Page images

we ought to encourage the improvement of the stock of Ohio, and not offer rewards for rascality and dishonesty in breeding. Home breeders of cattle or sheep, or exhibiters, may be easily detected and exposed in their methods of treatment and preparation for the fair; but foreigners, those from a distance, are not so easily exposed. The rules of the Board may require them to make a statement of their treatment, but in nine cases out of ten they do not get a truthful statement-"just came off the pasture; only had a little corn for a week or two." We know it is not the case. They have been fitted up for months.

The object of that resolution, as I understand it, is simply to call the attention of this Convention, and through it to the State Board of Agriculture, that if it is good in their wisdom, in revising the premium list, they will endeavor to adopt some method by which they can close the doors against these evils.

Now, for one I feel that legitimate competition and exhibition of stock from abroad may be of advantage to all, and if you would open the doors for competition upon sweepstakes, we would then have the benefit of a comparison of stock, and a sufficient reward offered to secure their exhibition at our fairs.

L. P. HARRIS: I don't intend to occupy the attention of the Convention to make a speech, but only so far as to say that this seems to me a matter of some importance. I understand that the motion now is to lay the resolution upon the table. I want all to think carefully before they vote upon this question. It is called the Ohio State Fair. Now, if it is a United States Fair, why call it the Ohio State Fair? It is intended, I believe, to do the greatest good to the greatest number. Well, now, if you let that class of stock come in here that the last gentleman on the floor has spoken about, and truly, too, why, the great mass of the farmers of Ohio cannot get up anything of that kind. They cannot take time to scrape horns, and polish, and oil, and very few will come; and by letting in these few from outside the State, it discourages the mass of the farmers of Ohio, the very ones we want to encourage, so they won't try to compete, from the fact that they cannot afford to get up something nice at a great expense, simply to exhibit For these reasons I shall vote against laying this resolution on the table, and if I get an opportunity shall vote for the resolution.


W. B. MCCLUNG: Perhaps it is not proper to discuss this question under a motion to lay on the table, but I would like to say a very few words in reply to the gentleman's remarks. Now, I should dislike very much for the State of Ohio to be put in the position of saying that if a man shall go outside the State for a good animal, either of the horse kind, cattle kind, or sheep kind, for the purpose of giving Ohio the most perfect animal that could be found in the United States or England, and then when it is bought and brought here and owned in the State of Ohio, that he shall be kept out and not be allowed to exhibit that animal here, when the very purpose of bringing the animal in was to perfect the breeding interests of the State of Ohio. Now, that is exactly the result that would be brought about by this resolution. Some of us remember when Daniel McMillan went into that contest, and it was the proudest day perhaps Ohio has ever had in her capital when he got up that herd that belonged to Ohio, and wiped out the Kentuckians. I think he went out of the State and got cattle to bring in here to make up that herd, and now we propose to make a rule here that we won't permit these gentlemen who are our pioneers, and who are building up and promoting the breeding interests of the State of Ohio, to do so; and we shall be in danger of discouraging them, and they will go back and cease to seek for the best stock that can be found. No, sir; let us have it that wherever you can find the most perfect animal you may get it; and if you

choose to go out of the State to get it, let it come in and let it belong to Ohio, and let them exhibit sale stock.

Now, another thing that seems most objectionable is this: Certain gentlemen have found out that there is a certain set of scoundrels imposing upon and taking advantage of the people. That is a question for the State Board of Agriculture to look after carefully, and if it be true, why, that is the point to fight, and not this other. But the true policy for Ohio is, sir, to bring in the very best stock that we can possibly get, and the more of it the better. I don't want to see Ohio embarrassed in this matter at all. I don't believe that this Convention wants to see Ohio jeopardized in this matter at all. And if there has been any injustice among these judges, and in the management of these agricultural societies, that ought to be ferreted out and have a fair count. All we ask in this matter is to have a fair count, and Ohio will take care of herself.

M. J. LAWRENCE There is an idea in this thing that has not yet been touched upon. It is this: The object of this resolution, as I understand it, as was discussed before the Wool Growers' Association yesterday, was to do something, adopt some measure that would discourage what is known as the "professional exhibiter." It is the exhibiter who has spent a year, perhaps, previous to the fair season, in selecting and buying from all sections of the country just such a number of animals, and preparing them to receive a premium. That man goes to a great expense. Why? Because he can show at two or three fairs in Kentucky, and then can come to Ohio and show at our four prominent fairs, then go to Indiana and show at three or four fairs there, then go to Illinois, and end up at St. Louis, showing in all the fairs and taking the premiums. Why? Because when he can take this entire route he can go to an expense that is not judicious or reasonable for any breeder who does not want to go to this trouble in selecting and preparing a herd for exhibition.


Now I know that the breeders of Ohio are not afraid of the stock from any other section of the world, I don't care where they come from; but they don't like to compete with what is known as professional show herds," that are gotten up for the sole purpose of exhibition. At the time that friend McClung speaks of, this system had not been inaugurated, and therefore this precaution was not necessary; but now it has become very prevalent. And I would call Mr. McClung's attention to the fact that he has noticed at our fairs during the past few years, four of the prominent exhibiters of Shorthorns in this State-I refer to Jones, Selsor, Montgomery, and Haggerty, I am not afɩaid to name them—who were the prominent exhibiters of Shorthorn cattle in our State a few years ago. Have they been during the last two years? And why not? They say they don't want to go to the expense and the trouble and the risk of preparation, because they were not going to take an extensive trip. I simply call attention to them as an argument in favor of some precautionary measure in this way; not, perhaps, that we need to exclude all the exhibiters from other States at our fairs. I know that they have been in the habit of coming from other States with live stock, and have done us good, and are as welcome to exhibit as any breeders in the State; but, gentlemen, I believe if you look at this thing in the right light you will see that there is cause for some such action.

W. B. MCCLUNG: With your permission, I would ask leave to withdraw my motion to lay on the table, and let Mr. Millikin's amendment be voted on.

Leave was granted.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please state your amendment?

MAJOR MILLIKIN: It is that they take into consideration the propriety of so doing. I want to say, Mr. President, that I do not want to see Ohio take the unusual step of pro

hibiting stock from other States competing at our State Fairs. It is not done in Indiana, it is not done in Illinois, it is not done in Kentucky. We shall be merely adopting a rule in Ohio that is not in existence in any other State of the Union.

J. C. STEVENS: think the amendment offered by Major Millikin is satisfactory to the originator of the resolution.

MR. GRIFFIN: I would say that we, in Butler county, have found it to the advantage of the society to throw our fairs open to the world. If they can come there and beat us, let them come. If those gentlemen have filed their horns and smoothed them up, I believe the true principle is to open our fairs to the world.

MR. DAUGHERTY: In Preble county we open up to Indiana, and they come there strong; and no man complains because other counties bring in better stock. And I say, when you undertake to shut the door on stock you ruin our fairs. I believe the State of Ohio can compete with Indiana or any other State.

MR. MACK: Our fair has been almost a failure for many years; and 1 would say, if you debar from the State Fair stock from other States, the Tri-State Fair, at Toledo, and the Northern Ohio Fair will clean your State Fair out.

MR. LAWRENCE: As far as I am concerned, I would be wholly satisfied with the amendment, but, as I stated to you in the first place, I acted under instruction from the Ohio Wool Growers' Association, as their secretary, to lay this resolution before this body, and I hardly think I would have authority to accept the amendment unless ordered by the Convention.

The vote being taken, the amendment was agreed to.

The question now being upon the adoption of the resolution as amended, the same was agreed to, and was as follows:

Resolved, That the Ohio State Board of Agriculture take into consideration the propriety of confining the competition on live stock to the State of Ohio only.

W. B. MCCLUNG: Quite a number of gentlemen have spoken to me in reference to the permanent location of the State Fair, and have intimated that they would like to have that question brought before the Convention.

Mr. TENNEY offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the manner of distributing the annual State Agricultural Reports should be changed so as to cause their distribution through the instrumentality of the several county agricultural societies; and that the present Legislature be memorialized to bring about such a result.

On motion, the resolution was laid on the table.

M. B. BATEHAM introduced the following resolution :

Resolved, That this Convention ask the Legislature to repeal the present law for the prevention of fraud in the sale of fertitizers, and pass a new law which will better secure the end desired.

MR. BATEHAM. I will occupy a moment in speaking of the object of that resolution. I ought to refer to the fact that the sale of fertilizers has become a very large interest, amounting, as I believe, to about $80,000 last year. There is, as many of you know, very much fraud in the manufacture and sale of this artiele. A law was passed last

winter intended, no doubt, to prevent any such fraud, but it is fully ineffective. I will read from that statute.

SECTION. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That each and every person or persons, firm or house selling or offering for sale, for use in this state, any fertilizer or fertilizers, such as [bone] dust, bone flour, phosphate of lime, guano, ground land plaster, or any other artificial fertilizer, shall be required to attach to the package containing the same a fair printed analysis of the same.

SEC. 2. It shall be the duty of the professor occupying the chair in the chemical and mechanical department of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, upon application, to make and give a written analysis of such artificial fertilizer as may be furnished to him for that purpose.

The next clause provides a penalty for violating that law not less than $25 nor more than $200, or by inprisonment in the county jail.

In the first place a grand mistake is made in this law in embracing too much in the way of specifying the fertilizers. There is no sense nor necessity for including land plaster, for instance, and there is no sense in specifying phosphates of lime. We have no such fertilizers sold in Ohio or known among the dealers in fertilizers. We have super phosphate, which is another article entirely, and means something else. The law is altogether defective in these respects, and specially defective in not specifying distinctly who shall make this analysis, and how the samples shall be furnished, by whom they shall be furnished, and how the expense of making the analysis shall be defrayed. Consequently, the law has been fully unused, and ineffective entirely. That question has been asked of the authorities of the Agricultural College, whether the professor of chemistry there would be required, under this law, to make analyses, and they replied that he could not and would not do so, for no provision was made by the law for defraying the expenses of an assistant chemist necessary to do this work. These legislators certainly greatly mistook the labor and expense of making such analyses as is required to prevent fraud in the sale of fertilizers, and the determination of how much of the various elements of value there are in the samples, in superphosphates for instance. The expense of such analysis is from ten to fifteen or twenty dollars, and requires two or three days; besides the expenditure for chemicals is considerable. Now, unless the analysis is carefully and correctly made, it is comparatively useless. Phosphoric acid, which is the vital element to superphosphate of bone is most difficult to determine, and it requires skill and great niceness of analysis to determine how much there is. And hence, without provision for the expense and labor in making these analyses, they cannot be made.

Then, again, nothing is said in this law as to how many samples for such analysis shall be furnished, and who shall send them. It does not say the manufacturer shall send them, nor that the dealer shall send them, nor that the farmer who wants to use them shall send them; and hence it is left to anybody and everybody to send them and ask that an analysis be made. There may be twenty samples from the


facturer, from the same establishment, sent to the retailers in various counties, all of them sent in to this chemist to be analyzed, when one analysis would be sufficient, one analysis per month, for instance, for the products of one manufacturing establishment ought to be sufficient to compel them to keep their manufactures up to the standard required. And so you see the law is worthless, and altogether vague and useless.

Now, let me tell you what has been done under this law in my neighborhood. The dealers in that town, where a good deal is sold, have cards printed and attached con

forming to this law. The manufacturers at Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, Chicago, etc., send them little printed cards, so as to seem to comply with this law, and yet mislead completely the purchaser. It says, for instance, "This specimen furnished is found to contain 45 per cent. of animal matter," and that the mixture contains 14 or 17, whatever it may be, per cent. of phosphoric acid; and while the reader thinks that the per cent. which is mentioned is the percentage of the specimen of fertilizer furnished, it is really only the percentage, and the 45 or 50, or whatever it was, per cent. of the animal matter left out, so that, instead of there being 14 or 17 per cent. of phosphoric acid, of the whole sample you will have only about half of that amount.

But this is enough to show, I think, that the law is utterly useless, and should be repealed and a better one passed.

The vote being taken, the resolution was unanimously agreed to.

J. F. CHARLESWORTH, of Belmont: I desire to call attention to the question of the permanent location of the State Fair, and I offer, for the purpose of bringing about a discussion of the subject, the following:

Resolved, That economy will be secured and the agricultural and mechanical interests of the State society promoted by such legislation as shall result in permanently locating the State Fair at Columbus, upon the farm of the Ohio State University.

Resolved, That the State University and the State Agricultural Society be under the management of the same board of trustees or managers.

Resolved, That said board of managers be elected by this Convention, as heretofore.

MAJOR MILLIKIN: Mr. President, I have heard this question of the permanent location of the State Fair discussed for the last twenty-two years. We made an experiment by way of a compromise, by locating it at Columbus for five years. This is a scheme for the purpose of asking the Legislature of Ohio for such legislation as will enable the State Board, or rather creating a new State Board, and making the trustees of the Uni versity here the managers of agricultural affairs. It seems to me utterly impracticable. The State Board of Agriculture and this institution have no funds to use for the purpose of locating it either directly or remotely that way, and I venture that the Ohio Legislature will never consent to the use of that farm for any such purpose. I recollect that at one time some gentlemen connected with the Reform School down here wanted to have that connected with the State Board of Agriculture, and that they co-operate. As a matter of course we opposed it. How would we have carried on the business of the State Board of Agriculture in connection with the Reform School down at Lancaster? The business of education is entirely separate and apart from the carrying on of State Fairs. I don't want to see anything of that kind attempted in my day, because it is perfectly certain to be a failure. It is inevitable. Why do you want the management of the State Fair under the trustees of this University? They have got enough to do— as many duties as they want to perform without that. This organization of the State Fair has, under a series of laws during the past thirty years, grown up, and it would require a remodeling of the whole organization and association of the State Fair and of all the officers. They would have to be all changed entirely and completely.

And then, I am not in favor of the location of the fair in any place. The only true policy for running the State Fair is to rotate between Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo, etc. You can make arrangements so that it will be inexpensive to the State Board and inexpensive to the counties, and you will always have funds with which to run the State Fair. I move to lay that resolution on the table.

The vote being taken, the motion was agreed to.

« PreviousContinue »