Category Archives: Uncategorized

Articles that awaiting categorization.

Frank Brown Construction Company (Part 1)

The Frank Brown Construction Company (Part 1):

The Little House on Wheels

by

Brian Wayne Wells

As published in the July/August 1996 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine

 

            In 1993, two odd little buildings on wheels were donated to the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association by the children and heirs of Frank H. and Elizabeth (Nicholson) Brown.  These buildings were all that remained of the many “Buildings-on-Wheels” which were used by the Frank Brown Construction Company during the flurry of road building activity known as the Great Road Building Boom of the 1920s.  The buildings formed the base camp for the crews and all the horses and mules used by the company during the summer working season, moving from location to location to keep up with the latest stretch of road being made by the crew. 

            One of the two buildings-on-wheels donated by the Brown family had been built in 1925 and served as the blacksmith shop.  The other building-on-wheels was built in 1926 and had served as Frank and Elizabeth Brown’s home while they travelled with the road crew every summer from 1926-1935. 

            The blacksmith shop, restored in time for the August 1994 LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show, was beautifully done by John and Suzie (Krocak) Smisek and Butch and Kathy (Osborne) Krocak of LeCenter, Minnesota.  These two families are also currently in charge of restoring the little house-on-wheels which will be exhibited for the first time at the 1996 Pioneer Power Show on August 23, 24 and 25, 1996.  Together, the  little house on wheels and the blacksmith shop on wheels will be displayed as the restored Frank Brown Company road camp exhibit, part of the second annual Dirt Show feature. 

            Just as the First Annual Dirt Show feature at the 1995 LeSueur Pioneer Power Show employed antique construction equipment in the purposeful activity of clearing and leveling a site for a new building on the showgrounds, so the Second Annual Dirt Show feature will involve use of antique construction equipment in the leveling of a field as part of a conservation measure to prevent soil erosion and also in building a new road and entrance to the Showgrounds.  The public will see the old construction equipment operating on actual work projects rather than in a stationary exhibit or engaging in meaningless activity.  (A glimpse of some antique construction equipment at work at the 1995 Dirt Show feature of the Pioneer Power is contained in a picture with official show report by Kathy Klaseus in the January/February 1996 issue of Belt Pulley, Vol. 9, No. 1 p. 34.)  

            The Second Annual Dirt Show also coincides with the hosting of the 1996 summer convention of the Historic Construction Equipment Association at the Pioneer Power grounds.  Establishment of the road camp exhibit on the showgrounds along with the 1996 Historic Construction Equipment convention will be a salute not only to the Frank Brown Company, but a salute to all the other small road building companies who played such an important role in United States history during the Great Road Building Boom.  Indeed, the entire Second Annual Dirt Show feature will be a celebration and remembrance of the Great Road Building Boom of the 1920s.   

            The real story of the Great Road Building Boom of the 1920s begins with Henry Ford.  The great genius of Henry Ford was not the invention of the automobile itself; rather, it was his assembly line method of making automobiles that was his most significant contribution to the industrial progress of the United States.  The assembly line process drastically reduced the cost of producing a car.  Suddenly, the car was within the reach of the average person.  Ford’s Model T led the way in supplying low-cost cars for the car-buying frenzy which swept the nation (472,350 Model T’s were sold in the single model year 1915-1916; 730,041 were sold in 1916-1917; and in 1920-1921, 933,720 Model T’s were sold!  Robert Lacey Ford: The Men and the Machine [Little Brown and Company: Boston 1986], p. 184).  Although Ford accounted for over half of the automobiles sold every year, other manufacturers soon emulated Ford’s assembly-line method of producing cars.  Soon the “roads” were populated with low-priced Dodges, Chevrolets, Plymouths and Pearce Arrows.  The word “roads” in the previous sentence is used rather advisedly, however.  Most often the buyer of a new car looked around in vain for a place to drive the new car.  The roads that did exist were often in such bad shape that they were usually impassible to the millions of cars that were now in the hands of the public.  As a result, there was a huge outcry from all of these new drivers for more and better roads.  The result was the historic era known as the Great Road Building Boom of the 1920s. 

            Following the First World War, the attention of the American public turned away from foreign affairs back to domestic problems.  The most glaring problem was the lack of good roads.  The growing number of cars created a great demand for improved roads all across the United States.  Sometimes this demand took the form of organized grass roots political activity.  The American Automobile Association and the American Road Builders Association initiated the “Good Roads Movement” as early as 1902.  Various statewide Good Roads Associations were chartered as a result of this movement, e.g., California’s Association was chartered in 1908.  (Century of Change, Special Edition of Caterpillar World [Peoria, Illinois, May 1984], p. 20, from the library collection of John Hanks, current Caterpillar employee from Chillocothe, Missouri.)   By the early 1920s, the Associations were organized down to the local level. 

            Merrill Cheseborough, student of local history and participant in local Mower County governmental affairs around the village of LeRoy, Minnesota, remembers that the local Mower County chapter of the Good Roads Association was quite active in the early- and mid-1920s.  The Mower County chapter of the Good Roads Association was organized by Gilbert Mahoney of LeRoy, Minnesota.  Gilbert Mahoney owned a farm northwest of LeRoy, Minnesota, which was outfitted with a gasoline/kerosene-powered Delco electric light plant and batteries.  Therefore, in the days prior to the Rural Electric Act (REA), the Mahoney farm was well supplied with electric lights for the night-time business meetings, ice cream socials and fund raising events they sponsored.  As the members of the local chapter approached the Mahoney farm at night for the meetings and fundraisers, they would see the whole farm shining brilliantly in the distance from the electric lights which had been strung in the trees around the farm. 

            Merrill Cheseborough remembers that his parents, Earl M. and Birdie (Sommerville) Cheseborough, owners and editor of the weekly LeRoy Independent newspaper, would attend these ice cream socials at the Mahoney farm, not only to express support for the organization, but to be able to report on the activities of the local Association in the next issue of the Independent.  Newspaper coverage of the Association greatly increased the impact that the Association had on the voting public as well as the Mower County Board and the township boards within Mower County. 

            Ostensibly, the reason for the Good Roads chapter meetings in Mower County was to raise funds to buy gravel for the roads of the area.  Local farmers would haul gravel from gravel pits to the section of road where it was needed.  (In Nicollet County during the 1920s, Clarence Rodning did some of the graveling work in his local neighborhood.  See the May/June 1996 issue of Belt Pulley Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 19.)  However, the Association knew full well that road improvement and construction of the scale needed in Mower County was well beyond the means of a private association funded only by voluntary contributions and small fundraisers.  They never lost sight of their true goal–to spur governmental spending on local roads.  All across the nation the various other chapters of the Good Roads Association engaged in the same activities as the Mower County chapter, and all across the nation, state and local governments were pressed to do something about their local roads.  

            Not too many people involved in local government could argue against the need for better roads.  However, as has been noted elsewhere (see the article on Clarence Rodning in the May/June 1996 issue of Belt Pulley), in the rural areas of the United States, the Great Depression did not begin with the stock market crash of 1929; rather, the depression for farmers began with the post-war business slowdown in 1921.  Whereas the urban areas of the nation experienced relief from the post-World War I recession starting in 1923, down on the farm the recession continued throughout the 1920s and only became worse with the crash of 1929.  Thus, local county and township boards were responding to the demand for new roads by asking how to raise the money for these road improvements.  The most obvious way to finance the road improvements would have been for the local board to raise the mil rate of the local property tax.  However, given the economic conditions of the early 1920s, the local governments in rural areas were extremely reluctant to take this step.  This would not have made the county or township governments very popular with the voters.  As sub-divisions of Minnesota State government, the county and township units were required by the Minnesota State Constitution to always maintain a balanced budget.  Consequently, the local governments could not engage in deficit spending.  (The same was also true in many other states across the nation.)  However, in 1900, in New York City, a fortuitous event had occurred that would provide another option for local units of government in the midwest to raise money in the 1920s. 

            In 1900, the former mayor of New York City (he had beaten Theodore Roosevelt in the 1886 New York City mayoral election), Abram S. Hewitt, “invented” the municipal bond as a means of funding the underground subway system for New York City.  The idea of municipal bonds caught on, and before long, county and local units of government were rushing to sell bonds to finance local projects.  To be sure, the local government bond was indebtedness; however, the legal definition of the municipal or local government bond escaped the constitutional prohibition against indebtedness for local units of government.  This seemed an ideal method by which to raise the necessary funds for road improvements.  Nonetheless, bonds are successful as a means to raise funds only if there are buyers for these bonds.  Why should large investors buy county and municipal bonds when there were so many other investments on the stock market which could earn much more money? 

            At this point, a couple of happy circumstances merged.  Due to the fact that the county, municipal and township governments were all considered sub-divisions of the state government, the interest income derived from any bonds issued by these local governments could not be taxed by the Federal Government.  The legal support for this proposition is found in Article I of the United States Constitution.  Article I, Section 8, allows Congress to assess taxes, but only in a matter that is “uniform throughout the United States.”  The current interpretation of Article I holds that “uniform” means having the same impact on all citizens.  Since only bond holders, and not the whole public, would be taxed if the earnings of municipal bonds were taxed by the Federal Government, such taxation would not be uniform across the whole nation.  Thus, taxing the earnings of local government bonds would violate the Constitution.  (The upshot is that interest earnings from municipal or local government bonds was and continues to be exempt from the Federal Income Tax.)  Additionally, the Federal Income Tax had only become the law of the land in 1913.  As a consequence, large investors began seeking tax shelters for large portions of their money.  The purchase of municipal bonds provided that tax shelter.  Furthermore, the post-war recession from 1921 until 1923 meant that the stock market was not doing well and thus the bond market provided better opportunities to make money than did the stock market.  Consequently, in the early 1920s, there was a flood of investors entering the bond market, making a torrent of money available for local governments through the sale of local government bonds.  Across the nation, states, counties and townships took full advantage of this source of funding to build and improve their roads.  In addition to all the spending by local governments on roads, the federal government got into the act.  The end of the First World War allowed the Federal Government concentrate on internal development.  The federal government started supplying “federal aid” to the state and local governments of the nation for purposes of building and improving roads.  The Great Road Building Boom was on!  By 1921, the country was spending half a billion dollars on roads.  (John Hicks, Republican Ascendancy [Harper Brothers Publishing:  New York, 1960], p. 9.) 

            The Great Road Building Boom of the 1920s stimulated the founding of a great many road construction companies across the nation.  Among these companies were:  the Sorenson Brothers from Albert Lea, Minnesota; the Ulland Brothers from Austin, Minnesota; Leon Joyce from Rochester, Minnesota; S.G. Groves and Sons from Minneapolis; the DeRuyter Brothers from Wilmar, Minnesota; and the Megarry Brothers from St. Cloud, Minnesota.  One of the road building businesses started in the early 1920s which operated locally in LeSueur County was the Ziegenhagen Brothers.  (See the article “Dave Preuhs and the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association” in the Spring 1996 issue of Hart-Parr/Oliver Collectors Magazine, Vol 7, No. 1, p. 33).  The Ziegenhagen Brothers were really farmers in a LeCenter, Minnesota, neighborhood who obtained some heavy construction equipment and engaged in road building as a part-time activity in the summer to supplement their farm income.  Another of the road building businesses which was formed during this time was the Frank Brown Construction Company of Madison Lake, Minnesota. 

            Frank H. Brown was born to a family of five brothers–Frank, Judd, Jack, Sylvester and Luke.  Although Frank’s parents John and Continue reading Frank Brown Construction Company (Part 1)

Clarence Rodning: Farming with an International 10-20 Titan Tractor

Clarence Rodning: Farming with an International

Model 10-20 Tractor

by

Brian Wayne Wells

As published in the May/June 1996 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine

 

The introduction and immediate sucess of the small Fordson tractor by the Ford Motor Company in 1917, sent shockwaves through the tractor manufacturing industry.  The Fordson weighed only 2,710 and was priced so reasonably ($750.00 in 1917 [Michael Williams, Ford and Fordson Tractors (Blandford Press: London, 1985) p. 55]) that small farmers all cross the North America were began modernizing their farms by getting the Fordson to perform the heavier tasks on their farm.  In 1918, the Fordson knocked International Harvester out first place in the sales of new farm tractors and within two years Fordson had garnered a 2/3 share of the farm tractor market.  (Barbara Marsh, A Corporate Tragedy: The Agony of International Harvester, Doubleday and Co.: Garden City, New York, 1985, p. 52.)  Still by, 1921 only 4% of United States farms had a tractor and thus the remaining 96% of United States farms represented a wide open market for tractor manufacturers.  (Ralph Baumheckel and Kent Borghoff, International Harvester Farm Equipment [American Society of Agricultural Engineers Press: St. Joseph, Missouri, 1997] p. 118.) 

The International Harvester Company needed an answer to the popularity of the Fordson.  As early as 1916, with the introduction of the 10-20 Titan, International Harvester had begun the process of reducing the size of its tractors.  Nonetheless the 10-20 still a large and cumbersome tractor weighing 5,708 lbs.  The 10-20 Titan represented a small tractor only in context of the other behemouths being offered to the farming public during the First World War.  (“Farming with the International 10-20 Titan Tractor” in the May/June 1996 issue of Belt Pulley Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 16.) 

By 1917, the International Harvester Company had ceased all production tractors over 30 horsepower to concentrate on smaller tractors that they hoped would appeal to 96% of smaller farmers who still farmed with horses.  Following the sudden and amazing popularity of the Fordson, International Harvester started a complete redesign of the International 15-30 (Titan).  The new International 15-30 that resulted from this redesign weighed only 6,000 pound as opposed to its predecessor, the 8,990 the 15-30 Titan.  (C.H. Wendel, Nebraska Tractor Tests [Crestline Publishing: Osceola, Fla., 1993] pp. 19 and 40.)  Introduced to the public in 1921, the design of the 15-30, however, included more than just a reduction in size of the old 15-30 Titan tractor.  The new 15-30 copied the Fordson innovation of a tractor with and integrated engine, transmission and rear axle housing all bolted together and without a traditional frame.  (Robert Pripps and Andrew Moreland, Ford Tractors [Motorbooks Intl. Press: Osceola Wisc. 1990] pp. 14-17)  At the same time International Harvester introduced their own innovations.  The four cylinder engine on the 15-30 had a 42″ bore and a 6″ stroke.  (R. Baumheckel and K. Borghoff, International Harvester Farm Equipment p. 118.)  The engine featured removeable cylinder sleeves, a geared final drive enclosed in oil, rather that the chain drive of the older 15-30 Titan tractor.  The new 15-30 also introduced large ball-bearing crankshaft bearings on the crankshaft of the engine.  By 1924 some 6,400 of the new Model 15-30s had been sold to the farming public.  

In 1923, just two years following the introduction of the new gear-driven International 15-30, International Harvester made the same technological changes to 10-20 Titan tractor.  With the introduction of the new 10-20 came a new name for both the Model 15-30 and Model 10-20.  They would now be known as McCormick-Deering tractors.  Consequently, in 1923, the new gear-driven McCormick-Deering 10-20 was introduced to farming public to replace the chain-driven 10-20 Titan tractor.  The new 10-20 featured a 42″ bore and 5″ stroke four-cylinder engine.  The Tractor was 14″ shorter that than the Model 15-30 and weighed only 4,010 pounds.  (Ibid. p. 119)  Just as in the Model 15-30, the crankshaft for close-coupled and heavy enough that it rested only on two ball bearings – front and rear – so too the need for a center crankshaft bearing on the McCormick-Deering 10-20 was eliminated.  (Ibid. p. 119.) 

The International 10-20 was a success from the very start with 11,197 manufactured in 1924, 18,437 in 1925, 25,021 in 1926, 26,646 in 1927, and 30,353 in 1928.  Production of the 10-20 reached its peak in 1929 with 39,433 tractors rolling off the assembly lines at the Tractor Works in Chicago.  Ibid. pp. 397-398.  Only in 1930, did the production of the McCormick-Deering 10-20 start to decline with 21,890 produced that year. 

The 1919 Model 10-20 Titan that had been purchased by Clarence Rodning in 1927 was beginning to show its sho its age in 1930.  It had  problems, as revealed in the first article in this series.    (See the article “Farming with the International 10-20 Titan Tractor” in the May/June 1996 issue of Belt Pulley as cited above.)  Consequently, Clarence began to admire the new Model 10-20 International tractors that were being made by the International Harvester Company.  He saw the new tractors at the Ray Anthony dealorship every time he drove into Norseland, Minnesota.  He wanted to trade the Titan on the newer International 10-20.  He had married Cora Knutson in 1928, a little over one year later but the stock market had fallen in October of 1929 and the Great Depression had followed.  Suddenly he was not getting as much for the crops he rose.  Meanwhile, his family had grown. A son, Warren had been born on    . He was soon followed by another son Harold on  .  Adaughter Corinne was born on   ,  Thenanother son, Dennis was born on    .  To feed his growing family seemed large enough task without worrying about trying to modernize his farm equipment. 

Still every time he drove the family to church in Norseland on Sunday,  sb ne destined sold through the Anthony Dealership in the unincorporated village of Norseland, Minnesota.  The buyer of this particular Model 10-20 tractor was Clarence Rodning.  Regular readers of Belt Pulley will remember that Clarence Rodning was one of the earliest owners of a tractor.  In 1927, he had purchased a used 1920 Model 10-20 Titan for his farming operation.

oj this  r

rthe had been farming with ara for was ethv.  ukee Works.  ic and ,  the firts yearsold in the .  Eventually this little tractor would sell 215,000 copies and be one of the most successfue  ten  trevn theIn the c5flater the engineers  from its tradhanand its vdo something or lose et t of tthe .  Wic Selling more than  In answer to Clarence Rodning had been married for two years On February 10, 1928, Clarence married Cora Knutson, a local Nicollet, Minnesota.  He had been farming on the , two years when irl.  Clarence’s mother, Christine, then moved into Mankato, Minnesota, and Clarence and Cora set up housekeeping on the farm.  Oscar continued to live on the farm with Clarence and Cora to help with the farming operation and to work as a hired man on neighboring farms. purchased his first tractor–a used 1920 McCormick-Deering Titan 10-20 two-cylinder tractor.  He purchased the Titan at Anthony’s International Harvester dealership in the small unincorporated settlement of Norseland, Minnesota.  Because the Titan 10-20 was advertised by International Harvester as a three-plow tractor, Clarence purchased a 3-bottom plow with 14″ bottoms along with the Titan.  In 1915, the Titan series of tractors was produced by International Harvester.  During the overlapping time that both the Mogul series and the Titan series tractors were being produced, International Harvester was still selling their farm machinery through separate dealerships.  Moguls were sold only at those dealerships operating under the McCormick name and Titans were sold only at those dealerships operating under the Deering name.  Most pivotal among the Titan series tractors was the two-cylinder Titan 10-20 tractor.  Sales of the Titan 10-20 would outdistance all previous IHC tractor models combined!  (C.H. Wendel, 150 Years of International Harvester [Crestline Publishing: Sarasota, Fla., 1981], pp. 259 and 283.) 

As noted earlier (see the May/June 1996 issue of Belt Pulley Vo. 9, No. 3, p. 16.), .)n in rIn the spring of 1920, Clarence returned home, to New Sweden.  Ready to start his own farming operation, he rented a 158-acre farm in New Sweden township, and he and his mother and the rest of the family moved in.  (This farm is about 2 mile from the farm currently owned by Clarence’s son, Harold Rodning.)  Under terms of the rental agreement, Clarence would supply all the equipment and seed and the landlord would receive 1/3 of the crop at the end of the year.  He obtained a larger dairy herd and more horses and established a diversified farming operation, raising corn, oats and hay. 

Although farm commodity prices remained fairly good for 1920, the next year saw the beginning of the agricultural depression which would continue throughout the 1920s, throughout the Great Depression of the 1930s, and end only with the advent of the Second World War.  (Elwyn Robinson, History of North Dakota [University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 1966], pp. 368, 374, 399 & 424.)  Luckily, the beginning of the agricultural depression in 1921 also coincided with the “Great Road-Building Boom” which followed the First World War.  (Hicks, John D., Republican Ascendancy [Harper and Row: NY, 1960], p. 9.)

Like many other farmers of the time, Clarence supplemented his farm income by hauling gravel for the county and township roads being built in the New Sweden area.  For this work, he used four-wheeled dump carts which opened at the bottom to deposit their contents, about 12 cubic yards of gravel, at a chosen location.  After the cart was empty, a lever near the operator’s seat on the cart would allow the operator to then close the bottom of the cart. 

Hauling gravel was not easy work.  Each cart was loaded at the gravel pit, one shovelful at a time.  To save time, Clarence would take two teams of horses with two dump wagons to the gravel pit, load up both carts with gravel, then tie one team behind the cart of the other team and drive the front team to the location on the road where the gravel was to be deposited.  By this method, Clarence was able to haul 12 loads of gravel per day.  For this work, Clarence received 85 cents per load.  This provided a nice supplement to his farm income in the summer months.   

Despite the extra time that road building required, Clarence was able to expand his farming operations.  In 1921, he rented another 70 acres to combine with the 158 acres he was already renting.  In 1926, he rented yet another farm which meant that he was farming in excess of 300 acres at one time.  Of course, in those days much of the land in the area of New Sweden township was still uncleared, but Clarence used much of the land as pasture for his increasing dairy herd.  Nonetheless, there remained a good deal of land to be worked in the growing season and Clarence was always looking for more efficient ways to get the field work done.  The benefits of tractor power appealed to Clarence, who recognized the inevitability of tractor power replacing the horse on the farm.  Although Clarence did much farming with horses, he developed a fondness for tractors which would stay with him throughout his life.  Indeed, late in life, he would become an accomplished participant and winner of several tractor pulling competitions held at the Nicollet County Fair in St. Peter, Minnesota. 

The absence of his father during his teenage years, the fact that he became the chief breadwinner of his family at a very early age, plus his experiences at “Aggie School,” combined to give Clarence a unique outlook regarding modern farming methods and may have made him more receptive to the benefits of tractor farming than other members of his generation.  Consequently, to ease the burden of the large amount of field work to be done on the acreage that he had rented in 1927, This promised to be a means of plowing ten acres a day.  (Most probably this 3-14 plow was a steel-wheeled McCormick-Deering Little Genius No. 8 plow, like the one being pulled by an F-30 in the movie Farming the Farmall Way on Tape #1 of the International Harvester Promotional Movie Collection.  However, with only two speeds–2.15 and 2.9 mph–and much less horsepower, the Titan would be going much slower across the field than the F-30.)

John Hiniker of North Mankato, Minnesota, has two Titan 10-20 tractors which are shown at the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show on the last weekend in August each year.[1]  Although John has not had too much trouble with the operation of his Titans, the Titan had a reputation of being difficult to operate.  

Mitch Pearce of Mooresville, Indiana–who owns the beautifully restored Titan 10-20 which was exhibited at the 1995 International Harvester Collectors’ Winter Convention held at Fort Wayne, Indiana–has collected many experiences that owners and operators of the Titan have had with the tractor.  Some of these experiences point to the shortcomings of the Titan tractor.  One of the first shortcomings was the fact that the tractor was advertised as a three-plow tractor, which was much beyond the actual capabilities of the tractor.  Even if the tractor was able to pull a 3-bottom plow in the fields, the excess torque on the drive mechanism and the gears at the rear wheels was too great and the gears rapidly wore out. 

Starting the Titan was also a troublesome, delicate task.  The initial settings of the needle and idle on the tractor were temperamental and needed to be changed with the changes in the outside temperature and humidity.  In cold weather, the Titan was reluctant to start at all.  The starting process began with the opening of the compression release valves on each piston.  The carburetor on the Titan was about two feet tall and had four little spigots that had to be opened to release any air in the fuel lines.  Once the air in the lines was removed, the spigots were closed again and the tractor was primed using a lever on the fuel pump.  Care had to be taken to not over-prime or under-prime the engine.  The operator then cranked the engine at the flywheel. 

In his 1982 taped interview with his grandson, Kenny Rodning, Clarence remembered that he had to crank the engine a number of times to get the tractor started!  Once the tractor fired, the operator had to adjust the impulse on the magneto and then, after the engine was running, the operator would close the compression releases on each cylinder.  The tractor was started on gasoline, and when the engine was sufficiently warm, it was to be switched over to kerosene.  However, the switch to kerosene could not be made too soon; the engine had to be good and hot first. 

A special steering device, called the plow guide, was available as an option for the Titan.  This also created problems for the tractor.  Attached to the hub of the right front wheel, the heavy plow guide steered the tractor while plowing by rolling along in the furrow ahead of the tractor.  The operator was then free to get off the tractor and make adjustments to a gang plow which the tractor might be pulling.  (A picture of the plow guide attached to a McCormick-Deering 8-16 Mogul can be seen at the top of page 284 of 150 Years of International Harvester.)  At the end of the field, chains and brackets allowed the operator to lift the plow guide out of the furrow while he made the turn.  During this whole time, the entire force of steering the tractor and the entire weight of carrying the heavy plow guide bore down on the hub and axle to the right front wheel of the tractor.  Consequently, the bearings and axle on the right front wheel wore out rather quickly.  The front wheels of a Titan would become misaligned and develop a “toe-out.” 

The Titan engine was cooled by a water evaporation system.  The open water tank at the front of the tractor contained 34 gallons of water.  Steam evaporation and spillage of sloshing water from the open tank meant that after working in the morning the Titan needed about 10 to 15 gallons of water added to the system at noon.  The boiling water in the water tank, however, was sometimes used for some unconventional tasks.  Some operators would put a ham in a cheesecloth bag and suspend the bag in the water tank in the morning.  By noon, the ham would be ready to eat.  Suspending another bag full of eggs in the tank would render a side course of hard-boiled eggs for the noon meal.   

The two-cylinder Titan engine was designed with a parallel crankshaft such that both pistons operated together, rather than in an alternating pattern like John Deere two-cylinder tractors.  While one piston was coming up on its compression stroke, the other piston was coming up on the exhaust stroke.  Although the flywheel on the engine was counter-balanced to offset both pistons operating together in this manner, the engine still rocked rather severely.  Consequently, when the Titan 10-20 was working on the belt, the tractor tended to “lope,” or rock back and forth, sending waves down the belt and causing the threshing machine or other belt-powered machine to shake more than usual.  This shaking of the engine was so severe that the carburetor needle and idle adjustment would shake loose.  The tractor could not hold an idle without constant re-adjustment by the operator.  Furthermore, the shaking of the engine always caused the hoses leading to and from the water tank to leak.  Still, the Titan 10-20 was a mechanized way of handling one of the most laborious and time-consuming jobs on the farm–plowing. 

The Titan brought about a big change in the farming operations on the Rodning farm.  Clarence used the Titan to perform as many of the difficult tasks around the farm as possible.  The Titan plowed and performed other field work and did belt work, powering the burr mill to make feed for the livestock on the farm.  Big changes were also occurring within the family during this time.  

Because of the difficulty in operating the Titan, Clarence jealously guarded his Titan.  Clarence’s younger brother, Oscar, remembered that Clarence would not let anyone else operate the tractor.  Oscar also recalled that when he was eighteen years old he longed to operate the Titan, but continued to fret under Clarence’s strictures against operating the tractor.  In the early spring of 1928, however, while Cora and Clarence were away from the farm for a few days, Oscar decided it was his turn to operate the Titan.  He started the Titan, hooked up to the plow and did a little spring plowing while Clarence was gone. 

In the decade of the 1920s, the revolution in small efficient gas-powered tractors had taken another quantum leap with the introduction in 1917 of Henry Ford’s Fordson tractor.  In 1918, the Fordson knocked International Harvester from its top position in the domestic tractor market.  (Barbara Marsh, A Corporate Tragedy [Doubleday: Garden City, NY], p. 52.)  International Harvester attempted to meet the challenge of the Fordson with the introduction in 1923 of the new four-cylinder International 10-20.  However, weighing 4,010 lbs., the International 10-20 was still not as light as the Fordson ( 2,710 lbs.).  Still, the International 10-20 was widely advertised and proved a popular seller throughout the 1920s. 

As time passed, the problems and shortcomings of the Titan became more apparent to Clarence, and in 1929 he decided to purchase one of the new, four-cylinder International Harvester 10-20 tractors which he had heard so much about.  Although the 10-20 had the same horsepower rating as the Titan, IHC had learned its lesson from the Titan and advertised the new four-cylinder 10-20 as no more than a two-plow tractor.  Consequently, Clarence would need a 2-bottom plow to replace the 3-14″ plow he had obtained with the Titan.  Accordingly, as part of the purchase price on the new standard-type International 10-20 and a new Little Genius 2-14″ plow, Clarence traded both the Titan and the 3-14″ plow back to Anthony’s dealership. 

Problematic as it was, the Titan introduced the Rodning family – as it introduced other farm families – to the modern era of power farming, easing the burden of heavy labor around the farm.  The Titan, therefore, stands as one of the significant milestones of farming in the 1920s.  Thanks to the efforts of Titan restorers like John Hiniker and Mitch Pearce, the public is not only able see the equipment that was used by their ancestors, but are able to hear about some of the difficulties that had to be overcome in operating these early tractors.  Enclosed you will find Part II of the two-part article on the Wood Brothers Company of Des Moines, Iowa, and also the Model WB-1-P one-row Wood Bros. corn picker used by Mel Anderson and Wayne A. Wells from the fall of 1946 through the fall of 1948. 

I have enclosed a number of pictures.  Once again, to allow you the greatest latitude, I have put captions on the back and have avoided making references to the pictures in the text of the article.  As before, I have included a copy of the article on diskette as well as a hard copy. 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Brian W. Wells

 

 

Enclosure

 

          The Wood Bros. Company, Part II: The Model WB-1-P Cornpicker

                                                 by Brian Wayne Wells

                                                  with the assistance of

                                 Gary Oechsner of Fond-du-Lac, Wisconsin

                                Clarence L. Goodburn of Madelia, Minnesota

                                                                                                                                Alan C. King of Radnor, Ohio

                                  Charles R. Durham of Brainerd, Minnesota

                                                               and

                                      Hugh Hash of Sparta, North Carolina

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                By 1928, the Wood Bros. Thresher Company appeared to be at the top of its form, and its future looked even brighter.  Having successfully overcome a few challenges in its recent history (the disastrous fire of 1917, another fire–although somewhat less disastrous–in 1926, and a change of factory locations in 1926), production of threshing machines was at a new all-time high.  Franz L. Wood presided over a company that was the largest, single industrial project between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, with his brother Robert L. serving as treasurer.  The company produced enough threshers that year, such that 200 threshers were delivered aboard a single train to its branch house in Fargo, North Dakota.  Yet, just when everything appeared to be at its best, the greatest disasters befell.  Already in 1928, warning signs were out which too many people would ignore, pointing to a major economic cataclysm just ahead.  The effects of this period of economic stress would have a tremendous impact on the Wood Bros. Thresher Company. 

                                                                                                                                Despite the debt that the company had accrued in its move in 1926 to the new location at 1700 E. Aurora Avenue, and despite objections from his brother and other people within the company, Franz was able to divert some of the resources from the sale of threshers into building combine harvesters.  Franz correctly foresaw that combine harvesters were the wave of the future that would eventually replace the stationary thresher/separator on all United States farms.  He wanted to position the company securely in the new combine market before thresher sales started to decline in favor of the new combines.  It was a bold plan that promised to assure the future prospects of the company.

                                                                                                                                In 1929, Wood Bros. marketed its first model combine harvester/thresher.  Three models of the new combine, with its unique overshot-type cylinder and fork-type impeller feeder, were offered to the public–a model with a 12-foot cutter bar, a model with a 16-foot cutter bar, and a model with a 20-foot cutter bar.  Furthermore, the company made plans to boost combine production to 1,000 machines in 1930.  The company, borrowing more money from the bank for the increase in production, suddenly found that the total debt on the bonds they still had left to pay together with the new loan they had just taken out added up to $950,000.00. 

                                                                                                                                Suddenly, the price of wheat fell to 204 to 254 per bushel and farmers began defaulting on their payments for their threshers and combines.  The company, too, became stressed under its load of debt and were unable to make payments on its bonds as they came due.  As a result of these defaults, the whole Wood Bros. debt became due immediately.  Franz, in an attempt to help the company, borrowed all that he could against his own $80,000.00 life insurance policy.  However, nothing helped for very long.  The company simply was not selling anything, and had to seek the protection of bankruptcy to allow time to restructure the debt load. 

                                                                                                                                In January of 1931, Robert L. Wood, his son Franz W. Wood, and Mr. Worden from the bookkeeping department of the company traveled to Chicago to meet with the bankers who now owned the notes of the company’s debt.  They hoped to work out a debt restructuring agreement.  However, the bankers had strong demands.  First, they required that a bankruptcy trustee be established to run the company, rather than the Wood brothers.  While Robert L. Wood was retained by the company because he headed the sales department and was needed, Franz Wood was required to give up his position and salary while the company was being reorganized.  Secondly, plans for production of combines were scrapped and the company had to stick to making threshers.   While there were bitter feelings directed toward the bankers and the trustee who was placed in charge of the company, luckily, no permanent estrangement was created between the brothers or their families during this trying time. 

                                                                                                                                Eventually, the brothers were able to get a banker from New York to take over the debt obligation of the company.  This new banker allowed the brothers to take charge of the company again, and Franz received a salary of $1,000.00 per year while the company got back on its feet.  Throughout 1932, 1933 and 1934, the company met its financial obligations under the new debt plan by selling the inventory stock it had on hand during these years.  By the spring of 1935, the company was ready to begin making threshers again, and planned to make 500 threshers with the help of a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC).  (The RFC was part of an attempt by the Roosevelt Administration’s New Deal plan to spur the sagging economy.)  However, the RFC loan fell through, and Wood Bros. made only 300 threshers in 1935.  Nonetheless, the company substantially reduced its overall indebtedness in 1934 and 1935, and by the fall of 1935, the company owed only $86,000.00 on its overall debt.  Furthermore, the company was selling threshers again.  It seemed that the company had turned a corner in its struggle to survive. 

                                                                                                                                In 1936, Franz was able to incorporate some of the new ideas he had about threshing into a new model separator, and it was introduced that year.  In 1937, Wood Bros. introduced its first straight-through-type model combine with a 5-foot cutter bar.  In 1938 and 1939, the straight-through combine improved to handle both a 5-foot and a 7-foot cutter bar and header.  Also, in 1937, Wood Bros. introduced its first cornpicker–the Model WB-1-P.  It was a power-takeoff-driven, single-row, pull-type model cornpicker. 

                                                                                                                                During these times, the private lives of the Wood families were also undergoing changes.  For one thing, Franz and Elizabeth’s daughter Helen graduated from DrakeUniversity in Des Moines in 1936.  First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was the guest speaker at the graduation.  Following the ceremony, Franz Wood had a pleasant and productive talk with the First Lady.

                                                                                                                                Even before entry of the United States into the Second World War, the Wood Bros. Company was feeling the pinch of the restricted supply of steel.  At the end of 1940, the company was unable to get a steel allotment, particularly, the galvanized steel which was used in its threshers.  Therefore, the company had to cease production of the thresher and the combine altogether.  In 1941, however, the company was allowed to produce 1,500 of its gray-painted cornpickers, and, in 1942, it produced 1,728 cornpickers.  However, due to the shortage of rubber during the war, Wood Bros. had to produce these cornpickers on steel wheels.  In place of the threshers and combines, the Company received government contracts for the production of ammunition boxes for the war effort.  (By 1945, the plant had a workforce of 600 employees, one-third of whom were women.)   

                                                                                                                                On February 14, 1943, Wood Bros. announced the signing of a contract with Harry Ferguson Inc. of Dearborn, Michigan, under which the Ferguson Company agreed to market all combines, threshers and cornpickers made by the Wood Bros. Company.  Thus, the Wood Bros. Company closed its branch houses in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Fargo, North Dakota; Peoria, Illinois; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Wichita, Kansas.  The famous handshake agreement in October of 1938 between Henry Ford and Harry Ferguson had linked the Ford Tractor Division and Harry Ferguson, Inc. in the production of Ford/Ferguson 9N tractors.  (Even though in the eyes of the general public these companies were seen as the same company, they remained two distinct companies, a fact that would become all too obvious at a later date during the extended litigation following the dissolution of the handshake agreement.)  Now, this same dynamic was occurring in the close relationship developing between Ford and Wood Bros. Company.  Over the years, Wood Bros. had been advertising how ideally matched the small Wood Bros. thresher was to the Fordson tractor, and, later, how ideally matched the Model WB-1-P cornpicker was for the Ford/Ferguson 9N, later the 2N, and later still the 8N.  To further encourage this link, the gray paint of the Wood Bros. cornpicker was made to match the gray paint of the Ford/Ferguson 9N and 2N tractors.  As the public’s perception grew of Wood Bros. and Ford and Ferguson being one and the same, the fortunes of Wood Bros. became irretrievably linked to the fortunes of Ford and Ferguson.  This sales agreement between the Ferguson distribution network and the Wood Bros. Company was just another step down the path toward an official connection between Ford and Wood Bros. 

                                                                                                                                In the post-war period, Wood Bros. continued to manufacture its very popular Model WB-1-P one-row cornpicker and its pull-type, straight-through Wood Bros. combine with the 5-foot cutter bar.  With rubber again available, Wood Bros. could now offer these implements to the farming public mounted on new modern rubber tires. 

                                                                                                                                One of these Model WB-1-P cornpickers on rubber tires was bought in 1946 from the Regan Ford Dealership in LeRoy, Minnesota, by Mel Anderson and his neighbor George Wells.  The Mel and Irene (Christianson) Anderson farm was located three miles east, northeast of LeRoy, Minnesota.  The George and Louise (Schwark) Wells farm was located one-fourth mile east of the Anderson farm, on the MowerCounty border with FillmoreCounty. 

                                                                                                                                George and Louise Wells had purchased the 160-acre farm in 1936 from the Mose Crawford family, moving from a rented farm near Chester, Iowa.  Their family consisted of three boys and two girls.  Their third child and third son Wayne Alwin (born in 1923) graduated from high school in 1941 and enlisted in the Navy to serve in the Pacific as a Mechanic’s Mate 1st Class in the Seabees–a branch of the U.S. Navy.  He was stationed on the Pacific Island of Guam for the major part of his service.  With V-J Day on September 2, 1945, demobilization of the Armed Forces in the Pacific began, and Wayne returned to the United States just before Christmas.  Because he had not served out all of his tour of duty, the Navy stationed him at the Great Lakes Naval Base near Chicago.  Nonetheless, Wayne was able to obtain a 30-day leave from Great Lakes to journey to his parents’ farm for the holidays.  On New Year’s Eve 1945-46, he went to a party for the local young people at his family’s church–the 1st Presbyterian Church in LeRoy.  Also in attendance at the party that night was Marilyn Hanks and her brother Bruce Hanks.  Marilyn had graduated with a two-year teaching certificate from Mankato State Teacher’s College in the Spring of 1945 and was home with her parents at LeRoy for the Christmas holidays.  At the time, she was teaching a combination class of first grade, second grade and third grade students in the same room at Frost, Minnesota.  Wayne and Marilyn met and talked casually that night.

                                                                                                                                At the end of the 30-day leave, Wayne returned to the Great Lakes Naval Base to serve out the rest of his tour of duty.  He was officially discharged from the military on March 17, 1946, and returned to his parents’ farm.  Like many returning veterans, Wayne was undecided as to what he wanted to do with his life.  At first, he helped his father and mother on the farm, but in April of 1946, he heard that the John Deere Company was hiring workers for their tractor factory in Waterloo, Iowa.  Thus, Wayne moved to Waterloo and obtained a job on the assembly line at the John Deere factory, installing bull gears in the rear-ends of John Deere A’s. 

                                                                                                                                That spring, Wayne frequently drove the short distance from Waterloo to his parents’ farm.  However, he soon came to realize that he really preferred working outdoors to working inside, “looking at a brick wall all day.”  So, in the early summer of 1946, Wayne returned to LeRoy on a permanent basis to help his parents run the farm.  With his return to LeRoy, he began to see Marilyn on a regular basis, until the fall, when she went off on her second year of teaching, this time with 43 second-grade students in one room at Mapleton, Minnesota.

                                                                                                                                As the summer progressed, Wayne became more certain of what he wanted to do with his life.  Thus, as George and Louise began to consider retiring to the town of LeRoy, Wayne decided he would take over operation of the farm.  Wayne knew that there were many advantageous relationships which he would inherit from his father.  For one thing, he knew that Mel Anderson and the Wells family had cooperated over the years in a number of different farming operations.  Ever since moving to the neighborhood in 1936, George Wells had belonged to Mel’s threshing ring.  Wayne also knew of the arrangement between Mel Anderson and George Wells to cooperate in cornpicking with the new Woods Bros cornpicker.            Now, in 1946, in anticipation of his taking over the operation of the farm, Wayne began to look for ways to make a little money on his own.  Thus, when cornpicking season came, he helped his father and Mel Anderson get the corn picked on their two farms.  Then, he took the new one-row Wood Bros. cornpicker and his father’s 1942 Farmall H on the road, doing custom cornpicking for the neighbors for extra income.  The 1942 Farmall H had sufficient power to pull the Wood Bros. cornpicker and wagon loaded with the bright orange ears of field corn through the muddy conditions that existed in the corn fields in the fall of 1946.  (Regular readers of the Belt Pulley will remember that 1946 was a wet fall which led to an extremely wet spring and early summer of 1947.  [See “The Case NCM Baler and a Family’s Crucial Year” in the January/February 1995 issue of Belt Pulley, p. 31.]) 

                                                                                                                                Moving from farm to farm, Wayne drove the Farmall H, pulling the cornpicker and one of the Wells family’s steel-wheeled “double box” grain wagons with extensions on the sides of the box flared out at a 45-degree angle to catch all the ears that came spilling out of the elevator of the picker.  Driving into the yard of a customer, he would follow the farmer through the gates of his cowyard and down a lane leading to the field that was to be picked.  The farmer would then show Wayne the rows of corn that had already been hand-picked to “open the field” for the pull-type picker.  The picker had been greased up the night before, but Wayne would stop the tractor at the gate leading to the field to give the cornpicker one last “look-over.”  Then he would get back up into the seat of the Farmall H and turn to adjust the lifting lever of the cornpicker so that the snouts of the gatherer just cleared the ground. 

                                                                                                                                With the frozen crust of dirt on the top of the ground breaking under the weight of the rear wheels of the Farmall H, Wayne pulled up to the end of the first row he was to pick.  Then he pushed in the foot clutch, reached down with his left hand to find the little loop of the power take-off control, and pulled the loop upwards to engage the power take-off.  Because of the wet conditions, he shifted into second gear and started across the field.  The Wood Bros. cornpicker sprang to life and began tackling the first stalks of corn in the row passing along the left side of the tractor.  Stripping the ears of corn off the stalks, the cornpicker passed the ears to a bin at the rear of the snapping rollers and the gathering unit of the picker.  Then an elevator took the ears at a right angle to the top of the husking bed.  As the ears glided around another right turn to slide down over the husking rollers, the corn was actually headed straight forward in the cornpicker, directly toward the operator sitting on the tractor.  The ears of corn then fell into a bin directly behind the tractor but near the front of the cornpicker, where the corn turned another 180 degrees and started up the wagon elevator.  This complex “S” shaped pattern of corn passing through the cornpicker was unique to the model WB-1-P.  The pattern involved many right turns which might ordinarily have served as bottlenecks where corn could have piled up and plugged the picker.  Nonetheless, the “S” shaped design of the flow pattern was helpful in that it allowed the driver of the tractor to have a clear view of the action on the husking bed and of the corn as it started up the elevator.  The location of these two potential trouble spots was near the front of the cornpicker, immediately behind the tractor driver.  (Daryl Dempsey, current owner and user of a model WB-1-P cornpicker [mentioned below] notes that he has experienced incidents of clogging at the last 180-degree turn at the base of the wagon elevator when especially long ears of corn are passing through the cornpicker.  He has also heard reports of the same type of clogging from other former owners of the model WB-1-P cornpicker.)

                                                                                                                                Upon getting to the end of the first row, Wayne would reach around behind him to turn off the drive to the wagon elevator before he started into his turn.  The cornpicker would then finish picking the last few stalks of corn in the row and would allow the ears to pile up in the bin at the base of the wagon elevator.  In that way, no ears would be lost on the ground as the wagon elevator swung out and around, away from the narrow box of the wagon during the turn.  Once the picker and the wagon straightened out and started up another row for the return trip across the field, Wayne would once again engage the wagon elevator control and the wagon elevator would quickly clean out all the built up ears in the bin at the base of the elevator and transport them safely up into the wagon.  In an average year, a narrow double-box grain wagon with extensions would be full of corn after three rounds of an average 30-acre field.

                                                                                                                                The little gray Wood Bros model WB-1-P cornpicker was regarded as a very good picker for husking ears of corn, thus aiding farmers toward their goal of 1% or less of husks going into the crib.  Our farmer, for whom Wayne was performing this custom picking,  would have been well pleased as he looked over the wagon load of clean ears with very little husks left on them.  Clearly, the little gray Wood Bros. cornpicker was not only getting low enough to get all the downed corn, it was even getting the “nubbins” (the small under-developed ears) that were found periodically, even in good harvest years.  Because the picker’s steel and rubber rollers on the husking bed were removing a great deal of the husks, our farmer knew this would aid in the drying of the corn in the crib and that no mold would form in the middle of his crib, causing spoilage or waste of his hard-earned crop.  Thus, our farmer was smiling as he drove his tractor up into his yard, pulling the wagon full of corn–not so much because of these advantages, but because of the real advantage of mechanical picking of corn–speed.  Within two or three days, our farmer would have all of his corn in the crib.  This represented weeks of time saved over the slow laborious task of hand-picking corn.  (Just how much time is saved by mechanical picking over hand picking is shown in the 1938 movie “Party Line,” available on Tape #4 of the International Harvester Promotional Movie Collection.  In “Party Line” it is pointed out that the farmer who hand picked his corn would spend nearly nine times as many man/hours in the field as the total combined time he spent plowing, preparing seed bed, and planting and cultivating the same crop of corn.)

                                                                                                                                As our farmer pulled the wagon load of corn up to his corncrib where an elevator and his two teenage children awaited to help him get the wagon load of corn safely under cover in the crib, our farmer realized another advantage of mechanical picking of corn–he and his family could do the work without the need to hire on extra help.  Yes, hiring custom picking that fall was enlightening.  That winter, our farmer would feed very little of the corn to his animals, and would end up shelling out nearly the entire crib in the spring.  With the money he made on the corn, he would buy a cornpicker of his own for the next harvest season.  Indeed, cornpicker owners were the best salesmen of cornpickers.                                                                     Wayne Wells soon found that many people in his neighborhood and around the nation would become owners of cornpickers.  Wayne had earned some extra money with the cornpicker that fall; however, he would never again do any custom picking beyond that brief season of 1946.  There would not be enough demand for custom cornpicking beyond the fall of 1946. 

                                                                                                                                By the spring of 1947, Wayne finalized arrangements with his parents so that after he and Marilyn were married that summer, they would take over the farming operations on the Wells farm.  They would purchase the tractor and some of the equipment and rent the farm for a few years until they could get established.  They would purchase the farm at a later date.  Although he never again did any custom picking, Wayne and Mel Anderson used the little gray Wood Bros. cornpicker on their own farms through the fall harvest of 1949.  In 1950, Mel and George Wells (who still owned half-interest in the one-row Wood Bros. picker) traded the Model WB-1-P in to the Millenaker Implement dealership of Adams, Minnesota, on the purchase of a two-row New Idea Model 6A cornpicker.  So as to allow Wayne to upgrade to 3-plow and four-row farming–by purchasing a new 1950 Farmall M, a McCormick Deering Model 435 four-row cultivator, and a new four-row McCormick-Deering corn planter–George continued his half-interest in the new picker.                                                Already in the early 1950s, farmers were beginning to feel the necessity of “getting big or getting out.”  The little Wood Bros. Model WB-1-P had offered farmers a chance to get into mechanical picking of corn, but only for the very limited period of time from the end of the Second World War until the 1950s. (For the story of the New Idea Model 6A cornpicker , see “The New Idea Company [Part II] in the November/December 1998 Belt Pulley, Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 26.) 

                                                                                                                                Another of the little gray Model WB-1-P pickers was purchased new by Fred Langley of Hillsboro, Ohio, in 1948.  Fred powered the picker with his Ford 8N and used the picker for harvesting corn on his farm and the farms of his neighbors from 1948 until 1952.  (The original owner/operators manual for this particular Model WB-1-P picker is still in existence and contains notes by Fred Langley of all the corn harvests the picker completed.)  This particular little Woods Bros. picker is unique on two scores:  First, the picker is still in use on the farm of Daryl Dempsey of Oak Hill, Ohio, where Daryl lovingly stores the picker in a machine shed when the picker is not in use; and, secondly, this picker has a decal which states, “Made exclusively for Harry Ferguson Co. Detroit Michigan.”  This is significant, because in 1946, Henry Ford II, grandson of the company’s founder, upon the death of his grandfather, assumed control of the Ford Motor Company and decided to end the “handshake agreement” between Ford and the Harry Ferguson Company.  To this end, Ford created the Dearborn Motor Company which would now have a monopoly on production and distribution of the new Ford Model 8N tractor.  (Robert Lacey, Ford: The Men and the Machine [Little Brown & Company: Boston, 1986], pp. 428-429.)

                                                                                                                                Consequently, Harry Ferguson Inc. sued Ford Motor Company for “breach of the handshake agreement.”  This famous lawsuit came to occupy the legal resources of both companies until the 1953 court settlement.  Following the dissolution of the handshake agreement, Harry Ferguson Inc. was forced to start producing tractors of its own and to develop its own sales network.  As noted in an earlier article, Harry Ferguson Inc., during this time, had formed a joint venture with the Belle City Company to have Ferguson Model TO-20 and Model TO-30 farm tractors sold through the same network of dealerships as Belle City farm machinery.  However, the Langley/Dempsey picker is clear evidence that for at least a short while after the breakup of Ford and Ferguson, Ferguson had been able to obtain some Wood Bros. cornpickers and to market them under the Ferguson name alone.  (See “The Belle City Manufacturing Company” [Part II] in the July/August 1999 Belt Pulley Vol. 12, No. 4. p. 20.)   

                                                                                                                                The breakup of Ford and Ferguson also had an important impact on Wood Bros.  Because Wood Bros. had for so long been advertising their small threshers as ideally suited to Ford tractors, then later advertising their Model WB-1-P cornpicker as also ideally suited for Ford tractors, the public had perceived Wood Bros. as part and parcel of Ford.  The Wood Bros Company would not be able to escape the embrace of FordWood Bros. had become, over the years, inexorably linked to the destinies of the Ford Tractor Division.  There were, perhaps, good reasons to break free of Ford, as the split between Ford and Ferguson would cost Wood Bros. customers and dealership outlets.  Consequently, Wood Bros. would need to establish its own independent sales network to make up the difference, and this would be no easy task.  Their only other alternative would be to attach to either Ferguson or Ford in order to obtain a ready-made sales and distribution network.  Since Ferguson was already associated with Belle City, the only choice left for Wood Bros. was to remain associated with Ford, and Ford had ended up with a larger share of the Ford/Ferguson dealership outlets following the breakup. 

                                                                                                                                Secondly, Ford, being so preoccupied with the lawsuit during this time, was unable to introduce a full 3-plow tractor until 1953, when it introduced the Model NAA “Golden Jubilee” tractor.  To be sure, Ford had, in 1949, offering a “flat head” 6-cylinder engine as a “conversion kit for its Model 8N tractor, enabling it to develop 95 horsepower, and also a Funk Bros. V-8 engine conversion for the Model 8N, which could then develop 100 horsepower.  However, these tractor conversions were problematic.  (As Palmer Fossum remembers, the prevailing wisdom with either of these conversions was: “Remember that you have a 100 horsepower engine and a 30 horsepower transmission and rear end, and you won’t get into any trouble.”  [Robert N. Phipps and Andrew Morland, Ford Tractors (Motorbooks International Press: Osceola, Wisc. 1990) p. 118.])  Therefore, during the critical time at the end of the 1940s, when farmers were demanding 2-row cornpickers and 3-plow tractors, Ford was unable to direct its energies toward designing and producing the dependable 3-plow tractor necessary to power any 2-row cornpicker Wood Bros. might have been able to produce. 

                                                                                                                                Furthermore, to design its own two-row cornpicker would create a myriad of problems.  The existing Model WB-1-P picker’s unique “S” path was, to say the least, burdensome.  Each of the four 90-degree right angles that the ears of corn followed through the cornpicker on their way to the wagon created a potential for a clog.  Yet, the Wood Bros. cornpicker was regarded as a very good one-row picker, despite these right angles.  Needless to say, one must assume that the reason the picker worked so well was that it had only the ears from one-row of corn passing through the cornpicker at any one time.  Now, adding a second row to the process would more than double that problem, and the design would most likely fail.  Consequently, a two-row cornpicker would have to be completely redesigned, requiring a great deal of research money and corporate energy by the Wood Bros. Company.  Moreover, in the late 1940s, just when this great expenditure of energy was needed, the main driving force of Wood Bros. was missing–Robert L. had died on April 6, 1943, at the age of 81 years.  While Franz J. Wood would continue a vigorous life until his death on April 14, 1956, at the age of 92 years, he had gradually retired from active management of the company during the war, and management was now in the hands of Franz’s son, Robert E. Wood.

                                                                                                                                With their choices limited, Wood Bros. Threshing Company entered into an option agreement with Harold Brenton and Associates, in which Wood Bros. gave Brenton an option to purchase the Wood Bros. Company.  However, as of 1950, Brenton and Associates had not yet pursued that option.  Thus, in 1950, when Dearborn Motors Company bought out Harold Brenton and Associates, Dearborn Motors also obtained the option to buy the Wood Bros. Thresher CompanyDearborn immediately exercised that option and purchased Wood BrosDearborn also bought up all the shares of stock held by the various Wood Bros. stockholders, including the stock held by the Wood family, thus ending family management of Wood Bros.  With the settlement of the case of Ferguson v. Ford in 1953, the transfer of Woods Bros. Company to Ford Motor Company and its offspring–the Dearborn Motors Company–was complete. 

                                                                                                                                As of the fall of 1947, all Wood Bros. cornpickers sold by Ford were painted “Ford red” to match the 8N “red belly” tractors introduced for the “model year” 1948.  It appears that they were painted red as they rolled off the assembly line.  Not only were all the Model WB-1-P cornpickers painted Ford red in color, so too were the Dearborn/Wood Bros. 5-foot pull-type combines which continued in production.  (See Robert N. Phipps and Andrew Morland, Ford Tractors [Motorbooks International Press: Osceola, Wisc. 1990], p. 76.)  Daryl Dempsey reports that some unexposed surfaces of his “gray” 1948 picker reveal hints that it too had originally been painted Ford red.  This indicates the picker was obtained by Ferguson in its Ford red color and then repainted Ferguson gray color to match the new Ferguson Model TO-20 and Model TO-30 tractors. 

                                                                                                                                The Wood Bros. plant located at East 17th and Aurora Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, continued to employ hundreds of employees.  They manufactured not only the Model WB-1-P cornpicker and the 5-foot combine, but they also expanded to include production of the Dearborn (later Ford) hay balers, side-delivery rakes, forage harvesters, corn planters, grain drills, and cotton harvesters.  Production at this factory continued until about 1965, when the plant was closed.

                                                                                                                                Over the years, Franz reaped many rewards for his years of service to modern farming.  In August of 1949, the Ford Motor Company honored Franz on the occasion of his 85th birthday by presenting him with a new Ford 8N tractor.  In September of 1951, Franz was honored at the Second Annual Midwest Old Settlers and Threshers Association Convention with the Old Threshers Award.  In July of 1952, Franz was invited to ride as a guest of honor in the Boone County Fair parade in Boone, Iowa. 

                                                                                                                                After Franz J. Wood’s retirement from the management of the company following the Second World War, he maintained his interests in threshing and steam engines and the restoration of old farm machinery.  Franz and his wife, Elizabeth, traveled to many threshing shows which were springing up in the early 1950s.  After Elizabeth’s death in 1951, Franz continued to travel to shows accompanied by his daughter, Helen C. Wood.  In October of 1952, Franz and Helen attended Steam Engine Joe Rynda’s Threshing Bee in Montgomery, Minnesota.  (It is noteworthy that young Dave Preuhs may have attended this same show.  Indeed, this show was one of the main sources of inspiration for Dave Preuhs’ later organization of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association of LeSueur, Minnesota.  [See “Build It and They Will Come: Dave Preuhs and the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association,” in the Summer 1996 issue of the Hart-Parr/Oliver Collectors Magazine, Vol. VII, No. II, p. 33.]) 

                                                                                                                                As noted above, the first generation Wood brothers era came to an end with the death of Franz on April 14, 1956.  After the sale of the company to Dearborn, Robert E. Wood, the only son of Franz and Elizabeth, who had served as managing partner of the Wood Bros. Company in its last years, went on to found Wood Tractor Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Never “straying far from the tree,” the Wood Tractor Company sold farm implements, including Dearborn/Wood Bros. farm implements, to the farming public throughout the 1950s. 

                                                                                                                                The legacy of the later years of the Wood Bros. Thresher Company was inextricably bound up with the Model WB-1-P cornpicker.  In the late 1940s, the cornpicker’s success was the company’s success.  However, the circumstances that would not allow the picker to change became a trap that limited the prospects of the company’s future.  The Model WB-1-P picker, as experienced by Fred Langley in Ohio and Mel Anderson and Wayne Wells in Minnesota, was to be remembered as a very fine picker that “filled the gap” for many farmers from the end of World War II until about 1950 when the economy of the United States allowed farmers to upgrade to 2-row pickers and the 3-plow tractors that would power these new pickers.    



    [1] One of John Hiniker’s Titans served most of its working career on farms in Canada and Montana before David Alstad of Spring Grove, Minnesota, obtained the tractor and later sold it to John.  A tag on the fender of this Titan indicates that it was sold through a dealership in Hamilton, Ontario.  The other John Hiniker Titan was used its entire life on the Jinus Grotwahl farm near Searles, Minnesota, in BrownCounty.  Although it is not currently known where this Titan was originally purchased, it could very well have been purchased at Brown County Implement.  Brown County Implement is one of Minnesota’s oldest International Harvester dealerships and was located just up the road from Searles, toward New Ulm, Minnesota.  Belt Pulley readers will recognize that John Hiniker advertises and sells decals for many different makes of tractors, including the Titan 10/20.

Dave Preuhs and the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association

Dave Preuhs and the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association: Build It and They Will Come

by

Brian Wayne Wells

As published in an issue of the:

Hart-Parr/Oliver Collectors Magazine

The famous “Wheel Arch” main entrance to the Showgrounds of the modern LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association.  Dave Preuh’s dream came true!

Some dreams begin at a very early age and remain with us all of our lives.  So it was for young Dave Preuhs.  Dave, his sister Barb, and brothers Richard and Elroy grew up on their parents’ farm, the Clarence and Edna (Eichler) Preuhs farm, in Tyrone Township, LeSueur County, Minnesota.  Ever since his earliest years, Dave had been fascinated by antiques.  He turned an old brooder house on his parents’ farm into a “museum”  of sorts by gathering together a grain cradle, butter churn, hand corn planter, and other small antique farm implements and displaying them in the brooder house.  (This brooder house can be seen serving as a backdrop for a Hart-Parr Model 16-30 in the picture located on pages 42 & 43 of the book Oliver Tractors: History of Oliver, Hart-Parr, Cockshutt & Cletrac Tractors, by Robert N. Phipps and Andrew Morland.)

The tower at the main public entrance to the grounds of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power grounds.

 

Some antique farm implements which interested young Dave were too large for his brooder house museum.  He was also attracted to a large thresher on a neighboring farm.  The 1913 thresher, a 36″ x 60″ Nichols and Shepard Red River Special with Carpenter double wings mounted on the feeder (Serial No. 23410), was owned by the Ziegenhagen brothers and had threshed the small grain crops on many of the neighborhood farms during the first few years following its purchase by the Ziegenhagens in 1913.  Indeed, the Ziegenhagen thresher had been used to thresh grain on the Preuhs farm (then owned by Dave’s grandparents, Carl and Anna [Horrisberger] Preuhs) in the years prior to 1917.

The years following World War I brought about a flurry of road building projects across the nation, with the Ziegenhagen Brothers also becoming involved in the road construction business in LeSueur County, leaving precious little time for them to engage in custom threshing.  As a consequence, the large double-wing Red River Special thresher was employed less and less until it was retired to the machine shed in 1942.

As noted in the Nichols and Shepard article Dave Preuhs wrote for the Fall 1995 issue of the Hart Parr/Oliver Collector, page 8, Dave obtained the Ziegenhagen Brothers’ double-wing Nichols and Shepard Red River Special 36″ x 60″ wooden thresher in 1980.  This was the culmination of the dream that Dave had had ever since childhood.  However, there is more to the story of the Ziegenhagen thresher and the dream of a young boy which began so long ago.

While resting in the machine shed on the Ziegenhagen farm, the thresher was visible from the road and attracted the early attention of young Dave Preuhs.  On every trip to LeCenter, Dave would encourage his parents to take the route which would bring them by the Ziegenhagen farm, three miles east of the Preuhs farm, so that he could catch a glimpse of the large double-wing thresher.  He also listened carefully to the stories the older generation of neighbors told about the large thresher.  Wouldn’t it be fine if that big thresher could once again be put into action for everybody to see?

Although during his childhood on the farm Dave’s parents had used a combine for small grain harvesting, he did have early memories of a thresher in action.  At the age of five, Dave’s parents took him to a local threshing show put on by “Steam Engine Joe” Rynda of Montgomery, Minnesota.  The show was held each year in the 1940s and 1950s on the Rynda farm.  (Readers may have seen this farm in modern days on the western edge of the City of Montgomery, Minnesota, where many old steam engines still sit out in the yard.)  Dave has distinct memories of Joe Rynda feeding an old wooden hand-fed thresher.  At the show, Dave remembers that two women dressed in old-fashioned long dresses stood on the platform, one on either side of Steam Engine Joe, and cut the bands on the bundles as he fed the loose bundles into the thresher.

These early memories of Steam Engine Joe Rynda further stimulated Dave’s thoughts of making the Ziegenhagen thresher the center of a “living museum.”  From these early childhood fantasies would grow the present LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show located on its own grounds within eyesight of the Preuhs farm.

Although Dave could not have consciously foreseen all of the details of the future LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show at the age of ten, and although he would have other experiences with other threshers which would continue to mold his childhood dream, it is significant that he would use the term “museum,” indicating that the public would be invited to come see the exhibits in this museum.  This childhood fantasy was clearly linked to the dream of seeing the Ziegenhagen thresher operating, just as he had seen the threshers operating at the Joe Rynda threshing show.  Together, these ideas indicate that even in childhood the broad outlines of a public threshing show built around the Ziegenhagen thresher were already in his mind.  Although young Dave may not have been totally cognizant of the event, the foundation of the future LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show had already been laid.

As related in his article, Dave’s first opportunity to work on a threshing crew was in 1965.  The thresher being used at that time was a 28″ x 46″ all-steel Red River Special (Serial No. 53290) owned by Paul and Ida Mae (Schultz) Bessel of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (maternal grandparents of Dave’s future wife, Carol [Madlo] Preuhs).  According to the serial number index for Nichols and Shepard threshers in the back of C.H. Wendel’s book, Oliver/Hart Parr, page 295, the thresher is a 1946 model.  In 1965, the Bessel thresher was powered by an Oliver 88 owned by Willy (Sonny) Bessel.  This one experience of actually working around an operating thresher gave another strong boost to Dave’s lifelong interest in threshing.  Unfortunately, 1965 was destined to be the last year that the Bessel thresher would be used in active threshing.

In 1968, Dave married Carol Madlo and together they settled on the Preuhs farm to take over the farming operations.  After six years of talking about a threshing bee with his neighbors, Dave was successful in convincing some of them to help him host the project on his farm in August 1974.  Being unable to obtain the Ziegenhagen thresher, Dave was able to obtain the Bessel 28″ x 46″ Red River Special.  Antique farm machinery at this first threshing bee was rather limited, consisting of a 1926 John Deere D (spoker) owned by Eldon Braun, Dave’s 1928 John Deere D, and a 1929 Model A Ford truck owned by Al Easterlund.  Total attendance at the threshing bee consisted of 22 people from the immediate neighborhood.  However, a good time was had by all, and the neighbors agreed to have another threshing bee the next year.

The 1975 threshing bee was held on the Edwin Reddemann farm. (Readers of the Hart-Parr/Oliver Collector magazine are familiar with the Ed Reddemann farm from the descriptions contained in the article on the Horn Manufacturing Company in the Winter 1995 issue, page 20.)  This Show was advertised for the first time in local newspapers and by means of 8½” x 10″ xeroxed leaflets.  (Copies of these leaflets and posters from subsequent years of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show have been lovingly preserved by Pioneer Power member, Mike Bluhm, in frames behind glass.  These framed posters now hang on the north wall of the new Pancake House on the showgrounds of the Association.  Visitors to the show pass by these cabinets as they wait in line for their pancake breakfast each day of the show.)  Featured at this show for the first time was a 1927 Hart-Parr Model 18-36 tractor (Serial No. 27652) Dave had obtained in 1974.  The engine was stuck on the little Hart-Parr when he bought it, but over the winter Dave had restored the tractor in time for it to be shown at the 1975 threshing bee.  Dave’s Model 18-36 was a nice match for the Bessel thresher and produced more than enough horsepower needed to operate the Bessel 28 x 46 Red River Special.  (A Model 18-36 tractor delivered 42.85 hp at the belt pulley as a maximum on kerosene at the Nebraska tests in 1926.  See Test No. 128 on page 54 of Nebraska Tractor Tests by C.H. Wendel.)  Furthermore, because the Hart-Parr and Nicols and Shepard companies were merged with the Oliver Chilled Plow Company on April 1, 1929, the Model 18-36 tractor was entirely appropriate to match with the Bessel all-steel Nichols and Shepard 28″ x 46″ thresher.  In preparation for the 1975 threshing bee, some of the neighbors built a stack from bundles of oats.  This was the first year that grain was threshed from a stack.  The 40-60 persons in attendance saw stack threshing demonstrated with the fine running, but as yet unpainted, Model 18-36 powering the Bessel thresher.  Exhibits at the show also included several stationary gas engines and a few other tractors.

Adopting the name “Dresselville-Tyrone Threshers” for the first time, the 1976 threshing bee was moved back to the Preuhs farm located on the southern boundary of Tyrone township.  Desselville was the name of an old community located southwest of the Preuhs farm.  Although Dresselville was largely a memory by 1976, the unincorporated village had at one time consisted of a school, church, post office, and creamery.  (The building that housed the Dresselville creamery was moved to the LeSueur County Pioneer Power showgrounds in 1980 where it became part of the permanent collection of exhibits.  Indeed, prior to 1993, the Dresselville creamery was used each morning of the annual show to house the pancake breakfast.)  The 1976 Dresselville-Tyrone threshing bee was advertised by means of a limited number of posters which were circulated locally.  About 100 people attended the August 8, 1976 threshing bee.  The crowd was treated to the first appearance of the 45-65 Avery tractor owned by the Budenski brothers of West Concord, Minnesota, and treated for the first time to field demonstrations of corn shredding and plowing.  In addition, Orbe Reddemann of rural LeSueur, Minnesota,  operated his Ottawa cross-cut log saw for the first time.  In all, 15 tractors, 20 stationary gas engines, and 4 antique cars and trucks were exhibited.  A donation box was used to collect contributions from those in attendance.

Finally, on March 1, 1977, seventeen neighbors interested in the Dresselville/Tyrone threshing bee met in the large farm shop on the Eldon Braun farm and decided to incorporate into a non-profit association.  Upon the suggestion of Ivan Guertin, the association was called the “LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association.”  It was thought that the name would enlarge the appeal of the association beyond the immediate Dresselville/Tyrone area to all of LeSueur County.  Little did the founders realize, but the Association would soon have national appeal.  (There is an interesting interview captured on tape by Patti Lehner of LeSueur, Minnesota, of a man attending the 1988 show who was from Santa Marie, California.  During the interview, the man stated that even though he was from California, he and his wife had attended the Pioneer Power Show in the years prior to 1988, noting for the camera that the 1988 show had “grown a lot” over the previous Pioneer Power Shows that he had attended.)  At the founding meeting of the Association, Dave Preuhs was elected president; Eldon Braun, vice-president; Ivan Guertin, secretary; and Bill Thelemann, treasurer.  Also elected as members of the Board were Frank Boehne, Ken Braun, John Pollack, Brian Guertin, Glendon Braun, and Wayne Schwartz.  Other charter members at the first meeting were Monty Braun, Jim Schultz, LeRoy Thelemann, and Maurice Thelemann.  All necessary papers were filed with the State of Minnesota for non-profit, tax-exempt status.  The 1977 show was scheduled for the first full weekend in August, with advertising greatly expanded.  Many large posters were printed and distributed over a much larger area than the year before and admission/advertising buttons were ordered and sold to the public for the first time.  The 1977 show was advertised nationally in Gas Engine magazine, Engines and Engineers magazine, and Iron Man magazine.  With that, the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association was finally born.  Membership grew at a steady rate.  Monthly meetings of the Association were held at various places; sometimes even the granary on the picturesque Preuhs farm was employed for this purpose.

The enlarged two-day Show in 1977, now re-scheduled for the last weekend in August, was again held at the Dave Preuhs farm.  An estimated crowd of 300 people attended.  Among the 50 tractors exhibited at this show were both of Dave Preuhs’ Hart-Parrs–the Model 18-36 and the new Model 15-30 (Serial No. 17892) which Dave had purchased in December of 1976 as his second Hart-Parr restoration project.  The 1977 show was the first to feature a sawmill demonstration with Mike Kovich (now deceased) of Jordan, Minnesota, bringing his portable sawmill.  During the day he demonstrated the process of sawing logs for all those in attendance.  Two steam engines were operated and paraded for the first time.  In addition to the 50 tractors, 75 gas engines were exhibited in the grove on the Preuhs farm.  (Many of the exhibits at the 1977 Show, including the Mike Kovich sawmill, can be seen in the movies contained in the second hour portion of Tape #2 of the International Harvester collection.)

By 1978, the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Show was rapidly becoming a fixture.  Regularly scheduled each year on the last weekend of August, the Show competed for the public’s attention with the first weekend of the Minnesota State Fair.  However, as the State Fair and its prime attraction “machinery hill” metamorphosed from a rural orientation of tractors and combines to a more suburban orientation of lawn mowers and snow blowers, the Pioneer Power Show represented an attractive alternative to many State Fair attendees.   As a result, there was a boom in attendance and exhibits at the 1978 show.  This large crowd was all the more remarkable considering the fact that four to five inches of rain fell on Saturday night, turning the Preuhs farm ground into a sea of mud for the second day of the show.

With the tremendous growth, it was clear that the show had outgrown the Preuhs farm.  Accordingly, a 20-year lease agreement was made with Ervin Dahn, a local farmer, to rent his large wooded grove about two miles south of the Preuhs farm as the permanent site for the show.  In preparation for the 1979 Show, the members constructed loading docks on the west side of the Dahn grove near the main entrance to the prospective show grounds.  Additionally, a building with a kitchen was constructed on the property by Orbe Reddemann.  This shop became known as Orbee’s Eat Shop, serving food to the public beginning in 1979.  (This same building houses the kitchen which is currently operated by the LeSueur Lions Club.)  The year 1979 was another year of large growth for the Pioneer Power Association.  Although attendance remained at about the 500 figure, exhibits were 50% higher than they had been at the 1978 Show.  Memberships in the Association rose by about 50%–from 55 to 75 dues-paying members.

Following the Show in 1979, Dave traded a Model T Ford truck for his third Hart-Parr–a 1929 Model 28-50 (Serial No. 71313).  Still, as the Show grew from year to year, it became apparent that people were attracted by the opportunity to see big antique machinery at work.  For Dave this meant a big thresher, and the thresher that he had in mind was the Ziegenhagen 36″ x 60″ wooden Red River Special thresher.  He had attempted earlier to restore an all-steel 36″ x 60″ Red River Special thresher with Garden City double-wings on the feeder; however, this thresher was found to be too rusted for restoration.  Thus, another all-steel 36″ x 60″ Red River Special thresher was found and brought to the Pioneer Power grounds.  This thresher also had Garden City double-wings and was used in field demonstrations at the Pioneer Power Shows immediately preceding 1980.  It threshed well; however, it was not as old as the wooden Ziegenhagen thresher and its history was not as related to the neighborhood around the Pioneer Power grounds as was the history of the Ziegenhagen thresher.  Accordingly, Dave still sought the proper opportunity to purchase the Ziegenhagen thresher.  This opportunity finally arose in the summer of 1980, when Dave was able to purchase the Ziegenhagen thresher.

After concluding a deal with Arnie Ziegenhagen, the day finally arrived when Dave would retrieve the big wooden thresher that had first caught his attention so many years before.  With the help of his friend, neighbor, and fellow-founding member of the Pioneer Power Association John Pollack, Dave set out to get the large thresher from the machine shed where it had rested since 1942.  As related in Dave’s article, he and John Pollack first had to cut down the tree that had grown up in front of the machine shed since the thresher had first been put there for storage.  After that task was accomplished, the thresher was pulled out of the shed and secured for transfer down the road to the Preuhs farm.

Pulling up into the yard of the Preuhs farm, the grand old wooden thresher was once again on a farm it had left some 63 years before.  As a result of the relatively low number of actual operational hours on the thresher and its storage indoors, the thresher remained in very good condition.  Therefore, only a minimal amount of work needed to be performed on the thresher in the weeks before the 1980 Show.

At the 1980 Show, the large Ziegenhagen thresher took the primary role of doing the stack threshing during the field demonstrations.  Standing on top of the Ziegenhagen thresher in front of the 500 people who attended, Dave must have felt that his childhood dream had come true in a way that exceeded any expectations.

The Melounek-Deutsch sawmill in its new building was added to  the grounds of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association in time for the 1983 Annual Show.

 

The large Red River Special thresher continued to occupy a primary role at the Show until 1991, when it yielded that position to the 36″ x 58″ Case thresher with a double-wing feeder donated to the Association by the Baumgard Brothers of Good Thunder, Minnesota. The Baumgard thresher had been newly restored by LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association member, Doug Hager, of Good Thunder, Minnesota, in anticipation of the fact that the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association would be hosting the  J.I. Case Collectors’ Summer Convention during the August 1991 Threshing Show.

The seventh page of the article on Dave Preuhs and the Pioneer Power Association as published in the Oliver/Hart Parr Collection magazine.  Dave Preuhs can be seen standing on top of the “Bessell thresher.”

 

At some future date when the Hart-Parr/Oliver Collectors come to LeSueur for their summer convention, they are sure to see the Ziegenhagen Red River Special occupying the center stage between the stacks on the Showgrounds.  With the help of this article, readers may also understand the additional significance of the large thresher to the history of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association itself.

Threshing with the Volkart Brothers in Beaver Township, Fillmore County, Minnesota

Threshing with the Volkart Brothers in Beaver Township, Fillmore County, Minnesota

by

Brian Wayne Wells

As published in the September/October 1995 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine

Younger brother, Fredrick Volkart feeding bundles of oats into the large 42 inch x 62 inch Case thresher. n the Volkart Bros. farm in 1948
Younger brother, Fredrick Volkart feeding bundles of oats into the large 42 inch x 62 inch Case thresher on the Volkart Bros. farm in 1948

Like most young men, Erhardt and Fred Volkart were anxious to strike out on their own.  In the early 1890s, the two boys were living with their parents Henry and Katherine (Wenig) Volkart, who were renting the Pollard farm (now the Dean Hamlin farm) in the “old town” area north of the village of LeRoy, Minnesota (1890 pop. 523). After saving money for the purchase of their own farm, Erhardt (nicknamed Hard) and Fred Volkart purchased a 160-acre farm in Beaver Township, located in Fillmore County on the border with Mower County.  They were also able to buy another 160 acres just across the road to the west in Mower County.  This second piece of land was without a building site and was covered with timber and pasture land, therefore not much of the land was arable.  It was Fred’s dream that some day he would build a house and building site in the timber on this piece of land; however, that would never happen.

The time was right for buying land.  The United States economy was just emerging from the Panic of 1893.  This recession was the worst in United States history up until that time, but by 1896, however, the rural areas of the nation were starting to come back to life.  Indeed, the rural economy would come roaring back!  Propelled by the growing influence of the young nation in the world economic markets and the resultant increase in exports of agricultural products to those markets, farm prices began to increase in 1896 and kept climbing in 1897.  By 1897, commentators were stating that agriculture in the United States was entering a “new age” of prosperity.  (Harold U. Faulkner, Politics, Reform and Expansion: 1890-1900, [Harper Brothers Publishers: New York, NY, 1959] p. 60.)  It was the start of a period of relative prosperity which would be called the “golden age” of American agriculture and would extend all the way to 1921.

Older brother, Erhardt (nicknamed "Hard") Volkart stands on the top of the 40 x 62 inch Case thresher on the Volkart Bros. farm in 1948.
Older brother, Erhardt (nicknamed “Hard”) Volkart stands on the top of the 40 x 62 inch Case thresher on the Volkart Bros. farm in 1948.

Like their neighbors in Beaver township, the Volkart Brothers operated a diversified farming operation involving crop rotation which included the small grains of wheat and oats.  For the threshing of their small grains, Fred and Erhardt would collaborate with their neighbor to the west, Matt and Doretta (Spencer) Klassy.  At that time, the Klassys farmed the 400-acre Bagan farm which bordered the Volkart farm to the east.  (The Bagan farm is described in an article by Fred Hanks, “Survivors from the Past,” January/February 1994 Belt Pulley, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 14.  The Bagan farm would eventually be sold to Howard Hanks, father of Fred Hanks and grandfather of the author, in 1945.)

Almost immediately the boys set about improving their farming operation.  In 1896, Hard and Fred built a new barn on their farm.  Later they added other buildings to the site.  Sometime after 1904, when J.I. Case introduced its new line of all-steel threshers, the Volkart Brothers, together with Matt Klassy, purchased one of the new Case all-steel threshers.  They also obtained a steam engine for powering the thresher.  Matt Klassy and later his son Frank became the engineers of the threshing crew, responsible for the operation and care of the steam engine.  Even after Matt Klassy sold the Bagan farm in 1908 and moved to another farm 2-1/2 miles to the west of the Volkart farm, the Klassys and the Volkarts continued to thresh together.

The huge Model 35-70 Minneapolis tractor weighed 22,500 pounds (lbs.) and actually made the ground shake when it passed along the road at its travelling speed of 2.1 mph.
The huge Model 35-70 Minneapolis tractor weighed 22,500 pounds (lbs.) and actually made the ground shake when it passed along the road at its travelling speed of 2.1 mph.

Sometime after the turn of the century, Hard and Fred’s mother, Katherine, died and their father moved to the Volkart farm to stay with his sons.  Later on, another brother, Henry Jr., moved to the farm with his new bride Frieda (Linde) Volkart where they were to raise seven children: George, born in 1912; Wilber (nicknamed Webb), born in 1914; Grace, born in 1916; Raymond (nicknamed Bud), born in 1918; Lorrie, born in 1922; Gerald, (nicknamed Gett and a long time Belt Pulley subscriber until his recent death), born in 1924; and Beverly, born in 1926.  One day while on the farm, the owner of an 80-acre piece of wooded land to the east of the Volkart farm, and directly across the road north of the Bagan farm, approached Henry Jr., offering to sell his land.  Henry Jr. offered him a “low ball” price of $10 per acre, expecting that the seller would walk away.  To Henry’s surprise, the seller immediately accepted the price and the Volkarts found themselves farming yet more land in addition to doing the neighborhood threshing.

On the extreme right side of this picture can be seen the un-styled John Deere Model G owned by Gaylord Aspel in the summerf of 1948.
On the extreme right side of this picture can be seen the un-styled John Deere Model G owned by Gaylord Aspel in the summerf of 1948.

For many years the Volkart/Klassey threshing ring became the only ring in the neighborhood.  However, in later years, another smaller threshing ring was started in the neighborhood by John Anderson.  John, and later his son Mel Anderson, used a Case 28″ x 46″ thresher.  Farmers of the neighborhood were either part of one ring or the other.  One of the farmers in the Vokart ring was Gaylord Aspell.  His son Jim Aspell of LeRoy, Minnesota, is nearly the only person left with first-hand memories of threshing on the Volkart crew.  Members of the ring, who formed the crew during threshing season, looked forward to bringing the thresher to the Volkart home place because it was well known in the neighborhood that Henry Jr.’s wife Frieda was a good cook.

Steam power had its short-comings.  Steam engines spewed forth a constant flow of hot cinders which created a real fire hazard during threshing season.  Furthermore, steam engines required constant attention and manpower to maintain a proper head of steam.  To alleviate the potential for fire and to modernize their farming operations, the Volkarts sought to replace their steam engine with a fuel-powered tractor.  In 1914, B.F. Avery introduced a 25-50 model kerosene-powered tractor.  Sometime after the introduction of this tractor, the Volkart Brothers bought one.  The 25-50 was advertised as being able to pull a five or six-bottom moldboard plow at the drawbar in addition to supplying ample horsepower at the belt.  (C.H. Wendel, Nebraska Tractor Tests Since 1920, [Crestline Publishing: Sarasota, Florida 1985] p. 25.)

A restored 1919 Model 25-50 Avery Tractor which looks like the Volkart’s 1914 Avery tractor.

 

With the addition of the 80 acres purchased by Henry Jr., which needed to be cleared and plowed for the first time, the Volkart Brothers reasoned that the Avery could help out a great deal with the plowing of this virgin soil as well as some of the hard pasture soil on the “home place.”  Accordingly, they purchased a 5-bottom Avery plow with the 25-50 tractor.

1914 Avery Company advertisement showing the Avery 25-50 tractor pulling a six bottom plow.

 

Although the 25-50 was a good tractor while it was running, it proved to be a reluctant starter in any season.  Webb Volkart, currently of LeRoy, Minnesota, was an adolescent while the family farmed with the Avery.  He remembers that ether had to be poured into the cups on each of the four cylinders, and then the engine was turned by pulling a large lever attached to the flywheel.  Once started, however, and placed on the belt for the threshing machine, the tractor worked like it was made for belt work–which indeed it was!

About 1926, the Volkart Brothers and Matt Klassy heard about a Minneapolis 35-70 fuel powered tractor and a 40″ x 62″ thresher which were being offered for sale by a farmer in McIntyre, Iowa.  The Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company (MTM) had introduced the 35-70 as the largest tractor in a new line of fuel-powered tractors in 1912.  This huge four-cylinder tractor was one of the largest tractor ever built.  The Model 35-70 was truly big!  It weighed 22,500 lbs and delivered 70 horsepower to the belt.  John Grass Jr., of LeRoy, Minnesota, remembers that when the 35-70 lumbered past at its travelling speed of 2.1 mph, you could feel the ground shake!

img216
The Minneapolis 35-70 tractor purchased by the Volkart Brothers and Frank Klassey, seen here in 1948 powering the 40 x 62 inch Case thresher on the Volkart Bros. farm.

One of these Model 35-70 tractors is currently owned by Frank and Betty Sticha of New Prague, Minnesota, and can be seen powering the Melounek and Deutsch sawmill on the grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association.  (It can be seen at the beginning of the Second Hour portion of Tape #1 of the International Harvester Promotional movies powering the sawmill and can also be seen at the very end of the same tape, as it was the final exhibit in the parade at the Pioneer Power 1992 Show.)  Although most tractors seem to shrink in size from the childhood memories that one has of the same tractors, the Minneapolis 35-70 still seems every bit as big and awesome now as it does in the childhood memories of the author.

The Volkarts and Matt Klassy purchased the huge tractor and drove it the 16 miles home to the Volkart farm–a trip that must have taken all day.  They recognized that the Minneapolis was not a tractor designed for drawbar work in the field; therefore, no attempt was made to use the Minneapolis for plowing as had been done with the Avery.  The Minneapolis was reserved for belt work each year on the huge Case 40″ x 62″ thresher which came with the tractor.

An Aerial view of the Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company factory in Hopkins, Minnesota.

 

Although Case did make a 44″ x 66″ thresher, only a handful of these machines were ever built. For all practical purposes, the 40″ Case machine was the largest thresher available to farmers.  Generally, these large threshers were found in the western grain-belt states of the Dakotas and Montana.  Smaller threshers were generally employed on the diversified farms of the row-crop areas like southeastern Minnesota.  The Volkart Brothers were attracted to the thresher because of the double wing extensions on the feeder and the reputation that the thresher had of being impossible to overload.

A double-wing style of feeder attached to a smaller (36 inch) Case thresher.

 

At that time, stack threshing was common in the LeRoy area.  After cutting and binding the wheat, the farmer would haul the bundles to a central location where the threshing would occur and construct a stack of bundles.  Building the large stack was a technique that had to be learned.  A proper stack would repel the rain and allow the grain to cure, or “sweat,” nearly as effectively as the grain might have done in the small shocks in the field.  The stacks were built just far enough apart to allow the feeder of the thresher to be inserted between the piles so that bundles could be “pitched” into the feeder from both piles simultaneously.  With sufficient wheat or oats, the farmer would build stacks in two rows so that the thresher could be moved ahead in a straight line to the next pair of large stacks once the first pair of stacks was gone.  The bundled grain would then wait on the threshing day.  The advantage of large stacks was that the fields would be cleared of the small grains so that the “under-crop” of hay which may have been planted with the small grain could be allowed to grow unhindered by the shocks as the farmer waited for the thresher to arrive on his farm.

Because stack threshing was typical in the LeRoy area, the Volkart Brothers realized that the double wing attachment to the thresher would be especially useful.  The double wing attachment consisted of two extensions which could be swung out at 90 degree angles on either side of the feeder.  This was a great advantage for stack threshing.  In order to repel rain, stacks were built with a slight downward slope on the outside of the stack.  This meant that the sides of the stack could be slippery for the man or men standing on top of the stack pitching bundles into the feeder.  The double wing attachment to the feeder on threshers basically extended the “feeder” out to the center point of the stack.  The men on the stack could then stand in one place near the center of the stack and place the bundles gently on the wing, rather than “pitching” them into the feeder from the edge of the stack.  The chain apron in the wing would glide the bundles along to the feeder where the bundles would be swallowed up by the thresher.

In 1928, Matt Klassy and his son, Frank,purchased a large 25-45 Case tractor like this tractor which has been converted to a road building roller or packer.

 

In 1928, the Volkarts and Matt Klassy sold the Avery tractor and the 5-bottom plow.  With their share of the proceeds, Matt Klassy and his son Frank bought a Case cross-motor 25-45.  The tractor was called “cross motor” because the engine was mounted on the tractor with its crank shaft parallel to the axles of the tractor.  The cross motor style of tractors were discontinued by Case in 1929 in favor of the more conventional “in-line” engine tractor with the crank shaft of the engine perpendicular to the axles of the tractor which required the conventional-style differential for the rear end of the tractor.

Foremost in the new line of Case tractors for 1929, all of which were equipped with the in-line engine and the differential-style rear end was the Case Model L.  With their share of the proceeds, the Volkart Brothers bought a new Case Model L tractor along with a three-bottom Case plow.  (For 1929, Case had abandoned the light green, dark green, and red color scheme of the cross motor tractors in favor of the gray color with bright red wheels; however, Case continued its old three-color scheme for their implements.)

A pair of Case Model L tractors on rubber tires with rubber-tired Case plows at an antique tractor show.

 

The Volkart’s Case Model L and Case plow operating in the fields would have presented a picture very similar to the beautiful color photo of Herb Wessel’s 1938 Model L and Case Centennial plow on the cover of the September/October 1994 issue of Belt Pulley.  (Readers of Old Abe’s News will recognize another picture of the Herb Wessel Model L and Case plow on page 19 of the Winter 1993 issue of Old Abe’s News.)  The Volkarts found that the Model L could walk right along with the three 16″ bottom plow even in the hardest of old pasture soils.  There was good reason for this ability.  The Model L delivered  30.02 horsepower to the drawbar.  (C.H. Wendel, Nebraska Tractor Tests, p. 63.)  Although the Model L also delivered 44.01 hp. at the belt (nearly as much as the old Avery), the Volkart Brothers never put the Model L on the belt with the 40″ Case thresher.  That duty remained exclusively for the huge Minneapolis.

On June 5, 1929, Matt and Doretta Klassy’s son, Frank, married Esther Lamon and started farming on another farm adjoining his father’s farm.  Because of the ample storage space available on this new farm, the Minneapolis and the thresher came to be stored on the Frank Klassy farm.  Every year, then, the thresher and Minneapolis would travel the 2-1/2 miles down the county and township roads to the Volkart farm after the threshing had been completed on the two Klassy farms.  The route allowed the driver plenty of time to think, given the 35-70’s travelling speed of 2.1 mph.  On these slow trips between farms during threshing season, a little boy (the author) on the Wayne Wells farm would hear the huge tractor and thresher coming down the road, and he would have plenty of time to run to the front yard to see them passing.

These trips were so slow between the various farms of the threshing ring that Webb Volkart remembers one of the men on the crew would start off on the trip to the next farm while the rest of the crew ate dinner.  Then when another member of the crew had finished his dinner, he would drive off in a car to relief the driver of the Minneapolis so that the tractor and thresher could proceed to the next farm without any interruptions.

As the years went by, changes occurred in the Volkart family.  Henry and Frieda’s oldest son George married Beatrice Hall and moved off the Volkart farm and onto his own farm south of LeRoy.  Beatrice (Bee) Volkart still lives in the LeRoy community and has become a historian of the Volkart family, collecting many dates and much written material on the Volkarts and their ancestors.  Their second son, Wilbur (Webb) married Ruby Whiteside on March 26, 1943, then he served in the Armed Forces in the Second World War.  Upon his return from the military in November of 1945, he lived on the Volkart home farm for only about one year before he moved into the town of LeRoy to go to work at the John Deere dealership which was owned by the local Farmers Cooperative.  His parents, Henry Jr. and Frieda, and the rest of their family, also moved to town.  Once again, as it had been in the beginning some 50 years before, the farm was being operated solely by Earhardt and Fred Volkart.

During that period of time, changes had also occurred in the method of harvesting small grains which would doom the large threshers, such as the Volkart thresher.  Farmers began to seek tractors for cultivating their row crops.  Farm equipment companies obliged by producing smaller general purpose tricycle-type tractors.  For threshing, this meant that farmers began to seek smaller 22″ and 28″ threshers that could be powered by these smaller row-crop tractors.  Although the threshing rings still existed, there was a trend toward more numerous and smaller rings with smaller threshers.  With smaller rings, the grain on each farm could be threshed sooner after it had been cut; thus the shocks would not have to stay in the fields as long, and interference with the under-crop of hay would be held to a minimum.This meant the demise of stack threshing in favor of shocking the grain in the fields.

Image result for All Crop Harvester Model 60
The introduction of the Allis-Chalmers All-Crop Harvester in 1928 really spelt the beginning of the end of stationary style threshing grains.

 

However, the real threat to big threshers, and indeed all threshers, came with the introduction of the Allis Chalmers All-Crop Harvester in 1929.  (C.H. Wendel, The Allis Chalmers Story, [Crestline Publishing, Sarasota, Florida 1988], p. 65.)  The small combine was popular from the beginning.  Even as late as the 1950s, despite stiff competition from John Deere, Massey-Harris, Case and International Harvester, one out of three sales of pull-type combines in the nation was an All-Crop Harvester.  (See the Allis-Chalmers promotional movie “Get More, Make More with the 66 Combine” [1957], available from Keith Oltrogge, Box 529, Denver, Iowa 50622-0529, Telephone: (319) 984-5292.)

An advertisement of the new  Allis-Chalmers Model 60 All-Crop Harvester small combine.

 

This nationwide trend toward combines became pronounced in the period of time following the Second World War, as more farms sought the freedom and independence offered by a combine.  The wheat and oats could be harvested when the grain was ripe, rather than having to “wait on the whole neighborhood” to have grain threshed.  One of the first combines in the LeRoy neighborhood around the Volkart farm was the John Deere No. 7 combine brought to the area by Howard Hanks, who moved onto the Bagan farm in 1945.  (This combine is pictured in the article “Wartime Farmall H” in the July/August 1994 Belt Pulley, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 13.)

By 1948, threshing with the Volkart’s 40″ Case thresher powered by the Minneapolis 35-70 was enough of an anachronism that it began to attract the interest of all of the neighbors as a sight that was slowly passing from the scene of North American agriculture.  Busy as he was on the Bagan farm with harvesting in 1948 (See the article “Deering and McCormick Grain Binders” in the May/June 1995 issue of Belt Pulley, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 16), Howard Hanks was sufficiently motivated to get his camera and take pictures of the thresher and Minneapolis tractor operating on the Volkart farm.  In 1976, two of these pictures were published in the LeRoy Independent newspaper along with a story on threshing in the LeRoy area.  These pictures reveal that horses were still being employed during threshing season on the Volkart farm as late as 1948.  Furthermore, the article indicates eight bundle wagons, either pulled by horses or by tractors, were needed that day to keep a steady flow of bundles into the thresher.  Webb Volkart remembers that in earlier years, when the thresher had been set up a substantial distance from the field, up to 16 bundle wagons were needed to keep operations going smoothly at the thresher.

The Volkart brothers sold out their farming operation in the Fall of 1951 and moved into the town of LeRoy, Minnesota, where they lived the remainder of their days with their brother George and his wife Lil (Hansen).  Following the Volkart sale, Frank Klassy and his wife Esther (Lamon) bought a McCormick-Deering 28″ x 46″ thresher in 1952 to do their own threshing, but after two years of farming, Frank put his farm in the Soil Bank government program for ten years and practiced his other profession as a carpenter.  When his farm came out of the Soil Bank in 1964, he rented the farm to the families of John Grass Sr. and Frederick Bhend; however, he continued to live on the farm until his death in 1994.

The story of the Volkart thresher conveniently coincides with the story of the changes that occurred in harvesting of small grains throughout the nation during the first half of the twentieth century, and is similar to that of a great number of farm families.  The fact that part was captured on film helps preserve another chapter in the long history of American agriculture.  It should serve as a lesson to us all about the necessity of saving old pictures and negatives.  Even the most mundane of pictures will, in the future, be very important.

The Wartime Farmall Model H Tractor

The Wartime Farmall Model H Tractor

by

Brian Wayne Wells

As published in the July/August 1994 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine

The supply of tractors and farm machinery was limited during the Second World War because of wartime economic and raw material restrictions.

If the experience of our family is any clue, the Farmall H seems to occupy a unique position in the history of tractor-powered farming.  There seems to have been a great number of H’s built and sold during the Second World War.  However, following the war, and especially into the 1950s, they seem to have been very quickly replaced by tractors which could handle three-bottom plows and four-row cultivators.  Production figures seem to support this conclusion, indicating that production of the H fell off after 1950.  Red Power March/April, Vol. 7, No. 6.

The Famall H was introduced as part of the “Letter Series” tractors in 1939.

The Farmall H was introduced in 1939 and, although the tractor continued in production through 1952 and into 1953, it seems to have served as the primary tractor on a lot of farms for only the very short period of time from 1940 to 1946.  After this time the H was relegated to a secondary role on the farm.  The primary role was taken by three-plow tractors, like the Farmall M.  As has been pointed out in prior articles, Antique Power, November/December, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 15-16, farmers in 1939 were at first reluctant to buy the Farmall M because of the reputation of the F-30.  The F-30 had a reputation for bulkiness, awkwardness and being hard to handle.  Because the M was thought to be the successor to the F-30, sales of the M were not all that they could have been in the early years of production.  This may have inflated the sales of the H which was the successor to the very popular F-20.

The Wartime Farmall H was part of the Arsenal of Democracy on the Home Front.

At any rate, there were a great number of H’s purchased during the Second World War.  Indeed a great number of these wartime H’s are still around today.  The wartime H’s usually stand out because they are fitted with rear wheels which have been cut down from old steel wheels.  As many readers will know, although the H was sold with rear rubber tires prior to the war (notice the reprint of a picture of the showroom of Johnson Brothers Implement in Taylorsville, Illinois, taken in 1941, which is included in the November/December 1993 issue of Red Power, Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 18), during the war the rubber shortages meant that many tractors were once again commonly manufactured with steel rear wheels.

Both sides of the author’s family owned a Farmall H during the war and continued to use the H as the primary row-crop tractor on their respective farms in the same LeRoy, Minnesota neighborhood for a short period of time following the war.  As noted in prior articles, The Belt Pulley January/February 1994, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 14,  the Howard Hanks family moved to the LeRoy, Minnesota area in March of 1945 to purchase a 400-acre farm in Beaver Township of Fillmore County.  This farm was known in the area as the Bagan farm; however, in 1945 the farm was owned by A.E. Rehwaldt.  He sold the “Bagan” farm to the Howard Hanks family.  Though the farm would be legally transferred on March 1, 1945, the agreement was actually reached in the late summer of 1944.  The family moved down to the farm and stayed about 10 days in August of 1944 to do some fall plowing.

These are two 1942 Wartime Farmall Model H’s owned by each side of the current author’s family. In the front is the George Wells Farmall H hitched to the wagon. In the rear is the 1942 Farmall H owned by the Howard Hanks family hitched to the John Deere No. 7A combine. This picture was taken in November of 1947 during the soybean harvest on he Hanks farm.

Albert E. Rehwaldt also owned a 1942 Farmall H which he wanted to sell.  He had purchased this tractor in 1942 under the regulations of the wartime Office of Price Administration (O.P.A.).  He had paid $800.00 for the H.  Under O.P.A. regulations he was prohibited from re-selling the tractor for more than the original cost of the tractor.  Therefore, because the original cost of the tractor was $800.00 in 1942, he was prohibited from selling the H at more than $800.00.  Even as a used tractor, the H was worth more than $800.00 in 1944.

One way for a seller to get a better price for his tractor under the regulations of the O.P.A. was to offer the tractor as part of a contract price for a farm.  The price of the tractor would be submerged in the total price of the package deal for the farm.

In this way the 1942 Farmall H was purchased by the Howard Hanks family in the fall of 1944 together with the Bagan farm.  It was the family’s first row-crop tractor.  With the McCormick-Deering 238 cultivator that came with the H, the family would now be able to cultivate two rows at a time.  The H had an electric starter, electric lights, and the Lift-All hydraulic which was common to Farmalls introduced in 1939.  This 1942 H had steel wheels on the front as well as in the rear.  However, in the fall of 1944, while still living on the Goff farm in Mapleton, Minnesota, the family went shopping in Mankato, Minnesota.  There in Mankato the Hanks boys happened to find a couple of drop center wheels and matching rims for rubber tires for the front end of the Farmall H.  These wheels and rims were purchased and installed on the 1942 H during the spring of 1945.

One of the pictures included with this article shows this 1942 Farmall H in the fall of 1945 with its new wheels and rubber tires on front.  The H is hitched to the  John Deere No. 7 combine.  The picture shows Howard Hanks’ second son (now Reverend) Bruce Hanks preparing to attach the header to the No. 7 combine in preparation for the 1945 soybean harvest.

img203
Bruce Hanks stands near the Model 7A John Deere combine owned by his father, Howard Hanks. The combine is hitched to the Hanks family 1942 Farmall Model H tractor in the fall of 1945. Although the front wheels have been switched to rubber tires as described in this article, but the rear wheels are still the original steel wheels that came on the tractor when new.

In 1946, both the rear wheels of the Farmall H and the wheels of the No. 7 combine were cut down and fitted with rubber tires.  This was necessary because the Hanks family had used the John Deere No. 7 combine to do custom combining in their old neighborhood around the Goff farm in Mapleton in the fall of 1944.  Now they looked forward to supplementing the family income with the same type of custom work in the neighborhood around the Bagan farm.  The combine and H would be on the road between farms; therefore, rubber tires were a much needed improvement.  The task of cutting the steel wheels down to be fitted with rims for rubber tires was performed by Joe and Earl Lamon, blacksmiths in the town of LeRoy, Minnesota.

As compared with the picture of the 1942 Hanks Farmall Model H in the autum of 1946 which has been attached to this article above, this picture of the same 1942 Hanks Farmall H taken a year later during the soybean harvest of the autumn of 1946 reveals that the tractor has been repainted and properly decaled and has had the rear wheels cut down and mounted with rubber tires.
As compared with the picture of the 1942 Hanks Farmall Model H in the autum of 1946 which has been attached to this article above, this picture of the same 1942 Hanks Farmall H taken a year later during the soybean harvest of the autumn of 1946 reveals that the tractor has been repainted and properly decaled and has had the rear wheels cut down and mounted with rubber tires.

Many of the wartime H’s were cut down and fitted with rubber tires in this manner to extend the usable life of the tractor in modern farming operations.  Anyone who has driven one of these H’s will remember that the process was never perfect and usually resulted in the wheels having a slight wobble which became noticeable at high speeds.  The drop center rims for rubber tires on the rear as well as the front was a preferred solution because they were perfectly round and did not wobble at high speeds; however, cutting down of steel wheels was a cheaper alternative.

Although the H had always been a five-speed tractor, when the steel-wheeled version was ordered, International Harvester installed a cap screw on the operator’s platform near the gearshift lever, which would prevent the tractor from accidentally being shifted into 5th gear.  This resulted in the steel-wheeled H being a four-speed tractor with a top speed of 5-1/8 mph.  C.H. Wendel Nebraska Tractor Tests, p. 122.  Custom farming required that tractors and machinery be moved from farm to farm in a hurry.  Transport time was wasted time.  To be sure, the 5-1/8 mph speed was an improvement over the only other tractor owned by the family when they moved to the Bagan farm, a 1931 John Deere D.  (This John Deere D is pictured elsewhere.  Antique Power, May/June 1994, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 22.)  The two-speed 1931 D had a top speed of 3-1/4 mph, (C.H. Wendel Nebraska Tractor Tests, p. 60).  Still, the H was painfully slow on the road, so it was a noteworthy day when the rubber tires were finally mounted on the back in the spring of 1946 and the cap screw on the platform could safely be removed!  Suddenly the top speed of the tractor was increased by more than three times to 16-1/8 mph!

At times, the Hank’s Farmall H performed tasks which were not strictly related to farming operations.  In April of 1947, Bruce Hanks was getting married and leaving the farm.  It had been a wet spring and the roads were in bad shape. The wedding took place on April 2, 1947 at the Little Brown Church in Nashua, Iowa.  (This is the church that inspired the hymn “Little Church in the Wild Wood” where so many weddings have been held.)  After the wedding was over and the bridal party was ready to head out on the honeymoon, it was discovered that some of the luggage had been left back at the house on the Bagan farm in LeRoy.  Howard Hanks headed out after the ceremony in his 1936 Plymouth.  The last mile over the township road (called the “rabbit road south” so as not to be confused with the “rabbit road north!”) leading to the house from the U.S. 56  was so muddy that he did not think he would make it.  However, he did pull up into the yard and did retrieve the luggage.  Rather than set out again in the car he started up the 1942 H which was now outfitted with rubber tires and the fifth gear, and while driving with one hand and holding the luggage with the other, Howard brought the luggage to the corner of U.S. 56 and the rabbit road south where the bridal party awaited their luggage and the start of their honeymoon.  Admittedly, this is an unusual task for a farm tractor, but the Farmall H had saved this most important day!

EPSON MFP image
Prior to electrification of the Hanks farm in late 1949, the 1942 H was used to power the table saw.

As the Farmall H headed back toward the farm on the afternoon of April 2, 1947, Howard Hanks must have been looking out over the fields of the farm with some foreboding.  The economic difficulty caused by the general decline of farm prices following the war would, in 1947, be further intensified by the wet spring which would continue on into the summer.  1947 was beginning to look like a year of crisis for the Hanks family.  Just at they had contracted to make payments on the 400 acre farm (large by comparison for the times) prices and now the weather seemed to be conspiring against their success on the new farm.  The story of the year of 1947 is, however, another story for another time.

The 1942 Farmall H played the leading role on the Hanks farm for the critical year of 1947 and continued to serve in this role until 1951 when it was traded off for a new 1951 Massey-Harris 44 and a four-row cultivator.  This Massey-Harris 44 is described and pictured elsewhere.  The Belt Pulley, July/August 1993, Vol. 6, No. 4.  The Hanks farming operation had moved to three-bottom plow and four-row capacity farming.  At this level of capacity the H was outmoded.

As mentioned above, the author’s father Wayne Wells farmed in the same LeRoy neighborhood.  Wayne Wells’ father George Cleveland Wells had purchased a 160-acre farm only two miles to the west of the Bagan farm in 1936.  George and Louise Schwark Wells and their three sons Floyd, Donald and Wayne, and one daughter Winnefred, moved from a rented farm in Chester, Iowa in the spring of 1936.  George Cleveland Wells was farming 160 acres with a 1931 Farmall Regular which had been purchased in the late fall of 1939.  It had been retrofitted with rubber tires in the front to aid in steering; however, it still had steel wheels in the rear.  George’s No. 2 son Donald Wells (later a fighter pilot in the Navy, now from Seattle and currently restoring a Farmall C and a McCormick grain binder) had been assigned the cold and day-long task in the late fall of 1939 of driving the Regular from the purchase site southwest of LeRoy to the Wells farm northeast of LeRoy.  This was a distance of some 15 to 20 miles.  Although the Regular had rubber tires on the front, the steel lug wheels on the rear meant that Donald had to take all the back roads and stay off the cement and asphalt highways.  This further lengthened the trip.  At the same time, the Wells family had purchased a new John Deere Model 82 two-bottom plow for use with the Regular.

In 1942, a new Farmall H had been ordered by a neighbor, Mel Anderson, under the regulations of the O.P.A.  However, when it arrived he had decided not to buy the tractor.  Mel then offered to let George Wells buy the H in his place.  (The only picture that exists of the George Wells 1942 Farmall H is the picture at the top of this article.)  Because it was known that obtaining a tractor was becoming an arduous task, even in that first year of the Second World War, George Wells knew that he had better act while the opportunity was open.  Therefore, three years after purchasing the Regular the Wells family decided to trade off the 1931 Regular and the McCormick Deering Model 229 cultivator (C.H. Wendel 150 Years of Intenational Harvester, p. 101) on the purchase price of this new Farmall H while the opportunity presented itself.

Brian Wells & 1944 Famall H plowing 4th picture August 1993
The current author plows with No. 173093 on the grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Assoc.

The George Wells 1942 H was a very good tractor.  It had lights, an electric starter, and the Lift-All hydraulic system.  Furthermore it had factory-mounted drop center rims for rubber tires on the front as well as the rear.  The tractor was accompanied by a two-row model 238 International Harvester cultivator.    This tractor was a big improvement over the Regular in that it had the worm gear type of steering on top of the steering column.  Driving the H was a much safer proposition than the Regular with its bevel gear type of steering which frequently caused the steering wheel to break loose from the operator’s grasp upon hitting a rock with the front tires.  When driving the Regular, you always made sure your thumb was on the outside of the steering wheel!  Also, the Regular was not the tractor for installing a steering knob on the steering wheel!

The Wells family found that the H was a good match for the newly acquired Model 82 John Deere two-bottom plow.  Following George and Louise Wells’ retirement and move in the town of LeRoy, Minnesota in 1947, their third and youngest son, Wayne A. Wells,  took over operation of the home farm from his parents.  The 1942 Farmall  Model H continued to serve as the only tractor in the Wells farming operation until 1950 when it was traded for a new Farmall M, a new three-bottom Little Genius plow (Wendel p. 229), a new six-foot McCormick-Deering Model 25 mower and a new 438 four-row cultivator.  Together with a used Model 112 four-row corn planter, also purchased in 1950, the Wells family moved to four-row and three bottom capacity farming.  Consequently, the day of the Farmall H had passed for both the Wells and Hanks family farming operations.

However, fond memories remain of farming with the Farmall H in the years during and immediately following the Second World War.  The Wells family is currently restoring a 1944 Farmall H (Serial No. 173,093).  It helps us capture some of the sights and sound of farming as conducted by both sides of our family during the period of time from 1942 until 1951 when the Farmall H was the leading row-crop tractor on both farms.

Wayne A. Wells, on left, attaching the hitch of the trailer, purchased No. 173093 on the extreme left side of the picture from Fred Netz, on the right holding the Oliver plow.
Wayne A. Wells, on left, attaching the hitch of the trailer, purchased No. 173093 on the extreme left side of the picture from Fred Netz, on the right holding the Oliver plow.

No. 173093 was purchased from Fred and Jan (Miner) Netz of Traverse Township in Nicollet County, Minnesota. Fred and Jan Netz were teachers  in the Nicollet Public School system, in Nicollet, Minnesota.  However they also worked a small farm in traverse Township where they raised  cattle and had a large garden.  They used No. 173093 on their farm to till the garden and to put up hay for the winter to feed their cattle.

jan-netz-raking-hay-on-the-netz-farm-with-the-1944-farmall-n-serial-no-173093-and-catching-a-few-rays
Jan Netz raking hay on the Fred and Jan (Miner) Netz farm in Traverse Township, Nicollet County, Minnesota.
Jan Netz "catches some rays in a bikini while raking hay on the Fred and Jan Netz farm.
Jan Netz “catches some rays” in a bikini bathing suit  while raking hay on the Fred and Jan Netz farm with the 1944 Farmall Model H bearing the serial number 173093..

The 1944 H (serial No. 173,093) purchased by the Wells family in the summer of 1993, however, differs from the 1942 H’s owned by the Wells and Hanks families in the late 1940s in that the current 1944 H has the optional disc brakes which International Harvester offered.  This option is rare enough that some observers have thought that this 1944 tractor was actually a Super H.  The disc brakes on the 1944 H are quite different in outward appearance than the disc brakes which were offered standard on the Super series of Farmalls.  The pictures included with this article show this difference.

The 1944 disc brakes used on No. 173093 are quite different from the disc brakes used on the Super series Farmalls manufactured in the 1950s. However, the linkage for the disc brakes appear quite similar to the linkage for the band brakes.
The 1944 disc brakes used on No. 173093 are quite different from the disc brakes used on the Super series Farmalls manufactured in the 1950s. However, the linkage for the disc brakes appear quite similar to the linkage for the band brakes.

However, working mechanism of both the optional disc brakes offered before 1953 and the standard equipment disc brakes offered after that date operate by the same means.  As the brake pedal is applied, the balls inside the actuating disc are forced up a little incline, following a path.  As this occurs, the balls cause the two halves of the actuating disc to spread apart and rub against the asbestos-lined discs which are attached to the counter shaft of the transmission.  This slows the tractor.

The Farmall disc brakes have had a bad reputation with farmers and tractor restorers dating from the time they first came out as standard equipment on the Super series of the Farmalls in 1953.  The problems with disc brakes seem to fall into two categories.  One problem seems to involve the glazing over of the surfaces of the asbestos-lined discs.  Mel Duerst, who was a mechanic at the Thompson (later Phillipson) International Harvester Implement dealership in New Glarus Wisconsin in the 1950s, reports that many of the first disc brake models had problems due to operator’s riding the brakes and glazing over the asbestos surfaces.  Mr. Duerst, who now lives in Sheridan, Wyoming, remembers that it became official International Harvester policy to warn operators against riding the brakes on the new Super series tractors.  He feels that the disc brakes should be as effective as the old band brakes were under normal circumstances.

Charles (Dick) Smith used the new Super M’s in the early 1950s for plowing on his farms located in western Iowa near Red Oak.  On one hillside portion of his land plowing created problems for the tractor operator.  To keep the tractor plowing straight around the slope required the operator to ride the brake of the Super M’s until the brake housings became discolored and smoked from the excess heat.  Mr. Smith dismantled the disc brakes on his Super M’s each night after this hard usage to clean up the actuator, roller balls and the paths followed by the balls when the brakes were engaged.  He humorously injects that he became pretty familiar with the disc brakes during this period of time!  He acknowledges that plowing on the hillside areas was abnormally rough on the braking system of his Super M’s.  He also concurs that under normal conditions the disc brakes should be as effective as the older band brakes.  For the restorer, the problem of glazed asbestos surfaces of the discs is solved by various methods of roughing up the surface of the asbestos pads on the discs.

The other problem common to disc brakes is that they have a tendency to lock up.  This problem appears to be caused by dirt and rust building up inside the actuating discs of the brake.  The dirt and rust interfere with the balls in the actuating discs rolling back to the released position when the brake pedal is released.  Rust is created inside the actuating discs when the tractor is left exposed to the elements for a good portion of its life.  This problem should not create difficulty for restorers, however, as most restored tractors tend to be stored inside out of the elements.

One other cause of the disc brakes locking up is that the balls inside the actuating discs will create a slight depression in the path the ball is supposed to follow when the brake pedal is released.  The ball gets stuck in the depression and the brake is locked.  The process of creating the depression is called brinelling and is described in an article by Lester Larson in a recent issue of Antique PowerAntique Power, January/February 1994, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 16.

mark-testing-1944-h-on-cyril-miller-dynamometer
Mark Wells, brother of the current author, tests the horsepower of No. 173093 on the dynamometer owned by Cyril Miller, seen in the background in a cowboy hat. This picture was taken at the 1994 Pioneer Power annual show.

It also seems that the lack of adjustment of brakes will lead to problems with disc brakes.  The Owner’s Manual for the Farmall H instructs the owner to adjust brakes so that free movement of the pedal is limited to only 1-1/2″.  Farmall H Owners Manual, p. 59.  As a boy growing up on the Wells farm in the 1950s, the author remembers few tractors which were adjusted to this standard.  With band brakes, proper adjustment was not so crucial.  If the operator kept pressing down on the pedal, sooner or later the brakes would engage.  However, as noted above, the disc brakes are operated by balls following a path inside the actuating discs.  If the brakes were not fully engaged by the time that the balls reached the end of the path, further pressing on the brake pedal would be meaningless.  The message to restorers is that proper adjustment of brakes is much more important for disc brakes than for band brakes.

In about 2003 the Wells family agreed to let the 1944 H become a working tractor as a part of the Melounek-Deutsch Saw Mill on the grounds of the LeSueur County Pioneer Power Association.   As such the 1944 Farmall bearing the serial No, 173093 was fitted with a buck saw which is used for cross cutting “slab” wood (a by product of sawing logs into lumber) into useable pieces for burning in the numerous steam engines located around the grounds during the August show.

The Melounek-Deutsch sawmill in its new building on the grounds of the LeSueur county Pioneer Power Association in 1983.
The Melounek-Deutsch sawmill in its new building on the grounds of the LeSueur county Pioneer Power Association in 1983.

In the years since this article was originally written, No. 173093 with its “buzz” saw, or “buck saw,” mounted on the front continues to be employed by the “Sawmill gang” on the grounds of the LeSueur Pioneer Power Association to reduce the slab wood by-product of the sawmill.  Indeed just prior to the 2016 August Show on the Pioneer Power grounds, the current author and Mark Wells, brother of the current author had a chance to work with the sawmill gang cutting up slab wood with No. 173093 and its buzz saw and putting the resulting fire wood into the Anthony wagon box mounted on the Ralph Nash homemade wagon gear which was another restoration project of the Wells family.  (The story of the Anthony wagon is told in the article on the Anthony Company of Streator, Illinois which is also contained on this website.)

In the absence of No. 173093, the Wells family purchased another 1946 Farmall H which had been part of a fleet of tractors owned by the Campbell Soup Company of  Napoleon, Ohio.  This tractor bears the serial No. 219955.  It is intended that this tractor will be changed to make it look like the George Wells  1942 Farmall H shown at the top of this article.  Toward this end, a pair of non-adjustable front wheels were purchased in the town of Charm, Ohio in the Amish Colonies in October of 2013.  Over that winter of 2013-2014, the older standard equipment seat of No. 219955 was renovated and in the summer of 2014 No. 219955 was transported to Minnesota to be stored in the new Wells family workshop located at 764 Elmwood Street in LeSueur.

Closeup of the grill of No. 215599 reveals a very faint numeral "7" on the side of the grill which betrays the tractor's history as a fleet tractor for the Campbell
Closeup of the grill of No. 215599 reveals a very faint numeral “7” on the side of the grill which betrays the tractor’s history as a fleet tractor for the Campbell Soup Company.

During the summer of 2015 a new wiring harness, battery box and a new muffler were added to No. 219955 and the tractor began to look a lot more like the George Wells 1942 Farmall H.  This is the role that this tractor this tractor is currently playing.  However, the does have its own interesting history as a member of a fleet of tractors owned and operated by the Campbell Soup Company of Napoleon, Ohio.  Accordingly, an additional article is being planned for the actual history of No. 219955.

 

Researching Rights

Researching Rights

by

Brian Wayne Wells, Juris Doctor

As published in the September/October 1993 issue of

Belt Pulley Magazine, Volume 6, Number 5

It has come to my attention that some researchers and collectors of antique tractor information have occasionally been denied access to information[1] that is held in various collections around the country.  Some of these collections are held in publicly funded institutions.  When there is a denial of access to public information held in institutions which are even partially funded[2] by the federal or  state government, the law provides a remedy in the form of the Freedom of Information Act. 

            To clarify this legal situation for my fellow antique tractor enthusiasts, I thought it appropriate to share some of my experiences with lawsuits brought under Freedom of Information Acts of the various states for release of public records.  For an analysis of representative samples of state Freedom of Information Acts, I have randomly selected the state laws of Iowa[3] and Wisconsin.[4]  Although, there are some differences between the laws of the various states with regard to freedom of information law, these two states are representative of the majority of states in the area of freedom of information. 

            Both Iowa[5] and Wisconsin[6] declare that the policy of the state is to allow the greatest possible access to all public documents.  This is a recognition that public documents belong to the public, and that institutions in possession of the documents are merely “custodians” of the documents.[7]  The public’s access to public documents is to be unrestricted, except for the limitations imposed by the state statutes and common law.             Both Iowa and Wisconsin statutes provide exceptions to the law for police records of ongoing investigations[8] and trade secrets of corporations.[9]  Wisconsin also exempts computer programs from their Freedom of Information Act.[10]  Iowa attempts to go much farther and extends the list of exemptions to include records of appraisals of private property,[11] industrial information on a company with whom the state is negotiating,[12] information concerning the procedures used to control disturbances in prisons[13] and records of purchases of liquor at state-operated liquor stores.[14]  The Iowa law even seeks to exempt library records containing information on material which has been requested or checked out by patrons of the library.[15]  Iowa may appear to have included so many exemptions to the law that the exemptions are the rule rather than the law itself.  Indeed, in the exemption of communications contained in public records without the permission of the person making the communication[16] and in exemption of governmental reports which would give advantage to competitors,[17] the whole intent of the law seems to have been reversed.  Suddenly there appears to be more public records exempted from public inspection than are available to the public.  This is a deception, however, because the statutes of Iowa have been greatly modified by court decisions and the opinions of the Iowa Attorney General.[18]  The result is that Iowa is not much different from Wisconsin or other states with a strong law in favor of researchers of public documents.

            In summary, researchers of antique tractors seeking to look at and copy records held in public institutions should not be put off by over-zealous public librarians who attempt to deny him/her access to the records based on exemptions in the statutes.  Chances are strong that the librarian does not know the law well enough to understand the full impact (or lack of impact) of these exemptions.  Even if the librarian has some understanding of the statutes, chances are they have not watched the effect of court decisions on the exemptions in the statutes. 

                                                                             II

            In case this article seems to be too critical of public librarians, I should mention that this article also draws heavily from the research I conducted while employed in Mississippi at the Office of the Secretary of State as a defender of the right of public officials to deny public access to certain records. 

            In that case, the Mississippi Republican Party sued the Mississippi State Commission of Public Safety for “access”[19] to the lists of all drivers license records held by the State.  The lawsuit was brought to court under the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983.[20]  This is Mississippi’s Freedom of Information Act.  At that time I was attempting to support the position of the Department of Public Safety and to prevent the “access” or release of driver’s license records.  We felt that the state had a duty to the people who held driver’s licenses to protect their addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers (Mississippi uses the Social Security number as the license number), blood type and other information that may appear on the driver’s license records from people who may use this information for fraudulent purposes.  Although the Republican Party merely wanted the lists to send out political information, their legal position in court was that “anyone” should be able to have this information.  We felt this position was extreme and would be open to abuse. 

            To make a long story short, the State of Mississippi lost that case and had to provide a copy of all driver’s license records to the Republican Party.  The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the information was a “public record” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act and therefore the public must be granted access to the information.[21]      If the State of Mississippi was forced to allow access to addresses and other current and personal information contained on driver’s licenses, consider how strong the claim of the researcher or antique tractor collector would be when he/she attempts to look at or copy old tractor pictures, documents and other information on old tractors which contains no current personal information.  There is no reasonable way that the exemptions contained in either the Iowa, Wisconsin or Mississippi law can be applied to tractor advertising, pictures, serial numbers, etc., held in public archives and libraries that antique tractor enthusiasts would be interested in reading and copying. 

                                                                            III

            The sole responsibility of the custodian of records to which the public has a right of access is the “preservation” of those records.  To this end, the custodian may adopt rules to prevent damage or disorganization of the records;[22] however, these rules may not be used to deny public access to those records.[23]  In both Iowa and Wisconsin, the right of public access includes the right to obtain a copy of the records.[24]  Such copying may be done by the custodian or under the supervision of the custodian to prevent damage or disorganization.[25]  However, if the copying is to be done by the custodian, the quality of the copies of documents, pictures and audio or video tape provided by the custodian is to be as good as possible.[26] 

            The custodians of the documents are allowed to charge a fee for their expenses involved in locating, preparing and copying of public records.[27]  If copies are requested by mail, the custodian may charge shipping or mailing fees for sending the copies to the “requester.”  However, the fees must be no more than that amount that is “actual, necessary and directly incurred by the custodian in providing access or copies of the records to the public.”[28] 

                                                                            IV

            Sometimes researchers will be denied access on a theory of “invasion of privacy.” This should not be confused with the United States Constitutional right of privacy; rather, this is a common law cause of action against an individual for some injury caused by the act of another.  This theory depends solely on the question “What are the damages?”  If there exists no damages which a court of law will recognize, then there exists no case under the “right of privacy.”  Generally, this applies only to pictures and images.  If a researcher found a picture of a person taken inside a mental institution and decided to publish the picture, there would be damage to the person pictured and the person would then have a good case for invasion of privacy against the researcher.  Likewise, the right of privacy would protect Roy Rogers or any other famous person who makes their living from their own popularity and selling images of themselves.

            Obviously, these two facets of the right of privacy cannot be applied to any literature, pictures or movies which have been published by farm equipment manufacturers.  There is no damage to any person pictured, because in the majority of instances the person pictured is not famous enough to be injured by any subsequent publication.  Furthermore, antique tractor enthusiasts are interested in the machinery pictured and not the persons.  The pictures, if found in the collection of a corporation, would probably indicate that the pictures never belonged to the person in the first place;  barring exceptional circumstances, the pictures belonged to the corporation.

            This right of privacy should not be confused with copyright law.  The United States Copyright Law will provide some additional protection to the authors of written material and audio or video tapes if they register the material with the Copyright Office.  In most cases the advertising materials sought by antique tractor enthusiasts were never copyrighted in the first place, because the advertising value of the literature would be diminished by copyrighting the materials.  Copyrights are expensive, need to be maintained and cannot be transferred.  Any material that was transferred to a public library will fall outside the copyright protection.

                                                                             V 

            The right of access to public documents is also the right to publish those documents.  Restriction of the right of access to public records cannot be based on the “use” to which the “requester” wishes to put the documents.[29]  Wisconsin goes further and states that “no showing of interest is required as a prerequisite to inspection.”[30]  The librarian cannot even ask the researcher the purpose intended for the materials.

            Both Iowa and Wisconsin law provide remedies for the researcher if he/she is denied access and copies of any public records.  The remedy is called mandamus.[31]  Mandamus is a court action which orders a public official to perform an act.[32]  In this case, mandamus means that the court would order the librarian to provide access to the materials. 

Wisconsin provides that the researcher may request that the Wisconsin Attorney General or the appropriate district attorney if the library is a county-funded library,  bring the action for mandamus to court.[33]  Iowa allows for the Iowa Attorney General or any county attorney to bring an action for mandamus.[34]  This infers that Iowa has the same protection as Wisconsin, since the Attorney General or county attorney would be acting on behalf of someone who was denied access to public records.  This saves the researcher from having to go through the initial expense of hiring a lawyer to bring the action in court.  I say “initial” because both states allow courts to order the custodian of the records to pay the researcher’s attorney’s fees and legal expenses, if the researcher is successful in court.[35] 

            In conclusion, researchers have some very strong laws on their side when they are denied access to public documents.  I hope that this information will be of assistance to all the antique tractor researchers who have trouble getting information from publicly funded sources.



    [1]”Information” or “public record” is defined as any writing, document, tape recording, printing, picture, movie or other data stored in any other form.  IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.1 (West 1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.32(2) (West, 1992).

    [2]The gift of records to an institution is defined as “public support” given to the institution; therefore, the term “publicly supported institutions” will also include any institution outside the government which holds governmental records as well as any institution which receives even part of its funding from the state government or its subdivisions (county).  Consequently, all State and County Historical Museums and Societies are included as well as libraries and archives of the state or county.

    [3]IOWA CODE ANN §§ 22.1 to 22.14 (West 1992). 

    [4]WIS. STAT. ANN. §§ 19.21 to 19.42 (West 1992).

    [5]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.2 (West 1992).

    [6]WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.31 (West 1992).

    [7]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.1; WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.33.

    [8]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.7(5) (West 1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.36(2) (West 1992).

    [9]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.7(3) (West 1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.36(5) (West 1992).

    [10]WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.36(4) (West 1992).

    [11]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.7(7) (West 1992).

    [12] § 22.7(8).

    [13] § 22.7(15).

    [14] § 22.7(25).

    [15]Id. at § 22.7(13).

    [16]Id. at § 22.7(18)(a).

    [17]Id. at § 22.7(6).

    [18]KMEG Television, Inc. v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 440 N.W.2d 382 (Iowa 1989); Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. Public Records v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., 487 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa 1992); Shannon by Shannon v. Hansen, 469 N.W.2d 412 (Iowa 1991); Head v. Colloton, 331 N.W.2d 870 (Iowa 1983); Op. Att’y Gen. (Branstad) Aug. 24, 1990; Op. Att’y Gen. (King) March 18, 1976.

    [19]Roberts v. Mississippi Republican Party State Executive Committee, 465 So.2d 1050 (Miss. 1985).

    [20]MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. §§ 25-61-1 to 25-61-17.

    [21]Roberts, 465 So.2d at 1054.

    [22]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.3 (West 1992) and WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.35(a),(b) and (f) (West 1992).

    [23]WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.3

    [24]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.2(1) (West 1992) and WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.35(1) (West 1992).

    [25]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.3 (West 1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.35(1) (West 1992).

    [26]WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.35(b)(d) and (f) (West, 1992).

    [27]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.3 (West 1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. §19.35(3) (West 1992).

    [28]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.3 (West 1992); Op. Att’y Gen. (Stork) Aug. 13, 1981; WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.35(3)(a) (West 1992); Op. Att’y Gen. Sept. 16, 1983.

 

    [29]Howard v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., 283 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 1979).

    [30]Op. Att’y Gen., November 8, 1977.

    [31]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.5 (1992); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.37(1) (1992).

    [32]D. DOBBS, LAW OF REMEDIES, § 2.10 (1973). 

    [33]WIS. STAT. ANN. § 19.37(1)(b) (1992).

    [34]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.10(1) (1992).

    [35]IOWA CODE ANN. § 22.10(3)(c) (1992).