DISTRIBUTION OF MILK 79 



to be expedited to the extent of settling within a few days 

 after the close of the pay period, it would mean a tremen- 

 duous expense for extra clerical help, which would ulti- 

 mately have to come out of the price paid to the producer. 



The financial standing of the dealer is a question of 

 considerable concern to the farmer. Attempts have been 

 made to protect the producer through laws requiring that 

 dealers be bonded. New York at present has such a law, 

 as have also several of the New England states. In many 

 sections producers' associations have taken up this func- 

 tion and are placing on the blacklist dealers who are slow 

 pay, so that in some instances such dealers have had to 

 pay a few cents extra in order to get milk at all. Dealers 

 who are financially weak have frequently been known to 

 fall farther and farther behind in their payments, ulti- 

 mately going into bankruptcy owing the producers for 

 two or three months* milk. Small dealers in many of our 

 cities have been especially troublesome in this way. A 

 good part of this difficulty would be obviated if farmers 

 were more generally to make use of the various commer- 

 cial credit rating agencies when they do not have an agency 

 of their own. 



In some sections of the country the dealers own the milk 

 cans. This has been particularly the case in the New 

 England states, where it has been said that "if three 

 great milk companies . . . should withdraw their cans 

 from the milk service, thousands of tons of milk would 

 perish in the country, while hundreds of people in the 

 city would be going without. . . . The dealers might 

 almost as well own the cars." 1 Such an arrangement is 

 usually unsatisfactory and expensive. Aside from the 



1 Pattee, Richard, Circular 79, Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture 

 (1918), p. 8. 



