‘Iht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
Plain Talk from Leading Dairymen 
Part IV 
Wants New Organization 
'HERE is no doubt in my mind in regard to tlie 
cause of the great “split-up” of the dairymen. 
Positively, the inability of hundreds of dairymen to 
see their salvation in the pool is the great cause, and 
what seems to me to be the failure of the organiza¬ 
tion to make good to dairymen, or to make any seri¬ 
ous attempt to make good, is perpetuating the split. 
There is only one way, so far as I can see, to bring 
the dairymen together and establish order and har¬ 
mony. A new organization must be 
formed at once; one independent of all 
organized group, or any group now be¬ 
ing organized, and must be founded on 
such broad, fair and just principles 
that it will appeal to all sensible dairy¬ 
men eveerywhere. In my opinion the 
new organization should be patterned 
more or less after the old Dairymen’s 
League, with such changes as recent 
experience has proven necessary. This 
tack you ally yourself with the opposition you make 
yourself liable to censure by the advocates of the 
pooling plan, of which of course you have no reason 
to complain. 
Very likely you and others are inquiring why, if 
the pooling plan is such a wonderful success as a 
working plan, it does not succeed better and attain all 
combat the pooling association or any 
other group, but must “hew to the line 
and let the chips fall where they may.” 
To my mind it would seem absolutely 
necessary for the constitution of the 
to the effect that a fair and just price 
for the dairymen’s products should be obtained 
through the medium of negotiation, or, if negotiation 
failed, then through the medium of strike. I know 
personally that the farmers of this section and other 
sections are in the proper frame of mind to welcome 
such an organization with wide open arms, and the 
for their labor and their 
maybe coercion and sw 
they form a group which perchance attains sufficient 
numbers in the course of time to accomplish in some 
plainer the price setting clause speaks, the wider the degree the end for which it has striven. It is inev- 
arms of welcome. itable that there will be another group opposed to the 
But we must have a well-known, strong and capa- co-operative movement because they lack faith in 
ble man at the helm. There are hun- * 
dreds of farmers saying the same thing 
today, and I want personally to urge 
that action be taken at once. What 
you say is true. “Constructive work 
will admit of no further delay.” 
Delaware Co., N. Y. roy Leonard. 
Knocks the Peacemaker 
Your offer of the pages of The R. 
N.-Y. as an open forum for the discus¬ 
sion of the present so-called milk war 
between the different groups of pro¬ 
ducers prompts me to offer a few 
thoughts on the subject, and I will say 
at the start that the course of your 
paper during the controversy, as well 
as prior to this immediate tight be¬ 
tween the factions, has not appeared 
to me fair or consistent with your an¬ 
nounced approval of co-operative move¬ 
ments in general. The Dairymen’s 
League Co-operative Association, with 
its pooling plan is, in the opinion of a 
large number of far-seeing, intelligent 
farmers, the one ray of hope for secur¬ 
ing a living price for the production of 
milk on our farms. The most enthu¬ 
siastic- advocates of the abovoa»named 
co-operative association do not claim 
that it is perfect, nor do they claim that 
no mistakes have been made in build¬ 
ing up the structure, but they do claim 
that it is the best plan so far presented 
or adopted by any group for the solu¬ 
tion of the dairymen's difficulties in the 
marketing of their milk. 
The R. N.-Y. on its editorial pages 
and in its news items is persistently 
publishing articles that are misleading and preju¬ 
dicial to the pooling plan, and tending to increase 
rather than diminish the differences between the sev¬ 
eral groups of producers; indeed, in a recent article 
in your paper you stated that the multiple price or 
class plan as adopted by the D. L. Association was a 
failure, while there is abundant proof available that 
the contrary is true. If your source of information 
in regard to the price Avar is the dealers’ version of 
it. as it seems to be, it is not strange that yc a are 
still groping in the dark, but there are sources of 
information that would correct some misconceptions 
that you seem to be laboring under, did you care to 
avail yourself of them. If The R. N.-Y. should take 
the position that a neutral attitude is the proper 
course to pursue, a candid mind would not question 
that decision, but when by inference and direct at- 
209 
procedure, it is pertinent to ask: Should the dairy¬ 
men as a body cast their lot with the dealer and 
distributor, whose whole aim is to purchase from the 
farmers at as low a price as possible, and name that 
price, or should their lot be cast with their own sell¬ 
ing organization, whose aim is to stabilize the mar¬ 
ket and secure a living price and a reasonable prolit 
the results it naturally should. That is a fair question for the producer? The Dairymen’s League Co-oper¬ 
and easily answered. It is the experience of nearly ative Association, with an available capitalization of 
all co-operative movements that they have their in- $15,000,000, and controlling, by April 1, 150 milk sta- 
ception in a small group of individuals, who by self- tions. is ready to sell the milk for its patrons and 
sacrifice give their time, means and persuasive per- care for the surplus if need be, and it announces to 
sonality to the cause, for the reason that they believe the public that it is prepared to go after, secure and 
hold the fluid market for milk. That 
was the reason, you may be glad to be 
told, if you have not been informed 
from another source, why they cut the 
price of milk on Nov. 12. and for which 
they assume the whole responsibility. 
In your issue dated Jan. 12 you 
printed, on the editorial page, a short 
letter from “An Average Pooler,” and 
a comment under the title “Dairymen 
Getting Together,” in which you stated 
that there was an encouraging outlook. 
Should not The R. N.-Y. be proud to 
believe that it was largely instrumental 
in bringing about that happy event? 
Can it be if it persists in its antagon¬ 
ism to the Co-operative Association? It 
would better get on the bandwagon 
while there is room. 
in it, and have an earnest desire to help their fellow The writer of this article wishes it made clear that 
men as well as themselves to obtain better returns in any charge against The Rural New-Yorker and 
l 
-t-> 
rQ 
to 
r—H 
& 
e 
Qj 
O 
a 
# 
d 
, i 
• 
a> 
d 
ft 
ft 
HH 
CD 
i * 
o 
a> 
S3 
• 
d 
1923 
o 
33 
r—4 
o 
d 
o 
2 
to 
• rH 
£ 
M • 
^ 3 
cj 
to 
d 
Cn 
S3 
O 
<D 
t-ft 
© 
5 
to 
QJ . 
c" 1 
a> 
^ 1 0 
4-> 
<D 
O vj 
a> $ 
3 a 
<x> 
Of 
d 
K 
4-* . 
.Sc 
d 
S3 
o 
4—> 
.s 
a 
r 3 
'O 
a 
S3 
O 
to 
r ■ t 
4-J 
id o 
CD 
o> O 
& a 
a! ¥ 
-a 
0) 
o 
>—i 
<D 
33 ^ 
April . 
■02 
►2 
H 
M 
Ph 
ft 
o 
.. .$2.50 
$1.77 
$0.15 
$2.27 
$2.17 
$2.02 
$2.28 
$2.25 
$1.80 
May . 
1.66 
.10 
2.15 
2.10 
1.94 
2.41 
1.90 
1.88 
June . 
... 2.11 
1.76 
.10 
2.11 
2.00 
1.87 
2.32 
1.90 
2.10 
July . 
.. . 2.20 
1.78 
.15 
2.54 
2.10 
2.05 
2.58 
2.00 
1.96 
August ... 
September 
_ 2.38 
1.92 
.10 
2.65 
2.50 
2 42 
2.62 
2.00 
2.00 
... 2.75 
2.04 
.10 
2.65 
2.43 
2.52 
2.70 
2 26 
2.20 
October . . 
... 2.S5 
2.16 
.10 
2.65 
2,37 
2.56 
2.82 
2.35 
9 93. 
November . 
... 2.75 
2.17 
.10 
2.67 
2.25 
2.84 
2 4“> 
2.50 
2.14 
December . 
... 2.58 
2.05 
.05 
.... 
.. • • 
.. .. 
2.42 
2.50 
2.10 
Average .. 
...$2.47 
$1,923 
$1.05 
$2.46 
$2.24 
$2.28 
$2.41 
$2.18 
$2.0-1 
Milk Pi 
•ice Table 
See 
Article 
“Record 
o f Milk 
J'rices ” 
heir products. By persuasion, its policies that is not substantiated, he is expressing 
sweating of blood, as it were, his personal opinions and not claiming to state abso¬ 
lute facts. 
A 100% POOLER. 
F. E. GLADWIN 
One of the Highest Authorities on Grape Growing in America, 
and a Frequent Contributor to The It. N.-Y. 
their fellow men and are always suspicious of any¬ 
thing that the other fellow is in favor of. They al¬ 
ways want to wait and see how it is coming out, and 
are so cute that they don’t want to pay anything or 
give anything that benefits the other fellow, even 
though there is promise of award a thousandfold. 
They play the waiting game and let the other fellow 
make the sacrifice and pay the bills. They are all 
primed and ready to say “I told you so,” or at the 
psychological moment make the grand flop and come 
up smiling on the winning side. 
A co-operative movement, to be wholly successful, 
presupposes, as a condition of success, a spirit of co¬ 
operation. Lacking that, and divided on a 50-50 
basis, it has mighty hard sledding to attain its ob¬ 
jective. As a matter of policy for the dairymen to 
follow and as a fundamental principle of business 
In a supplementary letter this courteous contribu¬ 
tor explains that the unfairness of which he com¬ 
plains consists in publishing comparative prices of 
the League and the non-pooling groups in tabulated 
form, because he thinks it serves only 
to emphasize the difference in returns 
to the pool and non-pool producers. We 
think this view is ill-advised. If there 
were no non-pool milk, no cheese fac¬ 
tories, no neighboring city markets, no 
free publicity, there could be no com¬ 
parison of prices; but the producer 
would have the same struggle with his 
interest or rent, and taxes and feed 
bills. The one purpose of it all is to in¬ 
crease the returns to the producer. In 
co-operation every producer must do 
his part; but how is he to act intelli¬ 
gently unless he has access to correct 
information? If we had our way he 
Avoukl know all, good or bad. Secrecy 
causes suspicion and distrust and soon¬ 
er or later breeds scandal. If there is 
anything in co-operation that the mem¬ 
bers and public should not know the 
remedy is not to do it. 
A Record of Milk Prices 
I have for more than a decade been 
interested in the dairy business. I have 
been a close, observer of conditions of 
production and marketing, giving at¬ 
tention to every item of news from 
every source affecting the fundamental 
problems of dairying. In all the past 
decade up to the time of the entrance 
of the Dairymen’s League Co-operative 
Association into the field as an aid <o 
the better marketing of dairy products, 
every particle of information and every 
personal observation gave absolute 
proof that the dairymen supplying the 
New York City fluid milk zone \A r ere re¬ 
ceiving from 10 per cent to 40 per cent higher prices 
f or their product than any other dairy section of the 
United States. 
I he Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association 
on April 1, 1921, commenced operations upon a pool¬ 
ing plan as a marketing organization, and is there¬ 
fore completing its third year of service; a suffi¬ 
ciently long enough time in which to pass an accu¬ 
rate judgment as to the merits of its service. I ha\’e 
felt the direct effect of its operation as a pooler, be¬ 
ing one year under a pooler’s contract with the 
League, and have indirectly felt its baneful effects 
while not a pooler. 
The discussion which \A r as carried on in the press 
about one year ago was conclusive that the League 
Association for the first two years of operation as a 
marketing agency ran second to the cheese factory 
