Oic RURAL N E W-Y O R K E R 
729 
The Milk Forum 
Anj'one intoro.stod in the milk problem is invited 
to ask questions or express his views on the milk 
subject under this heading. This means prodncer, 
consumer, dealer, la.yman and otlicial. Tifr R. N.-Y. 
will assume no responsibility for the opinions or 
statements by these correspondents. The purpose is 
to express every possible view in the hope that wise 
counsel will prevail. We shall continue to express 
our own views independently as occasion re(]uires. 
A prominent New York milk producer writes; 
Xo farmer who buys and uses oleo should he a mem¬ 
ber of the Dairymen’s League. It would please all real 
farmers if your iiaper w'ould take the oleo end up a hit 
stronger. 
Tlu‘re is no room for argument about the propo¬ 
sition that the farmer wdio uses oleo does an injury 
to his industry and an injustice to him.self and his 
family. It has been conclusively demonstrated that 
oleo is not in any way comparable with butter or 
milk in food value. Any person, either farmer or 
other consumer, cheats him.self in the use of the 
oleo .substitute, hut the farmer who uses it dis¬ 
courages and destroys his own industry and .at the 
.same time cheats his own stomach. Instead of using 
oleo themselves fanners ought to lioycolt the local 
dealers who handle it and buy sui)i)lies only from 
de.'ilers who sell butter. 
AVe have not, however, taken the a.ssertion that 
dairymen use oleo very seiaously. AA’e would not 
deny that a few instances might ho (pioted; hut that 
any volume of oleo is used by New York State 
dairymen we are not prepared to ladieve. Fanners 
have been lectured so much they sometimes fall into 
the natural error of confessing llu* fault when? no 
blame exists. They sometimes take up the suggestion 
and lecture one another on the false premises that 
the abuse exists, and since they are not guilty them¬ 
selves the other fellow must be. That is om* of the 
objects desired. The astute enemy always tries to 
make trouble in the camp of (he opposition. If men 
who, by acts of omi.ssion or comniis.sion, are respon¬ 
sible for unfortunate agricultural condition.s, can 
make it appear that farmers themselves are respon- 
.sible for the bad conditions, then the men them.scdves 
escape re.sponsibility for their manipnlations ami 
cunning. The oppres.sor must always make his vic¬ 
tim out a rogue, else his acts prove him.self a 
knave. IIow much of this there is in the complaint 
(hat farmers increa.so the .surplus of milk by the u.se 
of oleo we do not know. We have, however, no 
evidence to show that farmers eat hog-butter to any 
material amount. Relying on his general intelli¬ 
gence and u.sual good judgment we cannot think that 
he does. AAT* do know that condensed and evaporated 
milk was not to be had during the Winter in local 
stores. It was accumulated in large bulk in cold 
storage rooms and held for big profits for export. 
Consumption of bottled milk was curtailed by big 
delivery eo.st. The.se conditions created a .surplus; 
and the ju-oducers are now, as u.sual, paying the 
cost of the speculation. Knowing the.se facts as we 
do, and admitting the usual portion of shortcoming 
for the farmer, we cannot pounce on him as the 
sole cause of the i)re.sent un.satisfactory itdlk situa¬ 
tion. 
They Get Away With It 
• I fed like haying a dozen farms with proceeds from 
.Tune milk, a.s there will be some money left after paying 
for the ice that is used for cooling it. We are supposed 
to live upon promises and fresh aii-. The other side 
plays us for a bunch of fools, and get away with it. 
New York. F. n. i>. 
Retail Milk Prices 
We are interested in your writing on the milk (pies- 
tion and price fixing by the Federal Alilk Commi.ssiou. 
We are milk producei-s and we know that no one who 
hires all his help can produce milk for le.ss than seven 
to eight cents p(U’ (juart at present price of feed. 
On page (!.'>! of your this week’s paper you state the 
Federal Milk (’ommission has fixed tin* price of milk 
to iHoducers at .$2..‘14 per 100 lbs. for 2 per cent milk, 
which is for May. A’ou state the price of May milk is 
fixed at .$2.40 and that the Commi.ssiou actually got up 
courage enough to reduce the retail price of hotthal 
milk to the consuiiuu*, hut I am sorry to say the con- 
.sumer has not found it out as yet. For Alay the con¬ 
sumer’s price for R Grade milk was to he 1.’! cents 
from the wagons and for Grad(‘ A the price was to he 
15 cents, again.st 10 cents fi>r April, but it never hap¬ 
pened. 
This i)rice fixing looks good on pai)er to some people, 
but let the Commi.ssion investigate and they wilt find 
if they don’t already know that very little milk is sold 
at the prices the Commission made. Most of the bottled 
milk out of wagons, A or R Grade, is sold iit IH cents 
and has been for several years. 
Two weeks ago three parties from New York City 
and two parties from Paterson, N. .1., were at our 
Goshen, N. Y''., farm. They first thought it was a joke 
when we told them we got .’i cents per quart for .I per 
cent milk. They had been paying 1.S cents for at lea.st 
three years, but they did not know whether it was 
skimmed or A, R or C Grade that they got. May .1 I 
was talking to ,a salesman from Montclair, who said 
he had hei ii i)aying 18 cents for milk for several year.s 
and everybody around him was paying 1<S cents. Now 
why docs not the Commi.ssion say something about this? 
.\t the prices the trirsts are getting for milk they can 
pay the i»roducer 8 cents a quart every day in the year 
and then make 100 per cent profit. Now, if the con¬ 
sumer still thinks the farmer is the cause of high price 
milk he better wake up and find out who really is the 
cause. 
The Commission is a good thing to hold the price 
down on the fanner and they are also a good thing for 
the trusts, as they let them sell at any price. A’ou can 
go through New A'ork City, Newark, N. .1., I’aterson, 
N. .1., and all nearby cities and you will find 00 to 80 
per cent of the bottled milk out of the trust’s wagons 
is sold at 18 cents per quart. What kind of a bluff do 
you call this milk price fixing? s. s. 
New .Tersey. 
The June Milk Price 
The Federal Milk Commission finds itsedf in an 
ombarrassin.g position. The Rordens and other 
companies entered into an agreeimmt with the Dairy- 
rwen’.s League to jiay the May price, .$2.40, which the 
IMllk (’ommission set, but with the nnder.stariding 
that the price for .Line would be $1.80 for P> per cent 
milk in the l.AO-mile zoiu'. ’I’he Commission w.as 
then asked immediately after its decision on Alay 
prices to I’afify the agreement for June as made 
between Ihe League and the New A’ork Alilk Con¬ 
ference Hoard, but tbe Commission declined to do 
so. It insisted that thei’e was too much difference 
between tbe price to consumer and producer. The 
Commission has not as yet .set any price for .Inno. 
Tbe agreement between the League and Roi-dens 
for till' $1.80 price for .Tune puts the Commi.s.sion in 
the position whei-e it may convert itself into a rubber 
stamp and ratify that agreement, or make a different 
price, which would create the impossible condition 
of two prices for .Tune milk in the New A’ork ni.arket. 
New England Milk Prices 
The New Fngland Regional Alilk Commission has 
fixed a price to be paid farmers of 7% cents a 
quart for milk delivereil at Roston for Alay, and 714 
cents a quart for .lune. This price is for Roston and 
vicinity and will prob.ably govern throughout New 
Fngland. The retail price to con.sumers is fixed at 
141^ cents per quart for May and 14 cents rier ipiart 
for .lune. Tbe Commis.sion makes the following an¬ 
nouncement : 
In connection with those prices the Commission will 
put into effect an elaborate ]»lan intended to return to 
producers the actual value of all milk that dealers are 
forced to manufacture during the surplus months. Fach 
dealer will submit sworn statements of such manufac¬ 
ture. lie will be roipiired to pay full market price for 
the butter fat and for the by-products of the skim milk. 
This system is to be enforced by an administrator ap¬ 
pointed by the Commission, who will have the a.ssistance 
of Federal Department of Agriculture experts. Dealers 
will not be allowed to drop dairies except for justifiable 
cause. 
Why Wheat Prices Were not Raised 
We conclude that the following statement is cor¬ 
rect. (’ongre.ss .set the price of wheat at .$2.20 a 
bushel. The great majority of our farmers thought 
(bat this price represented what their wheat would 
sell for at the local station. When they came to 
deliver the grain, they found a new set of rules for 
grading, and they also learned that the price of 
transporting the wheat from their local market to 
what are called regional markets must be taken out 
of this jirice. ’I’lie result is that with close grading, 
and dockage on the price, our people have sold their 
wheat from $1.80 to $2.08 per bu.shel. The majority 
of the wheat sckuus to have sold for about $2. An 
effort was made to have this minimum price raised 
to $2.50. The cost of raising wheat has increased, 
and it is clearly evident that without this restriction 
in price wheat wmdd go much higher, while the 
price fixing of wlu'ut had the effect of pushing up 
Itrices for other grains. The .Senate voted to increase 
this price. The House of Representatives, however, 
killed the plan, and I’resident Wilson stated that 
even if the bill passed Gongress he would veto it. 
The reasons now given us for this action are about 
as folows: 
In the first place, arrangements were made early 
in the year to sell all the wheat we could spare to 
our allies in Furope. Had it not been for the i‘e- 
striction in the price of wheat, it is claimed that 
speculators would have cornered the siqiply and 
forced the other nations to pay fur more for the 
ffrop. This Government having guaranteed that 
Furope should receive our wheat at a certain price, 
felt under obligations to carry out its agreement and 
Iirotect our customers. It was also held that if the 
Government gave way and increa.sed the price at 
this time, many farmers would hold their wheat 
back on the theory that other increa.ses would follow, 
■so that there would not be wheat enough sent to 
market. The refu.sal to raise the price, therefore, i.s 
frankly a plan to compel farmers to give up their 
wheat and put it on the market. 
Another reason was that the Government having 
stated its price last year, the great majority of our 
farmers accepted the statement in good faith and 
sold their wheat. It would not be a square deal for 
these men to now increase the price and enable those 
who held back their wheat to get more for it. On 
the basis of fair terms to all, the wheat crop of 1917 
should all be sold at the same figure. We are told 
that in some cases certain farmers are pro-German 
in their feeling and have held wheat back for the 
express purpose of keeping it out of the market. 
.So far as we can learn these are the explanation.s 
given by the Food Administrator, and we present 
them to our readers without comment. After the 
most careful examination of the situation, we cannot 
see that there is at present any hojie for an increase 
of price for the 1917 crop. If that is jmt promptly 
on the market and disposed of, we think there is a 
fair pos.sibility for an increa.se of the 1918 crop, but 
hr.st of all the old wheat must be cleaned out in 
order that all farmers may stand on eipial footing 
.so far as the price is concerned. 
Qualifications of School Electors 
I have a letter from our .snperintoinlent of .schools 
stating that “the same regulations apply to (pialificatioc.s 
of voter.s as before’’; “a man and hi.s wife cannot vote 
on the qnalilications of the other’’; “if a man owns a 
farm or other property in his own name or pays tax 
on personal property he can vote, but not his wife. If 
the wife owns the property in her name and pays the 
tax, she can vote, but not the husband. If a man and 
his wife have children that attended .school during the 
past year, their own children or children living with 
them, one may vote, presumably the head of the house”; 
“the only way both husband and wife can vote i.s by 
both paying taxes.” 
Are these statement.s from his letter, in quotation 
mark.s, correct? erf 
New York. ' ’ ‘ 
riie (lualification.s of electors at a .school meeting are 
described by Section 20.3 of the education law. A voter 
nunst be; (1) A citizen of the United States; (2) 21 
years of age; (3) resident of district for 30 days pre¬ 
vious to the meeting, and must also either (a) hire, own 
or be in possession under a contract of purchase of, real 
property within the district, or (b) be the parent of a 
child of school age who attended at lea.st eight weeks 
during the preceding year, or (c) have such a child re¬ 
siding with him, or, (d) own personal property in excess 
of fifty dollars (.$50) which was a.sse.ssed for taxation on 
the previous tax roll. No person is ineligible to vote on 
account of sex who has the other qualifications. It fol¬ 
lows, therefore, that both parents of a child of school age 
who attended school for eight weeks during the previous 
year can vote. 
Suggestions About “ Daylight Saving 
“Daylight saving” will annoy the farmer more as the 
season advances. I want to point out a few of these 
future difficulties, not for the sake of borrowing trouble 
but to arou.se di.scu.ssdon that may result in avoiding 
trouble. Probably little inconvenience has been felt so 
far. No doubt some farmers who had only three or 
four hours between chores to devote to their April 
plowing frequently had to wait an hour or so for the 
ground to thaw, losing in this way one-third to one- 
fourth of the allotted time. Rut>»more serious vexations 
will come with the Summer. The farmer can’t afford 
to lose an hour of the precious time between chores 
waiting for the sun to dry Ihe grass or grain, or the 
corn before cultivating. Hay is made while the sun 
shines. The farmer has lived and worked very much 
more by the sun than the indoor worker of the city. 
Generations of collective experience with that sun have 
taught him the best hours. 
The most natural way out would at first seem to he 
to go right on farming by the sun. Rut “daylight .sav¬ 
ing” has felled a tree across that path. The milk must 
be delivered at the same old time by the clock, or an 
hour earlier by the sun, and unless he farms earlier by 
the sun than heretofore he will have a hard time to emd 
and deliver his milk on schedule. Another suggested 
solution is to start to work in the morning at the same 
time as last year by the clock, knock off an hour during 
the morning, say from ten to eleven, and work an hour 
later in the evening. However, this would badly cut 
up the work and would not be acceptable to farm-hands 
who come in by the day. Perhaps if the farmer, dis¬ 
tributer and railroad should get together and arrange 
a postponement of an hour in the farmer’s delivery of 
milk, it would help Uncle Sam more than would the 
saving of a little kerosene. Does "daylight saving,” or 
making the sun rise an hour late, really .save daylight 
for the farmer, or does it waste daylight? 
Putnam Co., N. Y. alo.nzo kx-aw. 
