146 THE MARKETING OF WHOLE MILK 



that amount shall be deducted from the monthly bill in 

 settlement." 1 This involved method of penalizing the 

 producers meant a burdensome fine whenever a milk ship- 

 ment fell below one-half the amount shipped in the largest 

 preceding month. One shipper, to quote an extreme ex- 

 ample, shipped only 71 cans of milk in August, whereas 

 he had shipped as many as 444 cans in April. As a conse- 

 quence, under this system of penalization, he received a 

 check at the end of August for twenty-four cents. 2 The 

 controversy of 1903 ended virtually in victory for the pro- 

 ducers, since the agreement reached enabled the farmer 

 to know before he shipped his product just how much he 

 would receive for it and at the same time did away with 

 the burdensome penalty clause for shortage in shipments. 3 

 In 1904 the Milk Producers' Union changed its name 

 to "The New England Milk Producers Association" 4 

 and formulated plans for the formation of an association 

 or stock company called the Boston Cooperative Milk 

 Producers' Company, which was actually organized in 

 the spring of 1904. Each member held one share of stock 

 and was required to rate himself reasonably near as to 

 the number of cans of milk he could furnish. 5 The Boston 

 Milk Producers' Company was well supported by the 

 farmers for some years, and after its organization there 

 seems to be no record of activity by the old union. In 

 1910 it was sufficiently strong and active to conduct a 

 strike. 6 About the end of 1912 the company was dis- 

 solved by court action on charge of having violated the 



1 New York Produce Review i$ American Creamery, Nov. 18, 1903. 



2 Ibid. 



3 Ibid., Nov. 25, 1903. 



4 Ibid., Feb. 3, 1904. 



5 Ibid., July, 1904. 



6 New England Dairyman, Feb., 1919. 



