American Agriculturist, June 16,1923 
504 
Editorial Page of the American 
American 
Agriculturist 
Founded 1842 
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. . . . Publisher 
E. R. Eastman .Editor 
Fred W. Ohm .Associate Editor 
Gabrielle Elliot .... Household Editor 
BiRGE Kinne .Advertising Manager 
H. L, Vonderlieth . . ., Circulation Manager 
CONTRIBUTING STAFF 
H. E. Cook, Jared Van Wagenen, Jr., H. H. Jones, 
Paul Work, G. T. Hughes, H. E. Babcock 
OUR ADVERTISEMENTS GUARANTEED 
The American Agriculturist accepts only advertis¬ 
ing which it believes to be thoroughly honest. 
We positively guarantee to our readers fair and 
honest treatment in dealing with our advertisers. 
We guarantee to refund the price of goods pur¬ 
chased by our subscribers from any advertiser who 
fails to make good when the article purchased is 
found not to be as advertised. 
To benefit by this guarantee subscribers must say: 
“I saw your ad in the American Agriculturist” when 
ordering from our advertisers. 
Published Weekly by 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST, INC. 
Address all correspondence for editorial, advertising, or 
subscription departments to 
461 Fourth Ave., New York, N. Y. 
Entered as Second-Class Matter, December 15, 1922, at the 
Post Office at New York, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1879. 
Subscription price, payable in advance, $1 a year. 
Canadian and foreign, $2 a year. 
VOL. Ill June 16, 1923 No. 24 
Are Farm People for Prohibition? 
NOTICE in your issue of May 26 that farm or¬ 
ganizations are very strong for prohibition. Allow 
me to protest this claim. There are many, many 
men who are members of farm organizations that 
never touch a drop of alcoholic drinks that think as 
much of prohibition as they would of having a rattle¬ 
snake in bed with them. In fact, they think that prohi¬ 
bition is the worst curse that has ever been put over 
on innocent people, secured by lies, threats and mis¬ 
representation. In this resolution the members had 
no say. For all you know, there may be 70 per cent 
against it. Many of them are, and I believe that 
the days of prohibition are numbered. Let us hope 
so. I am a strict abstainer. 
Shortly aifter the New York State Legisla¬ 
ture passed the bill repealing the Mullan- 
Gage Law, a joint meeting of the New York 
State Conference Board of Farm Organiza¬ 
tions and New York State Cooperative Coun¬ 
cil, representing practically all the farm or¬ 
ganizations of the State, adopted a resolu¬ 
tion unanimously against the repeal of the 
Mullan-Gage Law. We reported this action 
in the news columns of our May 26 issue, 
which led to our receiving the above letter. 
The most that the leaders of farm organi¬ 
zations can do on any question, and the most 
that a farm publication can do is to speak 
honestly for what they believe to be the 
opinion and wishes of a majority of farm 
people. We are sure that a majority of farm¬ 
ers are for prohibition. We are especially 
sure that they were opposed to the repeal of 
the Mullan-Gage Law, which gave State sup-' 
port to the National Government in enforc¬ 
ing the Eighteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution. 
There has been a good deal of loose talking 
and joking about bootlegging, but when all 
is done and said, there has been less crime, 
less men in jail for drunkenness, less dis¬ 
cord and unhappiness in thousands of Amer¬ 
ican families and more money to spend for 
the benefit of all of the family since the 
Ehghteenth Atnendment than ever before. 
Therefore, the question whether or not pro¬ 
hibition is to continue to be a law of the land 
is one of the most, if not the most, important 
problem before the American people to-day. 
Unless those who are for it are ready to stand 
up and be counted, our correspondent is right 
when he says that the days of prohibition are 
numbered. 
Are we wrong in interpreting farm senti¬ 
ment on this subject? If so, we want to 
know it. Is the writer of the above letter 
right when he says that there may be 70 per 
cent of farm people against prohibition ? Or 
is it nearer the truth that 95 per cent of the 
farm people bitterly regret the repeal of the 
Mullan-Gage Law? 
Are we right or wrong? Let us have your 
views in a short letter. Ten thousand farm 
letters would be an effective answer to those 
who say farmers are opposed to prohibition. 
Any letter published will not be signed un¬ 
less you wish it. 
Good Farming and Bad Weather 
HE month of May was one of the coldest 
and also in most sections one of the driest 
on record. As a result, it has been taking 
considerable of the farmer’s time lately to 
cuss the weather. Warmer weather and some 
scattering showers during the early part of 
June is relieving the situation somewhat, but 
such a long period of unfavorable weather 
has created a serious situation on many 
farms. Hay is likely to be light; pastures 
have been backward and poor, and many 
planted crops came up poorly and have made 
little progress. 
It is in the unfavorable season that the 
poorer class of farmers get hit the hardest, 
particularly those who have little opportunity 
or make little effort to practice better meth¬ 
ods. For instance, seeds that are weak in 
germinating power may do fairly well in a 
good season, but will come pretty close to 
failure in a bad one. After the seed is up, 
those crops that have been well planted, 
well cultivated and have had other extra care 
will come through pretty well in spite of bad 
weather; but no crop, and no animal, can 
stand the combination of a poor season 
coupled with poor care. 
Most farmers have learned that it is poor 
business to get very much discouraged, at 
least until the season’s story is told and the 
harvest is over. Time and time again we 
have seen crops that did not promise much 
in the beginning that finally came through in 
pretty fair shape in the end. It is almost as¬ 
tounding, for instance, to watch the growth 
of a corn field which may dally along making 
a poor growth and looking rather sickly at 
the beginning, and until early July, and then 
suddenly wake up and shoot ahead surpris¬ 
ingly for the next six or eight weeks. Farm¬ 
ers know, too, that even though the season is 
unfavorable, those who use good methods 
are pretty apt to have as much, or more, 
money as they do in a season when there is 
a too-abundant harvest with resulting low 
prices. 
“Tradin’ Horses” 
'<TpDDIE,” says ‘George Duff to us a year 
or so ago when we were on a visit to 
Thompson’s Creek, *T have been tradin’ 
horses again, and I’ll bet that feller I traded 
with will feel like thirty cents when he finds 
what I let him in for with that old crowbait 
I got off on him, especially when he remem¬ 
bers that really good horse he gave me for 
him.” 
We said nothing, and kept right on say¬ 
ing it, for we well knew from knowledge of 
Duff’s previous and frequent excursions into 
the field of horse barter and trade, that all 
we had to do was to keep still and the action, 
or mayhap the lack of it of this latest addi¬ 
tion to the Duff stables, would speak for 
itself. 
There may be business deals where both 
parties profit, but horse trading is not among 
them. Judging from Duff’s Trequent experi- 
Agriculturist 
ences, it seems to be a case of ‘To him that 
hath, it shall be given, but to him that hath 
not, it shall be taken away, even that which 
he hath.” George Duff was right in his 
bragging about getting rid of a “crowbait” 
in this, his latest deal, but he should have 
stopped right there without any undue en¬ 
thusiasm for what he received in return. 
Shortly after the trade, George had to go 
to town and he thought it an excellent op¬ 
portunity to drive the new horse down the 
valley as a sort of an eJchibit to envious 
neighbors. He did so and there was an ex¬ 
hibition, but no envy developed on the part 
of the neighbors. At the second farm Duff 
stopped to pass the time of day. When it 
came to starting again, no ordinary means 
of entreaty or persuasion could rid this'horse 
of a most embjarrassing determination to 
“stay put.” Finally Duff tried the remedy 
for balking horses which had been effective 
on the results of other and previous horse 
deals. The remedy worked. In fact, it 
worked so well that the horse went away 
from there so fast that he left poor Duff 
standing in the middle of the road with his 
mouth open horrifiedly watching his newly- 
acquired property hitched to the poor old 
democrat wagon end a run-a-way down the 
road by attempting to climb a telephone pole. 
Several months later we were again visit¬ 
ing with George in his horse barn. As we 
talked there came every now and then from 
the stables back of us a hollow and dismal 
cough, and each time we noticed a strained 
and worried look on Duff’s usually cheerful 
countenance, accompanied by a rather forced 
effort to divert our mind by speeding up 
the conversation. Finally we said, “Say, 
Duff, we hate to be pessimistic, but that new 
horse of yours certainly has a bad case of 
tll0 llGS-VGS 
“Heaves? No,” says Duff, “all he’s got 
is just a little cold.” 
“By the way.” we continued, “when we 
were here last time you were quite enthusias¬ 
tic about your new horse and were telling 
us that he was sound, willing, and perfectly 
safe for women to drive. Did he prove out 
all right?” 
“Oh yes,” said Duff, “of course, he is wind- 
broken, has the heaves, three spavins, is blind 
in one eye, and can’t see out of the other; 
but otherwise, he is perfectly sound. As to 
safety, he will bite, kick, strike and run 
away; otherwise he is perfectly safe for 
women to drive. 
“By the way. I’d just as soon you didn’t 
mention this conversation. Jim Smith, over 
Richland way, who traded me four or five 
years ago that horse that developed the blind 
staggers, telephoned that he might drop 
down here in a day or so and we may be able 
to whack up a trade.” 
The Good Half Supports the Bad 
HE National Dairy Association points 
out that of the 25,000,000 dairy cows two 
years old and over in the United States, 
there are 5,000,000 that are really non-pro¬ 
ducers which could be eliminated entirely 
with no loss to the nation’s wealth. The 
average production in the United States per 
animal is only about 4,000 pounds, while the 
average production from cows of good com¬ 
mercial herds ranges from 6,000 to 12,000 
pounds per cow, with individual records 
mounting still higher. Therefore, half of 
the cows in the United States give less than 
4,000 pounds of milk per year. By the 
elimination of the poor one-fifth or 5,000,000 
cows, the output of milk would be reduced 
one-sixth, a loss which could easily be over¬ 
come in the improvement of the care and 
feeding of the remaining cows to the greatly 
increased profit to everyone in the dairy in¬ 
dustry. One half the cows must first sup¬ 
port the other half before they can support 
the farmer and his family. 
i 
