Country Milk Co. In Hands of Receiver 
The Country Milk Company and the Co-operative 
Milk Producers’ Marketing Association went into the 
hand of a receiver last week. it. I). Cooper is presi¬ 
dent of both organizations. They are subsidiaries 
of the Dairymen’s League, of which he is also presi¬ 
dent. The action in equity was brought in the 
United States Court, and Judge Manton appointed 
Edward J. McCrossin, a lawyer, of 140 Broadway, 
as receiver. The action was brought on the com¬ 
plaint of the Addison County Co-operative Dairy 
Company, of Middleburg, Vermont, as complainants. 
The defendants are: 
Co-operative Milk Marketing Association and It. D. 
Cooper, president thereof. 
Holland Patent Milk and Cream Company. 
Prospect Milk and Cream Company. 
Trenton Milk and Cream Company. 
Remseu Milk and Cream Company. 
Do Ituyter Co-operative Milk Producers’ Association. 
New Berlin Co-operative Creamery Company. 
Independent Producers, Inc. 
Little Falls Dairy Company. 
Lowville Milk and Cream Company. 
Newport Co-operative Dairy Company. 
New Woodstock Creamery Company. 
Sheds Co-operative Milk Association. 
Bullville Milk Producers’ Association. 
Fort Plain Milk Company. 
Dairymen's Productive Association, Inc. 
Farmers’ Co-operative Creamery. 
Green’s Crossing Milk Company. 
Williamstown Dairy Company. 
Walden Dairy Company. 
Portville Dairy Producers’ Company. 
Manheim Dairy Company. 
Canajoharie Milk Company. 
Jewish Farmers’ Co-operative Creamery. 
New Milford Dairy Company. 
Association of Ulster County. 
The complaint charges that the business was badly 
managed and that the two concerns owe farmers 
$400,000 for milk. It alleges further that the com¬ 
plainant company never received pay for milk deliv¬ 
ered from May 15 to May 31, or for the last half of 
September, and that the amount due it for the two 
periods is $13,000. It alleges that demand was made 
for an accounting, but that statements were denied it, 
and further, that during the month of November, while 
hopelessly insolvent, it believed $250,000 had been 
paid out of the assets of the association largely to 
its members, and that during October $50,000 had 
been paid out of the Country Milk Company, after 
it became insolvent, and that its losses are $ 100 , 000 . 
The Addison Company alleged it had been irrepar¬ 
ably injured by these payments. It alleges that the 
defendant Cooper and his associates neglected the 
interests of the.complainant, that their management 
brought about the conditions of insolvency, and that 
they are not proper persons to be trusted with the 
liquidation of the insolvent concerns. 
The attorney for the receiver said both concerns 
had been out of the business for some months, but 
a firm of accountants had been drawing about $ 1,000 
a month up to the time the receiver was appointed; 
and II. ,T. Mosher, the treasurer, was also drawing 
salaries amounting to about $0,000 a year. The 
receiver dropped both. The accounts, he said, were 
badly mixed and would take some time to straighten 
out. 
Originally all the milk was sold by the State 
Department on behalf of the Dairymen’s League. 
Later the milk of the co-operative creameries was 
not included in the general sale, and the Marketing 
Association was organized to sell this part of the 
milk on a two per cent commission. Then the Coun¬ 
try Milk Company was incorporated to sell the milk 
lor the Marketing Association. This required dupli¬ 
cation of officers and salaries and overhead expenses, 
and since the company adopted the policy of selling 
in the city at the price fixed by the milk trust there 
was no opportunity to increase output, and a sur¬ 
plus accumulated which had to be manufactured at 
a loss. 
The directors of the Country Milk Company are: 
It. D. Cooper, Little Falls; F. II. Thompson. Holland 
Latent; II. .T. Mosher, South New Berlin; It. S. 
Smith, I)e Ituyter; ,T. Sheklen, Lawrenceville. 
A most unusual situation grew out of President 
Cooper’s refusal to furnish information in reference 
to the business. The Marketing Association had 
some 28 members, each represented by a trustee. 
Month after month these trustees assembled at 
Utica, N. Y., at a cost of approximately $1,000 a 
visit, but they never could get a business or financial 
statement, and of course without such information 
they were unable to pass judgment on any business 
proposition. Month after month the losses continued 
to pile up and the trustees who were expected to 
protect the interests of the producers were helpless 
for want of information about the business they 
were expected to direct. If we could write but one 
rule for farm co-operative organizations it would 
be to provide monthly credit and full publicity by 
The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
a committee responsible directly to the membership 
and without official connections. 
High Cost of Milk Production 
While competent authority has shown that milk 
is the cheapest in a relative food value of the 
ordinary foods, yet the consumer has complained 
particularly of the price of milk. City consumers 
seem to have beeh persuaded that farming is an 
easy and prosperous occupation, and that the farmer 
is bearing down on the consumers in his demand for 
the price of milk. They should remember that the 
farmer gets less than one-half the cost to the con¬ 
sumer. but where the other half goes is another 
story. 
The urgent need of the producer is a system of 
accounting to show the cost of production and to 
account for every dollar expended in the process. 
Such a system has been in use at Fairdale Farms 
at Maynard, Oneida County, New York, during the 
past year. 
The following compilation gives the cost of pro¬ 
duction in hundred weight and also by the quart 
for December. 1919: 
Cost per 
Quart 
2.7 Cents 
4.4 “ 
2.8 “ 
1.5 “ 
1.4 “ 
12.8 
9.3 
Cost per 
100 lbs. 
Purchased grain . $1.24 
Hay, ensilage and home-grown 
foods . 2.04 
Man and horse labor. 1.31 
Interest and depreciation on pro¬ 
ducing cows .09 
Repairs and general expenses.60 
Total cost, not including return on 
investment . $5.94 
Price received for milk in December. 
1918 . 4.35 
The following table gives the profit or loss mouth by 
month for the entire year: 
Profit 
March . 
April . 
May . 
June .$101.13 
July . 70.82 
August . 31.65 
September . 40.14 
October. 58.05 
November . 
December . 
January . 
February . 
Loss 
$119.27 
113.81 
19.25 
52.91 
47.75 
04.38 
70.00 
Totals . 
Net loss for the year 
$302.39 $487.37 
185.00 
The investment in buildings, land, equipment, etc., in 
this case justly chargeable to milk production was at 
least $ 10,000 and no interest or profit on this invest¬ 
ment was figured in the above schedule of milk pro¬ 
duction cost. No manufacturer or merchant would 
consider a return of less than 20 per cent a satisfactory 
return upon an investment of $ 10 , 000 ; but assuming 
the modest return of only 10 per cent upon the invest¬ 
ment in milk production, a profit of $ 1,000 would be 
called for instead of a loss of $185 as shown. 
The question naturally arises how the farmer can 
continue in the business of milk production if that 
business is carried on at a loss. The answer is that 
the ordinary farmer does not recognize many of the 
legitimate items of expense listed above. Purchased 
grain is an item of direct outlay, and this cost is upper¬ 
most in the mind of the milk producer, although it 
represents less than one-fourth of the total cost of milk 
production. The cost of hay and home-grown feeds is 
produced by farm labor and calls for little direct outlay, 
and fhe farmer fails to consider it at its full cost of 
production. 
If the milk producer has come into the ownership of 
his farrn by inheritance he is not likely to consider the 
item of interest charge or the return upon the value of 
his farm. If the milk producer is a tenant farmer, the 
loss of a proper return upon the value of the farm is 
shared by both the tenant and the owner, for the rent 
of hut few farms yields sufficient income to properly 
maintain the buildings, fences and the fertility of the 
soil. 
The milk producer is held to his task for much the 
same reasons which hold the city worker to his task— 
it is the only work with which he is familiar and for 
which he is fitted*—and he cannot take the risk of going 
into another business. 
The steadfastness of the milk producers in the recent 
“milk strike” indicates that they have come to feel that 
the limit has been reached, and that the high cost of 
milk production must, in part at least, be assumed by 
the distributor and the consumer. 
The solution of the difficulties will call for more 
economical distribution of milk to the consumer with 
profits to the distributor no greater than the profits to 
the producer upon a like investment. 
If this condition cannot be secured through the co¬ 
operation of the distributor, it must be secured through 
the establishment of farmer-owned plants throughout the 
country, and these plants must be designed to make up 
the surplus milk into milk products, and to be able to 
give to the trade just what the trade wants and no 
more. 
On the part of the producer, the solution calls for 
better cows and better-fed cows—cows with vearly pro¬ 
duction above 6.000 pounds of milk—and this calls for 
the keeping of records of individual production. 
Utica, N. Y. H. B. SWEET. 
A Suggestion About “Free Seeds” 
Our old friend the packet of “free seeds” is now 
appearing like the bluebirds and the woodchucks. 
We have had several, although we tried hard to get 
off the list last year. There seems no way of getting 
rid of the nuisance except by sending the package 
hack to the Congressman by express—C. O. D. But 
here is a new idea. The following letter was writ¬ 
531 
ten to Congressman James S. Parker by George R. 
Schauber, of vSaratoga Co.. N. Y.: 
In regard to the free seeds, I am absolutely opposed 
to this free seed distribution. If new varieties or new 
types were distributed and the farmer could thereby get 
something that might prove of value to him, and he 
would be unlikely to obtain from other sources, the 
principle would be good, and such distribution proper, 
but as the system is now operated the varieties sent:out 
have been in cultivation for years, and in many sections 
have been discarded by the more progressive growers 
for newer varieties that have proven superior. Con¬ 
gress would be equally justified in distributing free food 
or clothing, and if they followed the styles as closely as 
they have vegetable developments, they would still be 
sending out high-top leather boots and hoopskirts. 
I do not care for any of these seeds for my own 
planting, but as long as the system does exist I can 
think of no better use to which these seeds can be put 
than to give them to the school children for their school 
gardens. We have about 100 children in our school, 
and with seven acres of land have ample room for them 
to garden to their heart’s delight. I as a member of the 
board of education will he glad to accept such seeds as 
you see fit to send for this purpose, and I really think 
they will do more good used in this way than they will 
in competing with the regular and legitimate seed mer¬ 
chant. I know from previous correspondence that you 
are opposed to this petty seed graft, and I wish enough 
were of like mind to abolish the system as it now ex¬ 
ists. 
Physical Training In Rural Schools 
A recent bulletin issued by the State Department re¬ 
fers to the “Comprehensive program of physical train¬ 
ing” in the rural schools put on throughout the State 
this year, and expects it to do wonders, but keeps very 
shy of details or the way it was “put over” the taxpayer, 
or whether it was favorably received or not. Having 
been about somewhat in two or three counties, I have 
yet to meet a farmer or taxpayer who is in favor of 
their school being closed one day each month for the 
teacher to attend a physical training conference held 
somewhere in the county most convenient to the travel¬ 
ing instructor, while the teachers generally object to 
spending more than their day’s wages to' attend the 
same. Counting the time and expense, is it not another 
case of “paying too dear for the whistle”? Were the 
parents more familiar with the required stunts and 
supervised games, the whole scheme would be ridiculed 
to oblivion. 
To attempt to teach dancing in a country schoolhouse 
having on an average less than 30 sq. ft. of clear floor 
space is somewhat cramped : while pupils prefer to use 
their own initiative in starting games, rather than to 
play by rule. To see a gathering of teachers squeezing 
through hoops, jumping over imaginary brooks, and 
playing tag and bean-bag games, requires a stretch of the 
imagination to believe any educational advantages are 
derived from it. Gov. Smith in his inaugural message, 
when urging retrenchment in public expenses, savs: 
“Many of the proposals for new activities of the State 
will require money. The wasted dollar not only bur¬ 
dens the citizens, but helps retard the progress of the 
State.” /Will the rural residents quietly submit to this 
entering wedge of enforced taxation? If so. then those 
proposed $300 chemical toilets will follow along soon 
for the taxpayer to settle for as a matter of course, r. 
Ulster Co., N. Y. 
Autocratic Power of School Authorities 
I have been reading the articles in regard to country 
schools, and have come to the conclusion that what we 
need in this country is a new Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence. With free speech strangled, the press muz¬ 
zled. and taxation without representation, as in the 
matter of sanitary toilets for rural schools, it is time 
there was a change. The autocratic power with which 
the Board of Regents makes and enforces laws, regard¬ 
less of circumstances or conditions, would do credit to a 
Kaiser. Not that I am opposed to any legitimate ex¬ 
pense for the advancement of education, but I am op¬ 
posed to being held up by any bunch of politicians who 
may come before the footlights. 
hast year we were obliged to pay a physical instruc¬ 
tor to go to each school two or three times during the 
year. The farmers protested and the law was repealed, 
making it optional with each school, and this vear those 
who did not want it are compelled bv order of the Ed¬ 
ucation Department of the State to'pav and send the 
teacher once a month to some place to receive physical 
instruction, thus making us lose nine days’ instruction 
in each school during the year, and incidentally putting 
putting another over on the farmers. Some vears ago 
four school commissioners, elected by the people, looked 
after the schools, better, and at less expense, in Oneida 
County. than seven district superintendents, not elected 
by the people, do at present. So much for politics iu 
the management of rural schools. c. J. SAEMOX 
Oneida Co., N. Y. 
The Man Who Wants a Farm 
The editor has sized up the case of the man who 
wants to get a farm on monthly pavments, W. L. FI , 
page 35o. I live right in the heart of the section of 
cheap farms of New York State, where old folks or 
those not strong enough to stand hard work are parting 
with their farms at ridiculously low prices, where oc¬ 
casionally a farm is sold on quarterlv pavments or 
someone sells a farm on $100 down and $i 00 a year 
thereafter. In none of these cases have sales been made 
to entire strangers, so far as I know. Moreover, none 
have sold stock and tools on any such conditions. It 
takes money usually or some form of security to get 
such things, at least to some extent. Cows have been 
bought by some of these men on rather slight security, 
and a few tools as well, but there needs commonly to 
be something to tie to somewhere. Iu the case of the 
one who makes the inquiry, it would strike anyone as 
strange that nothing has been saved by this time. At 
40 one does not commence things verv much unless 
something of the sort has been done before. I think 
that any farm owner would need to be convinced that 
something had not been neglected before. It may be 
that the boys will save if “Dad” has not. but that is 
hardly to be looked for. There may have been severe 
and prolonged sickness, or it may have been a disastrous 
fire that wiped out years of savings, but if it is just 
neglect to save heretofore, that will most likely continue 
This man may be able to make a clear case! and if so 
he can get a farm, and a good one. readily. Farms are 
cheap and sellers anxious to make bargains. it. h. l. 
IL N.-Y.—There have been 30 or more letters from 
men who say they have farms, but many of them want 
to know why W. L. II. has uot saved anything in at 
least 20 years of working life. 
