No. 4.] REPORT OF SECRETARY. xi 



executive veto was the so-called Ellis milk bill. This was a 

 most periiicious measure, providing as it did for inspection of 

 milk producers in INIassachusetts, and, in the opinion of your 

 secretary, and that of many others perhaps better qualified to 

 form an opinion as to the legal effect of the bill, utterly failing 

 to properly provide for like inspection for the milk producers 

 of other States. In addition there were numerous objections 

 to the bill in question, notably that it provided for inspection 

 primarily for the benefit of the metropolitan district at the 

 expense of the people of the whole State, producers as well as 

 consumei-s; provided a uniform system of inspection through- 

 out the State, regardless of the needs of various communities, 

 which differ as their supplies differ; and placed too much stress 

 on the inspection of barns and equipment, on the theory, long 

 since exploded, that these are controlling factors in the produc- 

 tion of clean milk. As has been shown again and again, the 

 man is the chief factor in the production of clean milk. A clean 

 man can make clean milk under adverse conditions, and a dirty 

 man can never make clean milk, no matter what his equipment 

 may be. The proponents of this bill should stop to consider 

 that more can be done to induce dairy farmers to make clean 

 milk by offering legitimate rewards than can be done by beating 

 them over their heads with the inspection club or any other. 

 The call for a uniform standard of inspection is also based on 

 wrong premises. There should be no uniform standard of 

 inspection. It may very well be that the standard applicable 

 to Boston would not do at all for Brockton or Worcester, while 

 the standard for those cities might not be at all suited to the 

 needs of towns like Greenfield or Westfield. What is really 

 wanted is a reduction of the number of inspecting bodies, not 

 a uniform system of inspection with the same number of parties 

 at work. 



In spite of these very manifest objections, which were all 

 brought to the attention of the committees who had the bill 

 under consideration and of the Legislature as a whole, the bill, 

 which would, in our opinion, have dealt a severe blow to the 

 dairy industry of Massachusetts, was duly passed by both 

 branches, and only prevented from becoming a law by the veto 

 of the Governor. This bill was very persistently, skillfully and 



