RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1649 
Political Candidates and the Milk Question 
DISAPPOINTING CONDITIONS. — We confess 
with regret that we are unable to find any comfort 
for dairymen in the occasional reference to the milk 
problem in the political speeches of the gubernatorial 
candidates in New York State. Governor Smith 
bad an opportunity two years ago during the milk 
strike to do something worth while, and neglected 
it. The bills prepared last year by a committee of 
bis appointing, and approved by him, could not be 
recommended either on expediency or principle. 
They were on a par with the first Wicks bill invented 
by Governor Whitman’s committee three years ago, 
and defeated by farmers. 
INSINCERE POLITICS.—Last year’s bill served 
a double purpose. The politicians of the city were 
expected to get credit from consumers for pro¬ 
posing a law to reduce the price of milk. The up¬ 
state legislators looked for praise from dairymen 
for defeating the bills. Neither side really wanted 
the laws. Both sides knew that the hills could not 
be enacted into law. The dealers knew the situation, 
and refused to be worried. They had friends on 
both sides and were fully advised and assured. The 
bills were political fodder. Governor Smith knew 
they could not be passed in the shape in which they 
were presented, but he refused to have them rewrit¬ 
ten to provide means to reduce the cost of distribu¬ 
tion. The organization of which he is a popular 
member has no serious intention of offending the 
milk trust. We can therefore expect no relief from 
tbc present situation if he should be successful at 
the polls. 
MORE INVESTIGATIONS.—We regret to say 
that Candidate Miller gives us no better encourage¬ 
ment if he should be successful. lie tells us that it 
is a problem for scientific study, and the best he can 
promise if elected is to make a scientific study of 
rue subject by experts. This of course means an¬ 
other investigation, another report, and more legis¬ 
lation. The investigation will be made by friends 
of the milk trust, the bills will be again dictated by 
the milk trust, or at least approved by them, and 
then finally friends of the milk trust will be ap¬ 
pointed to administer the laws, or more properly 
speaking, to see that the laws are not enforced 
against the milk trust. By the time this program is 
complete we will have another Governor, and lie will 
need another scientific investigation to solve the 
problem for him, and so on we go in the revolving 
political cycle of the milk problem. 
PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE NEEDED.—The most 
charitable view is that neither Governor Smith nor 
Judge Miller have any practical knowledge of the 
problem themselves, and both of them have their 
policies and their words prepared for them by stupid 
politicians who know less .about it than themselves, 
but who try to shape the arguments to win votes. 
This we believe is responsible for the volume of 
words on the subject, which when closely studied 
saj nothing and mean less. 
FARMS AND MARKETS COUNCIL.—If it is 
scientific study we want, why has not the Farms and 
Markets Council made it during the past three 
years? The law directs it to do so. It has an army 
of employees, and it has had millions to spend. It 
is absolutely under control of the men who nomi¬ 
nated Judge Miller. Beyond any doubt they are the 
men who are furnishing information or policy for 
him. They have lain down on the job for three 
straight years, and they have affairs so fixed that 
even Judge Miller, if elected, will have no authority 
to order them to get busy. The voters of the State 
could not disturb them in less than six years of 
successive elections of pledged legislative candidates 
—a thing impossible. This they call democracy. 
WAGE COMPARISONS. — Why the scientific 
study? Why not use a little of the common every¬ 
day information we have now? We know that 
dairymen are allowed 38% cents an hour in the 
estimates of cost of production of milk; after this 
•10 cents per 100 is deducted; and the poorest paid 
class of distributors get a dollar an hour, and are 
about to strike for more. Why not say that we will 
see to it that the farmer will get as much per hour 
as the city milk drivers? That may not be scientific. 
It would not be justice to the skilled dairyman, but 
it would improve present practice. 
CONSUMERS’ PRICES.—We know that dealers 
are charging $1.10 a quart for a light grade of cream. 
We know that this puts cream iu the luxury class, and 
that the consumption of it has been reduced. Every 
can of cream consumed would be au extra market 
for 10 cans of milk. We know that this price gives 
the dealers a clear 100 per cent profit on cream. 
Why not direct the Foods and Markets Department 
to demonstrate that cream can be delivered for less 
than 200 per cent profit? 
MORE KNOWLEDGE NEEDED.—We suspect 
that Judge Miller has not been taken fully iuto the 
confidence of his advisers. We do not refer to the 
members of the council or the heads of departments, 
but to the political bosses who control its policies. 
We venture the suggestion that Judge Miller knows 
nothing of the carefully guarded three-sided agree¬ 
ment that has given the milk trust undisputed domi¬ 
nation of the city market and that has cost the dairy 
industry millions of dollars during the past three 
years. 
TIIE DAIRYMAN’S POSITION.—We can see no 
comfort for the dairyman in the election of one or 
the other of these candidates. He merely has a 
choice between a Murphy and a Barnes organiza¬ 
tion. Ixr either case it is a milk trust victory. It 
used to he Croker and Platt and the Milk Exchange, 
Limited. Now it is Murphy and Barnes and the 
Milk Conference Board. If we continue to listen to 
the siren song of politicians the next generatiou will 
have the same thing under three new names. Farm¬ 
ers have the numbers and the power to upset this 
system. Pledged to abandon partisan politics, and 
United in their own interest, they can drive a wedge 
between the food trusts and the State government, 
and then create .a system of economic distribution 
that will pay the same wages and profits for pro¬ 
duction that is paid in the service of distribution. 
This will never be done by dealers or politicians, or 
by compromises with them. It must be done inde¬ 
pendently by farmers themselves and by finding a 
•way to select candidates that do not wear the tag of 
the political boss. 
Another Milk Failure 
The latest report is that one Harvey, a small 
New York milk dealer, with plant at Potsdam, has 
failed, owing farmers $28,000. Not long since the 
Hamilton Dairy Company failed with liabilities of 
$200,000, mostly owing to farmers. The Cornwall 
Farms Dairy Company failed some mouths back 
with liabilities of about $100,000, largely owed to 
farmers. Neither of these were under license by 
the State Farms and Markets Department, which 
has the enforcement of the milk bonding law. 
Perfectly good and responsible dealers are under 
bond. Why is it that those who fail carry no bond? 
Under the law it is optional with the commissioner 
to insist on a bond or to excuse it. There is cer¬ 
tainly room for improvement in this particular in 
the department. 
This irresponsible element in the trade is demoral¬ 
izing to the men iu the trade who pay their bills, as 
well as ruinous to the producers. The dealer who 
pays for his milk should not be subjected to the 
eompetitiou of men who do not pay for the milk 
they sell. 
If the commissioner cannot be persuaded to exact 
bonds from all, then we must amend the bonding 
law and make the bonding of all mandatory on the 
commissioner. This system of false security by the 
.State to isolated producers should be stopped. 
A Short Demand for Cream 
The demand for cream has fallen off. The dealers 
are making a net profit of 100 per cent on cream. 
People in moderate means cannot pay it. They don't, 
consequently the demand is light and cream is going 
into storage. wholesaler. 
New York City. 
The above substantial report of a wholesale cream 
dealer’s statement set us figuring. Cream is, of 
course, made from the richest milk. Suppose a 
farmer makes 10 cans of 4.5 per cent milk, and this 
is worked up into cream. The farmer gets $4.25 
per hundred, or $30.12. 
The 850 lbs. of milk contain 38.25 lbs. butterfat. 
This amount of fat will be in the cream. If we 
represent the weight of 20 per cent cream by X. then 
X .20 = 38.25; and 38.25 .20 = 191.25. This is 
the number of pounds of 20 per cent cream in the 850 
lbs. of 4.5 p a r cent milk. Now 20 per cent cream 
weighs approximately 2.115 lbs. to the quart, so 
191.25 -7- 2.115 = 90.4 quarts of cream. The con¬ 
sumer pays $1.10 per quart, which makes $1Q4,S0 for 
this 90.4 quarts cream. The 458 lbs. of skim-milk 
is worth at least $2.74. So the dealer gets $107.60 
for the 10 cans of milk to the producers $36.12. 
The dealer sells for 300 per cent of his buying price, 
or at 200 per cent gross profit. His net profit is, 
therefore, more than the 100 per cent stated by the 
wholesaler. 
Every can of cream cut out of consumption means 
10 cans of milk added to the surplus. Every can of 
cream put in storage now means 10 cans of milk 
added to the supply later on. No industry can 
pay a middleman’s profit like this and give the pro¬ 
ducer a fair return. Is it not plain to every intelli¬ 
gent dairyman that taking care of the surplus and 
pooling the meagre returns will not cure this evil? 
Tire surplus, when there is one, must be cared for. 
Each member of a collective bargain must share 
equitably in the proceeds of it; but a free outlet is 
a necessity. So long as the trust enjoys the undis¬ 
turbed power to cut off the outlet and dam back the 
flow of milk to the city, so long will the dairy indus¬ 
try be crippled and ill paid. 
Some day dairymen will go back to their original 
plan, and devote themselves to the sale of milk and 
the development of an outlet for it. When they do 
the word ‘‘surplus,” now so general in use, will pass 
out of the dairyman’s vocabirlary. This may come 
now only at the end of a fight, but men who sacri¬ 
ficed at home and sent their sons to fight for de¬ 
mocracy across the seas will not hesitate when 
necessary to fight at home for industrial democracy 
and freedom. 
The Ruinous Price of Cotton 
From all over the Gulf States come reports of 
wild doings among the cotton growers. The present 
cotton crop was planted on the basis of a 40-cent 
price. That is, planters estimated the selling price 
at 40 cents a pound or about $200 per bale. Judg¬ 
ing from cotton prices during the past few years and 
the reports of the world’s supply, such expectation 
was justified. So most planters borrowed money 
and bought high-priced fertilizer and supplies, and 
engaged high-priced labor. They had no control 
over prices for such things. They were held up 
and had no choke but to pay or give notes for their 
debts. Now, after struggling through a hard sea¬ 
son, under discouraging conditions, they find the 
price of cotton at 25 cents or below. Whereas they 
were fully justified in expecting $200 per bale, they 
are offered about $120. Thus they are cut 40 per 
cent in their estimated income, while they were 
forced to pay at last 120 per cent for their supplies! 
Of course, no business can stand such ruinous meth¬ 
ods. That is particularly true of cotton growing, 
for the average planter has no other cash crop to 
bring in money, while his methods of managing his 
crop place him directly in the hands of his creditors. 
The only hope for him is to increase the price of 
cotton, and this can only he done by holding the 
crop off the market until the advantage rests with 
the producer or seller. If through their necessities 
the cotton planters are forced to sell their crops at 
once, the market will be flooded and the buyers will 
dictate the price. In that ease the buyers can ob¬ 
tain the cotton at a low figure and then hold up the 
consumers to suit themselves. Reports from the 
South are that farmers are combining to prevent file 
picking or ginning or selling of cotton until the price 
rises. We have no doubt many of these reports 
are exaggerated. We know lrow easy it is to fill 
the papers with paid propaganda, and therefore we 
do not print these reports of burning, and even mur¬ 
der. We have many readers at the South, and we 
shall have fair reports from them. In general, 
however, it is true that the cotton men. like the 
wool growers and the grain growers, are trying to 
secure control of their own product, so as to obtain 
a fair price. They are fully justified in doing this, 
and. regardless of the wild reports printed in the 
papers, we believe these farmers will never do any¬ 
thing as illegal or cruel as the methods practiced 
for years by the big interests to rob the farmers of 
their business rights. 
The Government report on wheat stocks puts the 
amount still on the farm at 477,000,000 bushels; in 
mills and elevators, 102,000,000. and in transit. 
29,000,000. Between July 1 and October 1 farmers 
marketed 331,000.000 of wheat. This year’s entire 
crpp is 798,000,000 bushels. 
