t66 
THE  RURAL  NEW-YORKER 
March  12 
made  as  to  the  character  of  the  milk  by  parties  in 
Philadelphia,  and  I)r.  Robinson.  Chemist  of  the  Board 
of  Health  in  that  city,  made  an  analysis.  The  result 
showed  that  the  milk  contained  but  11.9.r>  per  cent  of 
total  solids.  The  manipulators  had  got  just  a  little 
too  much  “skim”  in  it,  being  a  little  careless.  Any 
one  who  knows  anything  of  the  milk  business,  knows 
full  well  that  the  milk  as  received  at  the  creameries  at 
this  season  of  the  year  will  analyze  at  least  12%  per 
cent  of  solids — in  most  cases  over  13. 
The  milk  law  needs  amending.  The  proportion  of 
fat  solids  is  too  small  and  should  be  changed.  The 
law  to-day  makes  any  farmer  who  sells  his  milk  to  a 
butter  or  cheese  factory  and  who  adds  water  or  sub¬ 
tracts  any  cream,  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  that  is 
as  it  should  be.  Now  let  us  have  the  same  medicine 
for  the  dealer  and  let  us  be  empowered  to  call  the 
employees  in  creameries  as  witnesses.  If  it  can  be 
proved  that  a  creameryman  has  added  skimmed  milk 
to  his  other  milk  and  offered  the  mixture  for  sale,  let 
it  be  a  misdemeanor,  no  matter  what  analysis  of  it 
shows.  If  it  is  good  law  for  the  farmer,  it  is  good  law 
for  the  Exchange  man. 
Strippings. 
The  Farmers’  Milk  Company  held  its  annual  meeting 
at  Goshen,  Orange  County,  N.  Y.,  on  Tuesday,  Febru¬ 
ary  16.  After  the  election  of  officers,  the  company  re. 
solved  to  indorse  and  assist  the  movement  now  being 
made  to  secure  a  revision  of  the  railway  freights  on 
'  milk- — that  is,  rates  that  vary  with  the  distances  it  is 
transported.  The  committee  in  charge  of  this  matter 
have  secured  the  services  of  the  late  Inter-State  Com¬ 
missioner  Sclioonmaker  as  their  counsel,  and  will  push 
the  matter  as  rapidly  as  possible. 
Ex-Senator  John  A.  McBride,  of  Sussex  County, 
N.  J.,  favors  the  organization  of  a  joint  stock  exchange 
for  the  milk  business,  “  in  which  both  interests  (those 
of  producer  and  dealer)  would  be  represented  and  by 
which  all  questions  could  be  amicably  settled.”  Mr. 
McBride’s  scheme  is  not  practicable.  The  members  of 
the  New  York  Milk  Exchange  will  never  enter  into 
any  such  an  arrangement,  unless  they  can  hold  a 
majority  of  the  stock  and  control  the  price-making 
committee.  They  may  talk  about  it,  and  they  some¬ 
times  do,  but  it  is  only  for  effect.  When  the  lamb  of  a 
milk  producer  lies  down  in  peace  w!th  a  wolf  of  the 
Exchange,  the  lamb  will  be  inside  the  wolf  and  fast 
becoming  a  component  part  of  that  beast.  If  the 
Exchange  were  really  honest  in  a  desire  to  establish 
such  an  organization,  it  could  be  accomplished  in  a 
very  brief  time  ;  that  it  has  not  been  done  is  the  best 
possible  proof  that  they  do  not  want  it.  Mr.  McBride 
has  a  great  deal  more  faith  in  the  Exchange  than  most 
of  his  neighbors  of  Orange  County,  N.  Y.,  where  that 
organization  is  somewhat  better  known. 
The  Milk  Reporter  says  “the  dairy  laws  of  New 
York  need  amending,”  and  we  may  fairly  infer  from 
the  context  that  it  would  amend  them  by  lowering  the 
percentage  of  solids  required  to  constitute  pure  milk. 
Because  a  single  cow  in  a  dairy,  or  two  or  three,  for  a 
few  days  at  a  time  might  give  milk  below  the  legal 
standard,  it  would  reduce  that  standard.  This  would 
never  do.  It  has  been  decided  in  this  State  that  milk 
can  be  adulterated  before  it  leaves  the  cow  as  well  as 
after,  and  it  is  the  business  of  the  producer  to  so  look 
after  both  breed  and  feed  that  such  an  “ante-natal” 
adulteration  does  not  take  place.  We  do  not  believe 
there  was  ever  a  case  where  the  combined  milk  of  a 
dairy  would  not  stand  the  legal  test,  though  there  are  a 
few  dairies  where  an  occasional  cow  does  not  produce 
standard  milk  for  days  at  a  time.  The  average  of 
milk,  as  all  who  have  investigated  the  matter  know, 
is  better  than  the  law  requires.  Acting  on  this  knowl¬ 
edge,  many  of  the  Exchange  creamerjonen  have  added 
from  three  to  ten  quarts  of  skimmed  milk  to  30  quarts 
of  whole  milk  and  the  compound  thus  prepared  will 
stand  the  test.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  quarts  of 
skimmed  milk  are  thus  annually  sold  for  pure  milk. 
Then,  what  would  be  the  result  if  the  standard  were 
lowered  ?  Massachusetts  requires  13  per  cent  of  solids 
and  her  producers  live  up  to  it,  and  try  hard  to  make 
the  dealers  do  the  same.  Let  us  have  no  lowering  of 
the  standard. 
New  York  City  Milk  Inspection.— The  inspection  of 
milk  bjr  the  authorities  is  a  most  important  phase  of 
the  business.  When  milk  reaches  the  city,  it  comes 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  officials  of  the  Board  of 
Health,  but  it  is  equally  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  Dairy  Department. 
The  inspection  of  the  Board  of  Health  is  managed  as 
follows :  The  city  is  divided  into  seven  districts,  which 
comprise  about  5,000  places  where  milk  is  sold.  Each 
inspector  is  accompanied  on  his  rounds  by  a  sanitary 
officer,  and  they  are  changed  from  one  district  to 
another  every  three  weeks.  From  May  to  November 
they  are  required  to  inspect  the  milk,  twice  each  week, 
early  in  the  morning  as  it  is  delivered  by  dealers  to 
households,  and  twice  a  month  they  inspect  the  milk  at 
the  ferries  or  depots  as  it  comes  into  the  city.  The 
lactometer  is  mainly  relied  on  for  the  work,  and  when 
it  indicates  that  the  milk  has  been  watered  or  other¬ 
wise  adulterated,  samples  are  taken  and  sealed,  one 
for  the  Board  of  Health  and  one  for  the  accused,  and 
then  the  milk  is  spilled  in  the  gutter.  During  1890 
there  were  299  arrests  and  3,708  quarts  of  milk  were 
destroyed  and  87,400  collected  in  fines.  The  use  of 
antiseptics  in  milk,  such  as  “  Snow-flake,”  “  Anti-Fer- 
mentine,”  etc.,  is  accounted  an  adulteration,  and  a 
few  convictions  were  made  for  that  offense.  The  Rural 
does  not  value  very  highly  the  results  of  any  inspec¬ 
tions  based  on  lactometer  tests  in  the  hands  of  such 
inspectors  as  the  municipal  government  of  this  city 
employs.  The  heads  of  departments  are  doubtless 
honest  men — we  wish  we  could  believe  the  subordin¬ 
ates  are  of  the  same  type. 
Some  very  excellent  work  has  been  done  in  the  city 
by  the  State  Dairy  Commission,  under  the  direction  of 
the  Assistant  Commissioner,  Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown 
would  detail  a  much  larger  proportion  of  his  force  at 
this  end  of  the  State,  he  would  be  doing  the  farmers 
and  the  consumers  of  milk  a  great  service.  There  has 
been  much  friction  between  the  two  departments  in 
this  city,  but  there  need  be  none.  If  the  Dairy  Com¬ 
missioner  would  send  a  large  force  down  here  at 
irregular  intervals— large  enough  to  board  all  the 
principal  trains  and  sample  the  milk,  he  would  bag  a 
“Exchanging”  Pure  Milk  for  a  “Legal 
Standard.”  Fig.  95. 
fine  lot  of  scamps  at  each  excursion.  We  submit  these 
suggestions  to  Mr.  Brown  for  his  consideration. 
Milk-Can  Thieves. — For  many  years  one  of  the 
greatest  annoyances  a  milk  producer  shipping  to  New 
York  had  to  contend  with  was  the  gradual  disappear¬ 
ance  of  his  cans.  A  farmer  who  shipped  daily  five 
cans  of  milk  needed  30  cans  to  do  it  with,  and  then 
frequently  ran  short.  Complaints  to  the  dealers  gave 
them  but  little  relief  ;  a  promise  to  look  up  the  missing 
cans  was  the  best  that  could  be  secured,  and  this  was 
a  promise  that  was  seldom  or  never  fulfilled.  The  evil 
grew  to  such  an  extent  that  measures  for  relief  became 
imperative.  Raids  were  organized  to  capture  the 
missing  cans.  A  large  milk  dray,  accompanied  by 
some  experts  in  the  milk  trade,  would  start  out  on  a 
tour  of  search.  Grocers’  stores  were  visited  and 
searched.  Farmers’  milk  cans  were  found  all  over  the 
city  doing  duty  in  a  variety  of  ways.  Some  were 
used  as  receptables  for  kerosene,  others  for  soft  soap  ; 
some  were  packed  full  of  dried  fruits,  and  another 
was  used  as  a  bean  bin.  Of  course,  when  found  the 
stolen  property  was  reclaimed,  and  the  dray  with  its 
force  would  frequently  capture  more  than  200  cans  in 
a  single  raid — all  stolen  outright  from  the  farmers.  A 
Mr.  Haviland,  of  Chester,  for  years  worked  as  a  detec¬ 
tive  in  this  business,  charging  each  producer  for  whom 
he  worked  a  small  annual  fee. 
Of  course,  a  person  found  in  possession  of  stolen 
property  could  be  arrested  and  presumably  punished, 
but  there  were  obstacles.  The  farmer  must  appear 
as  complainant,  and  if  he  did  so,  in  a  majority  of  cases 
the  suit  would  be  adjourned,  thus  subjecting  tb^  nilk 
producer  to  the  expense  of  an  additional  trip  to  the 
city,  each  trip  costing  him  as  much  as  the  can  was 
worth.  Under  the  old  law,  few  prosecutions  were 
made,  the  producers  contenting  themselves  with  re¬ 
claiming  their  property  and  letting  the  thief  go  un¬ 
punished. 
In  the  spring  of  1890,  the  law  was  amended  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 
Section  4.— Any  rerson  or  persons  who  shall  In  violation  of  this  act, 
either  use,  sell,  dispose  of,  buy,  traffic  In,  or  have  In  his  or  their  pos¬ 
session,  any  such  can  or  cans,  or  who  shall  willfully  mar,  erase,  or 
change  by  remarking  or  otherwise  the  said  name  or  Initials  of  any  such 
owner  or  owners,  dealer  or  dealers,  shipper  or  shippers,  so  stamped, 
marked  or  fastened  upon  said  can  or  cans  as  In  this  act  provided,  shall 
be  liable  to  a  penalty  of  50  dollars  for  anv  such  can  either  so  used, 
sold,  disposed  of,  bought,  trafficked  In  or  found  In  his,  her  or  their 
possession.  Such  penalties  may  be  recovered  by  action  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  this  State,  with  costs  of  disbursements,  and  the  place  of  trial 
of  such  actions  may  be  In  the  county  In  which  the  owner  or  owners, 
dealer  or  dealers,  shipper  or  shippers  of  such  can  or  cans  may  reside  at 
the  commencement  of  such  action. 
The  efficiency  and  value  of  the  law  consist  in  the 
clause  which  permits  the  trial  to  be  held  in  the  county 
where  the  can  owner  resides.  The  slippery  can  thief 
in  New  York  had  few  fears  of  trial  at  his  home.  He 
knew  a  thousand  tricks  which  would  either  discomfit 
or  discourage  the  farmer,  and  so  be  stole  with  impu¬ 
nity.  But  things  are  different  now.  He  does  not  rel¬ 
ish  being  arrested  and  taken  for  trial  to  a  county  from 
50  to  300  miles  away  and  to  a  court  where  he  will  face 
a  jury  of  farmers,  artisans  and  business  men.  He 
knows  that  he  would  get  justice,  and  as  a  result  he 
steals  but  seldom.  It  is  a  beneficent  law. 
How  the  Milk  Business  Grew. 
A  detailed  history  of  the  milk  business  would  prove 
very  interesting  reading,  but  the  columns  of  The 
Rural  are  not  adequate  to  the  task.  We  can  find 
room  for  only  a  brief  sketch  of  it  and  of  the  leading 
movements  connected  with  it.  The  business  of  ship¬ 
ping  by  rail  began,  we  believe,  in  Orange  County,  soon 
after  the  Erie  Railway  had  been  built  as  far  as  Goshen. 
The  records  of  the  Erie  Railway  Company  relating  to 
the  early  history  of  the  business,  were  years  ago. 
accidentally  destroyed  by  fire,  and  hence  this  source 
of  data  is  gone.  Mr.  J.  D.  Northrup,  familiarly  known 
as  “Joe”  to  all  who  know  him,  a  retired  conductor 
living  at  Otisville,  informs  us  that  in  1844  he  was 
employed  on  a  boat  running  from  Piermont  (then  the 
terminus  of  the  Erie)  to  New  York.  Milk  was  then 
brought  to  Piermont  by  rail  and  carried  to  New  York 
by  the  boat.  It  was  shipped  in  cans  of  30,  50  and  60 
quarts,  and  the  freight  was  paid  by  the  milkmen,  55 
cents  per  can,  presumably  for  the  60-quart  size.  When 
the  Erie  entered  Jersey  City,  the  milk  was  sent  to  that 
point,  first  to  what  is  now  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
depot,  and  after  the  Bergen  tunnel  was  completed,  to 
its  present  terminus.  The  freight  has  been  reduced 
several  times,  until  now  it  is  32  cents  per  40-quart  can, 
the  empty  cans  being  returned  free.  The  other  sizes 
of  cans  have  entirely  disappeared  from  this  market — 
only  one  size  is  used.  The  business  rapidly  extended 
to  other  roads  as  the  city  grew  in  size,  until  in  Decem¬ 
ber  last,  there  were  received  in  this  market  523,065 
cans  of  milk,  10,579  cans  of  cream,  5,058  cans  of  con¬ 
densed  milk  and  an  equivalent  to  34,855  cans  in  bottles 
—equaling  a  daily  average  of  18,303  cans  of  milk, 
which  cost,  in  all,  delivered  in  New  York  city,  81,078,- 
489.  Following  the  Erie  Railway  comes  the  D.  L.  and 
Western,  N.  Y.  Ontario  and  Western,  the  N.  Y,  Cen¬ 
tral,  N.  Y.,  Susquehanna  and  'Western,  Northern. 
West  Shore,  New  Haven,  Long  Island,  N.  J.  Central, 
the  Hudson  River  Transportation  Co.,  Lehigh  Valley 
and  several  minor  sources  of  supply. 
For  many  years  the  prices  paid  were  profitable  to 
the  farmers,  and  no  complaints  were  heard.  About 
1870  the  dealers  began  to  crowd  down  prices,  and  the 
farmers  to  grow  restive  under  these  operations.  Severa  1 
abortive  attempts  at  organization  were  made  on  the 
part  of  the  farmers,  in  the  hope  of  bettering  their  con¬ 
dition.  In  those  days  there  was  no  authoritative  price  ¬ 
making  power— it  was  largely  a  slip-shod  business. 
Later  Amzi  Howell,  a  unique  figure  in  the  milk  trade, 
got  up  his  “Joint  Price  Committee”  for  the  purpose  of 
regulating  prices,  This  committee  consisted  princi¬ 
pally  of  Mr.  Howell,  who,  after  a  call  on  a  few  leading 
dealers,  would  issue  liis  pronunciamento  fixing  the 
price  of  milk.  But  the  tendency  was  all  in  the  wrong 
direction  and  the  organization  of  the  Milk  Exchange 
was  the  feather  that  finished  the  load. 
In  the  spring  of  1883  the  milk  producers  became 
thoroughly  indignant  at  their  treatment.  From  an 
average  of  four  cents  per  quart  the  price  had  been 
steadily  going  down  until  three  was  all  the  trade  would 
offer.  A  revolt  was  instituted.  At  a  meeting  in  Goshen, 
a  temporary  organization  under  the  name  of  the 
Mutual  Milk  Producers’  Association  was  formed,  and 
the  struggle  began.  Later,  when  this  body  became 
incorporated,  they  took  the  name  of  the  Farmers’  Milk 
Company — a  body  which  is  still  alive,  though  dormant. 
Numerous  excited  meetings  were  held.  The  producers 
demanded  an  aggregate  of  40  cents  for  the  year,  an 
average  ofi  3 X  cents ;  the  trade  offered  only  37  or  38 
