Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1903-03-19


where fraud and misrepresentation pre-
vail
In your paper last week the DeLayal
people presented in glowing terms such
a wonderful victory in the contest of
hand separatoFs at the residence OF f.
Hinze, and this week the Sharples Tub
lar people, desire TO correct the mis-
statements made, and present the case
in fair and honest manner In every
business transaction fair and honest
treatment should be given to all. but in
this contest our rights We're ignored ard
if the DeLaval people could not win by
fair means, then other means must be
/ employed.
First The agreement of the contest
was that each party should appoint a
Judge and if these two could not agree
then they were TO select the third, upon
arriving upon the ground they ignored
our rights and would have only one,
and that one Mr. Hinze, he being of the
same nationality Ms the agent for the
DeLaval and for reasons afterwards
learned was prejudiced against our
separator.
Second They often make mention of
1.-THE crowd" Now the crowd consisted
of the parties who signed their state
ment and three of these were women,
and they were in the house all the time
except about FIVE minutes when the
machines first started. Now this reduces
the crowd to Mr.. Kresstain, s. Kruger,
j. Z. Larson, Fred Hinze and A. Hinze,
they neglected TO mention that two of
these parties are sub-agents of the De-
Laval machine. There were also three
other agents of the DeLaval machine
present, together with Mr.. Evans and
Mr.. Gerrick who represented our
machine There was, however one man
in 1.-THE crowd who they do not men
ton, and for very good reason This
man was VIM. Naessig, and when they
approached him and asked him to sign
the statement he fatty refused TO do SO,
claiming the contest was fraud and
the Sharples people had not been given
q fair show and that he would not
attach his signature to any such state
nnsht as the one they produced, but he
was willing, and did attach his name
to the following statement:
|, VIM Naessig, was present at the
hand separator contest at the residence
of F. Hinze and refused to sign the
statement presented by the DeLaval
people for the reason that the contest
was not fairly conducted, not giving
the Tublar people the show they were
entitled to. (Signed)
VIM. NJ Naessig.
Third In regards our refusing to skim
cold milk is absolutely false, but the
crowd absolutely and fatty refused to
/ permit us to operate our machine as we
wished 60 operate it in order TO skim
cold milk, and as any farmer would
operate it if he wanted to skim milk
which was cold. There is not sepa-
rator on earth that will skim cold milk
and skim il clean, if there, is why do
the DeLaval company state in their
Instructions to have the milk from so
to 80 degrees? We wished to make a
test of the milk that was run through
at 60 degrees to show the amount of
butter fat remaining in il, but was
fatty refused. This whole talk in
regard to the cold milk deal is simply a
bugaboo
Fourth We had no chance whatever
tokeep time on the machines and donot
know as to their correctness, but we do
know and can prove that the Tublar
will skim more milk closer in given
time than any other machine made Of
equal rated capacity.
Fifth We had no mere show of win
ming that contest than we would have had
| if we had gone to the factory where the
DeLayal separator is made and permit
them TO act as judges in a contest
between the DeLaval and the Tublar
machines
Sixth They admit that we beat them
on close Swimming, but why did they
not give all the tests made, there were
four tests made and not one of them
/ from the Tublar machine that went OF
per cent while the DeLaval went from
02 per cent to o. per cent of butter cat
in the skinned milk.
Seventh Now we wish to state that
II the DeLayal people are sincere in
their statements of last week here is a
place to demonstrate their honesty in
such statement.
! We will deposit 500 in either Of