MILK AS A MARKET COMMODITY 27 



had plenty of milk, but it was not available to Columbus 

 because Springfield had practically no health regulations 

 in force and therefore Columbus health authorities refused 

 to permit the milk to be brought in. 



To some extent, also, a city like New York or Boston 

 carries the burden of inspection for much of the surround- 

 ing territory. A few years ago the city of Boston, claim- 

 ing that the city itself was carrying the burden for sur- 

 rounding towns, attempted to get the state to undertake 

 inspection. 1 



State control, as has occasionally been stated, would 

 undoubtedly be desirable from some points of view. In 

 many instances at the present time where the milk zones of 

 different cities overlap, there is considerable duplication of 

 inspection, as, for example, in the case of a dairyman who 

 wishes to be in a position to choose among several markets. 

 Some milk shipping stations actually send milk to several 

 cities regularly, and are subject to the inspection at fre- 

 quent intervals of several sets of milk inspectors. 2 



From the point of view of public expenditure state in- 

 spection would be somewhat of a saving, since the state 

 should be able to maintain adequate inspection more 

 cheaply than each municipality can maintain its own force. 

 In Essex County, New Jersey, sixteen municipalities are 

 reported to be maintaining independent inspection forces. 3 

 Efficient state control should cost no more, certainly, 

 than the combined control of many cities for the same sort 

 of service. Any added cost would probably be due to the 

 better service rendered to the smaller cities, which at the 

 present time are extremely lax in their methods. Thus 



1 Report of Special Milk Board of Massachusetts, 1916, p. 15. 



2 New York Report on Dairy Products, Livestock and Poultry, 1917, p. 685. 



3 King, Clyde L., Lower Living Costs in Cities, p. 213. 



