  in¬ 
terests. 
In  opposition  to  these  groups,  special  emphasis  was 
placed  on  the  fact  that  meetings  of  working  farmers 
disclose  that  more  than  95  per  cent  of  our  country  peo¬ 
ple  are  opposed  to  the  bill.  It  should  also  be  noted  that 
the  New  York  State  Grange,  which  is  by  far  the  most 
representative  farm  organization  we  have  in  the  State, 
will  not  have  opportunity  to  record  a  mature  decision 
until  the  State  Grange  convention  meets  in  January. 
The  vote  of  the  Glen  Township  meeting  stood  60  to  0 
in  opposition  to  the  bill. 
This  meeting  further  determined  to  call  a  county  con- 
-vention  of  country  people  to  assemble  at  the  Old  Court 
House,  Fonda,  N.  Y.,  at  one  o’clock  on  the  afternoon  of 
Friday,  Dec.  21,  for  the  purpose  of  recording  the  rural 
sentiment  of  the  whole  county  on  this  bill  and  to  con¬ 
sider  recommendations  to  be  incorporated  in  a  substi¬ 
tute  bill  which  are  satisfactory  to  country  people.  In 
addition  to  general  publicity,  contact  will  be  made  with 
each  rural  school  district  in  the  county.  We  want  at 
least  one  representative  present  from  each  rural  school 
district  in  the  county,  but  we  want  all  rural  people  to 
come  who  will,  because  this  meeting  is  to  be  100  per 
cent  democratic.  D.  boyd  devendorf. 
It  has  been  said  by  some,  not  all,  of  the  friends  of 
this  bill,  that  farmers  are  incapable  of  understand¬ 
ing  or  appreciating  it.  We  have  been  told  frankly 
by  members  of  the  Committee  of  Twenty-one  that 
the  only  way  to  improve  the  school  law  is  to  jam  a 
bill  through  the  Legislature  before  the  farmers  can 
know  fully  about  it.  That  is  not  true  of  all  the 
friends  of  the  present  bill,  but  we  believe  that  in 
their  hearts  the  leaders  of  the  movement  feel  that 
way.  The  reports  from  these  school  meetings  con¬ 
vince  us  that  it  would  be  a  crime  to  force  this  pro¬ 
posed  school  bill  through  the  Legislature  and  at¬ 
tempt  to  enforce  it  in  the  rural  districts.  The  men 
and  women  who  have  sent  these  reports  to  us  are 
fully  intelligent  and  earnest.  We  have  never  seen, 
in  all  our  experience,  such  clear,  sensible  and  earnest 
statements  as  are  reported  from  these  meetings. 
They  not  only  protest  against  the  bill,  but  they  de¬ 
clare  their  willingness  to  improve  their  home  schools 
,if  they  may  work  without  interference,  and  in 
many  cases  they  passed  resolutions  suggesting  items 
for  a  substitute  bill.  Some  of  these  men  and  women 
have  the  clearest  idea  of  what  the  rural  school  needs 
and,  as  we  read  these  letters  and  statements,  it 
seems  a  wonder  that  the  Committee  of  Twenty-one 
spent  so  much  of  its  money  on  high-powered  experts 
when  this  great  wealth  of  home  material  was  prac¬ 
tically  unnoticed. 
This  sehoolhouse  referendum  convinces  us  that 
the  country  people  of  New  York  are  opposed  to  the 
new  school  bill.  When  this  great  army  of  men  and 
women,  all  volunteers,  without  organization  or  lead¬ 
ership,  come  out  on  a  stormy  night  and  in  orderly 
American  fashion  vo'te  against. a  proposed  law,  and 
sign  their  names  to  bind  their  action,  we  recognize 
something  more  than  ignorant  prejudice.  It  repre¬ 
sents  a  spirit  of  independence  and  a  desire  to  im¬ 
prove  the  schools  in  a  practical  and  sensible  way. 
This  spirit  of  initiative  and  independence  has  been 
pretty  much  stifled  by  too  much  leadership  and  di¬ 
rection.  It  flared  up  into  flame  on  Dec.  4,  and  the 
fire  may  well  be  kept  burning.  We  want  to  present 
this  matter  calmly  and  without  ill  feeling.  We 
could  easily  make  a  very  much  larger  story  out  of 
these  reports,  but  that  will  go  to  the  members  of  the 
Legislature.  We  can  note  prove  to  anyone  that 
the  country  people  do  not  want  this  bill,  and  The  Ii. 
N.-Y.  tcill  stand  xcith  them  to  the  end. 
Who  Started  the  Milk  War? 
Will  you  tell  us  who  is  lowering  the  price  of  fluid 
milk,  the  Sheffields  or  the  Dairymen’s  League?  In 
here  each  party  is  claiming  that  the  other  party  is  to 
blame  for  it.  Kindly  let  us  know. 
•  New  York.  chas.  b.  lengfeld. 
HEN  the  reduction  was  made  we  said  we 
knew  no  reason  for  it.  We  have  read  the 
various  reasons  since  given,  and  the  copious  argu¬ 
ments  on  both  sides,  but  we  are  as  much  in  the 
dark  as  before.  Which  organization  is  responsible 
is,  we  think,  of  no  great  importance  to  anyone.  The 
reduction  has  been  made.  It  runs  through  Decem¬ 
ber  as  we  predicted,  and  all  dairymen  are  paying 
the  price  of  the  warfare.  No  one  escapes.  A  little 
co-operation  between  the  leaders  would  prevent  the 
reductions.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  spirit 
of  co-operation  than  a  price  war  between  farm 
groups.  To  carry  on  a  price  war  between  dairymen 
in  the  name  of  co-operation  is  a  sacrilege. 
For  us  to  say  who  is  to  blame  would  be  a  per¬ 
sonal  opinion.  No  matter  what  our  judgment  would 
be  one  side  would  approve  it — the  other  side  would 
repudiate  it.  We  will  therefore  give  the  correct  in¬ 
formation  as  best  we  can,  and  everyone  can  then 
form  his  own  judgment. 
Up  to  April.  1922,  all  dealers,  both  non-pool  and 
pool,  bought  all  milk  and  paid  one.  price  to  all.  The 
pool  then  announced  that  after  May  1  dealers  must 
take  all  their  Class  1  or  liquid  milk  in  so  far  as  the 
pool  could  supply  it,  before  accepting  non-pool  milk 
for  Class  1  purposes,  and  the  same  provision  for 
Classes  2  and  3.  Borden’s  and  some  other  dealers 
accepted  these  terms  and  have  continued  them  since. 
Other  dealers  refused  to  accept  the  terms,  and 
bought  outside  the  pool.  The  pool  continued  to  sell 
on  the  class  plan  and  the  others — non-pool — sold  on 
the  “all  milk”  plan.  Under  this  plan  the  dealer 
takes  all  milk  at  the  fixed  price.  Under  the  class 
plan  there  are  four  prices  or  more,  depending  on 
the  use  made  of  the  milk.  These  two  entirely  dif¬ 
ferent  basic  plans  of  price  fixing  obscure  the  details 
and  make  exact  comparions  of  the  milk  sold  for 
liquid  consumption  practically  impossible. 
We  have  now  four  large  groups  of  producers,  and 
probably  50  single  farm-owned  units  selling  milk  to 
New  York  dealers.  The  League  pool  is  the  largest, 
and  controls  all  pooled  milk.  The  other  large  groups 
are:  Non-pool  Association,  the  Eastern  States  Pro¬ 
ducers  and-  the  Sheffield  Farms  group.  These  and 
the  local  units  are  all  so-called  non-pool. 
According  to  a  published  statement  which  has  not 
been  disputed,  for  the  year  May,  1922,  to  May,  1923, 
Sheffield  Farms  paid  producers  59  cents  per  100  lbs. 
more  than  the  pool  paid  in  cash  to  its  members  for 
3  per  cent  milk.  The  pool,  however,  paid  an  aver¬ 
age  of  14  cents  per  100  lbs.  in  certificates  of  in¬ 
debtedness.  The  other  non-pool  groups  and  units 
paid  substantially  the  same  as  Sheffields,  some  at 
times  paying  more,  others  less,  and  all  averaging 
somewhat  less. 
All  city  dealers  are  united  in  one  unit,  known  as 
the  New  York  Milk  Conference  Board.  This  board 
has  two  committees.  One  committee  meets  with  the 
pool  committee  monthly  to  make  a  price  for  the 
following  month.  The  other  committee  meets  the 
non-pool  committee.  The  divided  producers  are  rep¬ 
resented  by  a  divided  leadership  to  meet  a  united 
buyers’  organization. 
The  reports  for  November  are  not  yet  available. 
Hence  we  must  go  back.  For  September  the  pool 
Class  1  price  was  $2.9S.  It  reported  average  re¬ 
ceipts  from  dealers  $2.30  per  100  lbs.,  and  returned 
$2.10  to  producers  in  cash  and  10  cents  in  certifi¬ 
cates.  Its  “all  milk”  cash  price  was  $2.10.  The 
Sheffield  Farms  “all  milk”  price  was  $2.75,  and  it 
paid  $2.75  to  producers. 
For  October  the  average  Class  1  pool  price  was 
$3,115.  It  reported  from  its  dealers  an  “all  milk” 
or  average  price  of  $2.42.  It  paid  in  cash  to  mem¬ 
bers  $2.22  and  10  cents  in  certificates.  Sheffield 
Farms  “all  milk”  price  was  again  $2.75. 
For  November  the  pool  made  a  Class  1  price  of 
$3.45.  The  non-poolers  made  an  “all  milk”  price  of 
$3.05.  In  10  days  the  pool  announced  a  reduction 
in  the  Class  1  of  65  cents,  leaving  the  other  three 
classes  untouched.  Following  this  Sheffield  Farms 
dropped  47  cents  to  $2.58,  and  other  non-pool  groups 
about  the  same. 
The  difference  in  the  base  for  price  fixing  makes  it 
impossible  to  estimate  accurately  the  comparative 
prices  without  knowing  exactly  how  much  milk 
went  into  each  class  by  all  dealers,  pool  and  non¬ 
pool  alike.  The  best  that  we  can  do  is  to  give  the 
“all  milk”  price  in  both  cases.  The  pool  insists  that 
when  the  non-pool  associations  sell  below  their 
Class  1  trice  they  start  a  price  war.  The  non-pool 
insists  that  the  base  of  comparison  is  the  “all  milk” 
price ;  and  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  ask  them  to 
maintain  an  “all  milk”  price  of  say  $2.98  for  Oc¬ 
tober  while  the  pool  “all  milk”  price  was  $2.42. 
Such  are  the  facts.  Each  one  must  form  his  own 
(Continued  on  Page  1553) 
