estta tracking number: estta1073064 08/05/2020
TRANSCRIPT
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1073064
Filing date: 08/05/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 91246647
Party DefendantTetra Capital Management LLC
CorrespondenceAddress
M KEITH BLANKENSHIPDA VINCI'S NOTEBOOK LLC9000 MIKE GARCIA DR NO 52MANASSAS, VA 20109UNITED STATESPrimary Email: [email protected]
Submission Motion for Summary Judgment
Yes, the Filer previously made its initial disclosures pursuant to Trademark Rule2.120(a); OR the motion for summary judgment is based on claim or issue pre-clusion, or lack of jurisdiction.
The deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally setor reset: 10/01/2020
Filer's Name M. Keith Blankenship
Filer's email [email protected]
Signature /M. Keith Blankenship/
Date 08/05/2020
Attachments MSJ_Motion.pdf(100514 bytes )MSJ_Brief.pdf(3309682 bytes )MKB Declaration_Combined_Opt.pdf(6004513 bytes )
1
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
U.S. TM App. No.: 88/132,655
Mark: HEADLEY GRANGE
THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE
ORDER OF PATRONS OF
HUSBANDRY
Proceeding No. 91246647
Opposer,
v.
TETRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
Applicant.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Upon the complaint, a brief in support of this motion for summary judgment containing a
statement in accordance with Rule 56(B) of the Local Rules of this Court, and the declarations
submitted herewith, Applicant Tetra Capital Management, LLC moves for an order granting
Applicant summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that Applicant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
2
Dated: August 5, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
By _____________________
M. Keith Blankenship, Esq.
Attorney for Applicant
VSB# 70027
Da Vinci’s Notebook, LLC
9000 Mike Garcia
No. 52
Manassas, VA 20109
703-581-9562
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing document has been served on counsel
for Opposer via email.
James L. Bikoff
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
This 5th day of August 2020
By : _________________________
M. Keith Blankenship
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
U.S. TM App. No.: 88/132,655
Mark: HEADLEY GRANGE
THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE
ORDER OF PATRONS OF
HUSBANDRY
Proceeding No. 91246647
Opposer,
v.
TETRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
Applicant.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………….1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED………………………………………………...3
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….4
BACKGROUND AND UNCONTESTED FACTS……………………………………………..6
ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….11
I. HEADLEY GRANGE V. THE GRANGE FAMILY OF MARKS…………………………..11
A. The Mark The Grange, Irrespective of Notoriety, is Weak …………………….…...11
B. The Grange Cannot “Bridge the Gap”……………………………………………….14
C. The Grange’s Notoriety Works Against It…………………………………………...15
D. Grange’s Notoriety Precludes Likelihood of Confusion Concerning
“Speculation” Services………………………………………………………………….16
E. It is Appropriate to Hold The Grange to Its Representations………………………..18
F. Maybe Two Out of Three Is Bad……………………………………………………..20
II. HEADLEY GRANGE V. HEADLEY GRANGE…………………………………………...20
A. HEADLEY GRANGE is a Conceptually Weak Trademark For Opposer………..…20
B. HEADLEY GRANGE is a Weak Trademark Overall For Opposer………………..21
III. APPLICANT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE REGISTERED THE
TRADEMARK IN BAD FAITH……………………..…………………………………….……22
IV. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………23
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24/7 Tribeca Fitness,
277 F. Supp. 2d 356(S.D.N.Y. 2003)……………………….………………………….……..12
American Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 494 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1974)………21
Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 597 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1979)………………….21
Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 1995)……………………..12
Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581 (TTAB 2008)…………....21
B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design, Inc., 846 F.2d 727 (Fed. Cir. 1988)………..14
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1992)…………....20
Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 42, 23 L. Ed. 200 (1875)………………………..………………11
Castle Oil Corp. v. Castle Energy Corp., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (E.D. Pa. 1992)……………..12
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida Internat'l, Inc.,
393 F. Supp. 502, 517-18 (E.D.N.Y.1975)……………………………………………………13
Hair Assoc. v. National Hair Replacement Services, 987 F. Supp. 569 (W.D. Mich. 1997)….12
Haven Capital Management, Inc. v. Havens Advisors, 965 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)…..12
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out in America, 481 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1973)………………….21
In re Jack's Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1028 (TTAB 1985)…………..……20
In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)……………………………………20
John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 975 (11th Cir. 1983)………….....21
Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Strayer, 34 F.2d 432 (3d Cir. 1929)……………………………..17
Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field’s Cookies, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 (T.T.A.B. 1992)……….13
McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc., 599 F.2d 1126 (2d Cir. 1979)…..………………….13
2
Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc., 803 F.2d 166……………………………..……….12
Sidco Ind. Inc. v. Wimar Tahoe Corp., 795 F. Supp. 343 (D. Ore. 1992)…………….….…..12
United States v. Merck & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 171 (1917)…………………….………….11
United States Jaycees v. Cedar Rapids Jaycees, 794 F.2d 379 (8th Cir. 1986)……………..18
Statutes and Regulations
TBMP § 528.01……………………………………………………………………………..….11
TBMP § 528.05(a)(1)…………………………………………………………………………..11
Reference Materials
Restatement Third, Unfair Competition § 9(c)(1992)………………………………………13, 20
3
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
I. Applicant’s Headley Grange trademark cannot cause likelihood of confusion with “The
Grange Family” of Trademarks.
II. Applicant’s Headley Grange trademark for Financial Speculation Services cannot
cause a likelihood of confusion with Opposer’s Headley Grange trademark for cigars.
III. Applicant Cannot Carry its Burden to Prove a lack of bona fide intent in the
Application for its HEADLEY GRANGE TRADEMARK.
4
INTRODUCTION
A “grange” is a type of farm – or a farmhouse. The perspective that you adopt depends
primarily on your frame of reference, whether historical or strictly modernist grammatical.
Irrespective of the perspective, “The Grange” is also a well-known organization that lobbies for,
and caters, to rural and agricultural America. Opposer, The National Grange Of The Order Of
Patrons Of Husbandry (“The Grange”) adopted a host of marks, all dealing with services provided
to rural America, and when The Grange explains that they have historical significance they are
being modest.
The Grange is an organization that shaped history, nationally and regionally. The Grange
may have shaped history for the better overall, but in the process they specifically they railed
against financial speculation and “jewry” in its various forms. In several well-known instances,
The Grange attempted to make commodity trading a felony. African-Americans were forbidden
membership and Chinese immigration was volubly blasted. In an attempt to ensure that its
members understood in no uncertain terms, The Grange issued a Ten Commandments that forbade
its members from dealing with Jews, middlemen, and any variety of financial speculation.
Applicant, Tetra Capital Management, LLC (“Tetra Capital”) is a financial investment
services company that filed an intent-to-use trademark for HEADLEY GRANGE. Headley Grange
is a physical place in England – an actual, historical grange. Specifically, Headley Grange is well-
known as the place where the band Led Zeppelin wrote and produced its iconic, culture-changing
album simply titled “IV.” Headley Grange is a place of inspiration and creativity. The Grange
wanted to adopt HEADLEY GRANGE as its cigar brand. Tetra Capital is adopting HEADLEY
GRANGE for a broad range of financial services.
5
The Grange has been on a legal crusade to stop all users of “grange” in trademark parlance.
Thank God the FARMERS brand of insurance did not have the same inflated aspirations. The case
law does not support the idea that The Grange family of trademarks can halt all uses of the simply,
pre-existing concept of “grange.” The GRANGE mark is simply too weak. And even though the
mark has significant notoriety, that notoriety involves decrying financial speculation. Here, their
notoriety works against them – and the case law has poignant thoughts on notorious brands being
disingenuous. If Opposer believes that its use of HEADLEY GRANGE for cigars precludes
Applicant’s use of HEADLEY GRANGE for financial services, Applicant hopes that this Board
agrees with the Examiner below to find this tenuous connection unpersuasive.
6
BACKGROUND AND UNCONTESTED FACTS
Pardon the levity, but if a court should take judicial notice of any fact at issue, it is that Led
Zeppelin rocks! If not that, then certainly this court should take judicial notice that Led Zeppelin
is a rock band of widespread, strong appeal to popular culture. Decl. K Blankenship, par. 2. Ranked
as the fourteenth most important music act of all-time by popular culture magazine The Rolling
Stone, the following praise sums up the band’s significance: “Heavy metal would not exist without
Led Zeppelin.” Decl. K Blankenship, par. 3. Led Zeppelin is not simply transformative, it could
be credibly argued by the world’s seminal music magazine that Led Zeppelin created a genre of
music. Decl. K Blankenship, par. 3. More specifically, Led Zeppelin created that genre at a
farmhouse in England named Headley Grange. Decl. K Blankenship, par. 2.
“Black Dog,” from Zeppelin IV, is what Led Zeppelin were all about in their most rocking
moments, a perfect example of their true might. It didn't have to be really distorted or really
fast, it just had to be Zeppelin, and it was really heavy….I heard them for the first time on
AM radio in the Seventies, right around the time that “Stairway to Heaven” was so popular.
Decl. K Blankenship, par. 3. “Stairway to Heaven” was such a popular song that the movie
Wayne’s World jabs at the universality of the song among guitar players wherein the protagonist
picks up a guitar in a music, begins the first notes of Stairway to Heaven and is immediately
halted by the management who points to a prominent sign stating “No Stairway to Heavan.”
Illustration No. 1
Opposer, The National Grange Of The Order Of Patrons Of Husbandry (“The Grange”),
has its own notoriety, significant notoriety. The Grange boasts its own entry in many dictionaries
as an organization, for example, “One of the lodges of a national fraternal association originally
7
made up of farmers.” “Grange.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grange. Accessed 3 Aug. 2020. A “grange” is also
a farmhouse or farm. The Oxford English Dictionary explains that a “grange” is an outlying farm
with tithe barns belonging to a monastery or feudal lord. As in, for example, “Thrushcross
Grange;” and in proper usage: “The farm stands on the site of a large medieval grange.” Oxford
University Press (2020 Grange. In: Lexico.com, [Accessed 08/03/2020].1 “Headley Grange” is
such a grange. Decl. K Blankenship, par. 2. The Grange also boasts an encyclopedia entry, but not
for the group itself, but rather the movement and practices for which it stood. Decl. K Blankenship,
par. 4. Those practices made The Grange notorious.
The Grange was founded on the simple principle that farmers would have greater political
power and effect if they united for common causes beneficial to farmers. Decl. K Blankenship,
par. 4. The Grange had definite ideas of unacceptable business practices, including volubly railing
against “Jews,” speculators, middle men, and other organizations that they considered parasitic.
The Grange has a long, storied history of prejudice and railing against speculation and speculators.
Speculation is the “engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering
the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from
changes in the market price.” “Speculation,” Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/
browse/speculation (Accessed Aug. 3, 2020) . Speculation was often associated with members of
the Semitic race and Jewish religion; and so too did the The Grange. D. Sven Nordin, Rich Harvest:
A History of the Grange (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1974), p. 240 (Reprinted from
the Oshkosh Weekly Times, on December 16, 1874)(emphasis added). The full ten
commandments of the Grange were as follows:
1 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/grange?q=grange
8
1. Thou shalt love the Grange with all thy heart and with all thy soul and thou shalt love
thy brother granger as thyself.
2. Thou shalt not suffer the name of the Grange to be evil spoken of, but shall severely
chastise the wretch who speaks of it with contempt.
3. Remember that Saturday is Grange day. On it thou shalt set aside thy hoe and rake, and
sewing machine, and wash thy-self, and appear before the Master in the Grange with smiles
and songs, and hearty cheer. On the fourth week thou shalt not appear empty handed, but
shalt thereby bring a pair of ducks, a turkey roasted by fire, a cake baked in the oven, and
pies and fruits in abundance for the Harvest Feast. So shalt thou eat and be merry, and
“frights and fears” shall be remembered no more.
4. Honor thy Master, and all who sit in authority over thee, that the days of the Granges
may be long in the land which Uncle Sam hath given thee.
5. Thou shalt not go to law[yers].
6. Thou shalt do no business on tick [time]. Pay as thou goest, as much as in thee lieth.
7. Thou shalt not leave thy straw but shalt surely stack it for thy cattle in the winter.
8. Thou shalt support the Granger’s store for thus it becometh thee to fulfill the laws of
business.
9. Thou shalt by all means have thy life insured in the Grange Lire Insurance Company,
that thy wife and little ones may have friends when thou art cremated and gathered unto
thy fathers.
10. Thou shalt have no Jewish middlemen between thy farm and Liverpool to fatten on
thy honest toil, but shalt surely charter thine own ships, and sell thine own produce, and
use thine own brains. This is the last and best commandment.
Id. (emphasis added). The Grange was synonymous with its laws and lobbying efforts to ban or
heavily regulate speculation and middlemen.
Grangers tried marketing their own grains, fibers, and animals largely because they felt
warehouse, elevator, and stockyard proprietors conspired against farmers to depress prices
paid producers. At the same time, they hoped their cooperative efforts would destroy the
individuals responsible for “futures.” Members of the order [of The Grange] charged the
“gamblers” who controlled boards of trade with upsetting “the old law of supply and
demand regulating prices” and with making the economic principle a “myth.” Their
accusations were based on a belief that bidding on unfattened livestock and unharvested
crops predetermined prices of meats, grains, and cotton. Attempts at collective marketing
soon taught grangers that their cooperative programs were not going to rescue farmers from
abusive practices of dealers in futures, so the order shifted its fight to Congress. Patrons
now pushed for solons to “pass a law making it a felony for anyone selling their promises
to deliver goods that they have not and never expect to have.”
Nordin at p. 137. The Grange not only forbade its members from engaging in farm-based futures,
but also urged for legislation outlawing trading farm-based commodities for prospective gains.
9
Nordin at p. 137. National Grange, Proceedings, 1886, p. 75; Wisconsin State Grange,
Proceedings, 1890, p. 8).
The Grange was naturally suspicious of any commercial entity placing itself between the
farmer and the consumer.
Our middle men live in fine houses, expensively furnished, their tables are spread with the
best luxuries of our country and luxuries imported from abroad. Their sons and daughters
are raised in ease and affluence, become accomplished and graduate at colleges and
seminaries. The dru[d]gery of the middle man’s kitchen is performed by a servant while
his wife and daughter, dressed in silks, with jeweled rings upon their delicate fingers,
preside in the parlor [sic]….But how, or by whom, is the expense of this “high stile” paid?
By the labor of the farmer and the miner, the principal producers of our Territory, taken
from as the profits of so-called legal trade.
Nordin at p. 138-39 (Montana Territorial Grange, Proceedings, 1875 pp. 17-19). The Grange
created artificial businesses to try to economically eliminate Jewish speculators, including Isaac
Friedlander in 1874. Rodman Wilson Paul, The Great California Grain War: The Grangers
Challenge the Wheat King, Pacific Historical Review (1958) 27 (4): 331–349.
Furthermore, The Grange had negative opinions concerning peoples that it believed
depressed the wages and earnings of farmer, including blacks and Chinese immigrants. Decl. K.
Blankenship, par. 5. An official Grange resolution was passed by the California Chapter to prevent
further importation "of this scourge to western humanity and civilization...” because the Chinese
immigrants represented an “overshadowing curse which are sapping the foundation of our
prosperity, the dignity of labor, and the glory of our State.” Grange Proceedings, 1877 pp. 48, 55.
Sandmeyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement, 32-33. African Americans were not allowed to be
Grangers, instead they created separate chapters, “a Council of Laborers,” to ensure that the
African Americans would not intermingle with the white Americans. Nordin at p. 32. The poll
taxes that are infamous in history as ensuring that disadvantaged African Americans would be
prevented from voting were a key element of The Granger Platform. Nordin at p. 54.
10
The Applicant is an American with a Chinese ethnicity. Decl. of K. Blankenship, par. 6.
The services sought to be protected by its HEADLEY GRANGE trademark include financial
services based on investment, specifically:
Financial services, namely, fund management, asset management and advisory services
relating to investments including financial instruments, currencies, commodities and
indices including equity and debt securities, futures, options, forwards and other
derivatives relating to financial instruments, currencies, commodities and indices;
Financial management and investment advice, namely, investment, asset and commodities
management and advice, futures and options account management and advice, futures
account management and advice, forwards account management and advice, options
account management and advice, derivatives account management and advice, and
securities account management and advice; Financial management services in the field of
financial services and fund management; Financial research services in the field of
financial services and fund management; Financial advisory services in the field of
financial services and fund management; Financial consultancy services in the field of
financial services and fund management; Management and advice with respect to
investment products, in relation to the aforementioned services; Provision of financial
information for professionals in the field of portfolio management, for portfolio
management including such provision; Financial analysis; Financial consultancy;
Provision of financial information; All of the aforesaid services also provided on-line using
the internet or other electronic modality or broadcast or narrowcast delivery means or using
a computer database.”
U.S. Serial No. 88/132,655 for HEADLEY GRANGE, filed September 26, 2018 based on an intent
to use. Opposer owns twelve marks that it has made of record in this action, all of which involve
some variety of good or service to rural Americans, excepting U.S. TM Reg. No. 4,495,306 for
cigars.
11
ARGUMENT
The motion for summary judgment is a pretrial device to dispose of cases in which “the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” TBMP § 528.01. The summary judgment procedure is regarded
as “a salutary method of disposition,” and the Board ought not hesitate to dispose of cases on
summary judgment when appropriate. Id
I. HEADLEY GRANGE V. THE GRANGE FAMILY OF MARKS
There are two principle bases for which The Grange seeks to oppose Tetra Capital’s
HEADLEY GRANGE trademark. The first basis is because the family of trademarks based off of
“The Grange” for various farm and rural services are provided. The second, discussed later,
because The Grange adopted the well-known farmhouse “Headley Grange” as one of their
trademarks for cigars, and only cigars. This first section deals only with the relationship between
The Grange Family of trademarks and Applicant’s desire to trademark HEADLEY GRANGE for
various financial speculation services.
A. The Mark The Grange, Irrespective of Notoriety, is Weak
The Oxford English Dictionary explains that a “grange” is an outlying farm with tithe barns
belonging to a monastery or feudal lord. Courts may take judicial notice of facts of universal
notoriety, which need not be proved, and of whatever is generally known within their jurisdictions.
Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 42, 23 L. Ed. 200 (1875). To that end, dictionaries and encyclopedias
may be consulted. United States v. Merck & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 171 (1917). Fed. R. Evid.
201(b) and (f).
12
The idea of the grange has reached popular culture, most lately perhaps in the discussions
of the best selling book “Pillars of the Earth” is a historical novel by Welsh author Ken Follett
published in 1989 about the building of a cathedral in the fictional town of Kingsbridge, England.
When discussing the misused property of the Kingsbridge Priory, the protagonist receives a stern
lecture:
Well, all this property should be taken care of. For example, suppose we have some land,
and we let it for a cash rent. We shouldn’t just give to the highest bidder and collect the
money. We ought to take care to find a good tenant, and supervise him to make sure he
farms well; otherwise the pastures become waterlogged, the soil is exhausted, and the
tenant is unable to pay the rent so he gives the land back the to us in poor condition. Or
take a grange, farmed by our employees and managed by monks: if nobody visits the grange
except to take away its produce, the monks become slothful and depraved, the employees
steal the crops, and the grange produces less and less as the years go by. Even a church
needs to be looked after. We shouldn’t just take the tithes. We should put in a good priest
who knows the Latin and leads a holy life. Otherwise people descend into ungodliness,
marrying and giving birth and dying without the blessing of the Church, and cheating on
their tithes.
Follett, K. (1989). The Pillars of The Earth. New York: Morrow. P. 142.2 The landholdings of the
Catholic Church are not insignificant. The Catholic Church is by public accounts currently the
world’s third largest land-holder, and the world’s largest land holder is the Queen Elizabeth II.
This latter fact is significant – while judicial notice is front and center - in light of the fact that
Henry VIII seized most of the lands of the Catholic Church when he established the Anglican
Church. In other words, the farm lands of monasteries was an ever-present historical undercurrent.
The Grange, that is to say the Opposer, has found its way into multiple dictionaries as well
- not to mention a significant number of encyclopedias. The same Oxford Dictionary defines
Opposer thusly: “(in the US) a farmers' association organized in 1867. The Grange sponsors social
2 [A] party may make of record, for purposes of summary judgment…printed publications, such as books and
periodicals, available to the general public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that
segment of the public that is relevant under an issue, if the publication is competent evidence and relevant to an
issue. TBMP § 528.05(a)(1)
13
activities, community service, and political lobbying.” Oxford University Press (2020 Grange. In:
Lexico.com, [Accessed 08/03/2020]. A “grange” is both a type of farm, and a colloquial term for
members of NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, who
ostensibly provide goods and services to farmers. See, e.g., U.S. TM. Reg. No. 1816827 for the
services: posters, and publications; namely, newsletters, brochures, and pamphlets about family
life in farm, rural and suburban communities, national legislative affairs, and education, medical
treatment and recreational opportunities for deaf individuals; and association and charitable
services; namely, advancing the quality of family life in farm, rural and suburban communities,
and providing medical assistance to deaf individuals.
When the Grange seeks to control services provided to farmers, or goods that principally
derive from a farm, the inclusion of “Grange” is a very, very conceptually weak element. The
greater the distinctiveness of a trademark, either inherent or acquired, the greater its ambit of
protection will be. A party cannot be heard to complain when it creates its mark out of one or more
common descriptive terms, and another party makes use of those terms. See, e.g., 24 Hour Fitness
USA, Inc. v. 24/7 Tribeca Fitness, 277 F. Supp. 2d 356, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Court reported
results of Internet (Google) search for “24 Hour Fitness” and found many similar names;
concluded any confusion is a result of plaintiff “construct[ing] its mark out of common descriptive
terms.”). Weak marks receive the barest of protection. See e.g. Hair Assoc. v. National Hair
Replacement Services, 987 F. Supp. 569 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (“Hair Replacement System” weak);
Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 1995) (T-50 trademark/model
number weak); Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc., 803 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1986) (XL widely
used, weak for carpet cleaning equipment); Haven Capital Management, Inc. v. Havens Advisors,
965 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (HAVEN weak for investment services); Castle Oil Corp. v.
14
Castle Energy Corp., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (surname “Castle” weak); Sidco Ind.
Inc. v. Wimar Tahoe Corp., 795 F. Supp. 343 (D. Ore. 1992) (“Horizon” weak); Marshall Field &
Co. v. Mrs. Field’s Cookies, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 (T.T.A.B. 1992) (surname “Field(s)” weak).
The general use of “grange” for services for farmers and those living the rural lifestyle
dooms The Grange to a weak narrow field of enforcement.
B. The Grange Cannot “Bridge the Gap”
At the heart of trademark law is the idea of preventing an infringer to appropriate the
benefits attributable to the goodwill of the trademark owner. Restatement Third, Unfair
Competition § 9(c)(1992). Consumer impressions of the tendency of particular types of businesses
to diversify can influence the likelihood that different goods bearing similar marks will be
associated with a common source. Id. at § 21(j) But the relevant inquiry is whether consumers are
likely to associate the respective goods, services, or businesses of the parties by assuming that the
prior user has expanded into the other market, not whether the prior user in fact intends to do so.
Id. Notions of infringement do not protect the interest of a business in future product expansion in
the absence of a likelihood of confusion. Id.
Because consumer confusion is the key, the assumptions of the typical consumer, whether
or not they match reality, must be taken into account. McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc., 599
F.2d 1126, 1136 (2d Cir. 1979) The ultimate test remains one of likelihood of confusion among
prospective purchasers as to source of origin; the expansion of business factor turns not so much
on objective evidence of actual expansion or potential therefor as it does on whether it is
reasonable for the ordinary purchaser to assume such expansion. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
v. Yoshida Internat'l, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 502, 517-18 (E.D.N.Y.1975). The services of the
15
Applicant, Tetra Capital, occupy an area that not only The Grange does not intend to occupy, but
has volubly assured the world that it would not.
C. The Grange’s Notoriety Works Against It.
Although notoriety can often be a powerful influence in a finding of likelihood of
confusion, as conceptual strength is balanced with market strength, when a newcomer establishes
a brand that is contrary to a brand’s notoriety, likelihood of confusion is unlikely. Although The
Grange may occupy some small space in history textbooks, its place in the history textbooks is
firmly established for a particular identity.
Fame worked against the owner of prior rights in B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action
Design, Inc., 846 F.2d 727 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(J. Rich). In B.V.D., a “famous” underwear
manufacturer owning fourteen registrations of trademarks for variations of BVD opposed the
trademark application of B.A.D. for "men's, women's and children’s clothing -- namely, blouses,
pants, jackets, dresses, shirts, undergarments, socks and footwear," Id. at 727-28. The Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition holding even though marks were similar, those
similarities were not significant enough to justify likelihood of confusion. Id. at 727. Then the
opposer appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the TTAB
stating that, here, the extreme notoriety for the BVD brand made even the slightest difference of
significant consequence.
Judge Rich reasoned that the better known a mark is, the more readily the public becomes
aware of even a small deviation from it. The similarities to this case are stark: B.V.D. was famous
to the extent that it had a dictionary definition.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary [**3] (1971) contains the entry "B.V.D. *
* * trademark -- used for underwear." The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language (1967) has this item: "B.V.D. Trademark. a suit of men's underwear, esp. a pair
of undershorts. Also, BVDs. Cf. skivvy." Under "skivvy" is a cross-reference to "B.V.D."
16
When a trademark attains dictionary recognition as a part of the language, we take it to be
reasonably famous. (Webster has similar listings for "Kodak" and "Levi's.")
Id. at 727. Furthermore, the mark B.V.D. had been in use since 1876, and had amasses fourteen
trademark registrations for various forms of apparel. The fame of a mark cuts both ways with
respect to likelihood of confusion. The better known it is, the more readily the public becomes
aware of even a small difference. BVD has that well-known quality which would trigger the
observer to notice at once that B A D, with or without the periods in either mark, is a different
symbol.
D. Grange’s Notoriety Precludes Likelihood of Confusion Concerning “Speculation”
Services.
The Grange has a long, storied history of prejudice and railing against speculation and
speculators. Speculation is the “engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk
but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope
of profit from changes in the market price.” Speculation was often associated with members of the
Semitic race and Jewish religion; and so too did the The Grange.
Thou shalt have no Jewish middlemen between thy farm and Liverpool3 to fatten on thy
honest toil, but shalt surely charter thine own ships, and sell thine own produce, and use
thine own brains. This is the last and best commandment. On this hang all the law, and
profits, and if there be any others they are these.
D. Sven Nordin, Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi,
1974), p. 240 (Reprinted from the Oshkosh Weekly Times, on December 16, 1874)(emphasis
added).
The Grange was synonymous with its laws and lobbying efforts to ban or heavily regulate
speculation and middlemen.
3 Liverpool England was at the time the world’s most well-known collection point of raw materials for
manufacturing and distribution.
17
Grangers tried marketing their own grains, fibers, and animals largely because they felt
warehouse, elevator, and stockyard proprietors conspired against farmers to depress prices
paid producers. At the same time, they hoped their cooperative efforts would destroy the
individuals responsible for “futures.” Members of the order [of The Grange] charged the
“gamblers” who controlled boards of trade with upsetting “the old law of supply and
demand regulating prices” and with making the economic principle a “myth.” Their
accusations were based on a belief that bidding on unfattened livestock and unharvested
crops predetermined prices of meats, grains, and cotton. Attempts at collective marketing
soon taught grangers that their cooperative programs were not going to rescue farmers from
abusive practices of dealers in futures, so the order shifted its fight to Congress. Patrons
now pushed for solons to “pass a law making it a felony for anyone selling their promises
to deliver goods that they have not and never expect to have.”
Nordin at p. 137. Examples of these laws making it a felony to speculate on farm-based futures
could be found in the national and state chapters of the Grange Proceedings. Nordin at p. 137.
National Grange, Proceedings, 1886, p. 75; Wisconsin State Grange, Proceedings, 1890, p. 8).
The Grange was naturally suspicious of any commercial entity placing itself between the
farmer and the consumer.
Our middle men live in fine houses, expensively furnished, their tables are spread with the
best luxuries of our country and luxuries imported from abroad. Their sons and daughters
are raised in ease and affluence, become accomplished and graduate at colleges and
seminaries. The dru[d]gery of the middle man’s kitchen is performed by a servant while
his wife and daughter, dressed in silks, with jeweled rings upon their delicate fingers,
preside in the parlor [sic]….But how, or by whom, is the expense of this “high stile” paid?
By the labor of the farmer and the miner, the principal producers of our Territory, taken
from as the profits of so-called legal trade.
Nordin at p. 138-39(Montana Territorial Grange, Proceedings, 1875 pp. 17-19). These comments,
which sound like the drunken ramblings of the jealous, were not the result of a handful of hotheads
that found access an official record. No, these comments were the official written record created
by the The Grange for posterity.
The Grange went beyond words and laws; in certain instances the Grange was reported to
have resorted to an economic warfare of sorts. Grange members mounted operations to
economically harm companies that The Grange believed to be engaged in financial speculation
18
that it believed to be injuries to its members. An example of such an operation was to financially
destroy Isaac Friedlander in 1874, who was believed to be in the business of financial speculation
in what would later be called The Great California Grain War. Rodman Wilson Paul, The Great
California Grain War: The Grangers Challenge the Wheat King, Pacific Historical Review (1958)
27 (4): 331–349. Admittedly, this “war” was milder than other forms of reprisal to which Semites
were accustomed, but significance lies more in the ‘evil’ that the Grangers pooled their resources
to extinguish.
The idea that The Grange now seeks to stop third parties from entering markets that it
historically condemned, and fought against, is laughable. Perhaps this is exactly the sort of case
that Judge Rich might remind us that notoriousness can be a double-edged sword. The Grange is
well-known; well known to hate investment and speculators.
E. It is Appropriate to Hold The Grange to Its Representations
Goodwill is not only what you are, but what you were. Courts have the authority to utilize
the actions of a party to prevent the public against hypocrisy and disingenuousness. For example,
the Ku Klux Klan was denied judicial protection, specifically the ability to enforce its trade name
in an unfair competition context, on the grounds that the organization was a source of bloodshed
and despotic rule. Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Strayer, 34 F.2d 432 (3d Cir. 1929).
In Strayer, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan as plaintiff had certain members that were
dissatisfied with the activities of the group. Id. at 433. These dissatisfied members formed their
own chapter using the notorious Ku Klux Klan name. When the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
asked a federal court to forbid the confusing use of their trademark, the court refused on multiple
grounds, including unclean hands.
Assuming without deciding that the defendants have been banished from the Klan and the
charters of their lodges forfeited, the plaintiff would, the defendants concede, ordinarily be
19
entitled to equitable relief forbidding the use of its name, but the defendants assert and the trial
court found that in its own use of the name the hands of the plaintiff reaching out for this relief
are unclean, and so unclean as to move the court to refuse the relief which otherwise it would
freely give.
Id. at 434. Specifically, the court found
…evidence that the society sought equity with unclean hands, in that it had established a
despotic rule contrary to the rights and liberties of others, that it had imposed severe corporal
punishment on non-members, and that it stirred up racial and religious prejudices to the point
of inciting riots where people were injured and killed.
Id. at 433.
In Strayer, the court based its actions on unclean hands and equity, but the underlying
premise is that the KKK was a despotic paramilitary organization, who are they to claim that they
have rights in commerce and accuse a splinter group of commercial misdeeds? This is as much at
the heart of likelihood of confusion as it is ‘unclean hands’ – and this could be considered a
forerunner to the logic of Judge Rich. The KKK is notorious, and the Federal Circuit in B.V.D.
refused to treat the apparel company as though it had attributes that it was well-known not to have.
And see United States Jaycees v. Cedar Rapids Jaycees, 794 F.2d 379 (8th Cir. 1986)(The Eighth
Circuit refused to enjoin a local Jaycees chapter from use of the JAYCEES mark where the national
organization wanted to punish it for admitting women.)
A very similar phenomenon is present in the federal court splits concerning ‘fair use.’ Is
‘fair use’ a defense, or is it intrinsically tied to the notion of likelihood of confusion? “The
limitation on the scope of the fair use doctrine is sometimes described by stating that the doctrine
applies only to use ‘otherwise than as a trademark,’ or only to ‘nontrademark use’ of another’s
mark.” Restatement Third, Unfair Competition § 28(a)(1992). “Thus, there is not always a clear
distinction between cases appropriately analyzed under the rule state in this Section and cases more
properly analyzed under the general standard of likelihood of confusion.” Id.
20
Neither The Grange nor the KKK get to have a history of one set of ideals, and then claim
another mutually-exclusive set upon entering the courthouse.
F. Maybe Two Out of Three Is Bad
The Grange not only volubly explained its positions on the evils of speculation, but also
the evils of “Oriental” immigration. California Grangers joined the mounting drive for Chinese
exclusion, pressed farmers to dispense with Chinese laborers whenever possible, and catalogued
the many “evils” of Oriental immigration. Cheap “coolie labor,” they perceived, was an aid to
monopolists, particularly large landholders and railroads, the arch enemies and an obstacle to work
opportunities for farm youth. In 1877 and again in 1878 the California Grange passed resolutions
urging the United States Congress to prevent further importation "of this scourge to western
humanity and civilization." To Grange leaders the Chinese immigrants represented an
“overshadowing curse which are sapping the foundation of our prosperity, the dignity of labor,
and the glory of our State.” Grange Proceedings, 1877 pp. 48, 55. Sandmeyer, The Anti-Chinese
Movement, 32-33. The owner Applicant is a Mr. Winson Ho, an American of East Asian descent.
He provides financial services. If Mr. Ho were only Jewish, The Grange would have absolutely
pulled a hat trick!4
Equity suggests that The Grange not force an East-Asian immigrant from providing
financial and investment services for multiple reasons.
II. HEADLEY GRANGE V. HEADLEY GRANGE
A. HEADLEY GRANGE is a Conceptually Weak Trademark For Opposer
4 A hat-trick or hat trick is the achievement of a generally positive feat three times in a game, or another
achievement based on the number three. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat-trick
21
Headley Grange has significance that extends beyond a “grange” as a farmhouse.
HEADLEY GRANGE for financial services is a strongly distinctive trademark. HEADLEY
GRANGE, as it applies to the “grange” element, for cigars, because cigars are the product of
farmed tobacco, is descriptive – and perhaps even misdescriptive. In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769
F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(DURANGO misdescriptive of chewing tobacco not produced in
Durango, Mexico); and In re Jack's Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1028, 1029
(TTAB 1985)(NEOPOLITAN misdescriptive of sausage made in Florida).5 Although the
ramifications for having a misdescriptive trademark are beyond the scope of the present action, its
significance in terms of weakness ought be acknowledged and weighed appropriately. Opposer’s
use of Headley Grange should be entitled to very weak protection.
Making the case that cigars are unrelated to financial services is too unusual to justify. The
Examiner below certainly felt that there was no need to juxtapose “cigars” and “Financial
Services.” The Board ought not disturb that finding.
B. HEADLEY GRANGE is a Weak Trademark For Opposer
In addition to the inherent weakness of Opposer’s use of HEADLEY GRANGE, the use of
HEADLEY GRANGE is a weak one in the marketplace, i.e. irrespective of distinctiveness. The
significance of a designation to prospective purchasers may by demonstrated by the nature of a
term’s use in newspapers, popular magazines, or dictionaries. Restatement Third, Unfair
Competition § 13(e)(1992). Here, the designation “Headley Grange” is positively swamped by the
cultural references to locale in which Led Zeppelin created its master works. The strength of a
mark depends on its distinctiveness to prospective purchasers, which is measured by the degree to
5 Applicant concedes for purposes of this brief that Opposer’s use of Headley Grange is probably not deceptive.
22
which it indicates the source or origin of the product. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C.,
Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1045 (2d Cir. 1992).
This may be a case of first impression. When a mark is selected notwithstanding the fame
of popular references to the mark, the fame of the popular references can greatly overshadow the
significance of the term to be considered a source of goods. The quantity and extent of references
to other trademarks have been considered in cases, e.g. John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks,
Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 975 (11th Cir. 1983)
[The] "'strong-weak” classification should be based both upon the amount of use of the
term by others in this product and geographical area and upon the quantum of 'strength '
and consumer recognition of the mark at issue". Thus, while the fact that Memory Stub and
similar marks have not been used by other parties normally might indicate that Harland's
mark is strong, this indication is significantly weakened by the suggestive or possibly even
descriptive nature of the Memory Stub mark.
Id. Again, the issue was considered in John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966,
975 (11th Cir. 1983) where the court refused to enforce trademark rights in the word “Sun” even
though it was considered an arbitrary trademark, the weakness and the common usage of the word
“sun” precluded the use by others of the trademark. Id.
Here, Applicant suggests that the meaning of “Headley Grange” is too associated with Led
Zeppelin in popular culture to permit Opposer to escape its shadow absent a showing of significant
evidence. Cf A Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 597 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1979)("World");
American Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 494 F.2d 3, 11 (5th Cir. 1974) (multiple
uses of the mark "Heritage"); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out in America, 481 F.2d 445 (5th Cir.
1973) (multiple uses of the mark "Holiday").
III. APPLICANT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE REGISTERED THE TRADEMARK
IN BAD FAITH
23
Opposer has the initial burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that
applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark on the identified goods." Boston Red Sox
Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1587 (TTAB 2008). If opposer meets this initial
burden of proof, the burden of production shifts to applicant to rebut the opposer’s prima facie
case by offering additional evidence concerning the factual circumstances bearing upon its intent
to use its mark in commerce. Id. Applicant filed its trademark on September 26, 2018. Applicant
purchased web domains 1-2 weeks later. Decl. K. Blankenship, par. 7. In November, Applicant
received a cease-and-desist letter from Opposer, so naturally, Applicant halted his progress. Decl.
K. Blankenship, par. 8.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Grange had little or no basis to bully the Applicant. The Grange has a policy of
disputing any use of “grange” with complete indifference to its historical, linguistic, and popular
culture significance. Applicant asks that this Board cut short this attempt to simply outspend small
businesses.
Dated: August 5, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
By _____________________
M. Keith Blankenship, Esq.
Attorney for Applicant
VSB# 70027
Da Vinci’s Notebook, LLC
9000 Mike Garcia
No. 52
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing document has been served on counsel
for Opposer via email.
James L. Bikoff
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
This 5th day of August 2020
By : _________________________
M. Keith Blankenship
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
U.S. TM App. No.: 88/132,655
Mark: HEADLEY GRANGE
THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE
ORDER OF PATRONS OF
HUSBANDRY
Proceeding No. 91246647
Opposer,
v.
TETRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
Applicant.
FIRST DECLARATION OF M. KEITH BLANKENSHIP
1. I am counsel for Applicant Tetra Capital Management, LLC in this action.
2. Exhibit A is a true and accurate reproduction of an Article from the Rolling Stone
Magazine titled Led Zeppelin IV: How Band Struck Back at Critics with 1971 Masterpiece, Article
Dated November 8, 2016.
3. Exhibit B is a true and accurate reproduction of an Article from the Rolling Stone
Magazine titled 100 Greatest Artists, Article Dated December 3, 2020.
4. Exhibit C is a true and accurate reproduction of the entry for “The Granger
Movement” Encylopedia Britannica, 12 February 2020 (Electronic Ed.)(Accessed August 3,
2020)
5. Exhibit D is a true and accurate reproduction of Gerald L. Prescott, Farm Gentry
vs. the Grangers: Conflict in Rural America, Historical Quarterly (1977) 56 (4): 328–345.
6. Mr. Winson Ho, the owner of Tetra Capital Management, LLC has an ethnicity that
is a combination of Indian and Chinese.
7. True and Accurate copies of discovery disclosed pursuant to requests for documents
is attached as Exhibit E.
8. A True and Accurate copy of correspondence from Opposer to Applicant is
attached as Exhibit F.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY
OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING
IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
M. Keith Blankenship
August 5, 2020
EXHIBIT A
HOME MUSIC MUSIC FEATURES NOVEMBER 8, 2016 1:20PM ET
‘Led Zeppelin IV’: How Band Struck Backat Critics With 1971 MasterpieceChafing at attacks from press, inspired by unparalleled artistic ambitions, Zeppelinmade one of rock’s biggest albums
By
Read how Led Zeppelin struck back at critics with their brilliant, career-defining fourth LP.Michael Putland/Photoshot
Led Zeppelin‘s fourth album is variously known as Led Zeppelin IV,
Untitled, Four Symbols and Zoso, but its true title is formed by the four
unpronounceable symbols chosen by each band member. Page did that
to retaliate against writers, including several in Rolling Stone, who’d
snubbed the band’s music: “After all we had accomplished, the press
was still calling us a hype. So that is why the fourth album was
ADVERTISEMENT
WATWA0:290:29LIVELIVE
ROB TANNENBAUM
Trending
1Trump Collapses Under Pressureof Extremely Basic Follow-UpQuestions About COVID-19
2Why Gen Z Turned on Lin-ManuelMiranda
3Blondie Co-Founders and BarryManilow Sell Their Catalogs toHipgnosis
4Stay Safe During Power OutagesWith These Emergency PowerGenerators
5These WiFi-Enabled AirConditioners Help You Stay CoolWithout Spiking Your Energy Bill
RELATED
untitled.” He also refused to give any interviews for a period of 18
months.
Thus, one of the best-selling rock albums of all time (23 million copies
in the U.S., at last count) was fueled by the bandmates’ resentment;
they were victors who felt like underdogs. The gatefold album design
had no photos or band information, which was “professional suicide,”
one industry expert warned Page, but it only added to the album’s –
and group’s – still-enduring air of high-school-hallway mystery.
Most of the work was done in the winter of 1970–71 at Headley Grange,
the ancient, damp, poorly heated country house Jones called “horrible.”
Page, who meticulously produced Zeppelin records and was heard to
declare, “I am the sound of Led Zeppelin,” made the house part of the
production. By placing Bonham’s drum kit in a stone stairwell and
hanging the microphones high above, he used the house’s natural
acoustics to create the massive kick and snare sounds that open “When
the Levee Breaks.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“Black Dog,” named for a stray canine that often
visited Headley Grange, was rooted in a riff Jones
created after listening to the psychedelicized Muddy
Waters album Electric Mud. The fast pace of the song
is staggered, unsettled – it sounds like Page and
Bonham are about to fall out of sync, and when the
music drops out, Plant yelps a come-on to a “steady-
rolling woman.” It’s a “blatant let’s-do-it-in-the-bath
type” of song, he said. (The stop-time structure was
inspired by Fleetwood Mac’s earlier blues hit “Oh
Well,” another example of how widely Zeppelin
listened – and borrowed.)
ADVERTISEMENT
How Led ZeppelinEmbraced Trippy FolkSide on 'III'
Robert Plant CruisesThrough Hill Countryon 'Charlie PattonHighway (Turn it Up,
Dress For Success No Matter HowYou're Working
Take it from the pros: These three entrepreneurs
have equal parts style and ambition.
Ad by Cole Haan See More
Sponsored Stories
Plastic Surgeon Tells: Doing This Every
Morning Can Snap Back Sagging Skin (No
Creams Needed)by innerskinresearch.com
Your cat can reach a
healthy weight again.
Find out how.by Hill's PetNutrition
Here's Why People Are
Upgrading To This $70
Respiratorby O2 Industries
Hearing Aids For Seniors Are More
Affordable Than Ever! Research Hearing
Aid Devices For TVby Yahoo! Search
Best Mattresses for
Back Pain of 2020.
Research The Best…by Yahoo! Search
Dont Ignore Symptoms
of Ankylosing
Spondylitis. Search…by Yahoo! Search
by
Top Videos
by Rolling Stone
MTV VMAs 2020: Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, Billie
Eilish Lead Nominees | 7/31/20
READ MORE
In a similar vein, “Rock and Roll” and “Misty
Mountain Hop” (with an electric piano from the
versatile Jones) were uptempo rockers that are still in heavy rotation
on rock stations. The latter, which Plant later termed “hippie-dippy,” is
a mischievous tale of being offered drugs in a park where people have
“flowers in their hair,” an idyllic, Aquarius-era image that recurs in the
plaintive, acoustic “Going to California,” inspired by Page and Plant’s
devotion to folk singer Joni Mitchell, as well as their love of the West
Coast. It’s another travelogue, in which Plant leaves behind a “woman
unkind” and seeks a girl “with love in her eyes.”
Between the concrete
bookends of “Black
Dog” and “When the
Levee Breaks,” one
song merges the dark
and the light.
“Stairway to Heaven”
is probably the most-
played rock song of
all time, but initially,
Zeppelin’s audience
was skeptical about
it. “The first time we
played ‘Stairway’
live,” said Jones, “it was like, ‘Why aren’t they playing “Whole Lotta
Love”?’ Because people like what they know. And then ‘Stairway’
became what they knew.” (Plant, too, initially saw “people settling
down to have 40 winks” when “Stairway” arose in Zeppelin’s set.)
Everyone at Headley Grange thought the first take was perfect – except
Page, a taskmaster when he wasn’t stoned to the brink of
unconsciousness, who hinted that it could be better. “Bonham is
fuming at this point,” said recording assistant Richard Digby Smith,
and on the second take, “he’s beating the crap out of his drums.” The
second take was the keeper. Page had been right.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Stairway” is an eight-minute episodic jaunt that starts with acoustic
guitar and Jones playing the recorder – a few different parts,
harmonized – and climaxes with an electric roar. The song “crystallized
the essence of the band,” Page said. Plant, the least nostalgic member
of Zeppelin, somewhat dismissively called it a “nice, pleasant, well-
Pt. 1)'
We Found the 20 Best Face
Masks For Running or Cycling
For athletic activity, you want to find facemasks designed from breathable, high-performance fabrics.
Ad By SPY See More
[Photos] Take A Look At Who Toby Keith Is
Married To For The Past 36 Yearsby Hollywood Tale
WHAT WE'RE BUYING
The Best Face Masks forRunning, Cycling and WorkingOut
8 Accessories That Help YouGet the Most Out of YourAirPods
The Best Camping Bags andDuffels for Your Next (SociallyDistant) Getaway
Send Us a Tip Subscribe
Menu Music TV Movies Politics Culture Video Charts Pro
Menu Read Next These WiFi-Enabled Air Conditioners Help You Stay Cool Wit…Send Usa Tip
Subscribe
meaning, naive little song.” He wrote the lyrics quickly and almost
instantly, according to Page, reversing from a cynical first line to a
mysterious but optimistic tale of reflection and rejuvenation. “I think it
was the Moroccan dope,” Plant joked. Zeppelin were so proud of the
song they printed the lyrics on the inside of the album jacket, a first for
them. (Page found the typeface in an old British fine-arts magazine
called The Studio, which dates to the late 19th century.) Radio stations
asked the band’s label for an edited version of the song; Zeppelin
refused to compromise, and DJs relented, playing it in full, especially
when they needed a bathroom break.
At first, the essence of Led Zeppelin seemed to be brutality. It was a
“very animal thing, a hellishly powerful thing,” in Plant’s words. Then
fortuitously, in the next decade, each band member developed his own
unique power. Plant added questing lyrics to his high, keening wails of
abandon. Page emerged as one of rock’s most adventurous and
imaginative producers, and turned out epic guitar riffs like he was an
assembly line. Jones played every instrument short of the kazoo,
fortifying and expanding the band’s weaponry and arrangements. And
Bonham, until he died in 1980 from drinking too excessively and living
too extravagantly, fluidly navigated odd time signatures and played
with consistent jackhammer force.
All of this craft, wisdom and daring is evident on Zeppelin’s fourth
album. Page, continuing to hold his deserved grudge against music
magazines, claims that even the band’s most popular record got
slammed by critics when it was released. The LP immediately
dominated radio playlists, and in many cities it still does. The music
long ago ascended to mythic proportions. In the 1982 film Fast Times
at Ridgemont High, written by Zeppelin fan Cameron Crowe, the sleazy
ticket scalper Mike Damone tells a younger, naive friend the secret to
getting into a girl’s pants: “When it comes down to making out,
whenever possible, put on Side One of Led Zeppelin IV.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Artists Who Ripped Off Led Zeppelin
MU
The 5Rock MTime
PO
Gr
PO
ArAbout ClimateMigr
HOME MUSIC MUSIC LISTS DECEMBER 3, 2010 12:21AM ET
100 Greatest ArtistsThe Beatles, Eminem and more of the best of the best
By
Rolling Stones in London circa 1960s.REX
ROLLING STONE
Subscribe
100 91 90 81 80 71 70 61 60 51 50 41 40 31 30 21 20 11 10 1
EXHIBIT B
In 2004 — 50 years after Elvis Presley walked into Sun Studios and cut “That’s All Right” — Rolling Stone celebratedrock & roll’s first half-century in grand style, assembling a panel of 55 top musicians, writers and industry executives(everyone from Keith Richards to ?uestlove of the Roots) and asking them to pick the most influential artists of the rock& roll era. The resulting list of 100 artists, published in two issues of Rolling Stone in 2004 and 2005, and updated in2011, is a broad survey of rock history, spanning Sixties heroes (the Beatles) and modern insurgents (Eminem), andtouching on early pioneers (Chuck Berry) and the bluesmen who made it all possible (Howlin’ Wolf).
The essays on these top 100 artists are by their peers: singers, producers and musicians. In these fan testimonials, indierockers pay tribute to world-beating rappers (Vampire Weekend’s Ezra Koenig on Jay-Z), young pop stars honorstylistic godmothers (Britney Spears on Madonna) and Billy Joel admits that Elton John “kicks my ass on piano.” Rock& roll is now a music with a rich past. But at its best, it is still the sound of forward motion. As you read this book,remember: This is what we have to live up to.
Led ZeppelinBy Dave Grohl
Heavy metal would not exist without Led Zeppelin, and if it did, it would suck. Led Zeppelin were more than justa band — they were the perfect combination of the most intense elements: passion and mystery and expertise. Italways seemed like Led Zeppelin were searching for something. They weren't content being in one place, and theywere always trying something new. They could do anything, and I believe they would have done everything if theyhadn't been cut short by John Bonham's death. Zeppelin served as a great escape from a lot of things. There was afantasy element to everything they did, and it was such a major part of what made them important. It's hard toimagine the audience for all those Lord of the Rings movies if it wasn't for Zeppelin.
They were never critically acclaimed in their day, because they were too experimental and they were too fringe. In1969 and '70, there was some freaky shit going on, but Zeppelin were the freakiest. I consider Jimmy Pagefreakier than Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix was a genius on fire, whereas Page was a genius possessed. Zeppelinconcerts and albums were like exorcisms for them. People had their asses blown out by Hendrix and Jeff Beckand Eric Clapton, but Page took it to a whole new level, and he did it in such a beautifully human and imperfectway. He plays the guitar like an old bluesman on acid. When I listen to Zeppelin bootlegs, his solos can make melaugh or they can make me tear up. Any live version of "Since I've Been Loving You" will bring you to tears and fill
14
LOAD PREVIOUS
Subscribe
100 91 90 81 80 71 70 61 60 51 50 41 40 31 30 21 20 11 10 1
you with joy all at once. Page doesn't just use his guitar as an instrument — he uses it like it's some sort ofemotional translator.
John Bonham played the drums like someone who didn't know what was going to happen next — like he wasteetering on the edge of a cliff. No one has come close to that since, and I don't think anybody ever will. I think hewill forever be the greatest drummer of all time. You have no idea how much he influenced me. I spent years inmy bedroom — literally fucking years — listening to Bonham's drums and trying to emulate his swing or hisbehind-the-beat swagger or his speed or power. Not just memorizing what he did on those albums but gettingmyself into a place where I would have the same instinctual direction as he had. I have John Bonham tattoos allover my body — on my wrists, my arms, my shoulders. I gave myself one when I was 15. It's the three circles thatwere his insignia on Zeppelin IV and on the front of his kick drum.
"Black Dog," from Zeppelin IV, is what Led Zeppelin were all about in their most rocking moments, a perfectexample of their true might. It didn't have to be really distorted or really fast, it just had to be Zeppelin, and it wasreally heavy. Then there's Zeppelin's sensitive side — something people overlook, because we think of them asrock beasts, but Zeppelin III was full of gentle beauty. That was the soundtrack to me dropping out of high school.I listened to it every single day in my VW bug, while I contemplated my direction in life. That album, for whateverreason, saved some light in me that I still have.
I heard them for the first time on AM radio in the Seventies, right around the time that "Stairway to Heaven" wasso popular. I was six or seven years old, which is when I'd just started discovering music. But it wasn't until I wasa teenager that I discovered the first two Zeppelin records, which were handed down to me from the real stoners.We had a lot of those in the suburbs of Virginia, and a lot of muscle cars and keggers and Zeppelin and acid andweed. Somehow they all went hand in hand. To me, Zeppelin were spiritually inspirational. I was going toCatholic school and questioning God, but I believed in Led Zeppelin. I wasn't really buying into this Christianitything, but I had faith in Led Zeppelin as a spiritual entity. They showed me that human beings could channel thismusic somehow and that it was coming from somewhere. It wasn't coming from a songbook. It wasn't comingfrom a producer. It wasn't coming from an instructor. It was coming from four musicians taking music to places ithadn't been before — it's like it was coming from somewhere else. That's why they're the greatest rock & roll bandof all time. It couldn't have happened any other way.
PayPal Sign Up N
Setup is fast and easy.Sell online and in-person with a secure checkout from PayPa
VIEW COMPLETE LIST
Subscribe
100 91 90 81 80 71 70 61 60 51 50 41 40 31 30 21 20 11 10 1
EXHIBIT C
Granger movement
The Granger movement, lithograph from
1873.
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Granger movement
Granger movement, coalition of U.S. farmers, particularly in the Middle West, that fought monopolistic
grain transport practices during the decade following the American Civil War.
The Granger movement began with a single individual, Oliver
Hudson Kelley. Kelley was an employee of the Department of
Agriculture in 1866 when he made a tour of the South. Shocked
by the ignorance there of sound agricultural practices, Kelley in
1867 began an organization—the Patrons of Husbandry—he
hoped would bring farmers together for educational discussions
and social purposes.
The organization involved secret ritual and was divided into
local units called “Granges.” At first only Kelley’s home state of
Minnesota seemed responsive to the Granger movement, but by
1870 nine states had Granges. By the mid-1870s nearly every
state had at least one Grange, and national membership reached close to 800,000. What drew most farmers to
the Granger movement was the need for unified action against the monopolistic railroads and grain elevators
(often owned by the railroads) that charged exorbitant rates for handling and transporting farmers’ crops and
other agricultural products. The movement picked up adherents as it became increasingly political after 1870.
In 1871 Illinois farmers were able to get their state legislature to pass a bill fixing maximum rates that
railroads and grain-storage facilities could charge. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa later passed similar
regulatory legislation. These laws were challenged in court, and what became known as the “Granger cases”
reached the Supreme Court in 1877. The most significant of the Granger cases was Munn v. Illinois (q.v.), in
which a Chicago grain-storage facility challenged the constitutionality of the 1871 Illinois law setting
maximum rates. The court, with Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite writing for the majority, upheld the
state legislation on the grounds that a private enterprise that affects the public interest is subject to
governmental regulation.
Meanwhile, independent farmers’ political parties began appearing all over the country, outgrowths of the
Granger movement. Ignatius Donnelly was one of the principal organizers, and his weekly newspaper Anti-
Monopolist was highly influential. At their Grange meetings farmers were urged to vote only for candidates
who would promote agricultural interests. If the two major parties would not check the monopolistic practices
of railroads and grain elevators, the Grangers turned to their own parties for action.
With the rise of the Greenback Party and later organizations for the expression of agricultural protest,
however, the Granger movement began to subside late in the 1870s. Ill-advised farmer-owned cooperatives for
the manufacture of agricultural equipment sapped much of the group’s strength and financial resources. By
1880 membership had dropped to slightly more than 100,000. The Granger movement rebounded in the 20th
century, however, especially in the eastern part of the country. The National Grange, as it is called, remains a
fraternal organization of farmers and takes an active stance on national legislation affecting the agricultural
sector.
EXHIBIT D
Farm Gentry
vs. the Grangers
Conflict in Rural America
"^g^^^^^^fe; ^^^^'g^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^Bliiiy.ii, .nr-Tliirni
jbBBBmH -** ..^ -
l|ilHWIW_i^__B_______i^_______HW t '>y
- ?? .-?? ?_ '
!s__________-M_______^_l^^H_l_B^_BSi__Hli^
_^H__^_^_^_i-_^_^_^_^_^_^_l_[-_^_^___H_E^______^_B__fl^_^_S.^
_____B_______^_________________________________________________H_____________^^
uiS^^^^H_^____K'^ #' --Tk ri-Ji^'-^^^Bm^:::^^^m^KKmSmt '
w^^l^^^K^^^^B^^BS^^^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^KMKK^mBU^^^^^KKBSSi^^^':i 1___^_H_I_BH-_1.::;*'' -%"=. _^H^H&>#w*^iw^^ '-^l^^^^^B^^HH^^H^^HHH^H^^^^IHHHH^^^^I^HHBSaHHSHn9_^ra^^%&_ill^k mB^^^HL^Ht^' -'^ __^^____B<__#^:"-^'"^^^P^'^A''^ ?:'*: iMWllMl?Mr^
^?H_IHiliHBE^e_-_-_-_l_-_-_-_f-^^
' -
_4?gry small farmers?many of them wheat growers plagued by indebtedness, high interest rates, tax inequities, and the
328 vagaries of the grain trade?swelled Grange membership in the lS'jos.
Gerald L. Prescott
It is an axiom of American history that the organization
known as the Grange expressed the collective voice of the
farm community in the decades following the Civil
War. The harsh criticisms raised by these Patrons of Hus
bandry against the economic practices of the American
corporate economy?in tandem with their persistent
efforts to enrich farm life with community and a political
voice?won widespread support, created pride among
husbandmen, and riveted the attention of later genera
tions of historians on the farm-city tensions of the Gilded
Age. To a large
extent this focus on the Grange is justified.
The Patrons' concerns underscored the deep frustrations
felt by millions of farmers amidst the onrush of indus
trialization, while the Granger's projects represented the
first coordinated attack on farm ills endemic to the times.1
In post-Civil
War California, as across the country,
the Grange immediately commanded considerable atten
tion. Angry wheat growers, plagued by indebtedness,
high interest rates, tax
inequities, and the vagaries of the
grain trade, swelled Grange membership roles during the
1870's. With its grandiose
economic schemes, fraternal
opportunities, and mysterious rituals, the Grange
won
numerous converts in rural California while it gained
widespread recognition in urban circles throughout the
state. The Grangers' influence peaked in the late seventies
when, in cooperation with the short-lived Workingmen's
Party of California, they played a
key role in the state
drive for constitutional and currency reform. Although
ultimately stymied in most fiscal endeavors, Grangers
temporarily rallied California farmers in a common
cause and, for a time, seemed to be the voice of all farm
dwelling Californians.2
Yet, as scholars of rural history are well aware, the
Grangers experienced competition for leadership from
Dr. Prescott is Professor of History
at California State University,
Northridge. His special interest is farm leadership in the Gilded Age. This study
was financed in part by a
grant from the California
State University?Northridge Foundation.
their own kind. The farm community in the 1870's and
1880's included a fair number of wealthy agriculturists,
many of whom championed the precepts of scientific
farming and who, more often than not, disagreed with
the aggressive reform schemes proposed by the Grangers.
While not as conspicuous
as their more vocal brethren,
members of the farming elite wielded considerable in
fluence on agrarian politics and within the agrarian
com
munity. In post-Civil
War California, for example, many
affluent farmers joined
the State Agricultural Society,
the oldest and most prestigious farm organization
in the
state. The Society and its members varied significantly from California Grangers
on matters of crucial concern
to all West Coast husbandmen. This essay will probe
these divergences, as demonstrated in separate responses
to contemporary political, economic, and social issues.
Its purpose is not to chronicle the history of either or
ganization, but to clarify important differences among
agriculturists during an era
traditionally identified with
Grange activism.3
The origins of the California State Agricultural Society
date back to 1854 when leading citizens founded an or
ganization to promote farming and to upgrade the state
of agriculture. Mining still dominated the mind and
economy of Gold Rush California, and what little farm
ing existed was largely haphazard. Early Society
mem
bers sponsored fairs, held annual meetings to
exchange
shop talk on crops and cattle, and appointed visiting committees to award prizes for the state's best orchards
and farms. Although confronted with formidable ob
stacles, by the 1860's Society members had accumulated
and published valuable data on crops best suited to Cali
fornia soils, developed workable farming techniques for
the unique California conditions, and achieved solid
advances in the care of livestock. Perhaps their most im
portant accomplishment, however, was the establishment
of a tradition of agricultural excellence amidst the over
riding and typical frontier indifference to progressive
farming procedures.4
329
Wealthy landed gentry sought conservative
political leadership of California9s
agricultural community. Farmer John M.
Benson s harvest outfit in San Joaquin
County numbered some two dozen workers.
Then, in the early seventies, a challenge
was raised to
the prestigious position of the farm elites in the agricul tural community. Despite repeated warning signs,
most
California husbandmen had persisted in raising wheat?
the most easily and cheaply produced of frontier crops.
By 1870, huge tracts of land in the Sacramento, San
Joaquin, and Salinas valleys had been planted to the
golden grain, production had boomed, and California
farmers had entered world wheat markets with their
product. An export economy, however, posed serious
problems for the state's isolated wheat farmers. The
nearest markets were thousands of miles distant, long sea
voyages necessitated special packing and handling of the
crop, freight rates
proved costly, and at the end of the
journey wheat prices fluctuated unpredictably.5 Realiz
ing that cooperative effort offered the only real protection
against the exactions of nurnerous middlemen in this
complex marketing process, California wheat growers
began to
organize. In no mood for pious phrases from the State
Agricul tural Society about the virtues of "scientific
farming,"
many concerned grain growers sought instead to maxi
mize their profits through forced reductions in freight
and marketing costs.
By 1872, numerous small farmers'
clubs had incorporated under the banner of the Farmers'
Union?California's first state-level, grass-roots agrarian
organization. One year later, as discontentment among
growers rose to a fever pitch, the Farmers' Union sought
assistance from and was subsequently absorbed by the
nationwide Grange organization. By the mid-1870's a
state network of 231 subordinate Granges, most in the
northern wheatgrowing counties, boasted a total mem
bership of nearly 15,000 persons.6
California's Grangers cast a different profile from the
state's established farm elite, and the careers of two indi
viduals, each prominent in his group, exemplify some of
the differences. William Fisher, treasurer of the State
Grange in the mid-seventies, arrived in California from
New York during the Gold Rush. After a short stint in
JIJI^^
mim^m^m^<:\'- '
* '. -^ir- ." *.. , -
,
Spl5=fe-?:.":^'
'" :"!' "..' <ni'
' .-.
'
^^m?^'::^,::'' . .' : '. '*'.
" . v
"
,:Vl!v..-.. i s 4- r ' ?* - ? , ..
' -iV-jfc-- ."* ,': . ;;
> - ; .. !.:-f*fc ; >: .Vr#! ̂
ilSllv JfV.' ' ''
.
;^*S#: *%M__flP'_0*T^W,' '
g^-;-;:!*r ";' ^_____T '"
^****" 'l3f^*_WMlWr *"|i "**
filSi^W^Jfi'* ̂-.f!,^____fcii" - j___ji1""jJi5ilj____________Btt_?_]__ V ^'ilz!^^____l1 __ _v '._>..gjr __? MBw^isJiifciMSM????1ife-l..,,?____fM?___________________i^&?i, =. Jl?_&TT*w__ __ JP|__., J_f iT^fc
' .-c%
8lliHiigi|fflW /^^^ ;2''^^'- ^" :lj<^.: . ' ''
' '" . -y^'tS
______________b____________^-^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^&^?<'' _r ?." ,&' 1} ̂ ite>_r* <*? <'C;1^i^#.W._i^Si __^__^__M^Ml_-____-_-_____-_l^M^^^ii_^^B^i^^>' **%> '*%,'- ̂v^J^h'- _foii_.__tJ_rMlM
?????????????????????????????????????HMIiMB_pli_H__?^^_<r^':^"'* ?:<2fc,!'f^vSyS^H
__^__^_^_^_B?_____Bpw___?flBB?ill?Hh_^^ ' < '-.,.
"' " -J.~^^__^v5ki^2S^?^^ ___________________________________?_HH?MPsI?iSs: -^Easa??"??$_ *?? _ *!..?* ' .. '' ?&*^ ?**##4K^*?*"i2H&'* "S^ 'S*3
MM^^B1I____?____BBB-_BII1K ^?^__ifL;f^^^^|
_^_B___________B___H____BI__BiB_Bhi1m
330
' ' W ' :, ' :::. v"'."' ' : .-. ' :- .. .-::'-:'':. :v::.-'-::%r '' 'C;3r!
m ̂ p^i^^-B^* _i$P* '^Ht^pyjj^iB___i^^ <' ?*? ;*VJ""'"^\' **' ^^"'"JM^^r^ '^^^w^^iii^jfl*^ * B^^ i^mj^*^-^"*r** ^ ̂ j**,^ ^ ̂ jsp^ * ^^^"r^'iliB
331
California Historical Quarterly
the mines, he farmed near Marysville, then moved a year
later to Napa county where he dabbled briefly
in pur
chasing and shipping grain. Fisher eventually acquired a
350-acre farm two miles northwest of Napa where he
operated a small fruit orchard, raised wheat, corn, and
sheep during the seventies and eighties, and remained
active in the Grange until his death in 1898. While not
exactly poor, Fisher's dedication to general farming
brought him only modest returns.7
By contrast, John Boggs, an officer of the State Agri
cultural Society during the 1880's, traveled to the mines
from Missouri in 1849. He soon entered the horse
trading business and within a short time accumulated 400
head. Shrewd land investments brought him a measure
of wealth, and by 1880 Boggs owned an 18,000-acre farm
in Colusa County valued at $300,000. Specializing in
livestock and wheat production, Boggs became one of the
best known agriculturists in the state. He eventually
owned stock in several banks, served on the Board of
Trustees of Stanford University, became Regent of the
University of California, and served in the state senate.
By any standards, Boggs ranked at the top of his pro
fession,8 and many of California's farm elite were equally
successful.
N A * ot surprisingly,
the gentlemen farmers of the State
Agricultural Society viewed the rapid rise of the Grange
with mixed feelings. As key figures in the improvement
of California agriculture, these men understood well the
unique marketing problems confronting Pacific Slope
farmers and had long stressed the need for a more efficient
transportation system. Many Society members, more
over, were themselves heavily involved in commercial
wheat farming, and they knew first-hand the complexi
ties and uncertainties of the specialized wheat export
trade.9 Accordingly, several of the agricultural gentry,
including wheat entrepreneur John Bidwell, supported
the vocal Grange organization and urged farmers who
wished to remain solvent to follow suit. They denounced
the "wheat-bag trust," usurious interest rates, railroad
abuses, and other targets of the agrarians?in short, per sons and practices they believed to be injurious
to farmers'
prosperity.10 Most gentlemen farmers, however, rejected the
Grange's proposals and recommended other paths to
success. The shortest route to prosperity, these Society
leaders reaffirmed, lay in
applying basic scientific prin
ciples to
farming. They encouraged farmers to rotate
their crops, to deep-plow their fields, to use fertilizers, to
intermix breeds of stock in their herds, to experiment
with new crops and seeds, and to systematize their oper
ations. Blind adherence to "King Wheat," inattention
to scientific methods, and poor farm management would
inevitably result in failure, warned Society spokesmen;
conversely, quality crops and cattle, and mastery of the
techniques needed to
produce them, would assure farm
profits and economic progress. Crop diversification, they
acknowledged, did not mean abandonment of cereal
grains; grain production was too
important to Cali
fornia's young farm economy, and in fact the Society
spokesmen predicted heavy grain production indefinitely.
They cautioned growers, however, that the great distance
from European wheat markets posed a
permanent
threat to profits and urged diversification "to the extent
of practicability.''n In a move which brought them little popularity, Cali
fornia's farm elite further countered the Grange's
agrarian programs by stressing character development and adherence to the work ethic. Fortune from the
furrow, they maintained, only accrued to those persons
who possessed energy and industry and who followed an
exacting regimen of work, study, and experimentation.
Accordingly, state and county fair speakers liberally
sprinkled their remarks with self-help themes, and the
Society's annual Transactions featured abundant exam
ples of persons who, through diligent effort, progressed
Livestock exhibitions at the state fair
were calculated to educate
farmers about improving the quality of the rangy California beef cattle. 332
Farm Gentry vs. the Grangers
from being hired hands to wealthy farmers. Patience,
grit, and self-denial, it was suggested, would eventually
bring rewards; routine industriousness, moreover, would
develop a
strong and noble character. Their message
was stated persistently and persuasively?man
must first
master himself before he can master nature.12
Gentlemen farmers, too, spoke critically of idlers and
loafers?persons, they said, who expected financial re
wards without first undergoing a necessary and difficult
apprenticeship. Young men should be willing
to toil as
field hands, to content themselves with moderate and
steady pay, and to look to the future rather than "grum
bling to have to rise at
daybreak." They chided agrarians
for living too fast and for being
too extravagant in the
tradition of Bonanza Kings.13 Before farmers could
prosper, they asserted, they must learn the great lessons
of prudence and economy. These kinds of comments,
while perhaps not aimed directly
at the Grange, implied
criticism of farmers who did not commit all their energies
to the improvement of crops and cattle.
California's farmer elite expressed particular disgust
with agrarians and other persons who blamed the seven
ties' economic woes on bankers, capitalists, and railroad
barons. Antimonopolist tirades by Denis Kearney and
his San Francisco-based Workirigmen's Party, for ex
California sfarm elite countered the
Grange's agrarian programs by stressing
character development and adherence to the
work ethic.
ample, evoked fiery responses from usually staid Society
members and revealed their deep concern over "factious"
and "seditious" social elements who surfaced in the
depression of the seventies. Repeated attacks against
capital and corporate property, it was feared, would drive
manufacturers from the state, increase unemployment, and promote social discord. "Let this war upon capital... and corporate interests be kept up and maintained a little
while longer," declared Society president Marcus
Boruck in 1878, "and the streets of our cities will afford
magnificent avenues for grazing cattle."14 Generally, the
farm elite enjoyed close financial ties with the business
community, and they resisted efforts to restructure the
established order, countering violence and labor strife by
reaffirming the tenets of self-help and the free enterprise
system.
^ n ; = . >
f i?kW ^?^=_aL,=-__ .... ;
.****?5j-.:.:..: -
^^JU^KilSS^W^sA
B9VMBl_iltSrv_^_m_-_--^' __ir- '
^M. i I.
.;.iijd-?-_B_--?r,y f"""1?___P^^__P1^___,___HP-^' ^BBBBHB J_HBBBBHbH rtf ii
^^^^BfflP^?'^':^l^^iife:^___PSw-H^ ^fl^nQ^^^HB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^HHB^yBM_^" -^__________Lj ^' ?f-#_l_^^^^__^^|_H|^T's^ T t ^ yajBJ
:=iiis;v : >^Mi.'flBk __M_____fl??______P*^ ?- L--
^^B___B_B_______B_-^^^1'^^^
1 ^jf* ^"w___*_*IH*Sj'*iS*M*1 ***% *,. MH___________HP^^-' ' tk_t* l_ !^p* ,:^?_____?*P____?& < _Pl______h_i_l
"**
ii??M__^HH _J_b_^B__l ^p. '" <<P _ j* ? * "
?? >'' ?&m________ ?IKKll______? ?_?K3W?"? nkPXHHHHHP -SSS iVu._?>? ^ liiaa>ii_'aa -TF -*^ * ̂ ?_______?S_H??___ __?I
PP> ' j __3?_ _!>? .,??I1 * B^***'*'?'" . ?8S?g KVflg . ? _t .^ ̂ _ffi^__B? _ _ ? ,-,,..wm ^P~!jB^ttlj| ;:3^?i _fc_:->- Jfe*
- I M * Jk ?___f!"* '
ij_B| ' m' _^1?H???lEnF^y1^^ ^^^^
hsSy ^B^fBT^f^Blr 'jw^^^wlhi__iiB___Bksp'___p?___Bg_____i_?^ _^__jJSih^pB?BEB-BwsBH_Bt_SB8
,- * ?} ,^-ju.^ 4i; ~^j^d^HBBBi^__BflBBBBBBB________^
*dB ^*B i______-^jS^I_1 ?_____________________________________________________________w____^
"^ - ^8BB__Ei
: ;-?_&& ?_& ii__flk^:^i^f___l?__Bs_r^^l____________________________________H \_w____B____B_________l_BI__B ?y|i|__)__M__k ?__ _i____r^ ___^_H__^_^_r^_r !>^Hi_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^Hr^?__________________l ^_^_________b^*?__________?___l : ^*_I?9__H_. IIH ?fi_____uL?_________fiffnlr ::'"*111P_______________ ^_^?N_?_____!__________?__[^1
Although California's agricultural gentry rarely re
ferred to the Grange by name, spokesmen left little doubt
they disapproved of Grangers' antibusiness sentiments.
As early
as 1874, for example, criticism of the Patrons'
imbroglios with local merchants surfaced at a meeting of
the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Society.15 The
Grangers' well-publicized efforts to break the Central
Pacific Railroad "monopoly," coupled with their vitri
olic attacks on "unjust" railroad magnates, upset most of
the farm elite even more. During the 1870's California
agrarians waged a
vigorous campaign to reduce railroad
freight fares and to place legislative controls on railroad
management. Joined in their crusade by unemployed
laborers and hard-pressed merchants, the Grangers ob
tained passage of a state law in 1876 which prohibited
many unpopular railroad practices, including the levying
of discriminatory freight rates. The law, however,
proved to be ineffectual, and it was followed by
creation
of a State Railroad Commission with broader rate
setting powers. When in the 1880's the state commission,
too, failed to curb railroad excesses to the satisfaction of
Patrons, they ultimately sought federal help. The
Grange's Proceedings between 1880 and 1887, the year the
_________nn__________________r _r:?..;:r<n;3_______________________________________________________! _s_K^^'>_M-_^_^HH_n____m :*< . --___, M_-M_-______a-H_i
Interstate Commerce Act was passed,
are filled with
resolutions and committee reports demanding congres
sional controls on transportation, freight,
and tonnage
rates and prohibition of the onerous and corrupting free
pass system which provided free transportation to
lobby ists and other political allies of railroad companies. Only
the federal government, Grangers believed, could check
the "ruinous extortions practiced by the railroad monop
olists."16
Gentlemen farmers viewed the railroad regulations movement with alarm. As prime boosters of the first
transcontinental link and firm believers in the close rela
tionship of railroads to farm growth, they resented
"malicious insinuations" about railway corporations and
feared the negative impact this kind of rhetoric might have on future railroad construction. "The California
farmer in particular
is indebted to the iron horse," asserted
one rail enthusiast at the height of agitation in the late
seventies. "It... has placed
us on a competing scale with
the rest of America, with the rest of the World!"17
Society spokesmen stressed the vital link between rail
ways and farm markets, land values, and population
growth, at the same time repeatedly praising the skills
334
Farm Gentry vs. the Grangers
and achievements of the Central Pacific's "Big Four"?
Collis P. Huntington, Leland Stanford (a State Society
member), Charles Crocker, and Mark Hopkins. When
agrarian regulationists, stymied by legal battles and court
delays, boldly proposed public ownership of transporta tion companies, the farm elite vehemently disagreed. "These fantastic notions," declared Marin County cattle
breeder James Shafter, "lead the people to
indulge in
delusions... and throw the honest but uninformed mind
into the control of the worst elements of society."18 As
to what the government was
expected to do with the
companies when it obtained them, Shafter, in concert
with most farm elites, remained caustically skeptical.
Society members did seek speedier, less costly delivery
(particularly for perishable fruit) to eastern markets
during the eighties, but they did so without warring on
railroads. They perceived freight rates to be a business
matter and urged producers to
negotiate directly with
carriers. Railroad operators, they asserted, were gener
ally amenable to reason and argument. If operators could
be persuaded that lower fares would stimulate farm pro
duction and increase carload volume, shipping rates
inevitably would drop. Unfortunately, declared one
Tehama county agriculturist, "there are persons who will
never be content until... transportation companies have
been cinched."19 For these persons, reasonable rate re
ductions would not suffice. To rebut regulationists' argu
ments, farm elites detailed the rapid rise of eastbound
rail shipments during the eighties and credited sharply
reduced freight fares to the business acumen of intelligent
growers rather than to governmental pressures. As men
of wealth and property, agricultural gentry?more so
than the average farmer?could accept railroad leaders
on neutral terms and appreciate the many difficulties in
volved in establishing rail connections with distant
entrepots. In contradistinction to the Grangers, they per ceived railroad directors as contributors to economic
growth, and they thus approached transportation issues
in a businesslike and non-combative manner.
" There are
persons who will never be content
until.. . transportation companies
have
been cinched."
Gentlemen farmers charted an independent
course
from Grangers on other issues as well. The question of
land monopoly triggered heated political battles in
Gilded Age California and evoked deep resentment, par
ticularly among small farmers.20 Millions of mostly uncultivated acres in the state remained in
large estates
established in the Spanish-Mexican era, and during the
sixties and seventies the federal government had allotted
huge additional tracts to railroads as subsidies for expand
ing their lines. These lands were priced considerably
above the government minimum level of $1.25 per acre,
and purchase remained beyond the reach of all but the
best-financed farm seekers. As a result, the small-scale
farmer in California, to a much greater extent than farm
ers elsewhere on the trans-Mississippi farming frontier, had difficulty obtaining
a substantial foothold on the
land.21 Throughout the seventies and eighties Grangers
vigorously attacked the "machinations of land monop
olists," urged tax reforms to
discourage property-holding for speculative purposes, and opposed land grants to
"voracious" railway corporations. "The public lands are
property of the people," they declared, "and should be
exclusively held for actual settlers."22 To Grangers, this
concentration of property in a few hands was not only
a
bar to settlement, but an evil in itself?a form of oppres sion as villainous as fraudulent business practices.
As early
as the 1850's gentlemen farmers had also
complained that California's landed estates were a hin
drance to the spread of agriculture and a deterrent to im
migration, but they remained less willing
to criticize land
monopolists than the Grangers. Large property holders,
335
California Historical Quarterly
they asserted repeatedly, should not be blamed for accu
mulating vast
holdings. "They buy because no man
desiring a home at one dollar and twenty-five
cents per
acre has preempted the desired land," proclaimed one
farm brahmin. "What is there wrong in one's complying
with such an invitation, and paying the price?"23
When antimonopolist forces, including some
agrari
ans, pushed land redistribution schemes in the late
seventies, the farming elite took a hard line. Confiscation
and disposal of property without the owner's consent,
they warned, would be in violation of the federal Consti
tution. While gentlemen farmers acknowledged, and in
some instances deplored, the existence of land monopoly, most
thought the problem would eventually correct
itself. Property in California, they stated, would in time
become so valuable that owners of large estates would be
persuaded to sell. In the meantime the problem for new
comers was far from hopeless. Proclaimed one optimist:
"Taking everything into consideration, land has been
the cheapest of all our commodities. A home ... is easily within the reach of every head of family who will, with
reasonable good fortune and health, set himself to
acquire it."24
Society leaders also expressed little enthusiasm for tax
reform as a method for subdividing lands, and they par
ticularly criticized the single
tax plan of California
journalist Henry George. "His work conveys to my mind
this idea," declared the keynote speaker before the State
Agricultural Society in 1882, "a man who, starting to
build a pyramid, laid well his foundation,,, and then
thereon erected 'The House that Jack Built.' "25 In gen
eral, farm elites adopted a moderate stance on the land
question, content to let time and the private
sector solve
one of the state's most vexing problems. Government
interference, some believed, might create more
problems than it would solve.
Another sensitive controversy in post-Civil
War Cali
fornia?the debate over mining debris?revealed addi
jj^HBB^fc1*;$+**' '^''i^1'^
***""""' :1,?i*M: . "
Jf farm lands. Grangers demanded government
l^%# ̂ !W^SI*'* ,;;.,;, ;T' "
S*.T_?_9(__fl_Gfl___fl_^_^_^>^_;:' *l__-A *" * '*-.-* - ^T
""* ^~* >J:"
' ^^^t^^H^KB^^Ft^-jd
^
MNH^hh^^ ' 4&^.< * "
" *?"?yp^?* ?__!? _f^j____B!^! P^Pk^';M^NJB_HiBit_MM!__s_^_____________^___ ^^^^H&i
H__E_^___^_^_________B___i__^_fl" rjis,*^i? ***^^Kti^^^BSSBStB^^^^^^BI^^^Ktl^K^^.t'i^ ^l^^^_____^^^feb____ktfl_^_r_______fc:^ .J_fl
Farm Gentry vs. the Grangers
tional differences between Grangers and gentlemen
farmers. Hydraulic mining operations begun in the mid
fifties produced immense amounts of waste sand and
gravel, much of which found its way downstream to
clog
navigable rivers and cover
huge tracts of grass and farm
ing lands with a debris called "slickens." As the years
passed, sand and sediment buried whole farms, and eco
nomic losses to property owners in portions of the Sacra
mento Valley
mounted steeply during the seventies.
Farmers went to court, sought legislative controls to
prevent future devastation, and looked for allies.26 Pre
dictably, Grangers perceived the issue as another example of corporate mismanagement and sided solidly with the
aggrieved farmers against the mining industry. For over
a decade Patrons passed lengthy resolutions detailing
the disastrous impact of hydraulic mining on natural
resources and campaigned strenuously for its abolish
ment. The dumping of mining wastes, they warned,
would eventually "render our great valleys uninhabi
table." The contest, in their view, was no less than a
struggle for survival between the "two great interests of
the Pacific Coast"?agriculture and mining. There could
be no middle ground nor
compromise.27 California's farm elite contributed little to the debate
until it had reached tempest proportions in the early
eighties. Then, as lawsuits multiplied and bitterness
soared, they belatedly tried to play
a conciliatory role.
Society leaders recognized the destructive aspects of
hydraulic mining but refused to side publicly with irate
Sacramento Valley farmers. Speaking to a state fair
audience in 1881, Society president James Shafter main
tained, "I am here the advocate of neither [farmers nor
miners] and am, as I hope you all are, the friend of any
honorable industry." The courts, he continued, would
adjust the rights of both parties without injury to either,
and "the law of absolute justice would prevail."28 In the
meantime, he said, farmers should remember the incal
culable contributions of the mining industry to the state's
economy and, ultimately, to the financing of farms and
ranches. Without a continual expansion of circulating
medium, he implied, agriculture would flounder.
After the courts had banned hydraulic mining practices in 1884 (although the illegal dumping of mining wastes
continued for another decade), Society spokesmen
sought to smooth over the acrimonious
feelings produced
by the battle. Neither side, declared politically prominent
Aaron A. Sargent, had been moved by malicious mo
tives, but only by the desire to protect their interests.
Damage caused by mining debris, he asserted, was "in
voluntary," although stricken farmers had "respectable
premises for their complaints."29 On balance, members
of the farm elite assigned more
importance to the per nicious effects of
hydraulicking than to miners' rights, but they meticulously presented the miners' side of the
issue and expressed regret for the hardships caused by the
1884 decision. To farm brahmins, who were sensitive to
the interrelationships between business, manufacturing,
and agriculture, the
antihydraulicking movement
posed a difficult and delicate dilemma. They vacillated on the
issue and later lamely wrote off the entire matter as "a
misfortune growing out of the nature of
things." During the 1890's gentlemen farmers continued to support the
mining industry and, in collaboration with mining
entrepreneurs, initiated an annual state mining exhibit
(including hydraulic mining equipment) at the 1892
state fair.30
T JUie farm elite deviated from the standard Grange
position on
yet another issue of major importance to
Gilded Age Californians. During the mid-nineteenth
century, thousands of Chinese had entered the state to
work in the mines and build the Central Pacific railroad.
Tolerated by the white majority as
long as
jobs and wages were abundant, the Chinese became targets for
hostility in the seventies when placer mining declined, railroads
were completed, and the economy slumped. Record
337
Activities at the State Agricultural
Society pavilion in Sacramento were
sponsored by leading farmers who promoted
farming and upgrading the quality of
frontier agriculture
"
Why may we not lay hold of China
commercially and convert that vast
empire . ..
into a boundless and never-failing market
for all our surplus four?"
immigration levels during the decade aggravated the
problem. Unemployed laborers, distressed farmers, and
other malcontents increasingly vented their frustrations
on the Orientals, urged their exclusion from the state,
and demanded a ban on new immigrants from China.
By 1877 the "Chinese Question"?in tandem with rail
road, land, and tax issues?dominated California politics
and became a central factor in the thrust for state consti
tutional reform.31
California Grangers joined the mounting drive for
Chinese exclusion, pressed farmers to dispense with
Chinese laborers whenever possible, and catalogued the
many "evils" of Oriental immigration. Cheap coolie
labor, they perceived, was an aid to
monopolists?par
ticularly large landholders and railroads, the arch enemies
?and an obstacle to work opportunities for farm youth. In 1877 and again
in 1878 the State Grange passed resolu
tions urging Congress to prevent further importation
"of this scourge to western humanity and civilization."
To Grange leaders the Chinese immigrants represented an
"overshadowing curse which are
sapping the founda
tion of our prosperity, the dignity of labor, and the
glory of our State."32
While California's farm elite acknowledged the prob
lems posed by a
heavy influx of Chinese, they usually
defended coolie labor against the onslaught of critics
during the peak years of anti-Chinese sentiment. Cheap
wages, they argued, stimulated both intensive and ex
tensive agricultural development, as well as the construc
tion of needed railroads. Further, they stated repeatedly,
the Chinese had little to do with the current economic
difficulties. Numerous factors had caused the present
downturn, most importantly the flooding of California
markets with cheaply produced eastern
products. The
unrealistically high wage demands of white workers in
California, they agreed, forced employers to seek a
cheaper labor source, but the impact of Orientals upon
the price of labor was less than claimed. "The writers dip their pens in gall, and slash away diatribes against that
bugbear John Chinaman, and would have us believe he
is the plague of the nation," grumbled a
Society officer in
1877. "They simply argue from one set of facts and ignore another. . . ,"33
The farm elite shrewdly went on to utilize the "Chinese
. Question" to chide the much-despised supporters of the
antimonopolist Workingmens' movement and to pro
mote their favored self-help beliefs. They praised the
Chinese for their steady work habits, uncomplaining
manner, and their numerous construction accomplish
ments, including the massive flood-control dykes in the
Sacramento Valley which were crucial adjuncts to the
land reclamation process.
The agricultural gentry advanced additional argu ments in support of the harassed Chinese. Americans,
they asserted, had traditionally defended the right of indi
viduals to select their own domicile; the exclusion of
Orientals (though ineligible for citizenship) would
negate this time-hallowed practice. Then, too, the con
stant and irritating comparisons between whites and
Chinese, warned one orator, tended "to lower the self
respect and to degrade the character. . . . Our tendencies
are strong enough already to
lapse and decay;
we need
no augmentation in that direction."34 In a more prag
matic vein, farm brahmin John Bidwell saw friendship
with China as a concomitant to the enlargement of Cali
fornia's Pacific Ocean commerce in wheat. "Why may we not
lay hold of China commercially and convert that
vast empire... into a boundless and
never-failing market
for all our surplus flour?" he wondered. But first, harass
338
11^. M I^^^^Kjgyggy -~^:Kii_flfe__i"lMnffW h*""*! LfffiPn^fmrf lili^B^B^________________________________^_________________
&____?_==!' f lllllllllHIl j I IH lllllll ̂ ii^^j^^KjLi^g^Ki^ili^ffiiifrjLi!1 'jJicy iilBBS8_tH_^^ LaJ Ltf^AJ _AI ?-l-_--BMiffllliB-__Bp;. liirfiiiTiMii^^ [j !j-^_^^i^i^r]lg^ Bxi-!-_-^___!______________k3I __.
ment of the Chinese must cease, and amicable relations
with China must be cultivated.35
Two factors influenced the gentlemen farmers' stance
on the "Chinese Question." First, they believed cheap
Chinese labor to be essential for profitable, large-scale
farming in California. High land and transportation
costs
necessitated low wages for farm workers, lest California
products be priced out of eastern and European markets.
Even a cursory reading of the sources reveals the solidly
economic orientation of the farm elite's thinking on the
issue. Bidwell's candid admission that future market
opportunities in the Pacific were tied to friendly relations
with the Chinese underscores the point. Secondly, the
agricultural gentry linked strong animosity towards the
Chinese with the antimonopolist movement, and, ac
cordingly, they defended Oriental labor as part of their
countermove to thwart antimonopolistic demands. The
Chinese, in effect, became pawns in this power struggle
between the "ins" and their challengers. Rarely did the
farm elite praise Chinese culture or Chinese immigrants as
persons.
To be sure, California's farm gentry (most of whom
were native-born) demonstrated the same nativist senti
ments held by millions of American citizens in the Gilded
Age. For example, Society spokesmen
at various times
during the post-Civil War decades described people of
Spanish descent as "lazy," the Chinese as "an alien,
heathen population," Italians and Egyptians as "slow
plodding people," and Mexicans as "an authentic case of
arrested race development." Strikes and violent protests,
commonplace in the late seventies, were
perceived by one orator as "devilish
foreign-born schemes of idle,
vicious scum." Conversely, Anglo-Saxons, proclaimed
Society president Frederick Cox in 1892, constituted a
powerful race. Another farm brahmin boasted to a re
ceptive Society gathering in 1886, "Europe produces...
nothing equal to the American citizen. We indeed are a
favored people." Members of the farm elite repeatedly
referred to the superiority of the New World over the
Old and unabashedly promoted the tenets of American
ism and patriotism. Immigrants were welcome, indeed
needed, in post-Civil War California, but it was gen
erally assumed they came "to find themselves freed from
degrading competitions to which they have been sub
jected elsewhere." Egalitarianism, in short, played
no
part in the farm elite's defense of the Chinese.36
Another point of departure between gentlemen farmers and Grangers pertained
to their divergent
atti
339
_H_B____-_________________-p|__P^______________-___i
'
5 i VRflli-'- ':r
::^^^^I___________B^ l_P_________S^r tItW^H B____li____l^ m
*"f**W!^-At.-.JniHiHiM
nS "-f??l__B____| iiitttilMlr ...,m Farm equipment manufacturers advertised
. I v^\*i:' IH _. J^h'pKP !!_-P' lijBP^IiB^B ^e,r imProved machines at the 1903 state
ri"'"""iV^ThT"^"'iTSfi':_______rBi^iTpM
'
*-r^^-^?^'*-',:^? ^Ssj>^i5ftr.""7**?iS^^
_PI^___i-pp^-__________p^_fl_B -Md ^^^M*iB__ *^
w*3p^^'_^_i_^N_/'s-^>__i_i_i fc j-^S__-________B_B___i1mH?_b __j^_W_ aZ&'*""'"* p/'_|_?^_8S_P?_p_ppp^ '* ^x^IHh
W^Sjf^B^CS^^^^^^^W^^ __I__8_wi 7111 Ji" '>r_&sBp_H_S_IS^' '\ i____H
__^__^__^__^__^__^__^__^BHH1^_^_H_H|pw_H_^_H^^_^_^_^_^_h_^ * *\ lc??________!
tudes towards agriculture as a
profession and husband
men as individuals. California Patrons, like their asso
ciates across the nation, offered countless testimonials to
the innate nobility of the yeoman farmer and to farming
as the primary vocation of man. When husbandry fails,
Patrons habitually avowed, the state and nation fails, "but
in its support and elevation" the state and nation prosper.
In Jeffersonian spirit, California agrarians eulogized
"tillers of the soil" and considered them an important
bulwark against American decadence.37
Gentlemen farmers, too, extolled the virtues and dig
nity of country life and supported the belief that agri
culture was a noble calling. They rejected the premise,
however, that residence on a farm automatically
en
dowed a person with unique qualities and a special role
in society. On the contrary, they claimed, too many
California husbandmen neglected to maintain
properly
their homes and farms, were ignorant of even the simplest
husbandry techniques, and did not understand the true
philosophy of farming. As a result, they lamented, many
farms were in disrepair, California farmsteads ranked
unfavorably with homesteads back east, and rural ele
gance was
mostly a myth. Members of the elite, in short,
were quick
to criticize and slow to praise the farming
operations of their colleagues. Farming is a science, they
monotoned, and only skilled craftsmen?as in any pro
fession?deserved the applause and respect of society.
"The true farmer is not content to merely make a
living, or to
merely get rich," affirmed one purist; "he has a
noble ambition to excel in his vocation."38 Mastery of
one's job and the quest for perfection counted more with
the farm elite than did a man's occupation.
Finally, farm elites and Grangers disagreed on the
proper structure for formal agricultural education in
California. Society leaders, key figures in the formation
of the University of California in the late sixties, urged the
university's infant College of Agriculture to offer a mix
of theoretical and practical courses with a solid emphasis
on the agricultural sciences. Farming, they asserted, was
an art and a science, and only by studying it "in all its
departments" could one hope
to prosper, particularly in a
state with such varied resources as California. (As self
proclaimed "scientific agriculturists" they could hardly do otherwise.) Farm gentry, moreover, foresaw a
major research role for the "Ag College." Much like agri cultural scientists of a later era, they perceived the young state
university as a center for the formulation and testing
of innovative farming techniques.39
Grange leaders, on the other hand, generally stressed
the importance of a "practical" education and the training
of students who could handle a plow and turn a
straight furrow. When, in the mid-1870's, Grangers decided
that the College of Agriculture's curriculum was too
academically oriented, they berated university officials,
charged the Board of Regents with "unfitness, incompe
tency, and bad management," and demanded greater
emphasis on
training in the mechanic arts. The resulting furor led to the firing of the university's first professor of
340
Farm Gentry
vs. the Grangers
agriculture, Ezra S. Carr, and to the departure of the
university's second president, Daniel Coit Gilman, to
greener pastures in the East.40
The farm elite, like the Grangers, did criticize the Board
of Regents for the manner in which they administered
the congressional grant for agricultural education. The
intent of the Morrill Act of 1862, they maintained, was to
foster the teaching of agriculture and to stimulate the
development of agricultural knowledge. Yet, university
officials interpreted the term agriculture
to include a
host of subjects including classical studies. Thus, accord
ing to Society leaders, the Regents had improperly di
verted a large portion of the land-grant funds to non
agricultural areas. While elite farmers had no
quarrel with the classics, they resented the use of Morrill Act
funds for this purpose.41
One solution, acceptable to farm elites and Grangers
alike, was to separate agricultural training from the
Berkeley campus of the University of California. Such a
move, it was argued, would increase enrollments, reduce
the temptation for farm youth to pursue other profes
sions, free the "Ag College" from outside influences,
and enhance the quality of the agricultural program. Yet,
to members of the farm elite separation did not mean
complete withdrawal from the university. They recog
nized the prestige and value of a university education for
farm youth and sought only to remove the
College of
Agriculture's instructional program to a rural site away
from the clutches of academic empire builders.42 The
State Grange, on the other hand, urged that the agri
cultural college be "completely divorced" from the uni
versity and that administrative controls on tax-supported
higher education be fundamentally reorganized.43 Farm
elites, in short, would effect reforms within the univer
sity framework; Grangers would start afresh.
The distinction proved crucial for the future of the
College of Agriculture and the university. Without the
farm elite's support, Grangers failed to achieve wholesale
revision of the university structure. Later, when the
University Farm School was opened
at Davisville in
1909?due in large part to the efforts of the Society's
secretary, Peter J. Shields?its instructional program
combined the principles with the practices of agriculture, the essential blend favored by California's farm elite.
This forward-looking, if over-ambitious,
farmer's experiment in 1902 with diverse
and intensive farming resulted in a dense
carpet of strawberries, dewberries,
!SyiiK---_B-M-^-^-^-H---_-^^
1$mBP-p|H|B_^_M_B_k^
The curriculum of the proposed
"Ag College" at Davis became a point of
contention between the "scientific9 gentry and the "practical" Grangers {photo c.1925).
To what factors can the divergence between gentleman
farmers and Grange leaders on major issues in the seven
ties and eighties be attributed? Certainly both groups
desired agricultural growth, greater financial rewards for
husbandmen, and farm improvements. Both the farming
elite and the Grangers, moreover, perceived the emerging
agricultural industry with its immence economic po
tential to be crucial to the state's future development.
Gentlemen farmers, however, defined improvements
and growth in terms of quality crops and cattle, prudent
adjustments to soils and climate, experimentation with
new plants and livestock, widespread adherence to ethics
of self-help and work, and the adoption of "scientific
farming" techniques. They fixed their attention on the
farm (and ranch) and sought success
through the develop ment of agricultural skills, versatility, and
knowledge.
Granger agrarians, on the other hand, focused their
attention on outsiders, "monopolists" who deliberately or
inadvertently made decisions that demolished oppor
tunities for "average" farmers. Railroad barons and
other large-scale capitalists had to be harnessed, they
affirmed, before husbandmen could thrive and prosper.
This perspective led to militant rhetoric and an aggressive
stance on major political
issues. Thus, while farm elites
and Grangers could agree on broad, fundamental objec
tives, they defined and pursued them in a significantly
different fashion.
\_^^ocio-economic data furnish additional clues to the
split in the California countryside. Gentlemen farmers,
for example, enjoyed a
greater degree of financial security than Grangers. The holdings of State
Agricultural Society
officers who farmed or raised cattle ranked far above
those of Grange leaders in farm size, production value,
and farm value. Federal manuscript census data for 1870
and 1880 indicate that Society officers' farms compared
^____^__^__^__^__f^i^iFa__^__H__K^rrrr i*y---~..:j5#.?-jlj'- ,* .._ :; w .>.-___ ____________________ ^__________P"I ** * ** ::S___________llf' * m*T^ ' * ' T J- ** !"'. I. B_M?_ ____________________B - ?S^_i_^_S-_l _?ia_H_____i_f *" * I1M1 t _J> v ?. * ' IJJJlra
J_________L^l____&.?M_i Jfc Tp? B_^jglil^M
to those of State Grange officers as follows: a median
acreage of 1220 acres compared
to 319 acres; a median
production value of $5,625 compared to $3,200; and a
median value of $38,875 compared to $9,333.
Clear distinctions between the two groups appeared in
other socio-economic indices as well. In 1870 a typical
California Grange leader, for example, reported less than
one-sixth the assessed valuation (mean values) of a typical
member of the farm elite's personal property in 1870
and about 40 percent of their real property.44 Gentlemen
farmers, moreover, were as apt to live in town
(usually Sacramento or San
Francisco) as on a farm. A command
ing 42 per cent in the period between 1865 and 1890
resided in or near Sacramento, the home of the state fair
and the Agricultural Society. Conversely, 93 per cent
of the Grange officers lived on farms.
342
_!_l_i_S_S_l_^_H_m_s!H_lHM_^
____ii______N________iii__JR-_MH-n^ -^^^^^^ ^ ^SBPSBP* .__ *? lll___________________________________________________-__________________________^_^_^ ^ -^
*.?? - -.-^j--^-
-- ^
? ____?M?i<?"'''ii'M_i__
l^_-r^'^^rl;,^,i k; ? ^__K9n_BI_____________________l_______________________________
IT=__Bf' - l:___^?__________H___P_l> ^_____H_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ttl^^^^^r^ _^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_i
U_____S^i^^'^^_________^I^W^w :^**________i__l______ 1_____________________!
w^^u^M____________fS^^r"' I f "i___B'W^ ^ ?__9_SHiH
-*;1*11 ;;_!._?:"'':":'-'. v.:i,--"i *.-; ''
".-., ~. : " '
. i:-^:y
:'\?>*
' ' .; ,
' "~ '-"-" - -
J?* ?~-v? .?'..- #^ '%, .' *
California's farm elite were far from "average" in
other respects as well. Data from voting registers,
news
papers, legislative blue books, county histories, and
archival materials reveal that over half of the Society's
officers in the period from 1865 to 1890 had attended or
completed college. One of four served in the state
legis
lature in the post-Civil War era, and one of two held a
local government office. Most also claimed membership in
prominent social organizations and commanded
recognition as
community leaders. Unquestionably,
members of the farm elite were better equipped than
Grangers to handle the financial chaos and abrupt
eco
nomic shifts that characterized Gilded Age California.
Urban-based gentlemen farmers also intermingled to a
much greater extent than Grangers with political, pro
fessional, and business leaders, i.e., men who articulated
the views held by capitalists and the well-to-do and who
more often than not supported the political, social, and
economic status quo. These contacts certainly sensitized
the farm gentry to the complex interrelationships be
tween agriculture, business, and mining and cooled their
enthusiasm for the Grangers' simplistic antimonopolist
programs.
Status considerations, too, reinforced the gulf between
Grangers and farm gentry. Each considered their or
ganization to be the proper leader of the
farming com
munity, and each was convinced that they had the true
remedy for farm ills. The result was a friendly but spirited
rivalry that reached a peak during the tumult of the late
seventies. For example, Grangers declared that only
"honest agriculturists" were wanted in their organiza
tion, and they chided wealthy farmers who benefited
343
California Historical Quarterly
from the Grangers' labors but who "selfishly . . . stand
on the outside of the gates."45 Farm elites, conversely,
openly criticized the Patrons' business schemes and stead
fastly disassociated themselves from their antimonopolist
uproar in California. For most farm brahmins, to be
linked with the bellicose Grange was an
unpleasant
prospect. Few joined the organization or
participated in
the Patrons' multifarious activities.46
To declare that California's farm leaders disagreed on
key issues in the post-Civil
War period
is hardly a revela
tion. Yet most historical studies, by inference or by
design, continue to portray the Grange
as the one voice
of rural America in the 1870's. Unquestionably, Grangers
expressed the beliefs of millions of rural people, but the
Gilded Age farm community
was not a homogeneous
entity. In California, leaders of the State Agricultural
Society differed significantly with the Grangers
on the
railroad question, existing patterns of land ownership,
hydraulic mining practices, labor and immigration issues,
farming as a
profession, and the techniques and content
of agricultural education. The maze of opinions advanced
by farm spokesmen in the twentieth century only under
scores the continuing complexity of identifying the
"collective voice" of the farm community.
All the photographs are from the CHS Library.
Notes
i. See for example, Solon
J. Buck, The Granger Movement
(Cam
bridge, 1913), and the more recent work by S. Sven Nordin, Rich
Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867-1900 (Jackson, 1974).
While no recent book-length study
has appeared
about California
Grangers in this era, Rodman Paul and Clarke A. Chambers
have treated selected aspects of the subject.
See Rodman Paul,
"The Great California Grain War: The Grangers Challenge the
Wheat King," Pacific Historical Review, XXVII (November,
1958), and Clarke A. Chambers, California
Farm Organizations:
A Historical Study of the Grange,
the Farm Bureau, and the Associated
Farmers 1929-1941 (Berkeley, 1952), pp. 9-13.
2. Official Report of the California State Grange, 1873 (San Fran
cisco, 1873), pp. 5-6; ibid., 1878, pp. 27-30; ibid., 1879, pp. 5,
hereafter cited as Grange Proceedings; Chambers, California
Farm
Organizations, 9-12; Rodman Paul, "The Great California Grain
War," 342-345.
3. For an incisive discussion of large-scale farmers in American
agriculture, see Morton Rothstein, "The
Big Farm: Abundance
and Scale in American Agriculture," Agricultural History,
XLIX
(October, 1975): pp. 583-597
4. The Statutes of California 1854 (San Francisco, 1854), chapter 100, pp. 163-165. By 1859 Society membership numbered 1,100.
In 1863 the affairs of the Society were entrusted to a Board of
Agriculture consisting of a
president and nine directors. Trans
actions of
the California
State Agricultural Society 1879 (Sacramento,
1879), pp. 185, 194, hereafter cited as CSAS Transactions. For
material on the first state fair, see "Warren's Two Private Fairs
Started It," typescript in the Hal Higgins Collection, Hal Hig
gins Library of
Agricultural Technology, University of California
at Davis; Lyman M.
King, "Fairs of
Yesterday," California
Journal of Development, XX
(August, 1930): 22, 37; and Charles
W. Paine, "Early Days of California State Fairs," The
Grizzly
Bear, XXXIX (August, 1926): 6, supplement
1.
5. Rodman Paul, "The Wheat Trade between California and the
United Kingdom," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLV
(December, 1958: 391-392, 396-398; Morton Rothstein, "A
British Firm on the American West Coast, 1869-1914," Business
History Review, XXXVII (Winter, 1963): 395-396.
6. Proceedings of the
California Farmers' Union
(San Francisco, 1873),
pp. 2, 5, 13-15; Ezra Carr, The Patrons of Husbandry
on the West
Coast (San Francisco, 1875), pp. 81, 103, 131; Chambers, Cali
fornia Farm Organizations, 9-10.
7. Thomas Gregory,
et al, History of Solano and Napa
Counties
California (Los Angeles, 1912), p. 345. While a few Grange
leaders owned considerable property at the time of their involve
ment with the Grange (see for
example, Rodman Paul, "The
Great California Grain War," 344), Fisher more closely approxi
mates the norm.
8. Justus
H. Rogers,
Colusa County:
Its History and Resources
(Orland, California, 1891), pp. 371-376.
9. Federal census data indicate that nine of forty-five Society
officers between 1865 and 1890 raised substantial amounts of
wheat during
the i87o's.
10. See, for example,
CSAS Transactions, 1872, pp. 5-7; ibid., 1870,
p. 79. Bidwell was an active participant
in the Farmers' Union
and the Grange.
See Bidwell Diaries, California State Library,
Sacramento, VII, September 25,1872; ibid., VIII, October 25,
1873; Grange Proceedings, 1882, p. 44.
11. CSAS Transactions, 1875, p. 10; ibid., 1881, pp. 32-33, 286, 393.
12. Ibid., 1881, p. 253; ibid., 1877, p. 102.
13. Declared one Society member in the mid-seventies, "We are
344
Farm Gentry
vs. the Grangers
unable to forget the days of forty-nine. We are blinded with the
glitter of the costly trappings of our Bonanza Kings." CSAS
Transactions, 1876, p. 80.
14. Ibid., 1878, p. 101.
15. Ibid., 1874, p. 624.
16. Grange Proceedings, 1874, pp. 10-11; ibid., 1881, pp. 17-18; ibid.,
1882, p. 20.
Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act did not
terminate the Grangers'
concern with railroads. Warned past
Grange Master J. V. Webster in 1892, "Like a tiger
in silent wait
ing, it is the policy of the Southern Pacific railroad people to stir
only when there is big game in
sight." CSAS Transactions,
1892, p. 441.
17. CSAS Transactions, 1878, p. 113.
18. Ibid., p. 120.
19. Ibid., 1886, p. 203. See also ibid., 1885, pp. 178-179. 20. Of course, small farmers in California
during the 1870's and
1880's commonly owned
larger farms (statewide average: 482
acres in 1870, 462 acres in 1880)
than small farmers elsewhere in
the United States. See Abstract of
the Eleventh Census: 1890 (Wash
ington, 1896), pp. 95-96.
21. Gilbert C. Fite, The Farmers' Frontier 1865-1900 (New York,
1966), pp. 162-163; Chambers, California Farm
Organizations, 9.
The number of farms in California grew from 18,716 in i860
to 52,894 in 1890; conversely, Kansas farms in the same period
increased from 10,400 to 166,617. Abstract of
the Eleventh Census:
1890 (Washington, 1896), pp. 95-96.
22. Grange Proceedings, 1881, p. 17. See also ibid., 1875, p.
21.
23. CSAS Transactions, 1878, p. 112; ibid., 1859, pp. 361-363.
24. Ibid., 1876, pp. 78, 126-127.
25. Ibid., 1882, p. 29.
26. Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of California (San Francisco,
1890), VII: 645-648; Robert L. Kelley, Gold vs. Grain: The
Hydraulic Mining Controversy in California's Central Valley (Glen dale, 1959), pp. 14-15.
27. Grange Proceedings, 1881, pp. 20-21; ibid., 1882, p. 83; ibid.,
1879, p.13. 28. CSAS Transactions, 1881, pp. 12-13; ibid., 1883, p. 141.
29. Ibid., 1885, pp. 574-575.
30. Ibid., 1892, pp. 105-106.
31. Elmer C. Sandmeyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement in
California
(Urbana, 1939), pp. 10-11, 16; Warren A. Beck and David A.
Williams, California: A History of the Golden State (Garden City, 1972), p. 251.
32. Grange Proceedings, 1877, pp. 48, 55; ibid., 1878, p. 28; Sand
meyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement, 32-33.
33. CSAS Transactions, 1877, pp. 100-101; ibid., 1878, pp. 122-124. For evidence that Society leaders continued to hire Chinese
laborers well into the 1880's, see "Anti-Chinese Club of Chico to
John Bidwell," March 1,1886, Bidwell Papers, Box 64, California
State Library, Sacramento.
34. CSAS Transactions, 1878, p. 124.
35. Ibid., 1881, pp. 34-35
36. Ibid., 1870, pp. 83, 87; ibid., 1874, p. 202; ibid., 1881, pp. 305,
394; ibid., 1886, pp. 183, 185, 695; ibid., 1887, p. 232; ibid., 1892,
p. 90. Forty of the forty-five Society officers in this
study were
native-born.
37. Grange Proceedings, 1876, p. 34; ibid., 1881, p. 5.
38. CSAS Transactions, 1881, p. 311; ibid., 1877, pp. 103, 106-107.
39. Verne A. Stadtman, ed., The Centennial Record of the
University
of California (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 21-22; CSAS Transactions, 1866, p. 75; ibid., 1871, pp. 421-422; ibid., 1877, P- *o6; ibid.,
1881, p. 14; ibid., 1884, pp. 165-166.
40. Grange Proceedings, 1874, pp. 49, 53; Verne A. Stadtman, The
University of California, 1868-1968 (Berkeley, 1970), p. 69; Stadtman, ed., The Centennial Record of the University of California,
p. 12.
41. CSAS Transactions, 1881, p. 16. For details on the management
of the state's agricultural college lands, see Paul W. Gates, "Cali
fornia's Agricultural College Lands," Pacific Historical Review,
XXX (May, 1961): 103-122.
42. CSAS Transactions, 1881, pp. 89-91; ibid., 1883, p- !43
43. Grange Proceedings, 1877, p. 47; Stadtman, The University of
California, 71-72.
44. The mean value of farm elites' personal property in 1870 was
$31,777 and State Grange officers', $4,981; farm elites' real
property was assessed at $35,965 and State Grange officers',
$15,305. Federal census data were located for thirty-nine of the
forty-five persons who served as Society officers between 1865
and 1890 and for forty-one
of the forty-nine persons who held
office in the State Grange between 1873 and 1890.
While it is true, as Rodman Paul has pointed out, that some
of California's early Grange leaders were men of economic sub
stance, the officer group taken as a whole ranks considerably
below leaders of the State Agricultural Society. See Rodman
Paul, "The Great California Grain War," 344.
45. Grange Proceedings, 1876, p. 14; ibid., 1882, pp. 35-36, 39;
Pacific Rural Press, October 1, 1881.
46. For example, only four of
forty-five Society leaders were mem
bers of the State Grange during
the 1870's and 1880's.
345
EXHIBIT E
WHOIS
Domain: tetracap.com
Registrar: Google LLC
Registered On: 6- 8-
Expires On: - 8-
Updated On: 9- 8-
Status: ok
Name Servers: ns-cloud-c .googledomains.comns-cloud-c .googledomains.comns-cloud-c .googledomains.comns-cloud-c .googledomains.com
Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Organiza on: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Street: 96 Mowat Ave
City: Toronto
State: ON
Postal Code: M K K
Country: CA
Phone: + . 6 8 87
Email: @contactprivacy.email
Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Organiza on: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Street: 96 Mowat Ave
City: Toronto
State: ON
Postal Code: M K K
Country: CA
tetracap.com Updated second ago
Domain Informa on
Registrant Contact
Administra ve Contact
Interested in similar domains?
On Sale!
thetetracap.com Buy Now
tetracapgroup.com Buy Now
tetracap.net Buy Now
tetrafin.net Buy Now
protetracap.com Buy Now
.top$9.88 $1.88
BUY NOW
*Offer ends st August 9
.ICU @ $1.98 $8.88
DOMAINS WEBSITE CLOUD HOSTING SERVERS EMAIL SECURITY WHOIS SUPPORT 0LOGIN
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000016
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
Phone: + . 6 8 87
Email: @contactprivacy.email
Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Organiza on: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7 9
Street: 96 Mowat Ave
City: Toronto
State: ON
Postal Code: M K K
Country: CA
Phone: + . 6 8 87
Email: @contactprivacy.email
Technical Contact
Raw Whois Data
Domain Name: tetracap.com Registry Domain ID: 2052178512_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com Updated Date: 2019-08-14T20:35:49Z Creation Date: 2016-08-14T14:53:57Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-08-14T14:53:57Z Registrar: Google LLC Registrar IANA ID: 895 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: @google.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466 Domain Status: ok https://www.icann.org/epp#ok Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave Registrant City: Toronto Registrant State/Province: ON Registrant Postal Code: M4K 3K1 Registrant Country: CA Registrant Phone: +1.4165385487 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: @contactprivacy.email Registry Admin ID: Admin Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Admin Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Admin Street: 96 Mowat Ave Admin City: Toronto Admin State/Province: ON Admin Postal Code: M4K 3K1 Admin Country: CA Admin Phone: +1.4165385487 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax: Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email: @contactprivacy.email Registry Tech ID: Tech Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Tech Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124749515 Tech Street: 96 Mowat Ave Tech City: Toronto Tech State/Province: ON Tech Postal Code: M4K 3K1 Tech Country: CA Tech Phone: +1.4165385487 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax:
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000017
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
google.com domains.google icann.org googledomains.com contactprivacy.email internic.net
related domain names
Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email: @contactprivacy.email Name Server: NS-CLOUD-C1.GOOGLEDOMAINS.COM Name Server: NS-CLOUD-C2.GOOGLEDOMAINS.COM Name Server: NS-CLOUD-C3.GOOGLEDOMAINS.COM Name Server: NS-CLOUD-C4.GOOGLEDOMAINS.COM DNSSEC: unsigned URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2019-08-30T07:02:59Z <<<
For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en
Please register your domains at: https://domains.google.com/ This data is provided by Google for information purposes, and to assist persons obtaining information about or related to domain name registration records. Google does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances, will you use this data to:1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via E-mail (spam); o
2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to this WHOIS server.
These terms may be changed without prior notice. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
DomainsDomains
Register Domain Name
Transfer Domain Name
View Domain Pricing
Whois Lookup
Name Sugges on Tool
Free with Every Domain
Domain Offers
Hos ng & ProductsHos ng & Products
Linux Hos ng
Windows Hos ng
WordPress Hos ng
Linux Reseller Hos ng
Windows Reseller Hos ng
Dedicated Servers
Managed Servers
Cloud Hos ng
Website Builder
Business Email
Enterprise Email
G Suite
SSL Cer ficates
Sitelock
CodeGuard
InfrastructureInfrastructure
Datacenter Details
Hos ng Security
x 7 Servers Monitoring
Backup and Recovery
SupportSupport
View Knowledge Base
Contact Support
Report Abuse
About Whois
Follow UsFollow Us
LOGIN OR CREATE AN ACCOUNT
Copyright © Whois.com. All rights reserved | Legal AgreementPrivacy Policy
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000018
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
This site canʼt be reached
www.tetracap.comʼs server IP address could not be found.
Did you mean http://www.tetracam.com/?
Search Google for terracap
ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000019
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
8/28/2019 Google Domains - Billing
https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/billing?_ga=2.96775711.1846204151.1567021082-1071273437.1567021082 1/1
January 28, 2016TRANSACTION ID 1453967175141000
Purchased from:Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 United States
Customer name:Winson Ho 1910 Talcott Lane Sugar Land TX 77479 United States
Transaction date: January 28, 2016Invoice date: January 28, 2016
Description Total
headleygrangecapital.com1 year registration
$12.00
Taxes $0.00
Amount charged $12.00
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000020
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
8/28/2019 Google Domains - Billing
https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/billing?_ga=2.96775711.1846204151.1567021082-1071273437.1567021082 1/1
September 24, 2018TRANSACTION ID 1537824612293000
Purchased from:Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043 United States
Customer name:Winson Ho 5122 Morningside Dr #701 Houston, TX 77005 United States
Transaction date: September 24, 2018Invoice date: September 24, 2018
Description Total
headleygrangecap.com1 year registration
$12.00
headleygrangecapital.com1 year registration
$12.00
headleygrangecm.com1 year registration
$12.00
Taxes $0.00
Amount charged $36.00
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE 000021
STATUS: GENERAL DISCLOSURE
EXHIBIT F