‘fh< RURAL NEW-YORKER 
569 
Analysis of the New Milk Bill at Albany 
A new milk bill introduced in the Senate by Sen¬ 
ator Straus of New York creates a milk arbitration 
board of five members, to be appointed by the Gov¬ 
ernor. One of the members is to be appe aled from 
a list of three names furnished by the Dairymen's 
League, and one from three names furnished by the 
New York Milk Conference Board. Tn the same way 
the State Grange and the New York State Chamber 
of Commerce are each authorized to suggest three 
names of persons not in any way identified with the 
production or distribution of milk, and the Governor 
is to appoint one member from each of these groups. 
The State Commissioner of Health is to be the fifth 
member, ex-officio. 
The board is given power: 
1. To supervise the production, transportation, 
manufacture, storage and distribution of milk and 
milk products. 
2. To investigate all matters pertaining to milk, 
including costs of production and distribution. 
3. To fix the price for production, for distribution 
and for the consumption, including manufacture. 
4. To require producers and distributors to report 
to the board such information as it may require as 
to the amount of milk sold, to whom sold, and the 
price paid for it. 
5. To divide the city into zones and to give deal¬ 
ers the exclusive privilege of distributing milk in 
such zones. 
(5. To require milk of manufacturing plants to be 
delivered to fluid milk receiving plants when the 
cities require fluid milk. 
7. In time of emergency to take possession of and 
operate all milk producing farms and dairies, all 
fluid milk receiving plants and fluid milk distrib¬ 
uting plants, or as many thereof as it deems neces¬ 
sary. together with the animals, buildings, vehicles, 
containers and other equipment necessary to operate 
them, and assume charge of the production and dis¬ 
tribution of milk in such degree as it deems neces¬ 
sary until such temporary emergency is passed, trea¬ 
sonable compensation shall he allowed for the use of 
the farms, stock, plants and facilities used. 
The vote of the board must be unanimous to con¬ 
stitute an order, and a fine of $500 or a year in 
prison, or both, is the penalty provided for violation 
of an order. 
A recommendation, however, may he issued by four 
members, and provision is made for publicity of the 
recommendations and to give them popular approval. 
The board is authorized to accept gifts and dona¬ 
tion from individuals and associations, and to use 
gifts and donations of money for the purposes of the 
board. 
The life of the board is four years. 
This is a peculiar bill in many respects, and in our 
judgment a dangerous measure to the milk producer, 
for these reasons: 
1. The board is to have only one member inter¬ 
ested in the production of milk, and at best, like all 
boards of the kind ever suggested, the majority rep¬ 
resents consumers and distributors. 
2. Fundamental rights of the farm are violated in 
the provisions that the board may direct the disposi¬ 
tion to be made of milk, and may set the price that, 
the producer must accept for it. The best title to 
property is first possession by fact of having pro¬ 
duced it by one’s own labor. TbV title carries with 
if the fundamental right to disp se of it at will, and 
to set the price on it. Destroy this title and you de¬ 
stroy the incentive for production. . 
3. The hoard is authorized to give dealers a mon¬ 
opoly in the city, each assigned to a particular zone. 
If that provision had been in effect in 11)1(5 rhe first 
tight against the dealers never could have been won. 
The dealers have been after this monopoly ever since. 
If granted, dairymen would be debarred from any 
attempt to increase consumption in the city by forc¬ 
ing an economic system of distribution through 
stores or otherwise. 
4. Gifts and donations to a board by individuals 
and associations are always accepted with a sense of 
responsibility to the donor. Farmers are in no 
position to make large gifts, and those who do make 
them usually exercise more or less influence, either 
directly or indirectly, on those who administer the 
funds. Such donations have no place in a public 
board. 
We pass over the provision that the board may 
take possession of the farms and the cows and pro¬ 
duce milk in emergencies. The board would cer¬ 
tainly have a job that would annihilate the eight- 
hour day law and make a joke of daylight saving. It 
is hard to read this provision and maintain the re¬ 
spect for it that we like to feel for a Senate meas¬ 
ure. The bill revives many of the old features of 
the Wicks bill, which dairymen promptly repudiated 
; nil killed in 1!)17. These provisions are the fixing 
of prices to the farmer, the right to commandeer his 
product, the zone monopoly to dealers, and the right 
te accept gifts and use donated money. 
» 
We give Senator Straus credit for a sincere pur¬ 
pose to help correct a had practice; but he is en- 
ness, and in our judgment is badly advised as to the 
ultimate' effect on the city consumer. He has pro¬ 
duced a dealers’ measure: and a dealers’ measure is 
always against the interests of both producer and 
consumer. The bill involves the socialistic principle 
that the fruits of production belong to the State; but 
it is applied only to milk. If we must go to socialism 
we should go the full limit and give the scheme a fair 
chance on everything; but so long as other manu¬ 
facturers and producers are accorded the right to 
make the price of their own products, for one, we 
shall continue to demand the same privilege for the 
fa rraer. 
An Accounting for Co-operative Associa¬ 
tions 
The Kvcrctt bill, now before the New York Legisla¬ 
ture, provides that co-operative associations in New 
York State make annual verified reports of their finan¬ 
cial condition to the Agricultural Department: and also 
that the department may call for special reports and 
make personal examination at any time when conditions 
seem to warrant. This is similar to the law which re¬ 
quires saving and loan associations and State banks to 
report to the Banking Department. Mr. 0. Fred Bos- 
liart, who is a member of the Farms and Markets Coun¬ 
cil. appeared before the judiciary committee in favor of 
the bill. His contention is that farmers are anxious to 
co-operate with one another for mutual protection, and 
are accumulating large sums of money for the purposes 
of service, and that those in charge of it should be re¬ 
sponsible to someone. Since the State furnishes the legal 
machinery for the organization, it may properly require 
them to make accounting of the money and property 
they handle. He told the committee that the future of 
co-operation in the State depends on the confidence of 
farmers in the organizations; that he believed in them 
himself, and he wanted an accounting that would make 
him feel safe in putting his own money and property 
into them. The men who make co-operation possible, 
he said, should be given a clear idea of the inside work¬ 
ing of these organized bodies. If they are to endure and 
avoid scandal, there must be no mysteries locked up and 
concealed in their affairs. w. w. 
Tiik It. N.-Y. agrees fully with Hie need of detailed 
accounting and full publicity of the affairs of co-op¬ 
eration. Wo agree with Mr. Boshart that these re¬ 
ports are absolutely essential to the permanent suc¬ 
cess of co-operation, and the principle is recognized 
and practiced wherever-co-operation has made a suc¬ 
cess. The saving and loan associations have the 
most successful form of true co-operation in the 
world; and their books are always open to members, 
besides the full reports made annually to the Bank¬ 
ing Department, and the annual examination by 
State accountants. We have, however, always felt: 
that sufficient protection would be afforded in the 
farm organizations in a monthly detailed report by 
a committee elected by the members of the associa¬ 
tion. provided the members of the committee held no 
other office in the association, and were changed 
annually. No matter bow if, is effected, the account¬ 
ing is necessary and proper, and unless it is volun¬ 
tarily provided, legal requirements will sooner or 
later be imposed. No man can form a sound judg¬ 
ment on a proposition or act intelligently on if with¬ 
out full and accurate information. 
The Wool Situation in Michigan 
The article on page 473, by F. E. Robertson, relating 
to the manufacture of wool into blankets, etc., is of 
interest, and shows the trend of thought. An idea may 
be right, but inexpedient, and later become entirely op¬ 
erative to mutual advantage. The reasoning of this 
writer shows that when a majority of people begin to 
think in tin* way he does, the plan then becomes pos¬ 
sible and workable, 'file Michigan 8fate Farm Bureau 
wool pool for the clip of 1920 had consigned to its agen¬ 
cy for sale approximately 4.000,000 lbs. of wool. Direct 
relations have been established with the woolen mills in 
not only selling wool, but in the manufacturing of blan¬ 
kets and fabrics for men’s and women’s wear. The time 
is not now opportune for owning and operating woolen 
mills, which is a highly technical line, and just now 
not over profitable, also requiring heavy financing. The 
ability to command the mills’ services on the basis of the 
most favored buyer is now entirely possible, and prob¬ 
ably in the long run the most desirable. The price of 
fabrics and blank< ts should not be based on present wool 
prices, but on cost of production of wool. This price 
lor the bright wool States should be (50 cents per pound. 
I’he Federal Tariff Commission ascertained the annual 
cost ot a sheep’s maintenance, together with depreciation 
and losses, and then took 4S per cent as the cost of the 
fleece. I his runs around 52 to 53 cents outside of the 
range States. 
In a general way an average fleece of wool will make 
the average man a suit of clothes, with the range rather 
above tins, owing to the shrink and waste in manufac¬ 
ture. After reckoning remnants and overhead, the fabric 
in a virgin wool suit will be a trifle over $10. Tlve 
tailoring, i! done to measure, including linings, etc., is 
close to $20. This is away below what the tailor 
charges, who claims to be an artist and somewhat of a 
superman in the art of laucy work. Ready-made suits 
of the same fabrics can he made for about one-half tin* 
price of tailored suits. 
The local tailor desires a profit on fabrics as well as 
upon his labor, and discourages the purchase of fabrics, 
and in fact charges for making suits almost as much as 
if lie provided the suiting material. The possibility of 
direct marketing of suitings requires a considerable out¬ 
lay and financial backing, which is impossible with the 
individual or any small wool pool. Mills cannot make 
a “run on the looms without the desired grade or 
grades of wool, and 1.000 yards is little enough in this 
direction. The actual cost, in the matter of wool in a 
real fancy delightful fabric which, when made up is a 
joy to the wearer, and gives an air of refinement, is less 
than £1 on a suit <d clothes. (>ne of the to-be-regretted 
facts is tin 1 imposition and lessened wear that is occa¬ 
sioned h.v the cupidity of manufacturers and with the 
ignorance of dealers and wearers about this $1. This 
situation becomes more acute as the labor cost of man¬ 
ufacturing and tailoring increases when applied to 
unworthy shoddy cloth. Michigan today has a popula¬ 
tion of over three million who ought to wear each year 
an equivalent of thirty million pounds of virgin wool, or 
approximately that from twice the number of sheep now 
in the State, direct from the wool grower to the mills, as 
graded by the Farm Bureau wool pool and from them 
to the consumer, by way of quantity production, tailor 
and ready-made goods. There is today no oversupply of 
wool, but under consumption and substitution. This con¬ 
dition deprives the State of an asset of what should be 
fifty million dollars in sheep, or about twice the num¬ 
ber of flocks as reported in 1920. when there were two 
and one-fourth million head, at an average value of $11 
per head. 
The present system of indirect dealing with six inter¬ 
mediaries instead of the Farm Bureau entails a cost on 
the consuming public of over one hundred million dol¬ 
lars .unnecessarily, and in the end unsatisfactory as to 
fabric and wearing qualities, because of shoddy ma¬ 
terials. While the citizens of Michigan complain of high 
(axes an | demand restriction of public services, as roads 
and scheni buildings, these same people are paying out 
more money and preventing the increase of flocks of 
beep in the State (which largely consume roughage and 
• ’inch of pasture that is wastage) than the whole of the 
State tax levy. The Michigan State Farm Bureau Wool 
Growers’ organization has undertaken, first, to make 
every sheep grower a member; second, to improve the 
grade and quality of the wool ; third, to grade wool cor¬ 
rectly; fourth, to sell directly to the mills; fifth, to- 
manufacture blankets and fabrics, and provide clothing 
from virgin wool at cost to consumers; sixth, coat means 
the cost of growing wool, not present prices, made by 
ruinous competition, which is destroying the industry. 
We appeal to Michigan people to stand by the new sys¬ 
tem nf serving and paying only for necessary service. 
joiin m. m’hhipe. 
They are Doing it Themselves 
The enclosed clipping will show how our bunch of 
Worcester Gounty farmers are “doing it themselves,” 
to paraphrase your “punch,” which is so necessary to 
repeat constantly. This business does more retail than 
wholesale, the former business being double that of the 
nearest competitor. Tender proper management the 
future for it looks very bright to me. I might add that 
in less than two weeks $50,000 was subscribed for 
(his enterprise. c. it. Harris. 
Worcester Co.. Mass. 
This clipping from the Worcester Telegram tells the 
story: 
“Twelve leading Worcester County members of the 
New England Milk Producers’ Association yesterday 
afternoon organized the A. D. Perry Milk Co., which is 
to be incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts 
with an authorized capital stock of $100,000 to carry 
on tin* business of Alfred D. Perry, a large wholesale 
and retail milk dealer They have bought out Mr. 
Perry and took possession yesterday, when he retired, 
principally on account of ilj health. The business has 
been carried on for IS years. 
“The company has engaged a* manager Charles S. 
Rodd of Harrison. N. Y.. who lias had 18 years’ ex¬ 
perience in the handling of milk. 
“All the real estate, rolling stock and good will of 
the business, as well as the light to the use of the 
name was included in the deal with Mr. Perry. The 
new company does not plan to issue the entire $100,000 
capital stock at present, but will have a sufficient work¬ 
ing canital to start with and will increase it as the 
business demands. It plans to erect an up-to-date 
plant with sanitary equipment and to specialize in 
pasteurized milk and cream at wholesale and retail. 
“Worcester County producers will continue to supply 
the company as they did Mr. Perry, whose business in 
Worcester alone handled 700 cans of milk daily, and, 
altogether amounted to $350,000 annually. House de¬ 
livery is to be continued by the company on a large 
scale. By organizing, the producers believe they will 
be able to supply better milk at cheaper prices.” 
