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: keith@dnotebook.com703-581-9562

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 keith@dnotebook.com

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

keith@dnotebook.com

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

24

Manassas, VA 20109

703-581-9562

keith@dnotebook.com

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