1910. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
036 
THAT CELEBRATED MILK CASE. 
A Visit to the Bellows Farm. 
It is probably unnecessary to say that 
Jie dairy farmers who are assisting to 
fight out the case of Mr. Sniffin K. 
Bellows of Roxbury, N. Y., in relation 
to the inspection of barns and rejection 
of milk by the New York City Board of 
' Health, without reference to the whole¬ 
someness of the milk, are working for a 
principle. When the case was brought up 
for trial at Delhi, and the judge ordered 
a nonsuit, affirming that the Board of 
Health of the city of New York has ab¬ 
solute power to go wherever it chooses, 
imposing such rules and regulations as it 
sees fit, regardless of reasonableness, of 
necessity, or of harm to the producer of 
milk, it was a disheartening blow to the 
4").000 dairymen, who are producing milk 
for sale in the city of New York. Many 
farmers were not really in favor of com¬ 
mencing the suit in the first place, partly, 
J fancy, because of the farmers’ natural 
aversion to lawsuits, yet I think there 
are few now who would not counsel tak¬ 
ing an appeal from the decision that has 
just been rendered. Whether an appeal 
is taken will depend largely upon the at¬ 
titude which dairymen manifest respect¬ 
ing such a course. The effect of the de¬ 
cision is this: That any person, repre- 
renting himself to belong to-the Board of 
Health of the city of New York, may go 
to a farmer and compel him to remodel 
or rebuild his barn, or do any or all of 
the numerous things that he may choose 
to impose. 
At the trial, no evidence was offered 
or asked for by the court, to show wheth¬ 
er the defendant. Russel Raynor or the 
inspectors had any connection with the 
city Health Department, whether there 
are any rules adopted by the Board or 
whether the inspectors or Raynor were 
acting in official capacities. There was 
no attempt made to show whether con¬ 
ditions at the barn were good or poor 
or whether the milk produced there is 
wholesome or otherwise. I am stating 
this on the representations of both sides 
in the case, for I have talked with Mr. 
Bellows and his attorneys, and with an 
inspector. With such a meager presenta¬ 
tion of the case, simply that some per¬ 
sons calling themselves inspectors looked 
over the premises, made no suggestions 
or complaints and left no score cards or 
other evidences of their visits, and that 
later orders coming from one Raynor 
claiming to represent the city Depart¬ 
ment of Health were received by the 
people handling the milk, to the effect 
that it must be rejected by the creamery, 
it seems incomprehensible how the judge 
could have arived at such a decision, 
or, indeed, any decision. It would seem 
inevitable that the Appellate Division 
would reverse this decision, and send 
the case back to be tried before a jury to 
determine the questions of fact that pre¬ 
sent themselves. 
Mr. Bellows is a man highly respected 
in his community. His word is never 
questioned, nor are his motives. He is 
the father of fourteen children, all of 
whom have been raised without accident, 
although they have consumed generous 
quantities of milk from the cows kept in 
the barn that apparently incompetent in¬ 
spectors and incompetent rules have con¬ 
demned. It has been suggested that in 
case the judge’s decision should be af¬ 
firmed by the Appellate Division the situ¬ 
ation would be worse than at present. 
This is hardly allowable. Were a simple 
affirmation obtained, the case would be 
no worse. That, however, is scarcely 
possible. The Court would undoubtedly 
hear carefully prepared arguments on 
both sides, and would render a decision 
defining the powers and duties of the 
Board and inspectors. Such a definition 
would be useful for both sides. When 
the decision is reached, if it proves to be 
too offensive, it will then be time to see 
that laws are changed. For that matter, 
it is quite possible that this suit has so 
opened the eyes of people that some laws 
will be enacted compelling changes in 
the method of inspecting. If such laws 
are not at once forthcoming then it 
would seem that this case should be ap¬ 
pealed without fail. If new laws are en¬ 
acted, then it may be a question of the 
extent to which the laws are changed. 
I am stating this on my own initiative, 
as the attorneys did not make any such 
assertions. Lawyers who were present 
did not believe the decision logical, I am 
told, and a good many of them were at¬ 
tracted by the novelty of the case, and 
remained to see how it progressed. 
I hesitate to describe Mr. Bellows’ 
barn. It is so easy to give an incom¬ 
plete idea to one who has never seen it, 
yet, I know, that almost every reader of 
these lines is specially interested in that 
particular part of the affair. There is no 
evidence obtainable to show just what 
the inspectors scored the barn. I talked 
with one of them, and he told me that 
it scored 44 points. He said the other 
inspectors scored it practically the same, 
making it, perhaps, 45 or 46 points. So 
far as I know, this is the only statement 
of the scoring that has been announced. 
I know of other barns that have been 
scored at 42, according to statements, 
and nothing has come of it. In my opinion 
Mr. Bellows’ barn ought to score higher. 
The water is splendid, coming, as it does, 
from one of those Delaware county hill¬ 
side springs. I could not see but that the 
milk is cooled properly. Mr. Bellows 
says the stable lacks a little for light, 
and he has added a window or two, since 
the milk was rejected and taken back 
again. No change was made in the barn, 
until the milk was again accepted. Mr. 
Bellows is not a wealthy man. He is a 
farmer. Formerly he taught school, 
spending some 20 years of his life as a 
teacher. He has a large family, some of 
whom are teachers or have been engaged 
in teaching. He is affording every one 
of the children good educational advan¬ 
tages: Naturally he has little money for 
building new barns or installing concrete 
floors. Really the worst feature of the 
barn, as I consider it, is the fact that the 
floors are not tight. He is losing some 
of the fertility that might be added to 
his land were he able to save all of the 
liquids. I pulled up some of the planks 
in the floor to see what is under it. To 
my surprise everything seems dry and 
reasonably clean, and no odor was com¬ 
ing from underneath. This is explainable 
only by the fact that the barn is on a dry 
gravelly knoll or hillside, and no offen¬ 
sive matter is retained. The stable has 
been whitewashed and it is kept in very 
good order. In my judgment the milk 
produced at his barn is decidedly whole¬ 
some. As I have stated before, it matters 
comparatively little what a barn scores. 
Much depends upon the care that is 
taken, and the cleanliness of habit of the 
operators. Mr. Bellows and his family 
are people who stand exceptionally well 
in the community. They are leaders in 
progress and enterprise. Cream only is 
shipped from the co-operative creamery 
of which Mr. Belows is a patron and a 
director. That cream is wholesome as 
it leaves the Cold Spring Creamery 
platform. What it is when distributed 
in New York city, I have no means of 
knowing, but the Board of H'ealth of 
New York city may well interest itself 
in that problem, and if they choose to go 
further let them follow it to the kitchen 
or back room of some of the tenement 
houses. The country end of the problem 
can better be looked after by others. I 
talked with a good many people while in 
Roxbury. Not a person said that there 
seems to be a disposition to deal severely 
with co-operative creameries and inde¬ 
pendent dealers, but the whole atmos¬ 
phere of the community is charged with 
that thought. You get the impression 
without a word said about it, before you 
have been in town an hour. 
What were the conditions of the re¬ 
jection of Mr. Bellows’ milk from Cold 
Spring Creamery? The following was 
allowed to appear in the evidence before 
a nonsuit was ordered. Late in June a 
person claiming to be an inspector came 
and looked over the premises. He asked 
some questions, but made no recom¬ 
mendations. No notice was served, and 
no copy of score left. Nothing was heard 
until October 6, when a formal notice 
was received stating .that certain unsan¬ 
itary conditions existed, but no statement 
was made as to what should be done to 
correct them. Another inspector ap¬ 
peared on December 2, but he did not 
tell what ought to be done to improve 
the situation, and .on December 7, the 
Cold Spring Creamery received notice to 
stop the shipment of Mr. Bellows’ milk. 
Mr. Bellows immediately wrote and 
asked what he must do to get reinstated. 
Nothing was heard from this request ex¬ 
cept that he received a copy of the Rules 
and Regulations of the Board of Health. 
On December 26, or 27, another inspect¬ 
or arrived. He repeated the operations 
of the others, and said nothing. On Jan¬ 
uary 6 notice was received at the cream¬ 
ery that the milk might be accepted. 
There was absolutely no change made 
during this time, except that a veterinary 
was called to approve the health of the 
herd. One day after the milk had been 
accepted, and a full week after the last 
inspection, Mr. Bellows put in a muslin 
curtain window. Attorney Ives is inter¬ 
ested in farming and is a young man of 
standing in his community. He has made 
no charge for services, thus far. I was 
very favorably impressed with every¬ 
thing so far as the plaintiff’s end of the 
affair is concerned. Considerable money 
has been collected an cl most of it has 
been placed in Mr. Bellows’ hands by his 
neighbors and acquaintances. 
Since writing the foregoing, I have 
learned that the defendant’s counsel al¬ 
leged that it is expressly provided in the 
city charter that any city official, like this 
health officer, shall not be liable to prose¬ 
cution unless it can be shown that he has 
exceeded his authority. H. H. lyon. 
A JUNK PILE MOUNTAIN 
OF VERY EXPENSIVE 
CREAM SEPARATOR 
EXPERIENCE 
(A sample pile of scrapped competitive separator bowls—the frames being 
broken up in the field to save the freight on same). 
During the year 1909, more than 10,000 enlightened and 
disgusted American users of poor or wornout competitive makes 
of separators threw them aside and replaced them w ith new 
DE LAVAL CREAM SEPARATORS 
on top of 8,500 having done so in 1908, 7,000 in 1907 and 5,000 
a year for several years before, or at least 50,0t hi w ithin ten years. 
If it were possible to put these 50,000 machines into one 
huge “junk pile 77 , as they have in fact gone into a thousand 
“junk piles 77 , it would make a veritable mountain of cream 
separator experience, as impressive as Pikes Peak and represen¬ 
tative of as much costly acquired separator experience as though 
it were a great mine of gold or silver. 
These 50,000 “near 77 and “just as good 77 cream separators 
cast aside to be replaced with De Laval machines within ten 
years, and so many of them within a couple of years, cost their 
users at least three and one-half millions of dollars in the first 
place and probably wasted three times that much in quantity 
and quality of product, excessive repairs and excessive time 
required to put the milk through them while they were used, or 
a total of at least fifteen millions of dollars, and more likely 
twenty-live millions. 
What has happened in America in this way has in the same 
time been doubled throughout the rest of the w orld, so that the 
total aggregates twice as much, or perhaps fifty millions of dol¬ 
lars. And worse still, this accounts only for those users who 
have recognized the facts and remedied them. There are thous¬ 
ands more users of inferior separators who have yet to do so, 
and unfortunately some yet embarking anew on this expensive 
separator experience of their own. 
These figures are monumental, but they deal with a problem 
of enormous importance to everyone who has cream to separate 
from milk, which the average man can better appreciate put in 
this collective way than he can when applied to himself alone, 
though it means exactly the same thing one way or the other. 
The facts are all capable of proof to the man who cares to have 
them proved and who doesn’t want to contribute at his own 
expense to this enormous and ever-increasing “junk pile 77 
mountain of cream sepaiator experience, or, better still, to the 
man w ho has been doing so and thinks it about time to stop. 
To such owners we would say that the De Laval Company 
will this year continue its “trade allowances 77 for these old 
machines, because of the opportunity such exchanges afford in an 
educational way for the most practical illustration possible of the 
difference between good and poor separators, and thus putting a 
stop to the sale of others like them in the same neighborhood. 
Any desired “trade allowance 77 information may always 
be had of the nearest De Laval local agent or of the Company 
direetly. 
-♦- 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO. 
165-167 Broadway 
NEW YORK 
42 E. Madison Street 
CHICAGO 
Orumm & Sacramento Sts. 
SAN FRANCISCO 
178-177 William Street 
MONTREAL 
14 A 16 Princess Street 
WINNIPEG 
1016 Western Avenue 
SEATTLE 
