(Abstract) This podcast is a narration of Nebraska State Representative Wilmot F. Crozier of Osceola, Nebraska, who fathered and pushed the tractor bill through the Nebraska State Legislature. On September 19th, 1919, he tells why he formulated the law and his story to Implement & Trade Journal. I take pleasure in complying with your recent request for an account of my reason for formulating and introducing, in our legislature, what is now known as the "Nebraska Tractor Law."
(Image 1) Wilmot Crozier farmed near Osceola in Polk County, Nebraska, 80 miles west of Omaha. Before he was a Nebraska State Legislature, he was an educator-turned-progressive-farmer ready to embrace new technology and methods of farming.
(Image 2) BEGIN SCRIPT: I take pleasure in complying with your recent request for an account of my reason for formulating and introducing, in our legislature, what is now known as the "Nebraska Tractor Law." I have watched the development of the tractor industry from its infancy, and have followed many a queer-looking contraptions around the demonstration fields, that purported to be able to replace my long-eared mules in front of a gang plow.
(Image 3) The successive years of development proved to me, beyond a doubt, that the tractor, in some form, was the agricultural implement the American fanner had been looking for, lo these many years. I began investing a little money in the things, that is, I invested in the cheapest one that had wheels. I soon found out that wheels and cast iron are of no value unless you have power to turn them when they are hitched to something.
(Image 4) Then I began wondering if there wasn't some way to induce all tractor companies to tell the truth. The real starting of this tractor law was an editorial written in a Nebraska farm paper under the date of July 20, 1918. It read in part as follows: "Many tractors now on the market are impracticable. They have one or more weak points which make them useless, and it takes only one weak link in the chain to make it of no value. Another reason why costly and valueless tractors are rusting in farmyard corners, or in fields where they refuse to run, is because irresponsible concerns are manufacturing tractors merely to sell and not to run.” This was the beginning of a some what lengthy correspondence between myself and the editor of the paper. This was the beginning of a campaign, to eliminate these irresponsible tractor companies.
(Image 5) Now, lest there should be a disposition to assert that all tractor companies are responsible, etc., I will simply quote from a circular that lies before me, which was sent to me in 1916 to induce me to invest my money in the stock of one of these get-rich-quick tractor companies. It says: "The Ford Tractor Co. estimates that with a force of 1,500 men they can produce 100 tractors a day which would mean 31,200 tractors a year. Producing and marketing 31,200 tractors a year would, on the previously indicated profits, equal a net profit of $3,822,000 for the year, which would be 634 percent on the issued shares." Possibly we have found one of the "irresponsible" concerns mentioned. And if anyone wishes, I can give you some claims of other companies slightly less glaringly false.
(Image 6) However, in my work with the tractor bill, through both branches of the legislature, I believe that a great majority of tractor companies are honestly endeavoring to place on the market a machine that will come up to standards and will do what they represent it to do. I had one other fact in mind, namely, that the tractor industry is a national institution as far as the Amencan farmer is concerned and no legislation confined necessarily to the boundaries of one state can completely fill the bill. However since Congress is so slow to act on anything of this nature, till they get a great deal of pushing, I am in for giving the push where ever we can.
(Image 7) After operating, or attempting to operate, two excuses for tractors, I finally invested my money in a machine that would really do what the company said it would.
(image 9) Now we have taken up two reasons for the introduction of this legislation under discussion. A third is the matter of standardization. I notice in that there was a need for a metaphorical yardstick to be found in the tractor game. In preparing this bill, I wish to acknowledge the assistance rendered by other members of the legislature, and engineers outside of an official capacity. I also wish to state that, but for my personal effort, certain features would have been injected into this bill, which seemed to me were unfair to responsible concerns. If this law brings about a better understanding between the producer and consumer in the tractor industry, it will be the chief reason for the framing of this legislation. The farmer has always protested against certain practices in the tractor business, but he has protested singly. Now he speaks with a voice that, at least, is being given attention.
(image 8) Another relief that the Nebraska law is intended to give the farmers is in connection with the maintenance of service stations. A letter written to the governor by H. Peters of Hay Springs, Nebraska says how Nebraska farmers have suffered serious losses, and production of foodstuffs has been decreasing through inability to replace broken and worn-out parts of farm tractors and other farm machinery is told. He declares the big implement and machinery concerns compel farmers to wait from ten to thirty days, or even longer for necessary parts, and in the meantime grain becomes too ripe and shells open upon the ground. He suggests that the state council of defense issue an order forbidding any new machine company to enter the state for the sale of its goods until it has provided a complete stock of repair parts and proper facilities for getting them to the farmers.
