SEED HUMBUGGERY AMONG THE WESTERN
FARMERS,
1850-1888*
by EARL W. HAYTER
Professor of Social Sciences,
Northern Illinois State Teachers College
The development of American agriculture
as it unfolded from
the pioneer subsistence level to that of
a diversified enterprise was
marked by the general characteristic of
change-change from old
practices to new ones. There were
several factors responsible for
this inconstancy, one of which was a
growing necessity for differ-
ent varieties of seeds and plants.
Agriculturists in each new settle-
ment soon found it expedient to explore
and experiment, for old
seeds degenerated after a few years of
repeated planting and it
became necessary to change in order to
secure profitable results.
The demand for new seeds also developed
from the exigencies of
the environment, for there were
variations in soil, in climate and
topography, and in problems of
transportation and storage as well
as changes in the dietary habits of
people and animals both at home
and abroad. Moreover, agriculturists
were motivated by national
interests; following the European wars
of the eighteenth century
the American people turned more to a
policy of economic inde-
pendence, and as a result a greater
incentive was made to pro-
duce and develop agricultural products
here at home. With an
expanding market it was natural that
different sections of the
country would turn to new crops and
methods, thus giving rise to
improvements and innovations.
Futhermore, the growing economic
disparity of the farmer with that of
American industry which
developed after the Civil War, forced
the farmers to be more will-
ing and ready to make changes in order
that they might survive
better in the highly competitive economy
that became increasingly
more severe during the latter half of
the past century.
By 1860 there was a noticeable change in
the Ohio Valley in
regard to the practices of farming;
instead of a one-crop system
* The material used in this article was
obtained in connection with a larger
investigation which was made possible by a Social
Science Research Council grant-
in-aid.
52
SEED HUMBUGGERY 53
the farmers had definitely begun to
diversify their plantings.1
Wheat was moving west. This change
created a demand for newer
and better seeds both for the fields and
gardens. To supply these
ever increasing needs of the western
farmers there arose various
schemes and techniques of supplying
them; some were reputable
and others fraudulent. It is the purpose
of this study to elaborate
on some of the latter methods found
among the farmers during
the post-Civil War period. The
impression is not to be given that
most seed distributors or vendors were
dishonest, for there were
respectable seed houses in the larger
cities which commanded a
loyal patronage of the farmers. However,
from the evidence found
in the contemporary agricultural
literature the practice of swin-
dling through bogus and humbug seed
machinations was by no
means uncommon, and its psychological
effects on the rural mind
must not be dismissed as insignificant.
Such malpractices in the
distribution of seeds, it is true, were
only a fragment of the overall
behavior pattern which followed the
westward spread of urbanism
and industrialism in the North, but this
one, added to the many
other fraudulent schemes and devices,
nevertheless was a contrib-
uting factor in producing the protest
psychology so common among
the farmers in the latter half of the
nineteenth century.
To supply the farmers with seeds there
developed five regular
sources: (1) the seed agent who traveled
about the countryside
in somewhat the same fashion as the
bogus tree peddlers;2 (2) the
seed companies which operated by the use
of circulars and adver-
tisements; (3) the seed houses which
sold their products by
catalogs and through the local
mercantile stores; (4) the agricul-
tural division of the patent office
which distributed samples to the
farmers through their agents and the
congressmen; and (5) the
associational plans which were developed
by local farm groups
in order to raise special varieties for
use and for sale.
Seed agents were frequent callers at the
farm homes, and most
of them were rather unique characters
possessing a glib tongue
and a knowledge of the rural mind. They
were generally expe-
rienced in humbuggery having been at
different times "wordy
1 P. W. Bidwell and J. I. Falconer, History
of Agriculture in the Northern
United States, 1620-1860 (New York, 1941), 330-333.
2 See
Earl W. Hayter, "Horticultural Humbuggery among the Western Farmers,
1850-1890," Indiana Magazine of
History, XLIII (1947), 205-224.
54
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
advocates" of such things as
patented cures, bogus jewelry, lottery
tickets, farm gadgets, and patent-right
devices. When one line
lost its appeal or had exhausted its
possibilities, they took up
another.3 Some of them became notorious
in the rural communities,
and their names were bywords as symbols
of humbuggery.
Their seeds were generally of a poor
quality and could be
bought and packaged at a low cost to the
agent, thus making it
worth his while financially to peddle
them in the rural areas.4
Most likely they were falsely labeled
under some foreign name
such as Hungarian corn, Egyptian wheat,
Norway oats, and German
barley as such labeling gave the seeds a
much greater appeal than
those grown locally. Each variety had
some marvelous origin
such as, for example, Egyptian wheat
which was reputed to have
come from a few seeds discovered in a
tomb of that country, its
great capacity to produce being due to
"the long rest it had."5
Others came from Indian tribes or were
first discovered by mission-
aries in some distant land.
These agents had not only an assortment
of packaged seeds
for ready distribution, but they
likewise sold bulbs, roots, and other
items that were in demand at that time.
Most farming commu-
nities and often whole sections of the
country underwent periods
of mania for a particular variety of
seed or plant; for a few years
it was the craze to grow mulberry trees,
then it was Chinese sugar
cane. Again it was Bohemian hulless oats
and at another time it
was sorghum plants. The agents were
certain to capitalize on these
popular demands. In the late sixties the
cultivation of the "Wine
Plant" or rhubarb was looked upon
by many as a profitable busi-
ness. The juice from this plant was used
in the adulteration of
wine, and since there was a brisk demand
for this beverage, the
farmers were urged by agents to begin
its cultivation.6
Farmers were deluged by bogus seed
companies with circulars
through the mail and by advertisements
in the agricultural journals
and the local newspapers. Many of these
were small concerns, or
3 American Agriculturist (New York), XXXIV (1875), 127.
4 In one Pennsylvania county alone an
agent sold $1,000 worth of bogus seeds.
American Agriculturist, XLIV (1885), 347. Agents also sold large amounts of
these
seeds at the fairs. Prairie Farmer (Chicago),
LVI (1884), 812.
5 Illinois Farmer (Springfield, Ill.), II (1857), 155.
6 Moore's Rural New Yorker (New York), XVII (1866), 87, 95, 111.
For earlier
forms of mania see Arthur H. Cole,
"Agricultural Crazes, A Neglected Chapter in
American History," American
Economic Review, XVI (1926), 622-639.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 55
just individuals, operating in more or
less isolated places where
their nefarious practices would not be
easily detected. Two com-
panies operating from the small town of
Cleveland, Tennessee,
flooded the Middle West with circulars
and posters of their "mar-
velous" seeds.7 Ohio
also had more than her share of these estab-
lishments, not in seed products alone
but in other articles such as
eggs, poultry, incubators, and the like.8
The testimonies and exag-
gerations should have been sufficient
evidence to make most farmers
wary, but in spite of the claims for
their products many were
caught in the net only later to complain
bitterly to the press. It is
difficult to believe that farmers would
send money to such unknown
concerns for samples of corn whose
kernels were listed to be "as
large as the average size
Chestnut"; for cotton seed, at thirty cents
a seed, that was "worm-proof"
and needed no machine to gin it; for
watermelon seed that produced a melon
weighing 125 pounds; for
tomato seed that sold for $5.00 per
ounce; and for certain varie-
ties of oats at $2.00 per 1,000 seeds.9
The seeds were frequently
misrepresented, were often old and
low in germination, and generally were
mixed with other similar
varieties. A good example of this type
of swindle concerned seed
that was advertised as "Honey Blade
Grass" which was the popular
kind at that time, but instead of
mailing this variety to their
customers the bogus companies sent a
blend of millet seed which
sold on the market for a much lower
price.10 In many cases the
swindler would either retain the money
and make no reply or
send to the customer a circular
containing lottery tickets, with an
explanation of how he could win a town
lot, a watch, or some
grand prize for a few extra
dollars.11 A letter from one of these
victims to the editor of the Ohio
Farmer illustrates how these indi-
vidual concerns operated. The following
had been his experience:
As one of the ... readers of THE OHIO
FARMER I claim the privilege
of exposing one of your advertisers. In
THE FARMER . . . one James Wil-
son, of Fremont, .... advertised seed
corn for sale. I live six miles south of
7 American Agriculturist, XXXV (1876), 207, XL (1885), 79-80; Daily Iowa
State Register (Des Moines), January 25, 1878.
8 Colman's Rural World (St. Louis). XXXVII (1884), 186; Cultivator and
Country Gentleman (Albany, N. Y.), XXXVI (1871), 345, 457, XXXVII (1871),
408, 425.
9 Farmers' Review (Chicago), IV (1880), 402; Michigan Farmer (Detroit),
n. s.,
XVII (January 12, 1886), 4; American Agriculturist, XXXV
(1876), 207.
10 Illinois Farmer, IV
(1859), 345; American Agriculturist, XXXVIII (1859), 71.
11 American Agricultrist, XXXI (1872),
245.
56
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Fremont, and . . . I went . . . to see
the gentleman, but could not find him.
I then called upon his references, . . .
but they knew nothing whatever of
him. I then called upon the postmaster,
who said a man of that name had
rented a box in the office. With these
facts in my possession, I communicated
with you, warning you that he was a
swindler, and yet you gave his advertise-
ment another insertion in your paper.
The postmaster now informs me that
he has left the city and that there are
some fifty money orders and registered
letters in his box, which his victims
can have returned to them by communi-
cating with the postmaster . . . before
Wilson calls for them.12
Most farmers were on the lookout for
bargains and new
varieties in seeds and consequently were
easy victims for the seed-
houses which sold their products through
catalogs and on com-
mission in the local stores. The most
reputable companies, and
there were several, such as Vicks of
Rochester and Ferry in Detroit,
sold better products and ones that could
be relied upon, but they
were reluctant to advertise or place in
their catalogs any of the
fantastic and fraudulent varieties so
frequently promoted by the
swindling profession. In order for the
latter to sell these question-
able seeds at a handsome profit, they
gave a large commission to
the local merchants and hid themselves
in some remote city or
town where they could mix the seeds with
dust or some old and
unreliable variety that when sown would
not germinate. Old seeds
were useless to the farmer; experience
showed that they lost their
vitality with age. Corn that was three
years old had only about
fifty percent germination; millet the
same age had less than this
amount; oats at three years was about
three-fourths good, and at
eight years had less than one-sixth
germination. Wheat at three
years was a little over half good, and
at eight and nine years old
did not grow at all; rye at three years
was practically no good;
barley at the same age was half to
two-thirds good, but worthless
at eight years. Grass seeds could not be
depended upon for more
than one year unless there was special
care in storing.l3 Thus when
the farmers bought these old seeds they
not only were cheated out
of their purchase money, but the ground
which they had prepared
was encumbered with worthless growth,
while they themselves
were defrauded of their labor for a
year.
So vexatious did these problems become
that most of the im-
portant magazines, such as the Horticulturist
and the Rural New
12 Ohio Farmer (Cleveland), LXV (1884), 348.
13 Ibid., LXX
(1886), 376-377.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 57
Yorker, began a campaign against the frauds of seedsmen. The
following is a part of the communication
contained in one of the
western magazines in regard to
the miserable stuff under the name of .
. .seeds, that is put up by irre-
sponsible parties, and placed for sale
in various obscure country stores, and
sold to those who cannot be expected to
hunt up the original offenders.
These seeds are old refuse stuff, too
old to grow, under true or false names
as the case may be, and perhaps with a
small portion of fresh seed mixed,
that grow freely, to prevent detection.
Often big names are given to these
old or common seeds, and a price charged
as big as the name.14
The press campaigns by these leading
journals over a period
of years resulted in attempts to
regulate the frauds by law. The
following is an excerpt from one of the
prominent agricultural
magazines in regard to an early bill:
The bill, we understand makes a fine of
$50, or imprisonment for three
months, or both, the penalty for selling
seeds that are not true to the name
with which they are labelled. Carry out
such a law and our seedsmen would
all be in prison in less than a year.
Some kinds of seeds mix very readily;
indeed nothing but the greatest care
will prevent mixture, and this care,
our seed-growers have not learned to
exercise, nor will they learn it in a day.
Buy at any of our seedstores, packages
labelled Long Green Cucumbers, and
not one seed in a thousand will prove
true .... Scarcely a pure specimen can
be found at the seedstores .... This
evil we hope to see corrected.15
These evils were corrected but not for
several years. By the late
eighties the judges and legislators came
to the rescue of the farmers
in most of the western states and such
frauds were greatly
reduced.l6
The fourth source of supply of seeds for
the farmer was the
agricultural division of the patent
office which delivered packets
of seeds through the senators,
representatives, and territorial dele-
gates in congress. This division of
government was established for
the purpose of purchasing,
disseminating, and experimenting with
seeds and plants gathered from all parts
of the world. From the
early fifties its representatives
collected different varieties of seeds
in Europe and sent them to farmers in
America. William M. King,
director of the seed department of the
division, reported in 1886
14 Illinois Farmer, VIII (1863), 52.
l5 Moore's Rural New
Yorker, X (1859), 46. By 1888 many of
the western
states had enacted laws designed to
"punish and prevent fraud in the sale of grain,
seeds, and other cereals." Michigan
Farmer, XVIII (January 12, 1887), 4; The
Farmer (St. Paul, Minn.), IV (1888), 337.
16 Western Rural and American Stockman (Chicago), XXVI (1888), 108, 284;
Ohio Farmer, LXIX (1886), 72, 300; Michigan Farmer, XIX
(February 6, 1888), 4;
Orange Judd Farmer (Chicago), V (1889), 241.
58
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
that more than 4,000,000 packages were
mailed out to the farmers
in that year at a cost to the government
of more than $100,000.,
This appeared as a large expenditure in
that day, but according
to the director it was a small amount
when compared to the
increased production resulting to the
farmers from the new and
improved varieties.17
A large distribution of seeds by the
government and the large
expenditures by this division brought it
into sharp criticism from
many of the seed companies. They
inveighed against it as the
government "seed store."18 The
attack was leveled largely against
the waste; too much money was spent for
the benefits received, for
farmers were too often not interested in
the seeds sent out to them
by their congressmen, and as a result
they were never planted. One
critic stated:
The government seed shop ought to be
abolished now and forever; it is
a travesty on agriculture. It simply
deludes Congressmen that they are making
votes among the farmers by sending
little bags of seed to them. A man that
has got sense enough to plant seeds,
plants the kind he wants, not what other
men think he wants.19
From the evidence there seems to be no
doubt but that some
of the criticisms were justified. Many
of the imported seeds were
distributed without proper consideration
given to their value. Due
to the scarcity at times of these
foreign importations the division
often had to buy stocks from the
commercial companies here at
home and not infrequently they were of
an inferior quality.20
Furthermore, the division occasionally
made hasty recommenda-
tions for some particular variety that
they had imported which in
the end turned out to be of no value;
such recommendations gave
the swindlers an excellent selling point
and afforded them an
opportunity to sell more openly large
amounts of it to the farmers.
The final source of the farmer's seed
supply was in the form
of an associational plan which was
concerned with the growing
and selling of different varieties of
oats and, in a limited way,
with other cereals. It was the
fraudulent techniques used in the
operation of this plan that created most
of the disturbance. During
17 0hio Farmer, LXX (1886), 376-377.
18 Earle
D. Ross, "The United States Department of Agriculture during the Com-
missionership," Agricultural
History, XX (1946), 133, 140, 142n.
19 Ohio Farmer, LXX (1886), 28.
20 Ibid., LXXII
(1887), 56.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 59
the period under discussion the western
farmers had increased
many fold the cultivation of oats, which
was due to four main
factors: (1) they fitted into a pattern
of rotation of crops; (2)
they were a better revenue crop than
other cereals, for yields were
larger and prices were good; (3) there
was a large increase in
the number of horses and mules, which
created a demand for
feed;21 and (4) they were
becoming a popular food for humans
in the form of oatmeal. These factors
brought about such a
demand for oats that a widespread system
of swindling developed
under this associational plan in
connection with certain varieties
of this seed.
Through this plan the modus operandi of
distributing oats
became quite uniform in procedure
throughout the West; beginning
in Ohio it spread from county to county
and state to state until
it had run its course.22 In
the case of Norway oats, which was dis-
tributed by a firm in Chicago by the
name of D. W. Ramsdell &
Company, this plan was utilized and it
became the pattern for
subsequent swindlers with but few
modifications. The procedure
of this firm was to send out agents to
contact a number of farmers
in a township and to organize an oat
association, members of which
were sold the seed at from $5.00 to
$10.00 per bushel; they in turn
would give their notes for the amount
payable the following year.
The agent would give a bond guaranteeing
to buy from the farmers
at the time of the next harvest all the
oats that they raised for a
certain amount per bushel depending on
the price they had paid
for the original seed. In turn the
farmers would promise to hold
the seed after harvest and not sell it
to any one except the agents;
by so doing both parties could
monopolize this particular variety
and keep the price high.23
These oats were not only second rate in
yield but they rusted
and lodged badly, making them difficult
to harvest.24 The farmers
who joined the associations soon
discovered that the agreements
of the contracts were not enforceable,
the bonds given by the agents
were fraudulent, and only where it was
profitable to them did they
21 Robert Leslie Jones, "The Horse
and Mule Industry in Ohio to 1865," Mis-
sissippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIII (1946), 61-88.
22 Cultivator and Country Gentleman,
L (1885), 992, 1053; Western Rural and
American Stockman, XXV (1887), 104.
23 Western Farmer (Madison, Wis.), II (1870), 345; Moore's Rural New
Yorker,
XXIII (1871),
176.
24 Moore's Rural New Yorker, XXIII (1871), 314.
60
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ever call at harvest time for the
farmer's oats. If these bonds were
"lifted," as the farmers
called it when a contract was carried out,
it was done not in good faith but with
the express purpose of
advertising to the surrounding community
in order that more
associations could be formed. In many
cases, when the agents
failed to return on schedule, the
farmers were left holding the
bonded oats according to contract as it
was necessary to secure a
release from the agents before they
could sell them elsewhere.
This situation aided the agents in
keeping Norway oats off the
market and in continuing to dupe new
members with $5.00 to
$10.00 seed. The notes given by the
farmers were as a rule not
held and paid for out of the following
year's crop as was agreed
to, but were "shaved" at the
local bank which made them payable
in money at the time of maturity.25
Under such conditions a great
deal of discontent was generated; the
farmer not only had to pay
the purchaser of the note, but was left
holding the oats resulting
from the harvest. A western editor
described phases of this swindle
in one of his denunciations as follows:
Mr. Ramsdell had oats that grow taller,
produced more, weighed more to
the bushel, were better for feed, and
could be grown on all lands and soils
between the Artic and Antartic circles.
He sold them at $10 per bushel . . .
and obligated himself to take all grown
by those who purchased seed from
him at $5 per bushel. He did a fair business
the first year, a good business
the second, and a wonderful one the
third. Every one grew Norway oats.
Then when harvest came and the immense
crop of Norway oats began to
arrive, Mr. Ramsdell was not to be
found. That season the streets of Detroit
were filled with teams loaded with
Norway oats, for which the growers ex-
pected to get $5 per bushel. They sold
finally for 50 cents, and the credit
of the Norway oats was gone forever.26
By 1871 the Norway oats swindle was
coming to an end.
Farmers from New York to as far west as
Iowa were up in arms
and trying to get rid of their oats. One
farmer in the latter state
reported that in his own township alone
"there are more than 3,000
bushels of so-called Norway Oats,
produced from seed sold the
farmers by Ramsdell & Co. Two
brothers in an adjoining township
have 1,500 bushels and many farmers 200
to 300 bushels."27 Others
who had become suspicious wrote to the
journals asking that the
25 Ibid., 187.
26 Michigan Farmer, XVI (January
6, 1885), 4.
27 Moore's Rural New Yorker, XXIII (1871), 187.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 61
editors "publicly request any
person in the United States, who
knows of D. W. Ramsdell's taking any
oats according to contract,
to communicate the fact to you for
publication. By so doing you
will relieve many from the agony of
suspense which they are now
enduring."28 Some of
these anxious farmers resorted to the courts
in an attempt to recover damages; in
Illinois one farmer who was
stranded with eight thousand bushels of
bonded seed sued the firm
for $100,000.29 This brought an end to
Norway oats and accord-
ing to the Prairie Farmer Ramsdell
was compelled to close his
shop and subsequently disappear.
With the success of the Norway oats
fraud it was quite natural
that other seeds would be sold in
somewhat the same manner. In
the early eighties comparable schemes
developed for the selling
of "Red Line," "Gold
Dust," and "Seneca Chief" wheat, German
barley, and various varieties of corn
and beans, but these were
more or less insignificant when compared
to the extent and influence
of the humbug connected with Bohemian
hulless oats.30 The mania
for this type of seed was so general
among the western farmers
that it took nearly a decade before it
ran its course. There were
so many involved in this fraud and there
was so much money lost
that it might be compared to the
mulberry hysteria that swept the
agricultural states in the early part of
the nineteenth century.
Hulless oats had been the desideratum of
the American
farmer for many years; they saw in them
the solution to the prob-
lems connected with this cereal. In the
first place an oat without
a hull would satisfy the requirements
for a good horse feed. Regular
oats generally raised for this purpose
did not give satisfaction as
they had a tendency after repeated
sowings to develop into a
larger proportion of hulls and stalks.31
Oats with these heavy
hulls had little value in them for feed,
and in order to secure what
value there was in the grain it was
necessary to crack or grind
them, which required an extra cost. Most
animals, after they had
reached a certain age and their teeth
had become defective, were
unable to masticate the coarse kernels,
hence little food value was
28 lbid., 234, 384.
29 Michigan Farmer, II (March 4, 1871), 68.
30 Ohio Farmer, LXVIII (1885), 25, 67; Western Farmer and Wisconsin
State
Grange, Bulletin (Madison, Wis.),
V (March 27, 1886), 7, (November 27, 1886), 2;
Michigan Farmer, XVI (April 7, 1885), 4, (October 27, 1885), 1, XVII
(June 8,
1886), 4, (July 27, 1886)
1, 5.
31 Ohio Farmer, LXIX (1886), 187.
62
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
obtained. Hulless oats, in the second
place, were desired by the
oatmeal companies as they would
eliminate much of the expense
in preparing cereal for the breakfast
table. These needs by both
farmers and manufacturers prepared the
ground for the swindlers
when they introduced their
"skinless" oats to the western farmers
in the late seventies of the past
century.
According to the New York Sun, in
commenting on this type
of oats, scarcely a year had passed
during the last three hundred
years that some itinerant peddler had
not tried to swindle the farm-
ers of Europe with this "hulless
oats," and for the past fifty years
they had been at it in the United
States.32 There seemed to be no
end to the names under which it was
sold; at one time it was called
Boutella oats, at another Chinese, and
it finally terminated its course
under the name of Bohemian.
This particular variety of oats, in
spite of the fact that it had
been in the country for many years, had
little general popularity
until about 1878; at this time it was
introduced into the lake
counties of Ohio by a general agent from
Canada who was supposed
to have brought in about two hundred
bushels along with his
scheme for selling it; from this seed
all the rest was reputed to
have come.33 His plan was
modeled on that used by the Norway
oat distributor but on the whole was
much more systematic, and
due to the novelty of this variety of
oats more effective in captur-
ing the imagination of the farmers. The
aim of the associations
was to hold all these oats as a monoply
and each year the agents
would have double the amount of seed to
sell to the newly formed
associations; the oats raised by the
members over and above the
contract were not to be used for seed;
by such procedure both
parties would profit. A good description
of a Bohemian oat asso-
ciation that operated in Hardin County,
Ohio, was given by one of
the farmers in 1884; and it was typical
of the methods used by
others:
Two brothers . . . claiming to represent
"The Northwestern and Central
Ohio Seed Company", of Tiffin, and
a man . . . representing "The Henry, Wil-
liams and Crawford Bohemian Seed Company,"
came into Hardin county,
and . . . sold a few small lots of
Bohemian oats in different parts of the
county at $10 per bushel, taking the
farmers' notes . . . and giving a sort of
33 Ibid., XVI (1878), 348.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 63
bond agreeing to sell double the amount
for them the following season at
$10 per bushel, less 25 per cent.
commission. It was generally thought that
all those that bought were swindled and
that the agents would never be back
again, but they put in an appearance
early the succeeding season . . . and
hurried up the parties to get their oats
ready, as they were needing them to
sell, which seemed to establish the idea
in the minds of many farmers that
the business was all right. The agent .
. . hired some leading, influential
farmer to go with him and point out the
best . . . farmers for their victims.34
The following year the agent found the
nonmember farmers in
this county anxious to buy his seed
oats; by canvassing the balance
of the townships he was able to sign up
a large number. To this
group he delivered oats grown by the
parties he had sold to the
previous year, but soon dropped them and
shipped in other grain
which he was able to buy at fifty cents
per bushel, by the carload,
and put his former customers off with a
promise. The bonds were
past due, and very few of them had been
lifted, according to the
contract. The notes given for the grain
had been sold to banks
and brokers and were due; the farmers
had no other recourse
than either to pay them and take their
losses or be sued by the
"innocent" parties who had
purchased the promissory notes.
The agents had several means of escape
in their contracts; a
few of the important considerations had
not been specifically
stated. For example, when most of the
farmers signed their notes
they did not read them over carefully
enough to realize that they
were negotiable and could be sold to
third parties; they were under
the impression that the notes would be
paid for from the crop
of oats raised the following year. They
also overlooked the clause
in the agreement pertaining to
"double the amount purchased."
The contract did not read that the agent
would "buy" double the
amount-he no doubt had made that a
verbal promise-but rather
he bonded the association to
"sell" double the amount; this was to
be interpreted that if the agents did
not take the oats the association
would be responsible for selling them.
In many cases the farmers
organized a new association and
appointed an agent "to go and
beat some one else as they were
beaten."35 Such double swindling
frequently led to stresses and strains
within the communities. More-
over, the bond given to the farmers was
not genuine even though
34 Ohio Farmer, LXIX (1886), 206-207.
35 Michigan Farmer, XVI (November 3, 1885), 1, XVII (December 21,
1886),
4.
64
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
it was claimed to represent a
corporation which had deposited
hundreds of thousands of dollars with
the auditor of the state as
an indemnity "for the faithful
carrying out of the terms of said
bond."36
From Ohio this fraud spread both east
and west. In the fall
of 1885 agents were busy organizing
associations in various parts
of Pennsylvania and New York. By 1887 it
was boasted by these
swindlers that in the former state they
had "never found a region so
easily milked of cash as the Cumberland
valley."37 It was esti.
mated that $500,000 was taken from three
counties in this region
alone. It had such a demoralizing effect
upon business and created
so much distress among the farmers that
bankers began to refuse
to discount any more notes.38
Having covered most of the counties in
Ohio the agents moved
to greener pastures; by 1888 they had
canvassed every state as
far west as Minnesota.39 In
the department of agriculture report
for 1886 the statistician stated that
correspondents from twenty-
five states had sent in accounts of the
Bohemian oats schemes. The
following states were listed along with
the number of counties:
Ohio is the center, reports having been
received from forty-five counties.
Indiana comes next, twenty-four
counties, then Michigan, sixteen counties,
and Illinois, ten counties. Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Iowa report agents in
a few counties, and Missouri, Kansas,
Nebraska, Dakota, Tennessee and
Kentucky an occasional foray. Agents
have also appeared in ten counties of
New York, in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. One is reported from Con-
necticut and one from Maine. Altogether
130 counties report the fraud, and
it is thought a complete record would
show 200 afflicted counties in the
United States.40
According to the above report the
success of the swindlers
diminished somewhat as they moved
westward, for the experiences
of the farmers in the East had a
tendency to filter through to those
in the West, and as a result a stronger
resistance was encountered.
Furthermore, when an agent would make
his appearance in a
community, the agricultural journals,
farm organizations, and
36 Michigan Farmer, XVIII (March 21, 1887), 4; American
Agriculturist, XLV
(1886), 123. The bond was highly decorated with a "big red
seal" and a "bold
signature of a secretary."
Michigan Farmer, XVIII (February 7, 1887), 4.
37 Western Farmer, VI (1887),
360; Ohio Farmer, LXVIII (1885), 377.
38 Cultivator
and Country Gentleman, LII (1887),
525.
39 Western Rural, XVI
(1878), 393, 409, XVII (1879), 29; Western Rural and
American Stockman, XXII (1884), 149, 633, XXV (1887), 104; Prairie
Farmer, L
(1879), 49; Michigan Farmer, XVI
(October 20, 1885), 1; Daily Iowa State Register,
January 25, 1878.
40 Ohio Farmer, LXIX (1886), 245; The Farmer, II (1887), 156.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 65
newspapers were able to go into action
immediately to protect the
farmers. The editor of the Ohio
Farmer, in commenting on the
battle of the agricultural press against
Bohemian oats, made this
remark:
We just received a letter from the Iowa
Homestead, stating that the army
of agents had just invaded the southern
part of that State, and requesting us
to send them some good ammunition. We
sent it, and hope it will prove ef-
fective.41
The prominent agricultural journals
throughout the West
carried on a vigorous warfare against
this swindle, and much of the
success in eliminating it must be
credited to them. With the rural
newspapers, however, the record was not
so good; they were more
susceptible to bribes and large fees for
advertisements.42 One
exception to this was the Chagrin Falls Exponent
in Ohio, whose
wide-awake editor, in spite of attempts
to bribe him, threats of
libel, and even thrashings, was able by
his investigations to drive
the swindlers out of his part of the
state. Much of the information
that he uncovered in connection with
these schemes was used later
by other papers throughout the West.43
There were several other good reasons
why these schemes
came, to an end besides the exposes of
the press. This variety of
oats, when compared to most of the other
types, not only did not
yield well, but a certain percentage of
the crop was not even
hulless. Moreover, these oats lodged
easily and were found to be
rather soft and spongy. This latter
characteristic made them dis-
liked by the millers. Several of the
agricultural experiment farms
throughout the Middle West tested these
oats for a number of
years, and in every report they were low
in yield. In Ohio, out of
twenty-eight varieties, they were one of
the four lowest; in Wis-
consin they found them to be the lowest
of all the various kinds
tested.44 From the many
reports sent to the press by actual farmers,
the same opinion was given; sometimes
they ran as low as ten
bushels per acre when others yielded as
high as sixty and seventy.
As one farmer said in expressing his
views on this subject: "You
are more apt to raise a crop of notes
than you are a crop of oats."
41 Ohio Farmer, LXIX
(1886), 124.
42 Michigan Farmer, XVI (January 6, 1885), 4; Ohio Farmer, LXIII
(1883), 241.
43 Cultivator and Country Gentleman, L (1885), 963.
44 Wisconsin State Agricultural Society,
Transactions (Madison, 1871), 376;
Ohio State Board of Agriculture, Forty-first Annual
Report (Columbus, 1886), Ap-
pendix, 66-67; Western Farmer, VI
(1887), 739.
66
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Many of the farmers when they signed up
in these associa-
tions had at that time believed they
could sell their surplus oats
to the cereal and seed companies at high
prices, but that possibility
soon vanished. D. Ferry, who was a
prominent seed buyer and
distributor in Detroit, explained his
position in a letter to the
Michigan Farmer:
We beg to state that we do not deal
in Bohemian Oats at all. We do not
consider them an especially desirable
farm product, and the disrepute in-
to which they have been brought through
certain speculative schemes which
have been worked in connection with them
among the farmers of this State
renders them particularly undesirable
for any reputable house to deal in.45
F. Schumacker, one of the largest
oatmeal manufacturers in Ohio,
made a similar statement in regard to
their undesirability for his
purposes:
I do not want them for oatmeal even at
the same price with common
oats. I do not know of a mill anywhere
using them for oatmeal, and I do
not know of a farmer sowing them more
than twice.... They have no standing
in any of the grain markets.46
The concluding phase of this swindle was
confined to lawsuits,
court decisions, and legislative
enactments. In 1886 the treasurer
of the Ohio State Grange reported that
the courts at that time
were full of lawsuits connected with
Bohemian oats contracts.47
All during this period farmers often
resisted payment and were
ultimately sued by the holders of the
notes; others paid them
rather "than have it go out that
they had been nipped."48 In a
number of places, when the farmers
discovered that they had been
"taken in" by the bogus
agents, they "organized themselves into
an anti-Bohemian oat association"
and assessed each member a
certain fee in order to defray the
expense of a suit.49 Generally,
however, they were unable to escape
payment, for the notes had
passed into the hands of persons who
claimed in a court of law
that they were unaware of the
considerations for which the notes
were given; such claims were usually
supported by the courts, and
with this legal protection the bankers
and brokers took advantage
45 Michigan Farmer, XVI (November 3, 1885), 1.
46 Western Farmer and
Wisconsin State Grange, Bulletin, V (March 27, 1886),
7. The seed companies that did buy them
usually paid from one to two dollars per
bushel and furnished the sacks. Ohio
Farmer, LXVII (1885), 72.
47 Western Farmer and Wisconsin State
Grange, Bulletin, V (March 27, 1886),
7.
48 Michigan Farmer, XVI (September 22, 1885), 4.
49 Ibid., XVII (May 11, 1886), 4; Ohio Farmer, LXVIII
(1885), 19, LXIX
(1886), 206-207.
SEED HUMBUGGERY 67
of the opportunity to reap large and
lucrative profits since the
discount rates on these negotiable notes
ran from twenty-five to
forty percent.50 In some
instances the agents "hawked" the notes
for whatever they could get for them.
The farmers had little chance of
resisting payment to the
bankers, but they were able successfully
to prosecute the agents
when they could be found. Many of these
agents were not the
original perpetrators of the fraud but
were merely neighbors or
farmers who lived in adjacent
communities and had helped to
organize new associations for the
purpose of unloading the oats
they had been left with. Under such
conditions the lawsuits were
between the farmers themselves.51 The
farmers could sue the
organizers and collect damages on the
bond of the association, for
it was not the incorporated company that
it was represented to be
but was known to be false by the agent
at the time of procuring
the note. In several instances the
farmers were able to lay their
hands on the original agents of the
scheme; in Indiana one was
fined and sent to the penitentiary for
several years, and in Ohio
another received a similar sentence in
connection with forgeries
of Bohemian oat notes.52
The financial effect of this swindle on
the farmers as a whole
is difficult to assess; in some areas it
was a real hardship, forcing
the farmers to mortgage their farms,
while in others the farmers
who were caught in the fraud were able
to get out by passing the
burden to some one else.53
It is true that most of the farmers signed
up for only one or two hundred dollars'
worth of the oats when
they joined the associations, but there
were others who took as
much as five hundred. Reports were
numerous in the various
agricultural journals as to the total
amounts taken from the differ-
ent counties. The following is a sample
of the extent of this fraud:
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin, $20,000;
Eaton County, Michigan,
$35,000; Hardin County, Ohio,
$100,000.54 In the latter state
50 Ohio Farmer, LXIX (1886), 206-207. The farmers became quite
antagonistic
against the lawyers, for they too
made a handsome profit from this swindle. Michigan
Farmer, XVIII (July 27, 1887), 1; Ohio Farmer, LXVIII (1885), 296.
51 Ohio
Farmer, LXIX (1886), 206-207, LXX (1886), 251.
52 Cultivator
and Country Gentleman, L (1885), 963; Ohio Farmer, LXXI
(1887), 240; Michigan Farmer, XVI
(December 1, 1885), 1.
53 Michigan Farmer, XVI (February 17, 1885), 4, XVII (February
23, 1886),
4, (August 31, 1886), 4.
54 Western Rural, XVI
(1878), 393, 407, XVIII (1880), 145; Michigan Farmer,
XV (December 23, 1884), 4, XVI (February 9,
1885), 4; The Farmer, II (1887), 156.
68
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
alone, which no doubt was the most
affected, it was estimated that
as much as $1,000,000 was taken from the
farmers by these oats
schemes.
These losses brought about a pressure on
the legislatures in
the western states to put "a stop
to this swindling business" in the
"sale of grain, seeds, and other
cereals." By 1888 several bills
were either pending or laws had actually
been passed to cover this
problem. In Michigan the supreme court
came to the rescue of
the farmers by a decision in the case of
McNamara v. Gaggett,
preventing the purchaser of a note from
collecting the amount.55
The following editorial comment in
regard to the Iowa law is
representative of what was happening in
other states:
THE IOWA LAW . . . makes not only the
selling of seed at fictitious
prices a criminal offense, but renders
the notes given therefor void. Every State
should not only speedily enact similar
laws, but make them broad enough
to cover all notes obtained by
fraudulent representation, uncollectable ....
This would put an end to all such forms
of swindling, in the purchase of seeds,
implements, or anything else.56
This law, and others like it, in the
western states gave the
farmers some protection against the
fraudulent agents who for
several years had humbugged the
communities with their endless
varieties of bogus seeds; it is further
evidence that economic
grievance is often the basis of
political action.
55 Michigan Farmer, XIX (February 6, 1888), 4; Prairie Farmer, LX
(1888), 93.
56 The Farmer, IV
(1888), 337; Western Rural and American Stockman, XXVI
(1888), 284; Orange Judd Farmer, V
(1889), 241.