THE MARKETING OF WHOLE MILK 



her of successful municipal enterprises in this country at 

 present, we must come to the conclusion that there are 

 possibilities along this line. In 1918 it was reported that 

 35.5 per cent of all the lighting systems in the United 

 States were municipally owned. 1 In another publication 

 an "eminent authority" is reported as saying that in one 

 hundred fifty American cities electric light rates under 

 private ownership ranged from ten cents up and under 

 public ownership from ten cents down. 2 One difficulty 

 with many such comparisons is that the reader never 

 knows whether the rates reported for the municipally 

 operated enterprise were actually sufficient to maintain 

 the plants intact and cover all proper expenses, or whether 

 some of the supervision, for example, was not charged up 

 to the plant. 



Thus far all our considerations have been based on 

 economic gains or losses. One argument for munic- 

 ipal ownership of milk plants is based on the theory that 

 it should be undertaken for the benefit of the public 

 health. One writer, for example, expresses the firm belief 

 that municipalizing the milk supply "will be found to be 

 the effective way, not only to check, but to wipe out milk- 

 borne disease." 3 



Advantages to the producer, if indeed there were such 

 advantages, would materialize only in case the system 

 proved to operate smoothly and efficiently. The city 

 consumer, through the efficient manager in charge of the 

 plant, would doubtless drive as hard a bargain as would 

 any private dealer seeking profit, and might be even more 

 arbitrary, because he would have much more of monopoly 



1 American City, Vol. XIX, p. 419. Article gives numbers by states. 



2 Pacific Municipalities, Vol. XXXIII, Dec., 1919, p. 465. 



3 Straus, Lina G., Disease in Milk, p. 347. 



