MASTER 
 
 NO. 94-82296 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) 
 governs the mal<ing of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted 
 materials including foreign works under certain conditions. In addition, 
 the United States extends protection to foreign works by means of 
 various international conventions, bilateral agreements, and 
 proclamations. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are 
 authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these 
 specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be 
 "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." 
 If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction 
 for purposes In excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright 
 Infringement. 
 
 The Columbia University Libraries reserve the right to refuse to accept a 
 copying order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve 
 violation of the copyright law. 
 
Author: 
 
 Jennings, Irwin George 
 
 Title: 
 
 Study of tlie New 
 City milk problem 
 
 Place: 
 
 New York 
 
 Date: 
 
 1919 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DIVISION 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 MASTER NEGATIVE # 
 
 ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED - EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD 
 
 6FSINBS8 
 1310 
 
 '44 
 
 Jennings, Irwin Gkorge, 1875- '"= M 
 
 A study of the New York city milk problem, by Irwin 
 G. Jennings ... New York, The National civic federation, 
 1919. 
 
 1 p. I.. 58 p. tables (1 fold.) 23'"". 
 
 Thesis (ph. d.)— Columbia university, 1919. 
 Vita. 
 
 h Milk supply — New York (City) 
 
 Library of Congress 
 Columbia Univ. Libr. 
 
 O 
 
 SF2S8.N5J4 
 
 i2j 
 
 20-3417 
 
 I 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON USE: 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: ?)SVYnnr\ 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 \11 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (ilAJ IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED: \2-S-^^ 
 
 INITIALS: 
 
 \a1W 
 
 TRACKING # : 
 
 Af5^ {^3Co^ 
 
 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES, BETHLEHEM, PA, 
 
%f^ 
 
 •.« ms. 
 
 00 
 <J1 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 2 > 
 
 IS 
 
 T3 P 
 
 -% ^ 
 
 (O 
 
 N CO 
 
 Cjo!::: 
 
 CJl 
 CT>X 
 
 ^-< 
 
 OOM 
 O 
 
 
 CJl 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 CD 
 
 a- CI 
 o m 
 Q."n 
 CD CD 
 
 OQ 
 
 ^5 O 
 
 < -H 
 
 ^ CZ 
 
 N 
 
 X 
 
 M 
 
 ^^ 
 
 e> 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 
 S^ 
 y 
 
 
 
 o: 
 
 e? 
 
 
 ^k 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 U1 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 en 
 
 O 
 
 pi!|=F|?|5|^|- 
 
 I 
 
 
 ro 
 bo 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 s 
 
 ro 
 
 
 1.0 mm 
 
 1.5 mm 
 
 2.0 mm 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 abcdefghi|klmnopqrstu«wxyzl234567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 1234567890 
 
 2.5 mm 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 1234567890 
 
 ^o 
 
 kv 
 
 ,.< 
 
 V 
 
 
 & 
 
 ^o 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 fp 
 
 ^fvT 
 
 
 '-^. 
 
 y^. 
 
 4^r^A 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 t^^ 
 
 €^. 
 
 V 
 
 
 fe 
 
 f^ 
 
 ^vnni^ 
 
 fo> 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 ■om -o 
 
 o>o 
 
 30 ^ _k 
 > C CO 
 
 I u ^ 
 
 0(/) ; 
 
 m 
 
 t 
 
 3D 
 
 O 
 m 
 
 e 
 
 
 m 
 
 4^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^%£* 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^r* 
 
 !-• 
 
 lO 
 
 Ol 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 o ^ 
 
 3 I 
 3 C 
 
 M 
 OOM. 
 
 O 
 
 ^'~ji» 
 # 
 
 
[:;»!!:■''■■ 
 
 A Study of the New York City 
 Milk Problem 
 
 By Irwin G. Jennings 
 
 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
 
 for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 
 
 of Political Science, Columbia University. 
 
 % 
 
 SCT" 
 
 
 ^- -OJSINF5S 
 
 Puhlithtd hy 
 
 The National Civic Federation 
 New York, 1919 
 
Coluinlita (HnttJf rst'tp 
 
 l.niF<.\KY 
 
 School of Business 
 
 I 
 
 i I 
 
 iiipiip»iiiiii p pp i i p i w ^^ 
 
""" ■* "^^"1,^^ 
 
 V 
 
 "'■^-■'■ 
 
 M 
 1 
 
 Is* 
 
 m 
 
 
 A Study of the New York City 
 Milk Problem 
 
 B}f Irwin G. Jbnnings 
 
 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
 
 for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 
 
 of Political Science, Columbia University. 
 
 "Y*^ Tr^„ 
 
 J J ^ J 
 
 SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 
 
 
 Publiihtd h 
 
 The National Civic Federation 
 New York, 1919 
 
 r I 
 
 <«^Wmwi«««w<iH4|pSHtfWHMfliw«io«jMJanw,M«ll^^ 
 
 'TT- 
 
 mmmmm'^ 
 
 ^^mr 
 
\v\ 
 
 I 
 
 [ Iti 
 if 
 
 -ll 
 
 r- r 
 
 I 
 
 Cm- 
 
 / ' I ( 
 
 V 4 
 '^ i 
 
 rp 
 
 S '' Z'Z^ 
 
 1, 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 In tKe monUi of September, 1916, the receipt of the daily milk 
 
 SZ IZ ^"'^ ^'7 T r r 'I ^P""'*^- For mo^elh™ a 
 b^'on a^^Htf!? *"•*? the leadership of their "association" had 
 
 Se^ iCf .f ^''" -lu*- ""T^ P"''^ ''""> *«* New York 
 Jp^l^'lt , V:-^ ? °""^ " *'' possession of those seeking to 
 it^I 4 •? PP""* ^i***?""' y* destroyed by the striking pro- 
 ducers. A large part of the milk received during this period wa, 
 not of a sanitary character. A deadlock was reached The Mayor of 
 
 S^^^iJs wLr^r "^ ^^'l *° ^'" *" "^'IP-'^' ^"' »>« """^e no 
 progress whatever. The dealers were proceeding on the theory that 
 
 4e public would not stand for a rise iS the pri^ of mHk a^^theb 
 
 fh^^fT^ "" ""''" *^f T'^ *"«•" »'^^'"'«' in Ae cost of milk to 
 Aem if they were compelled to sell at the then retail prices, would 
 dnvepractically all of the smaller companies out of bLi^. 
 frnm tht^/ I "^^T"* conscious that the price they were receiving 
 from the dealers did not cover the cost of production and so werf 
 determined at all ev«.ts to see the strike through. Bey^d Ae 
 
 IhSt'^f'^^/N*" yT'- *.r ""^ "^ authoritative airtion of 
 the right of the New York public to receive its daily suddIv The 
 
 Ts ^el'^h ^"''•"^ l^^'^il''"'* ^^ P"^'- P"''' ^^^^^' From 
 ttis time on, the price of milk to the consumer was progressively 
 
 higher until m November, 1917, but little more than a yw from 
 4e .me of 4e first strike grade B milk rose from 9 cL^toT 
 cente or an advance of 66-2/3% over its former price. 
 hp<r«n t^f t ^ ' '=°?''oversy again rose. Public authorities 
 
 began to take cognizance of the situation and the District Attorney 
 even threatened to indict the leaders of the producers who were 
 
 ^^tit'l T^'^T^^ ^™/° ^ *'^°'»''*«« demands It w^ 
 reported that if the District Attorney should carry out his thr^ 
 
 against one or more of die members of the Produ<irs' aZ^S. 
 Ynrt 1^"" ^ •''"'^. "^^ *« "^^^ destroyed. Again the N^ 
 
 ^jf^'T^^^^i ^?f^'}'^ ""<* ^>^in'the comroversy w^ 
 settl^ by the New York public's paying the bill. 
 
 F«l-;°i'^^*!i"?-°°'"^- *^ a je?r has passed. In the meanthne, the 
 Federal Food Commission which had adjusted the price between the 
 r.^^^^L^'^^ *ff distributor during the war, after fhe armistice, dis- 
 contmued Its efforts along that line. Under the Commission the 
 P^K^l'^-^J J'?^ ^% the dealers to charge their patrons i^ll 
 
 T^A^l^ty, *7 ""'"^ "' the commission permitted the producers 
 to add to the existing price. Thus both the dealers and fanners got 
 
 ?0?o^ n "r''' "u *u'' '*1P^"^ °' **> consumer. But, in Janu Jy, 
 1919, the first month that these two interests in the industry were left 
 
 l,^riS^ ^^' °" """""f "^ **'.' ^^"'^ "» a«^««' a milk strike 
 resulted. There were three conflicting factors in this strike, the 
 
 dairymen s league, the milk dealers' pool and the New York pijjlic 
 
i 
 
 \i 
 
 The strike was finally settled by the dealers and producers 
 agreeing upon prices for a period of three months, after which time, 
 the questions of future prices will again arise with new possibilities 
 of disagreement. 
 
 A number of inquiries and investigations are now under way, 
 some of which have been undertaken by agencies more or less favor- 
 able to a particular interest of the industry, and possibly none of 
 them charged with the responsibility of making and justifying con- 
 structive reconmiendations. It would seem therefore, that a most 
 pressing demand has arisen for an unprejudiced inquiry into the 
 facts and the law with a view to preserving the integrity of the milk 
 industry as a whole and of securing both a more economical and 
 uninterrupted service of milk to the New York public. The scope 
 of this study will cover: — 
 
 1. Whether or not the health and welfare of the New York 
 public shall be periodically placed in jeopardy by lack of 
 co-operation among the various interests of the milk industry. 
 
 2. What is the right of the New York public to an efficiently 
 produced, distributed and controlled milk supply? 
 
 3. What are the facts concerning the efficiency of the produc- 
 tion, distribution and sanitary control of its milk supply? 
 
 4. What results may be expected from the co-operation of the 
 various interests involved and by efficient business organiza- 
 tion throughout the industry? 
 
 5. How far should this right be secured by the exercise of the 
 public power? 
 
 Greater New York is today a city of more than five million 
 people and growing rapidly. In it there are estimated by the Board 
 of Health to be 130,000 babies under one year of age and 126,000 
 babies under two years of age. The health, welfare and probably 
 the lives of the greater percentage of these babies are dependent upon 
 an uninterrupted, sanitary milk supply. Besides this, there are a 
 great number of convalescing invalids, some of them wounded 
 soldiers who must have milk. Milk is a vital necessity. There are 
 no satisfactory substitutes for it. The milk supply cannot with im- 
 punity be tampered with. To do so may mean death to many human 
 beings. To be the direct or indirect cause of a single death means 
 more than fines or jail to the guilty person. The New York public's 
 right to life and health is fundamental. There are some things about 
 which the interests may quarrel, but their quarrels should not be 
 allowed to imperil the lives of the people. 
 
 Although New York City will always be dependent upon the 
 outside world for its food and drink, it has an undoubted right to 
 them which should not be interfered with even if drastic penal legis- 
 lation is necessary to emphasize it. It is reasonable to expect &at 
 its milk supply will be received at a cost to the public which con- 
 templates only a reasonable profit after it has been efficiently pro- 
 duced, distributed and controlled. If milk is a vital necessity and is 
 
 universally used by the New York public, then its production, dis- 
 tribution and control become very like public service functions and 
 whoever is engaged therein is accountable to the people for their 
 proper and efficient performance and any extraordinary profits de- 
 rived therefrom. 
 
 But those so engaged, whether as producers, distributors or as 
 controlling agents, are entitled to be treated as public service agents 
 and to receive credit and a fair profit for the service rendered and 
 for the capital loaned to the public, providing their work has been 
 efficiently done and their capital efficiently used. For a number of 
 years a fair profit has not been accorded either to the milk producer 
 nor to the milk distributor. This fact has been evidenced by the 
 unrest that has existed in the country among the producers and the 
 large number of distributors who have been forced out of business. 
 To run a dairy farm successfully, requires brains and understanding, 
 investment of capital and a sympathetic attitude towards sanitary 
 regulations. Why should it not pay the farmer to meet these con- 
 ditions? To administer a great milk business in New York City with 
 its various responsibilities and with the great variety of business and 
 sanitary functions to be performed, is worthy of a profit commen- 
 surate with self-respect and with financial health. Therefore, before 
 the more drastic features of the public power are brought to bear 
 upon the milk industry or before the public irrevocably assumes the 
 responsibility of owning and running an industry of such great mag- 
 nitude, the opportunity should be given for the various interests of 
 the milk industry to co-operate upon a basis where all can see a 
 reasonable profit and where there will still be present the stimulus 
 of additional financial reward for the intelligent use of efficient busi- 
 ness organization and of business methods throughout the industry. 
 
 No interest in the milk industry has in the past sufficiently ap- 
 preciated the dignity, importance and responsibility of the functions 
 it has been performing. To this fact is due most of the disrepute into 
 which the industry has fallen. The public attitude and that of the 
 press toward the industry have been wrong. The milk distributor, 
 instead of being looked upon as a business man performing a public 
 service function and entitled to credit for work well done, has been 
 universally regarded with suspicion. The presumption has been 
 against him. No morsel of news has been so luscious, in the eyes 
 of the ordinary reporter, as a front page account of adulteration or 
 dirty containers or of responsibility for disease traced to a milk 
 dealer's door. It has been popular pastime for the social reformer 
 to attack the milk dealer and to charge him with fraud, dishonesty 
 and uncleanliness, and the latter has had well defined reasons for 
 taking a position calling for the least possible publicity. 
 
 The court records have been against the dealer and as they 
 stand the presumption is fairly adverse. But these records are not 
 a fair index of the true situation. The following compilations made 
 by the New York Milk Committee, of which the 1914 figures have 
 never been published, are interesting on this point. 
 
 3 
 
 * 
 
Illl 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 2 i2 
 
 « CO 
 
 CO 
 
 iM vo ^ 
 
 0\ l-H t«« 
 
 S S 
 
 S ^ -"^ ^ 
 
 \0 M l^ 
 
 M C^ rH 
 
 ifi 
 
 C4 N 00 
 
 cO ^^ 
 
 •s o 
 
 
 N 
 
 e<« 
 
 w •-< 
 
 
 s 
 
 irt 
 
 i-M O >-^ 
 
 00 00 CO LO 
 
 
 _ o B 2 uo 
 
 I 
 
 esi 
 
 c s 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 VO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 csi 
 
 M 
 
 CO fO 
 
 N 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ « 
 
 CO 
 
 lO lO 1/5 »-• 
 
 00 !>• Si 
 
 o\ IC ^ 
 
 N CO ^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 I/) 
 CM 
 
 s 
 
 N 
 
 <;s 
 
 
 f-< so eo CO 
 
 lA 
 
 S g 
 
 ot cS^ 00 00 t** fo ^ 
 
 « ^ 
 
 S " 
 
 S S o 5 2 
 
 
 S e«« 
 
 S 2 
 
 2 ?2 
 
 CO CO i-H 
 pH CO 
 
 CM 1-4 vO 0> M i-< 00 
 
 > s 
 
 CQ y-H fH 
 
 ^f CO ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 C/3 
 
 
 •S2 2 » 
 
 CM 
 
 CO r^ ^ 
 
 D5 i-H .-4 
 
 0^ lO •-• ^ 
 
 f-l N 
 
 »-4 CO 
 
 1—4 oO 
 
 CO 
 
 T3 fl B W 
 
 
 tfJ. 
 
 as 2 ^ 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 lO On 
 
 Q in 00 
 ^ VO vO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO cO f^ 
 
 t^ vo ^ eo 
 
 c^ I— I irt lO 
 
 ~ CO VO 
 
 § 
 
 S^ 
 
 s 
 
 CM I— < 0\ CM lO 
 
 CO CO CM 
 
 rr! 00 
 
 s 22 ^ 
 
 m4 t^ 
 
 § 
 
 CM 00 '^i 0\ ^ N 
 
 CM <— • ON 
 
 in ON m 
 
 i-H CM 
 
 
 lO 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 00 
 
 ;::: § 
 
 in in CO CO CO CM 
 
 00 
 
 CM CM 
 
 CO 
 
 C4 
 
 Ch VO 
 1-1 ^ 
 
 i-H o I— t in cr» 
 
 in r-t ^ 
 
 CM 
 
 CO CM 
 
 CM 1-4 ^ 1-4 
 
 CO CO CM 1-4 
 
 CM 
 
 ^ §3 
 
 ON 
 
 in 
 
 Sm 
 
 in 
 
 w4 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 3 S 
 
 l-H lO t» fH CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 g 
 
 8? S5 
 
 tA 
 
 £S 
 
 '-* y> 
 
 eo 
 
 - s 
 
 CM 
 
 ^ 
 
 lA 
 
 A 
 
 VO 
 
 ^ s 
 
 § I 
 
 9 
 
 : s : 
 
 . o . 
 
 0} 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 1 ' 
 
 
 . 43 . 
 
 : a 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ' 8 '- 
 
 pending 
 vious year 
 
 : ^ 
 ' 8 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 10 
 
 4-i 
 
 C 
 
 
 I Of 
 
 arged . . . 
 
 pending 
 .^1 «t 
 
 : a : 
 
 ^^ en 0) 
 
 ea 
 
 O oJ 
 
 H U 
 
 a; ^ 
 
 > cd vt-i <— I 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 
 ;3 O* (o 35 
 
 S S, 
 
 en u 
 
 eS 
 
 ZH Ofcco*-^<QQU 
 
 6-2 
 
 ^' 
 
!!i 
 
 
 Under the first analysis above, it will be seen that on an average, 
 in 94% of the prosecutions, the dealer was found guilty. If the 
 same number of criminal prosecutions were brought against other 
 citizens with the same financial ability possessed by these milk 
 dealers to hire attorneys and carry the cases through the courts and 
 where the rule obtained that conviction must be on evidence beyond 
 a reasonable doubt, a much smaller percentage of convictions would 
 be shown. But from the business standpoint, the milk dealer could 
 not afford to fight this type of prosecution as he would others. The 
 limited number of jail sentences and of fines imposed, as shown 
 above, together with the small amount of publicity incurred by this 
 course, justified him in his attitude. 
 
 Under the analysis of violations, the very nature of two of the 
 charges would seem to designate the milk dealer as an unfit public 
 servant. Adulteration of milk and unclean containers bring before 
 our eyes a most condemning picture; but when we remember that 
 most of the cases of adulteration were based upon the conclusive 
 presumption, that milk below the legal standard in butter fat, is 
 adulterated, notwithstanding the fact that at certain seasons of the 
 year in New York state, milk directly drawn from many of the cows is 
 below such standard, the crime is not so terrible after all. When it is 
 further understood that if a milk driver receives a dirty bottle from 
 a house wife and it is found in his possession, that there is no evidence 
 that can refute the presumption of his guilt in using unclean con- 
 tainers, the difl&culty of his position is apparent. On the other hand, 
 this non-resistance on the part of the milk dealer has encouraged the 
 courts to construct the above legal presumptions against him that 
 would not be tolerated in other cases. 
 
 The good will of a milk business is its main asset. The milk 
 plants, the machinery, the wagons and the cans of a concern that is 
 not going are worth but little. To preserve the good will is most 
 important. The most eflfective menace to this good will is unfavor- 
 able newspaper notoriety. To keep his cases out of the general 
 courts has been considered by the milk dealer, essential in order to 
 escape such publicity. To plead guilty and to take reprimands in 
 the minor courts accomplished this purpose. While in the interests 
 of public health, such matters as penalizing a milk dealer for real 
 adulteration and for a criminally careless use of dirty containers 
 are well within the scope of the police power, it is also a fact that 
 herein this great public power has often been used to affect detri- 
 mentally the morale of an important branch of the milk industry. 
 
 The application of the power itself is not to blame, but the 
 attendant attitude of the public through its agents of publicity and 
 justice has exercised a most repressive influence. Over-regulation 
 can be so used as to deprive New York of its milk supply, or, on 
 the other hand, its more constructive use may be used to insure a 
 better and more wholesome product. At one extreme, there can be 
 invoked intelligent, constructive, stimulating regulation, at the other, 
 
 repressive and destructive prosecution. Any governmental regula- 
 tion, however slight it may be and though it may insure co-operation 
 and efficiency throughout the industry, will necessarily have to be 
 applied under the sanction of the police power. The more intelli- 
 gent the regulation, the more in harmony it is with the basic needs 
 of the industry and the more stimulating and effective it will be. 
 
 The following study of the milk industry will seek to show cer- 
 tain inefficiencies throughout the industry and their causes together 
 with some constructive suggestions as to remedies. While recog- 
 nizing the ability of the New York public to assume the ownership 
 of the milk industry and the moral and legal grounds for the regu- 
 lation thereof by a state commission, it will urge as the better 
 alternative the value of co-operation between the conflicting interests 
 of the industry, the continuance of a proper division of labor, the 
 necessity for faith in each other's honesty of purpose and a proper 
 appreciation by all concerned of the important element of service 
 in producing and distributing clean milk to the world's leading city. 
 
 In submitting the tables contained in the following chapters, no 
 attempt will be made to claim for them a greater scientific value 
 than appears on their face. They are generally based upon an 
 analysis of a considerable amount of data gathered on a certain day 
 or covering a short period of time. The time selected to gather most 
 of this data was in the early part of December, 1917, during ap- 
 proximately normal production in the country and before the con- 
 solidations which have been so largely in vogue among the dealers 
 during the past year, had greatly affected the industry. An analysis 
 of data covering longer periods of time might have been made, but 
 the variations due to prices, locality, types of cattle and other matters 
 would still affect its scientific accuracy. On the other hand, a study 
 covering a shorter period is valuable as showing the tendencies and 
 relations, because a larger number of facts can be gathered, which 
 so far as they go, are more likely to be accurate and will not mis- 
 lead unless they are mislabeled. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Inefficiencies in Production. 
 
 The basis of the whole milk industry is production. It would 
 seem, therefore, that every branch of the industry would naturally 
 be influenced greatly by production processes and organization and 
 that production must be intelligent, efficient and sufficient. All other 
 branches of the industry are dependent upon the producer. This 
 does not mean that the producer should control these other branches, 
 but it is most necessary that he work with them and they with and 
 for him. The producer should be the first to welcome co-operation 
 and the other interests in the business must be persuaded to volun- 
 tarily or involuntarily co-operate with him. 
 
 t 
 
k 
 
 According to Board of Health Reports the milk supply of New 
 York City is obtained from more than 30,000 farms in six different 
 states and Canada, although more than three-fourths of the supply 
 under normal conditions comes from New York State alone. It can 
 easily be seen that in a production process where there are more than 
 30,000 bosses with almost as many different ideals and attitudes to- 
 wards production, great efficiency therein can scarcely be expected. 
 But much can be done to make conditions better. The same business 
 principles obtain in the production of milk as in other lines of pro- 
 duction. Such fundamentals as centralization of control can only 
 come with association and regulation. But much can be done 
 through educational processes to arouse a realization of the im- 
 portance of the industry and to promote among its several interests 
 a mutual faith and confidence in each other. 
 
 The principle causes of inefficiency in milk production are: 
 
 First. Treating it as a side line. Many dairymen seem to evince 
 no interest or enthusiasm in the production of milk as a science or 
 a business. It is a fundamental principle that no man can expect 
 to succeed in any business or profession in which he does not believe 
 and into which he can not put his heart. 
 
 Second. The failure to use ordinary business methods in the 
 production of milk. All well organized branches of production con- 
 template at least three things, capacity production, the use of reason- 
 able accounting methods which will show the relation between the 
 cost of the articles produced and their price, and a constructive pur- 
 pose governing the production processes. One or more of these 
 business fundamentals are generally absent in the production of milk. 
 
 The ordinary milk producer seldom looks upon his farm as a 
 producing plant carrying with it a certain fixed overhead which may 
 become more or less destructive according to the way his farm is 
 used. In dairying, there certainly must be a relation between the 
 number of acres in the farm, the amount of capital invested in build- 
 ings, the amount of additional capital that can be applied to the 
 farm economically, the number of cows maintained and the amount 
 of milk produced. In contemplating the amount of capital to be 
 expended in buildings and cows, the availability and proximity of 
 the farm to the market or shipping station should be considered and 
 the question asked and answered as to whether such distance may not 
 preclude its ever becoming the proper site for a profitable dairy. 
 If so, conunon sense would seem to dictate that the foundations of 
 a producing dairy should not be laid upon such a farm. 
 
 As to the consideration of reasonable accounting, there is no 
 question but what this is vital to the successful dairy. No amount of 
 argument or sentiment will justify the maintenance of a cow that 
 will not produce her feed in milk and yet experience is showing that 
 there are thousands of such cows which are not known to be such. 
 Of course, if all the unproductive cows were killed at once, a milk 
 shortage would follow. But practically, there is no such danger 
 
 8 
 
 and much may be gained by an intelligent examination of the herds 
 and a determined effort put forth to eliminate unprofitable cows and 
 to breed for more profitable production. The very great chances 
 are that boarders will beget boarders and so the same old inefficient 
 cow organization is maintained from year to year. 
 
 Of very great importance is the third principle, that of having 
 a really constructive purpose in mind in organizing for better dairy- 
 ing. Such a purpose will provide for accounting and for the elim- 
 ination of boarders, and for breeding the herd toward a profitable 
 production basis. Such a purpose will give character to the whole 
 farm and everyone and everything connected with it. It is the big 
 requisite for success in any industry and no less so in the produc- 
 tion of milk. All the inspiration that comes to the successful man in 
 any business, may be felt by the dairymen. Dairying is even better 
 in this respect than successful farming. 
 
 In the Fall of 1914, the writer, as Secretary of one of New 
 York's larger milk companies, attended the National Dairy show at 
 Chicago on the theory that here would be a good place to study 
 cows. Much to his satisfaction, he found that there were plenty of 
 cows to be studied. He addressed himself to the owners of the 
 various herds of pure bred stock and was treated with great cour- 
 tesy. They showed him their prize cows and all their good points, 
 and they answered all his questions. 
 
 The next day he repaired to the ground floor where the prize 
 stock was being judged and watched this process with great interest, 
 prejudging the cows himself with varying success. But after spend- 
 ing several hours at this he felt dissatisfied with his progress for the 
 reason that these cows were of the purest type and the best in their 
 class, whereas the type of cow, the study of which would be most 
 valuable to him was the ordinary grade cow that would commonly 
 be found in the New York territory. He went up into the barns 
 again and there is one corner he found exactly what he wished most 
 to see. The United States government was making a public demon- 
 stration of the relation which exists between cows and their feed, and 
 the amount and value of milk produced and had chosen for the pur- 
 pose nine conunon grade cows of dissimilar types. 
 
 The writer stayed with this herd of cows during the remainder 
 of the show and assumed to himself all the functions of ownership, 
 watching their feeding, their milking and the preparation of the 
 records, also inquiring specifically into the history of the cows and 
 the manner of their acquisition by the government superintendent. 
 He found that his herd consisted of some very good cows and of 
 some decidedly unprofitable ones. 
 
 4 
 
 II 
 
^. i 
 
 
 
 
 TA 
 
 BLE II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Price Paid 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^alue of Milk 
 
 at-S-S 
 
 No. 
 
 Broed 
 
 for Cows 
 
 Qti. Milk 
 
 Fat Tcit 
 
 Lbs. Fat 
 
 2 - 
 
 4c. per Quart ^ S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 U 
 
 1 
 
 G. Jer. 
 
 $50 
 
 3.8 
 
 4.6 
 
 .4 
 
 .13 
 
 .15 
 
 21 
 
 2 
 
 G. Short. 
 
 80 
 
 6.1 
 
 4.3 
 
 .57 
 
 .19 
 
 .24 
 
 ,22 
 
 3 
 
 G. Short. 
 
 60 
 
 9.3 
 
 3.5 
 
 .67 
 
 .22 
 
 .37 
 
 .23 
 
 4 
 
 G. Jer. 
 
 60 
 
 12.1 
 
 4.9 
 
 1.26 
 
 .42 
 
 .48 
 
 .23 
 
 5 
 
 G. Hoi 
 
 70 
 
 13.5 
 
 3.7 
 
 1.1 
 
 .35 
 
 .52 
 
 .24 
 
 € 
 
 G. Short. 
 
 70 
 
 15. 
 
 3.6 
 
 1.12 
 
 .38 
 
 .60 
 
 .24 
 
 7 
 
 G. Guem. 
 
 100 
 
 15.6 
 
 4.4 
 
 1.47 
 
 .49 
 
 .62 
 
 .25 
 
 8 
 
 G. Guem. 
 
 160 
 
 15.7 
 
 6.5 
 
 2.17 
 
 .71 
 
 .63 
 
 .25 
 
 9 
 
 G. Hoi. 
 
 150 
 
 23.5 
 
 3.8 
 
 1.9 
 
 .63 
 
 .92 
 
 .28 
 
 The appended table is the average record for each cow during 
 the week's experience. The cows were about the same age and 
 freshened at or near the same date. On the basis of fat value, some 
 of them did not even pay for their feed, let alone the overhead and 
 other expenses that would have to be accounted for as the basis of 
 farm production cost. On the per quart basis, calculated at 4c per 
 quart, the average price to the farmer at that time, the showing 
 was but little better. The last day spent at the show was the most 
 illuminating to the writer. Although he himself knew from his ob- 
 servation the relative productive value of these cows, he wanted to 
 gain some idea of the ability of those, especially dairymen, who 
 visited the exhibit to judge the value of the different cows in the 
 herd, before they knew the facts. As the cows were to be sold at 
 the close of the show, he asked various visitors at the exhibit to 
 assist him in appraising the value of the animals. At least a score 
 of practical farmers, dairy experts, and agricultural writers, after 
 careful examination, appraised the cows, but no two of them agreed 
 in their estimates nor correctly adjudged them according to their 
 respective showings in the demonstration. Much surprise was man- 
 ifested when the facts were learned. Practically all agreed that 
 number 9 was a high grade cow, but as to the others there was a 
 great diversity of opinion, one man valuing number 1 above number 
 8, the estimates of which latter cow varied from beef to $100.00. 
 The reasonable conclusion from this experience would seem to be 
 that the average farmer or dairyman does not and probably cannot 
 know whether or not a dairy cow will prove to be a profitable milk 
 producer by mere physical inspection and without keeping an actual 
 account of her production as compared with the cost of her main- 
 tenance during a sufficient period of time to learn the facts. 
 
 10 
 
 TABLE m 
 
 "S 
 
 Creamerj ^ &g - v ^ £X ^t 
 
 S is mS. S *S. ^S SU *-ry *-& 
 
 io'O' ^o u & < < 
 
 T 17 681 40 1,827 276 118 5.8 6.6 2.68 
 
 C 27 874 32 3,051 264 200 4.4 11.6 3.5 
 
 R G '.'. 37 1,251 33 4,222 382 271 4.6 11. 3.37 
 
 S F .28 1391 50 4,462 535 429 3.2 8.3 3.21 
 
 t 56 1,464 26 4,327 454 276 5.3 9.5 2.95 
 
 p ;. 22 1,549 70 3,114 347 242 6.4 9. 2. 
 
 SC" ;*.;... 45 1858 41 4^626 475 261 7.1 9.9 2.49 
 
 E C* C R 45 1,904 42 7,630 797 372 5.1 9.6 4. 
 
 Sil 32 2,069 64 5 378 493 360 5.7 10.9 2.6 
 
 S Ch* 31 2,443 79 5,470 588 376 6.5 9.3 2iJ4 
 
 B ".'.'.'.. 42 2,507 59 4,432 500 380 6.6 8.9 1.77 
 
 S.* Fron 39 2,684 69 6,033 857 343 7.8 7 2.25 
 
 B. M 35 2,8% 82 3,869 507 390 7.4 7.6 1.34 
 
 A 76 3 272 43 9,208 1,017 599 6.5 9 2.81 
 
 S St 55 3,361 61 8,566 1,108 601 5.6 7.7 2.55 
 
 S Fr .81 4090 49 15,379 1,765 1,011 4. 8.7 3.76 
 
 E. w :.*::... 79 4,798 61 10,791 i,i76 792 6.1 9.2 2.25 
 
 S L 50 5,069 101 7,998 811 571 8.6 9.9 1.58 
 
 E. St 109 5,199 48 15,981 1,377 901 5.8 11.6 3.07 
 
 E.H 59 5,529 94 6.381 797 515 10.7 8 1.15 
 
 Shek. 37 7,838 211 7,635 1,026 853 9.2 7.4 .97 
 
 S. G. G 63 8,301 132 13,921 2,246 1,354 6.1 6.2 1.67 
 
 H 95 12,471 131 11,863 1,928 1,476 8.6 6.2 .95 
 
 S.P 59 13,280 225 13,016 1,836 1,391 9.5 7. .98 
 
 S. T 73 14,332 196 13,080 1,766 1,011 14.2 7.4 9.1 
 
 Table number three is based upon answers returned to a ques- 
 tionnaire submitted to 25 superintendents of creameries or shipping 
 stations of various sizes located in different sections of the New York 
 territory and performing various functions. The answers were care- 
 fully prepared by the creamery superintendents from their records, 
 their observations and from interrogating their patrons on the day 
 in question. The attempt has here been made to show the relations 
 existing between the patrons at each creamery and the amount of 
 their production, also between the cows maintained and the cows 
 milked by them, between the acres owned and the cows maintained 
 and between the cows milked, the quarts per cow and the acres per 
 quart. Data covering the individual patrons of each creamery was 
 gathered and the above relations for each individual shown, the table 
 itself showing only the average situation existing at each creamery. 
 
 The table gives the figures for the production of a single day in 
 December, 1917, on 1,295 farms, consisting of 192,260 acres, main- 
 taining 23,238 cows, of which 15,093 or about 65% were being 
 milked at the time, and producing on that day 111,111 quarts of 
 milk, which was about 1/15 of the total milk supply of New York 
 City for that day. 
 
 11 
 
,3^*M,Jt *«» • 
 
 1' I 
 
 It > 
 
 Ik' 
 If ' 
 
 The size of the creameries varied as to patrons from 17 to 109 
 and in amount of their receipts for the day from 681 to 14,332 quarts. 
 The average amount of quarts delivered to the creameries on that 
 day was 86, a little more than 2 cans, although the actual average 
 for one of the creameries was as low as 26 quarts for each of 56 
 patrons, while another creamery averaged 225 quarts each for 59 
 patrons. The average amount of milk given for each cow milked 
 was 7.3 quarts, while at one creamery the average production per 
 cow was but little over three quarts. The average production per 
 cow of nine of the creameries was under 6 quarts per day, which 
 amount has been estimated to be about the average amount of milk 
 given per cow in New York State on the yearly basis. The table 
 further shows that 8.2 acres of land on the average were used for 
 the maintenance of each cow, while it required 1.8 acres of land for 
 each quart of milk produced. 
 
 Is 
 
 CrattiBsrT e J* 
 
 S " 
 
 < 
 
 L-1 81 
 
 P-l 176 
 
 H-1 496 
 
 SI 224 
 
 B-1 164 
 
 B.M..1 284 
 
 C-1 75 
 
 R.G..1 89 
 
 A-1 160 
 
 J4 172 
 
 S-1 553 
 
 P-l 711 
 
 Fron.-l 144 
 
 F-1 154 
 
 C-1 123 
 
 C. H.-l 186 
 
 Fer.-l 139 
 
 G.G.-l 494 
 
 SJ.-l 240 
 
 Sl-I 211 
 
 H-1 309 
 
 Steo.-l 195 
 
 W-1 255 
 
 
 TABLE IV 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 e 
 
 6 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 •2 
 
 M 
 
 ii 
 
 1 
 gu 
 
 h 
 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 2. 
 
 160 
 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 7.4 
 
 9.4 
 
 2. 
 
 4.4 
 
 240 
 
 34 
 
 22 
 
 8. 
 
 7.1 
 
 1.4 
 
 12.4 
 
 158 
 
 44 
 
 38 
 
 13.1 
 
 3.6 
 
 .32 
 
 5.6 
 
 357 
 
 33 
 
 28 
 
 8. 
 
 10.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 4.1 
 
 164 
 
 28 
 
 21 
 
 7.8 
 
 6. 
 
 1. 
 
 7.1 
 
 192 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 10.5 
 
 6. 
 
 .68 
 
 1.9 
 
 116 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 7.5 
 
 7.7 
 
 1.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 188 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 5.6 
 
 12.5 
 
 2.1 
 
 4. 
 
 143 
 
 22 
 
 16 
 
 10. 
 
 6.5 
 
 .9 
 
 4.3 
 
 107 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 19.5 
 
 5.6 
 
 .63 
 
 13.8 
 
 367 
 
 57 
 
 48 
 
 11.5 
 
 6.5 
 
 .66 
 
 18. 
 
 447 
 
 70 
 
 57 
 
 12.5 
 
 6.4 
 
 .63 
 
 3.6 
 
 180 
 
 30 
 
 16 
 
 9. 
 
 6. 
 
 1.3 
 
 3.9 
 
 413 
 
 43 
 
 27 
 
 6. 
 
 9, 
 
 2.7 
 
 3. 
 
 117 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 12.3 
 
 8. 
 
 .95 
 
 4.7 
 
 206 
 
 23 
 
 18 
 
 10. 
 
 9. 
 
 1.1 
 
 3.5 
 
 260 
 
 30 
 
 18 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 
 2. 
 
 12.4 
 
 358 
 
 90 
 
 64 
 
 7.7 
 
 4. 
 
 .73 
 
 6. 
 
 170 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 14. 
 
 8. 
 
 .71 
 
 10. 
 
 278 
 
 58 
 
 38 
 
 10.4 
 
 7. 
 
 .7 
 
 5.3 
 
 200 
 
 39 
 
 23 
 
 9. 
 
 5. 
 
 .95 
 
 7.7 
 
 137 
 
 29 
 
 21 
 
 147 
 
 47 
 
 .44 
 
 4.9 
 
 287 
 
 36 
 
 23 
 
 8.5 
 
 8. 
 
 1.5 
 
 6.4 
 
 217 
 
 33 
 
 26 
 
 9.8 
 
 6.6 
 
 .85 
 
 3.4 
 
 213 
 
 25 
 
 18 
 
 7.5 
 
 8.5 
 
 1.6 
 
 12 
 
 TABLE V 
 
 m 
 
 3 5 "^ 
 
 Creamery ^S a? 1 "? * i I.C 
 
 S S • S 5 fi •» "5 Co So 8 a 
 
 IS. i %< gS *S go 2u BO- 
 
 ■< Q < U V 0> < < 
 
 L.2 5 5i 57 4 2 2.5 14 11.4 
 
 p.2 34 .9 105 10 7 4.8 10. 3. 
 
 H-2 10 .25 97 13 6 1.7 7.5 9.7 
 
 8-2 12 .3 87 9 5 2.4 9.7 7.3 
 
 B-2 15 .37 99 10 7 2.1 9.9 6.6 
 
 B.M.-2 SVs .2 36 5 5 1.8 7.1 4.3 
 
 C-2 SVi .2 110 7 4 2.2 16.5 13.2 
 
 R.G..2 9 .22 54 5 3 2.7 10.9 6. 
 
 A.2 BVs 2 103 13 3 2.5 7.7 12.4 
 
 J.2 23 .57 68 11 4 5.8 6.4 3. 
 
 S-2 30 .75 183 11 7 4.5 16.6 6.1 
 
 P-2 30.4 .75 135 12 7 4.3 11.2 44 
 
 Fron.-2 12.5 .3 97 8 2 6.2 12. 8. 
 
 F-2 9.4 .23 101 10 6 1.6 10. IL 
 
 G2 5.5 .14 87 7 2 2.8 12.4 16. 
 
 C.H.-2 14 .35 107 7 6 2.3 15.3 7.6 
 
 Fer..2 ....... 12.5 .3 115 13 5 2.5 9. 9. 
 
 G.G.-2 22.4 .56 103 17 7 3.2 6. 46 
 
 S.J.-2 11.1 .28 140 9 5 2.2 15.5 12.6 
 
 Tr..2 9.5 .24 108 11 6 1.6 9.8 11.3 
 
 St.2 10.9 .27 51 7 5 2.2 7.3 47 
 
 H.2 1\2 .53 29 4 3 7.1 7.3 1.3 
 
 Steo.-2 9 .23 88 10 3 3. 8.8 9.8 
 
 W.2 9 .23 101 10 4 2.2 10.1 11.2 
 
 CC.R..2 .... 8 .2 172 11 4 2. 16. .22 
 
 Table number 4 is made up of the same day's figures for the 
 three largest producers in each creamery and table 5 from the three 
 smallest producers, no attention being paid to the question of effi- 
 ciency in production except so far as was indicated by the amount 
 of production. Table 4 contains the average showing of 75 large 
 producers, while table 5 contains the average of 75 small producers. 
 As in the one case, the average number of quarts produced per 
 patron is much larger, so in the other case, the average amount is 
 much smaller than a like average for all the patrons in their re- 
 spective creameries. Certainly one would expect to see a diflferent 
 type of farm producing 246 quarts per patron than one producing 
 14 quarts and would also expect a different amount of profit per 
 quart. 
 
 The figures are rather illuminating, however. The cows of the 
 large producers gave on the average 9.93 quarts per cow, while 6.6 
 acres were used for the maintenance of each cow and less than one 
 acre of land was required to produce one quart of milk. The cows 
 of the smaller producers gave on the average, less than three quarts 
 of milk, requiring more than ten acres of land to produce one quart 
 of milk. It will be noted at creamery J-1 more than 19 quarts of 
 milk were produced per cow, while in table 5 the average of the 
 
 13 
 
 i« 
 
 laba 
 
producers at four creameries was less than two quarts per cow. Of 
 the large producers, all but one was up to the average of the New 
 York State production per cow, while in table 5, at only two cream- 
 eries was the average number of quarts per cow up to the average 
 state production per cow. Yet the average number of acres owned 
 by these smaller producers was 97 and the average number of cows 
 maintained by each was ten. It is obvious that if the price of milk 
 is determined, so as to permit a reasonable profit for the average 
 New York producer, very many other producers will be making 
 from less than a reasonable profit to a positive loss, not because 
 they have not the cows, nor the acres, nor the shipping facilities, 
 but because of a lack of interest or the application of business 
 methods to their dairying. 
 
 For a determination of efficient production of milk, it is abso- 
 lutely necessary to take four things into consideration, first, the size 
 and character of the farm and the relative number of cows upon it, 
 second, the productivity of the separate cows, third, the efficient ad- 
 ministration of the farm and the amount of emphasis placed upon 
 dairying as a business, fourth, the distance of the farm from the 
 creamery or shipping station; although this latter point will be con- 
 sidered in the discussion under the head of milk delivery. Com- 
 pilations of figures which fail to take into consideration these ele- 
 ments may be interesting and valuable, but are inconclusive. The 
 Wicks Committee found after months of investigation that the aver- 
 age production of New York State was between 4,000 to 4,500 
 pounds, or from 1,882 quarts to 2,118 quarts per year, or between 
 5.2 and 6 quarts per day. This Committee found that the cost of 
 producing 4,695 pounds was $107.67, 5,886 pounds was $124.63, 
 8,500 pounds was $150.75. From these figures it is plain that the 
 cost of keeping cows does not vary proportionately according to 
 the amount of their production. In table number 2 it will be seen 
 that the cost of maintaining the best cow, which gave more than six 
 times the amount of milk of the poorest cow, was only 28c per day, 
 while that of the poorest cow was 21c. So that the argument is ir- 
 refutable, that it will pay the farmers of New York State to seek, 
 acquire and breed better production stock. 
 
 Now what is to be done in the matter? The reasonably efficient 
 dairyman has a right to a reasonable profit for his milk, but just as 
 the inefficient business man, no matter what may be his business or 
 where he may be found, neither makes a profit nor is entitled to 
 make a profit, so a price should not be demanded for milk which 
 will assure a profit to the inefficient milk producer, especially where 
 the burden falls on the innocent consumer. 
 
 But efficient production is entitled to a profit and milk is en- 
 titled to the price rating commensurate with its value as a food. 
 This means that both the production and the price must be right. 
 Similarly both the public and the producer are entitled to the most 
 
 14 
 
 efficient distribution organization that can be devised. Production 
 of milk is a great and honorable business in itself and is worthy of 
 the undivided and best efforts of any man who engages in it. What- 
 ever the method of distribution, it is also worthy of expert and 
 undivided attention. Since both production and distribution are 
 distinct functions of the milk industry, but each dependent for in- 
 dustrial health on the other, the maintenance of a proper division 
 of labor based upon co-operation and fair dealing is essential to 
 industrial progress and the public service. 
 
 Each creamery should become an educational dairy center 
 where the best interests of the producer, distributor and consumer 
 are freely discussed. The distributor, as the business agent of the 
 industry, should initiate and encourage co-operative buying on the 
 basis not of profits to himself, but of a saving to his patrons. Cow 
 testing associations should be provided for and encouraged. Quan- 
 tity and uniform production should be stimulated by premium pay- 
 ments added to the market price and every effort of both distributors 
 and producers and of such agencies as may represent the public 
 should be contributed to make dairying what it deserves to be, the 
 greatest, most interesting and most profitable of our food industries. 
 In all this, work well done should have the support and plaudits 
 of the press and all other public agencies. Every regulatory agent 
 should know the industry from the bottom up and be dominated in 
 his work by Ae ideals commensurate with the dignity of his task. 
 Such a policy is possible and will make a satisfied and prosperous 
 producer, a happy consumer and an enthusiastic distributor. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Inefficiency in the Deuvery of the New York Milk Supply. 
 
 In contemplating the inefficiencies of the milk industry, it is 
 generally assumed that the delivery of milk in New York City is 
 especially subject to this criticism; in fact with most people that is 
 about as far as the considerations of inefficiency in the industry go. 
 Practically everybody has observed a number of milk delivery 
 wagons on his residence block and naturally asks himself if such 
 duplicate deliveries are not inefficient. The writer himself has heard 
 it said several times that there were seventeen wagons delivering 
 milk on every block in New York City, although the basis for this 
 conclusion was not given. Since city delivery is one of the functions 
 of the milk dealer, his branch of the industry is apt to bear more 
 than its share of the popular charges of inefficiency. It becomes, 
 therefore, a matter of great interest to inquire just what inefficiencies 
 exist in the delivery of milk, and as its delivery starts from the cow 
 and ends with the consumer, our study will begin with the delivery 
 of milk by the farmer to the shipping station or creamery and will 
 end with its receipt by the consumer in New York City. 
 
 15 
 
H 
 
 Inasmuch as the distance of the fann from the shipping station 
 is a factor to be considered in connection with the desirability of 
 the farmer's producing plant, it might be equally as logical to con- 
 sider country delivery as a production or first cost item. But while 
 keeping this in mind, it will here be treated as part of milk delivery. 
 The same process of getting the facts bearing upon country de- 
 livery was used as in obtaining the production facts in table three 
 of the chapter on the inefficiencies of production, that is, the actual 
 facts as they existed on the day of inquiry were obtained through 
 questions siibmitted to the creamery superintendents. The answers 
 to these questions are certainly very interesting and are tabulated 
 in table 6, the purpose being to ascertain the relation existing be- 
 tween the amount of milk delivered to the creamery and the number 
 of men, wagons and horses used for such delivery. 
 
 The superintendents were also asked to make the following esti- 
 mates: 
 
 First, if the Company will give you the contract for bringing 
 all of the milk delivered to your creamery within tfie hours required 
 for properly preparing for shipment, how many horses, wagons, 
 trucks or automobile trucks in detail would you use? Second, if 
 the farmers living within easy access to one another would co-operate 
 in bringing their milk to the creamery, how many groups could be 
 economically formed and how many wagons, trucks, etc., now used 
 could be displaced. 
 
 While a few of the superintendents did not give these estimates, 
 enough responded so as to convince one that much may be done to 
 simplify the delivery of milk by the farmer to the creamery and 
 thereby eliminate some of the original cost elements which the con- 
 sumer is ultimately required to pay. 
 
 Before examining table 6 it will again be well to keep in mind 
 that the writer is not claiming anything more for these tables than 
 appears on the face of them. This table gives die delivery experi- 
 ence accurately and positively for a day certain. It can do no 
 more than show a tendency. An examination of the matter has 
 shown that about half these creameries were receiving in the neigh- 
 borhood of their average number of quarts for the year. Others 
 were below and still others above the average, but the estimates 
 made by the superintendents were generally on the basis of bringing 
 to the creamery throughout the year the milk produced, regardless 
 of amount. ITie number of patrons in any event remains prac- 
 tically fixed while the organizer of a co-operative delivery system 
 would be more concerned with the number of stops and the location 
 of the various groups of producers than with the amount of milk 
 received. 
 
 16 
 
 TABLE VI 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 S e • 
 
 9 ^ S •• 
 
 M B 5 b 
 
 £ 1 sa s^ l» Sp s 5^ s== 
 
 it o> & a dSBuu 
 
 I 17 681 48.6 48.6 35.8 14 19 1 2 
 
 C 27 874 35. 35. 21.9 25 40 6 12 
 
 R. G. ... 37 1,251 41.7 41.7 39.1 30 32 4 8 
 
 S. F. . . . 28 1,391 58. 63.2 63.2 22 22 5 5 
 
 L 56 1,464 146.4 146.4 104.6 10 14 8 8 
 
 P. 22 1,549 103. 103. 82. 15 19 3 3 
 
 S. C 45 1,858 92.9 109.3 58.1 17 32 6 12 
 
 E. C R.. 45 1,904 112. 112. 59.5 17 32 20 20 
 
 SoL .... 32 2,069 86.2 86.2 51.7 24 40 4 8 
 
 S. Ch. . . 31 2,443 84. 84. 66. 29 37 3 a-t 
 
 B 42 2,507 109. 109. 80.9 23 31 2 2 
 
 S. 0. ... 39 2,684 149. 149. 116.7 18 23 4t 8 
 
 B. M. ... 35 2,896 84.6 96.5 69. 30-34 42 4 8 
 
 A 76 3,272 65.4 65.4 57.4 50 60 12 24 
 
 S. St.... 55 3,361 120. 124.5 84. 28 40 7 14 
 
 S. Fr.... 84 4,090 97. 97. 63. 42 65 
 
 E. W.... 79 4,798 200. 200. 109. 24 44 3a-t 6 
 
 S. J 50 5,069 149.1 149.1 95.6 34 53 7 14 
 
 E. St.... 109 5,199 162.4 173.4 148.5 30 35 
 
 E. H.... 59 5,529 128.6 128.6 97. 43 57 
 
 Shek. ... 37 7,838 326.6 326.6 170.2 24 46 10 20 
 
 S. G. C. 63 8,301 268. 268. 136. 31 61 3 6 
 
 H 95 12,471 328. 337. 189. 38-37 66h.p. 5a-t 
 
 S. P 59 13,280 276.6 276.6 195. 48 68 
 
 5. T 73 14,332 311.6 311.6 181. 46 79 la-t 5 
 
 There are some very interesting observations to be made in table 
 
 6. Take for instance creamery C, the second on the list where 874 
 quarts or less than 22 cans were received on the day in question. At 
 a well organized creamery, 20 cans of milk are often received from 
 one wagon with one driver and two horses; yet in this case, 22 cans 
 required 25 men and 40 horses. Further down the list, it will be 
 noted that creamy "Shek," which received on the same day 7,838 
 quarts of milk, more than nine times the above amount, required one 
 less man and only six more horses and the "Shek" superintendent 
 thinks he could bring in this same quantity of milk from his 37 pro- 
 ducers with 10 men and wagons and 20 horses, less than half of those 
 actually used. It is also interesting to note that the superintendent 
 at C creamery thinks that he could bring in the milk at his creamery 
 with 6 men and wagons and 12 horses, thereby eliminating 19 men 
 and 28 horses. 
 
 Take the case of A creamery about half way down the list. Here 
 50 men and wagons and 60 horses were used to bring to the cream- 
 ery that which the superintendent thinks he could gather up and 
 deliver on time for preparation and shipment with 12 men and 
 wagons and 24 horses, thereby saving the labor of 38 men and 36 
 
 17 
 
horses. Here considerably more man power and only a little less 
 horse power were used on this day than to make the delivery of 
 12,471 quarts at creamery H, where the superintendent believes he 
 could gather in the milk with five auto trucks. Or take for example 
 the case of Creamery J, the first creamery on the list, where the 
 superintendent thinks he could do with one wagon and two horses 
 what is now being done with 14 men and wagons and 19 horses, and 
 similarly creamery B. M. just above creamery A. Take the case of 
 16 of these creameries whose superintendents presented estimates of 
 the number of men, horses and wagons they would require if organ- 
 izing the delivery of milk to their respective creameries for profit 
 to themselves under competitive bidding. Where the present delivery 
 requires in the aggregate 398 men and wagons and 583 horses, their 
 combined reports show that the same delivery could be made with 
 102 men and wagons and 166 horses, thus presenting a saving of 
 74% in men and wagons and 71% in the number of horses. Or, fig- 
 uring on the basis of the work actually being done on the superin- 
 tendents' estimates, the delivery of the producers' milk to these 
 creameries now requires three times as many men and wagons and 
 two and a half times as many horses as is necessary. Or, for specific 
 information, take the case of B. M. in table 6. Here the superin- 
 tendent, the best posted expert on delivery facts in his community, 
 estmiates that he can do with 4 men and wagons and 8 horses what 
 now requires seven and a half times as many men and wagons and 
 five and a half times as many horses as is necessary. 
 
 Creamrry 
 
 S Mr. B. 
 
 S Mr. B. 
 
 jLj* ivx» •••••••■• iTi.ir» vf* 
 
 Xfa irJIit ■••■••••• ivj.]r« jp • 
 
 x\» vy« •••••••«•• iTxr* w • 
 
 A Mr. D. 
 
 <*»« •■••••■•••••■ ivXJr* XV* 
 
 A Mr. T. 
 
 T Mr M 
 
 J Mr. S. 
 
 s r Mr s 
 
 Ch Mr. B. 
 
 P Mr. T. 
 
 P. Mr. W. 
 
 P. Mr. G. 
 
 TABLE 
 
 VII 
 
 B 
 « ■ 
 
 s g 
 
 
 
 
 
 nmber of 
 
 •- Ml 
 O « 
 
 ° m 
 
 if 
 
 1 
 
 Mf 
 
 Quant 
 
 
 t X 
 
 i s 
 
 e 
 
 1 
 
 
 z 
 
 ^ o 
 
 m S 
 
 s 
 
 ... 
 
 ■ a 
 U 
 
 
 13.6 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 
 8 
 
 23.5 
 
 
 2 
 
 2J^ 
 
 23 
 
 17 
 
 8.4 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 15.5 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 8.9 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 23.8 
 
 
 2 
 
 2/2 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 11.2 
 
 
 1 
 
 3/2 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 24 9 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 U 
 
 49.4 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 20.2 
 
 
 2 
 
 VA 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 10.3 
 
 
 2 
 
 Wa 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 188 
 
 
 2 
 
 Va 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 62.3 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 8.9 
 
 
 2 
 
 m 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 56.4 
 
 
 2 
 
 2/2 
 
 24 
 
 17 
 
 11.7 
 
 
 1 
 
 2/2 
 
 25 
 
 13 
 
 
 18 
 
 Table number 7 contains a number of very interesting obser- 
 vations on individual patrons at several of the creameries. The first 
 example in the table is interpreted to mean that Mr. B. at Creamery 
 S, who maintains 24 cows and milked 8 of them, drove two miles 
 with two horses to bring 29 quarts of milk to the creamery, and sim- 
 ilarly throughout the table. 
 
 There may be many answers to the implied criticisms of in- 
 efficiency contained in these last two tables, for instance, that a 
 market must be found for a small amount of milk as well as a large 
 amount or that men and horses on the farm especially in winter time 
 have nothing to do anyway. But there is no charge here of inef- 
 ficiency against all dairymen among whom are many splendid busir 
 ness men. The point that is desired to be made is that there are 
 entirely too many instances of the inefficient use of the time of both 
 men and horses to justify the New York consumer in paying a price 
 for milk which contemplates a profit based upon such methods. It 
 would seem that a well organized farm ought to be able to employ 
 both its men and its horses to more useful purposes even in the 
 winter time, while in the summer there is no question about it. How- 
 ever inefficient the city delivery system may be, it is difficult to find 
 more glaring instances of the extravagant use of men, horses and 
 time than in some of the cases above cited. 
 
 The transportation of milk from the creameries to the city ter- 
 minals by the railroads has been lately investigated with great care 
 by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the purpose of fixing 
 freight rates and, although inefficiencies exist therein, as for example, 
 in the case of less than carload lots of milk, this matter has prac- 
 tically been settled by the Conunission and it will not now be par- 
 ticularly profitable to discuss it. The railroad terminals supplying 
 New York City are more or less fixed and while the cost of trans- 
 portation of milk from New Jersey, where most of the terminals 
 center, to the more remote plants of Brooklyn, is an expensive matter 
 either with horses and trucks or automobile trucks, both the dealer 
 and producer are virtually bound by the situation as it is and neither 
 of them is to blame for any inefficiencies that may exist in this part 
 of the delivery system. ^ 
 
 But a most interesting field for inquiry is the matter of city retail 
 deliveries and our discussion will here be limited to almost alto- 
 gether to retail milk sold in bottles. According to Department of 
 Health figures, the average number of quarts of milk received in 
 New York City for the month of November, 1917, was 1,627,127. 
 Of this amount 598,671 quarts were delivered daily from retail 
 wagons in bottles. There were engaged in this service 4,978 retail 
 wagons which showed a distribution from each of 121 quarts ac- 
 cording to the above figures. This is not a fair average of the 
 amount of milk sold on these wagons and if it were, it would be 
 entirely indefensible. The capacity load under favorable conditions 
 for the average milk wagon is about 432 quarts, although several 
 
 19 
 
Mi 
 
 of the routemen claim that they have delivered with comparative 
 ease between 500 and 600 quarts and one man who is perhaps too 
 optimistic, thinks that he could deliver on his route as high as 700 
 points including quarters of cream. It would be very easy to esti- 
 mate the number of wagons required to make a New York City milk 
 delivery, each wagon carrying capacity loads and to fix this as the 
 standard of efficiency. But there are very many modifying circum- 
 stances which a careful examination of the matter including per- 
 sonal conferences with many route drivers in various sections of the 
 city have brought forth. 
 
 I 
 
 r* 1 
 
 'I 
 
 m 
 
 20 
 
« 
 
 n 
 
 < 
 
 ■loioj oi aiao]] ■ai]f 
 
 ojtj JO aoj^ 
 
 BinoH oi 
 MMfoQ moij eaasjsiQ 
 
 XuAtjOQ pao3»s DO aioioj 
 
 ij9At\9Q JMI J Unoi] -OJ^ 
 
 (paivinpag) ijoiuiax 
 
 iiO}UJ9J, 
 
 ■I ■aiasdui03 Jo 'ON 
 
 MLMAipQ jooij jaddfi 
 
 uamojinQ jo -oiti 
 
 innuitnif^ 
 
 J9AUQ iq oaAUQ raiipi 
 
 •in«^ ao niiH IMJlg 
 
 •IMU J-dni[I«J||^ -iO] VA3[3 
 
 I 
 
 J 
 
 'Ofi a)no|] 
 
 in 
 
 m 
 
 
 10 
 
 CO 
 
 10 
 
 o 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 in 
 
 lA 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 e4 
 
 1? 
 
 2: 
 
 in 
 c4 
 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 >4 
 
 e 
 Z 
 
 in 
 
 
 in 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 eO 
 
 ei| 
 
 o 
 
 el 
 
 in 
 c4 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 '"'Br 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 C<«: t^ 
 
 m S 
 
 
 "? 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 
 m 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 
 in 
 
 * 
 
 m 
 
 * 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 • 
 
 00 
 
 1-^ 
 
 es' 
 
 1/ 
 
 
 a' 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 8 
 
 
 S 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 r-t 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^o 
 
 t^in 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 gl'^ 
 
 
 S2 
 
 com 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 en 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 CI 
 
 en 
 
 «o 
 
 o 
 00 
 
 o 
 in 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 ei 
 
 o 
 
 2: 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 ci 
 
 « 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 in 
 
 e 
 2; 
 
 CO 
 
 01 
 
 QOC> 
 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 CN| 
 
 ^esi 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 00 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 2: 
 
 CI 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 en 
 
 to 
 in 
 00 
 
 CI 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 «? 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 ci 
 
 i$ 
 
 in 
 
 eo 
 
 «n 
 
 CO 
 
 g^ 
 
 10 W ^ fH ^ i-l 
 
 ■n' 
 
 8 
 
 F-l 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 <M 
 CI 
 
 J2 
 
 ^S§ 
 
 CO t^ Q 
 
 to 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 ss 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ch 
 
 
 in 
 
 VO 
 
 i-H 
 
 CI 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 N 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 On 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 «n 
 
 o 
 in 
 
 a 
 
 in 
 
 s 
 
 04 
 
 in 
 
 l-H 
 
 CI 
 
 in 
 
 iS 
 
 in 
 
 VO 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 NO 
 
 00 
 0\ 
 
 ss 
 
 in 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 ** 
 
 i-H 
 
 CI 
 
 VO 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 o\^ 
 
 o 
 
 2: 
 
 
 in 
 
 C4 
 
 in 
 
 S5 
 
 CO 
 
 OO"** 
 
 in 
 
 
 VO 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 VO 
 
 S5^ 
 
 NO 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 s 
 
 ClCId dCSICv] CI 
 
 ^SS SS2^ 000 
 in ON On o o in vo NO 10 
 
 CI CI i-l d CI i-( CM CI r-i 
 
 ON 
 
 d 
 
 S 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 CI 
 
 00 
 
 w? 
 
 Ol 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 OQ 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 en 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 in f- 
 
 in 
 
 CI 
 
 00 
 
 ci 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 VO 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ td^bi u^'b M^u: u^'e>; m^c^ u^t.; ^u: w^e>; ^ ^ 
 
 ^[<^ REX4' 
 
 *- a 
 
 ©CI 
 
 >^ O 
 
 08 «-• 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 0-3 
 
 pi's 
 
 u^ 
 
 
 m -S3 
 
 o « 
 ON -5 
 
 US 
 
 > 
 CI *' 
 
 'J 
 
 i-tm 
 
 CI 
 
 I 
 
 .205 
 
 '2JS 
 c *-• 
 
 •-' i: 
 
 ©^ 
 
 U2: 
 
 o q 
 
 ■si 
 
 GO'S 
 
 l-H 1/5 
 
 cJ§ 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 • mt 
 
 •> 
 
 Oi 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 -0 
 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 CI 
 
 2 
 
 NO 
 
 
 
 
 
 tJ 
 
 <J 
 
 c 
 
 JS 
 
 CJ 
 
 *^ 
 
 00 m 
 
 o 
 r ** 
 
 •ocu 
 
 o > 
 
 J 
 
 • 
 in «£ 
 
 NO . 
 
 mm 
 
 cd 
 
 CO ID 
 
 o *i 
 
 * » 
 
 ■gz 
 
 *;J t— t 
 
 
 »4 
 
 Is 
 
 Sz 
 
 .2 fi 
 c S 
 
 ttj ed 
 
 
 cJ^ O? u;:! bir. 
 
 f.3S 
 
 u^ 
 
 r c ^ 
 
 4) g 0) 
 
 6 (A Cd 
 en tH 
 zi o 
 
 O &■ 4-> 
 
 M m 
 
 J4 
 
 O «3 
 
 c o 
 
 "C 2 
 
 *^ g 
 2q 
 
 cd «-• 
 
 TS cd 
 edie 
 P o 
 
 o2 
 
 B 4-> 
 
 a;) 4) 
 
 sj cS:s oj 
 
 u^ 
 
 M 
 
 Mi 
 
 ^ a 
 
 o o 
 
 m :u 
 •-1OQ 
 
 m 
 
 Njt-» 
 
 r cd 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 CO 03 
 B *■> 
 
 ■"• ed 
 0-0 
 
 SI 
 
 CI 
 
 en S 
 
 CO 4J 
 
 On cfi 
 
 00 «-• 
 
 oom 
 
 CI 
 
 u:5 
 
 cn is 
 
 °° o 
 
 o *' 
 
 00(4 
 
 ON 
 
 is 
 
 ^2 
 in_2 
 
 rH "^ 
 
 4-1 C 
 
 -^ £ 
 
 . JCO 
 
 « > 
 
 cn« 
 
 -^ o 
 
 B *- 
 
 '^ ed 
 O ^ 
 
 ON« 
 
 u3 
 
 « S 
 
 S2 
 2« 
 
 J3< 
 
 *-> 
 
 f-H 4-1 
 
 rnm 
 
 CO 
 
 02 
 
 «.2 
 
 CD C 
 Ov O 
 
 O 9i 
 -13 •< 
 CO-O 
 r- J CO 
 
 O 
 
 CJci 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 o 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 t6 
 
 o 
 I— I 
 m 
 
 cT 
 
 C|rJ« 
 
 m 
 
 s 
 
 8 
 
 SS SSS 12i5S v*y2JS i2l2i'? 22s K3H2^2 000000 000000 NOvovo ooo ooo "«tTtQ 000 000 mmm 000 000 00 
 ^^ ?S£ii2 i22f2 iSSs ^^?l: SSTSS ^nono t-t^r- onoson onct*on inxnxn oni-hvo p-h pi S 0000 cic^^ oQeo ^■^a^ ononvo r^o 
 
 ^CO CICO<-" .-Hi-Hi-t ^i-Hr-l i-Hf-lr-l CM CI CS i-H p-i rH ,-x rH l-H l-H ,-H f-H i-H ^H r-l CM CM i-H ,-( d r-l CJ CS|(M CM CO l-H CO CO i-H ^ ^ r-H rH .-^ rH S S r^H CM CO 
 
 CI 
 
 b W^fa txj^fa W^fe W^fa W^fo W^'fe ^ W^'fe* w^ 
 
 ID 
 
 - a 
 
 C/3 rQ 
 
 4) 
 
 *- c 
 •O o 
 
 CO § 
 VO -2 
 
 Ud 
 
 o 
 m 
 
 CI 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 S'* 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 (X, m 
 
 §« 
 
 u o 
 0) o 
 
 .8 
 
 CJCI 
 
 B 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 iq 
 
 CI 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 tiO 
 
 e 
 
 in 
 
 06 
 
 in 
 
 ci 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 en 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 8 s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O' 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 «o 
 
 
 ct 
 
 ^ci 
 
 00 
 
 enoo 1^1 
 
 Ok in 
 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 S 
 
 |/3 
 
 A 
 
 Q 
 
 *§2 
 
 S§S S^S^S? 299 SS9 SS« *a9S 
 
 CO NO CO CO CO CO rH lO O CO CO tfi O ^' O '^ K 'B 
 CICICM CMCMCI CMCMCM CI CI rn « r- « m !Z S 
 
 «n 
 
 VO 
 
 in 
 
 M (>4 
 
 Wbk WU4 ^bl W'tii 
 
 Sc< 
 
 
 Cd ci 
 
 C «^ ff 
 
 S " S 
 
 t>^ E 
 
 o 
 r I'n 
 Met 
 
 ^ ri 
 
 "3 o 
 2j 
 
 « o 
 
 haw ""^ 
 
 ct; 
 OW 
 
 wi 
 
 ■2S 
 
 o •* 
 
 ■5 CO 
 
 mm 
 
 o 
 
 r 1=^ 
 
 Ui-H 
 
 p; CO 
 
 Qbi 
 
 o o 
 
 « . 
 
 MS 
 
 ti5 S 
 
 * r-* 
 
 2 e 
 Z cn^ 
 
 • y% 
 
 •jf al 
 
 3eSr 
 O' S 
 
 Ooi 
 
 vO 
 
i 
 
 hi 
 
 I ■ I 
 
 Table 8 is prepared from notes taken at these conferences in 
 the month of December, 1917. Many of the milk companies con- 
 solidated about this time, but this table shows the situation very much 
 as it had existed for several years past and before the routes of the 
 consolidating companies were merged with one another as could have 
 been done where duplicate routes existed. 
 
 There are many things to be taken into consideration in the 
 delivery of milk. Among these are the character of the houses in the 
 neighborhood in which the delivery is made and the number of 
 quarts each customer takes; for instance, it is one thing to make de- 
 liveries to some of the houses in the Fifth Avenue section where from 
 30 to 50 quarts are often delivered to one customer and where extra 
 quart customers are the rule and quite another thing to deliver in 
 some sections of the East Side where the customers take a small 
 amount of milk and most of the houses are without elevators, re- 
 quiring the driver in many instances to climb five flights of steps 
 in order to serve a single customer with one quart or even a pint of 
 milk. It is still different in the sections where detached houses 
 prevail. 
 
 Again some routes are concentrated more than others. Many of 
 those of the big companies cover but a few city blocks, while most of 
 the routes of the smaller companies are large in extent, one route, as 
 will be seen in the table, covering more than 13 street miles. It will 
 readily be seen that with large customers and concentrated routes 
 anything but a capacity load is an evidence of inefficiency in the de- 
 livery system, while in the outlying territory of Brooklyn and Queens 
 such a route does not obtain even where the greatest efficiency is 
 practiced. Table 8, therefore, endeavors to picture the situation with 
 reference to the character of the houses, the extent of the routes, the 
 amount of milk delivered on each, at the time the data was gathered, 
 and estimates of the maximum and minimum deliveries on the route, 
 the number of companies operating in the territory in question, the 
 number of duplicate delivery wagons on each block, the number of 
 upper floor deliveries, the length of time for the first delivery and 
 the number of points on the second delivery. It will be seen that in 
 no case were there 17 delivery wagons on any block and probably 
 tfiere never was such a number. On the other hand, it is obvious 
 that from 4 to 10 wagons on each block is not economical. 
 
 To contemplate a really efficient delivery system, capacity loads 
 so far as they are consistent with reasonable hours and the physical 
 ability of the driver to perform the work of delivery and to make 
 his collections would seem to be the starting point. By a capacity 
 load is here meant as many quarts of milk as can be loaded and 
 carried with safety on an ordinary retail milk wagon. In order, 
 therefore, to ascertain how the different localities, character of the 
 houses, size of customers and concentration of population both in 
 the city and on each route would affect capacity loads, the following 
 questions were asked and answered by each one of the drivers inter- 
 
 22 
 
 I 
 
 viewed (1) If you had the contract at a fair compensation per 
 quart for delivering all the milk in the best part of your present 
 territory, no other milk company delivering there, (a) how many 
 quarts would you take out per wagon, (b) how long would it take 
 ?ou to make the delivery? (2) If you had a contract for dehvermg 
 all the milk on the worst part of your territory, (a) how many 
 quarts would you take out per wagon, (b) how long would it take 
 you to make the delivery? The answers to these questions are very 
 interesting and the best opinion on the subj^t m the city, namely 
 ihat of thi milk drivers themselves, is reflected m the table. As will 
 be seen in estimating the situation on the maximum routes there axe 
 very few drivers who would not take out a capacity load. On the 
 minimum routes, reflecting the very worst delivery conditions most 
 of the drivers would take out loads which are considerably larger 
 than the actual amount taken out when the table was compiled, or 
 in fact taken out when their routes were at Uieir best. 
 
 The views of the drivers on the daylight delivery system ^^^^ 
 illuminating as bearing upon that proposed reform ^i the 6Z 
 drivers questioned on the matter, 11 were m favor of daylight de- 
 liveries and 21 opposed to it. Most of those favoring such delivery 
 were drivers on routes where traffic conditions were not congest^. 
 The majority of those who opposed the idea did so on the grounds, 
 first, that in the day time traffic conditions were against it; second, 
 that drivers could not obtain the use of the elevators; third, that it 
 would subject them to the necessity of listening to conaplamts and en- 
 tering into conversations with customers which would take a great 
 deal of their time. Most of the drivers opposed the second deliveries 
 as wasteful of time and labor. These second deliveries are of two 
 kinds, where the driver makes a second delivery from the company 
 delivery depot or where he makes a return call during the course of 
 his original delivery. There is no question but what habit enters 
 largely into the demand which causes this particular type of m- 
 
 efficiency^^^^ question the city delivery of milk is a great field for 
 saving in time and labor of both m«i and hors^. If a milk com- 
 pany would deliver 100,000 quarts of milk per day witii a few l^s 
 quarts on each route wagon than would pay for the labor of the 
 driver, the maintenance of the horse and the up-keep of the equip- 
 ment, that company could not survive and would obvioi^ly be in a 
 worse financial position than a company with a few well organized 
 routes whose deliveries approached the capacity of each wagon. 
 
 It should need no argument to convince one that a great number 
 of small companies duplicating one another's territory cannot oper- 
 ate a New York milk delivery efficiently and that a few large com- 
 nanies would serve the consumer much more economically providing 
 5ic customer could get a portion of the benefit of the savings made 
 by such concentration of the delivery system. Here, then, if at any 
 place, is where an intelligent supervising public authority could do 
 
 23 
 
 I ' ^ 
 
 
a splendid work by aiding, after a thorough study of the matter, in 
 re-districting the city in such a way as to be helpful both to the milk 
 companies and to the public. 
 
 In the city of Philadelphia a few years ago, milk was selling 
 at 8c per quart, while in New York it was selling at 9c per quart. 
 The Philadelphia milk companies in every way showed as high a 
 degree of prosperity as those of the New York companies and yet 
 the original cost of the milk was about the same. The writer sur- 
 veyed the Philadelphia delivery situation and found that most of the 
 larger companies were operating in distinct sections of the city, 
 where outside of a little competition from a few smaller companies, 
 they were in a position to organize the delivery on a very efficient 
 basis. The result was that their routes were larger than the New 
 York routes and even at the lower price charged the consumer, an 
 equal or even greater amount of profit was realized per wagon. 
 
 Greater New York would probably present greater problems in 
 the matter of establishing delivery districts than would Philadelphia. 
 At the moment the attitude of many of the organized milk drivers 
 is against large loads so that the New York dealers cannot be charged 
 with entire responsibility for small loads. Suggestions have been 
 made from time to time that the problem could be solved by con- 
 tract deliveries, but these are clearly impracticable while the milk 
 companies are privately owned because there could be no way of pr(^ 
 serving the individual character of the companies and protecting 
 their individual rights under such a system. On the other hand the 
 greatest argument for municipal ownership lies in the unrestricted 
 efficiencies that could be introduced into city deliveries. If such 
 ownership for delivery purposes could be assumed without incur- 
 ring very grave and tremendous responsibilities in other respects, a 
 good organizer could undoubtedly do wonders in introducing effi- 
 ciencies into the deliveries. But so far as this discussion is con- 
 cerned, public ownership would be advised only as a last resort 
 when every other means of intelligent co-operation between the 
 public and the distributors had failed. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Inefficiencies in the Control of the New York Milk Supply. 
 The control to be discussed in this chapter is sanitary control, 
 that is, the check which is brought from some outside agency upon 
 one or more of the phases of the milk industry and intended to im- 
 prove the character of the milk supply in its health and food value. 
 This restraint may have its origin in the Federal, State and Municipal 
 governments, or the control may be of a private nature, as where the 
 milk dealer on his own initiative seeks to obtain a better and richer 
 milk by making it worth the farmers' while to produce it. So far as 
 the New York City milk supply is concerned, national and state gov- 
 ernments have exercised but a slight control, leaving this field almost 
 entirely to the municipality. 
 
 24 
 
 The sanitary control of the milk supply has become one of the 
 most important functions of the New York City Board of Health 
 operating largely through its Bureau of Food and Drugs. No func- 
 tion of the Health Department has been performed with more com- 
 mendable zeal and with better results than its work of sanitary milk 
 control. It has not always been wise in the methods it has pursued, 
 but this is said in the spirit purely of constructive criticism. The 
 Federal Government, which has no power in the matter except as 
 milk may cross state lines, has confined itself to certain general in- 
 vestigations of an educational nature and New York State has largely 
 devoted its activities to the control of the milk supply tributary to 
 the other cities of the state. • 
 
 With the efficiency that has been manifested by the New York 
 Department of Health, it is just as well for the New York consumer 
 that these other agencies have left the matter largely to the munic- 
 ipality because where there is a conflict of authority and inspec- 
 tions, as has sometimes been the case even with the slight activity of 
 the state department in the New York City territory, the producer is 
 apt to become confused and to lose his respect for such control as is 
 imposed upon him, especially where inspections have not been im- 
 mediately followed up. Besides each controlling agency has its 
 own standards and the personal equation is apt to vary considerably. 
 The greatest step forward in the sanitary control of the New 
 York milk supply was that of dividing the milk into the several 
 grades, grade A, grade B, and grade C. This did not necessarily 
 mean that all the milk of any one of these grades was of that grade. 
 In fact, much of the grade B milk could measure up to the grade A 
 standard and even some of the grade C milk might be of the higher 
 grades, but the grading of milk did impose certain sanitary requi- 
 sites which were valuable in order properly to define sanitary 
 methods. Another sanitary measure of almost equal importance 
 was the requirement that practically all of the milk supply of New 
 York City should be pasteurized, only the certified milk and a very 
 small portion of the A grade being exempt. It may possibly be 
 questioned if pasteurized milk is as valuable in every respect as high 
 grade raw milk, but in a city the size of New York, requiring such 
 a vast supply of milk and where so many lives are dependent upon 
 the elimination of the primary causes of disease, general pasteuriza- 
 tion is the only safe and practical theory. 
 
 The Board of Health has in the past exercised its control 
 through the use of inspectors, both city and country, and by the em- 
 ployment of its laboratories located in the city. Regulations have 
 been adopted for controlling the milk supply and those engaged m 
 its production and distribution, and score cards prepared for grad- 
 ing the barns and the methods used on the farm, also for the country 
 and city creameries, while a form of report was used for obtaining 
 a knowledge of the sanitary condition of places in the city where 
 milk was sold. 
 
 25 
 
In general, Board of Health control worked, largely because 
 the Department could bring pressure to bear upon the dealers by 
 excluding their milk from the city if it did not meet its require- 
 ments, thus placing the responsibility on the dealers to bring the 
 producers into line as well as themselves. This principle of shifting 
 the responsibility of control to the dealers, while eflPective for the 
 time being, is subject to considerable criticism; first, because it tends 
 to do just what should not be done, that is, antagonize two of the 
 branches of the industry; second, because it is unfair to the dealer 
 to hold him entirely responsible for that which may be beyond his 
 control; and third, because such a system of public control falls 
 with the break down for any reason, in the control of the dealer, 
 J or instance, since the producers through their organization struck 
 for a higher price for their milk and were successful, the main 
 anxiety exhibited by both the Department of Health and the dealers 
 was for milk Price has become a controlling factor. It may 
 well be doubted whether the same grip is maintained on the methods 
 01 production on the farm today as before the first strike started 
 
 In general, the control of the Department of Health has been 
 criticized m the following respects. To begin with, the farmers 
 have objected to it because of the alleged youth, inexperience and 
 mcompetOTcy of some of the inspectors. It is hard to tell just how 
 far this charge is true and how far the Board of Health can be held 
 responsible for it. A man well posted in sanitary matters, may not 
 have had the privilege of being born and raised on a farm and in 
 consequence thereof is liable to occasional mistakes of a practical 
 nature. When th^ occur it is very damaging to his prestige. Again 
 the farmers complain that all the inspectors who visit them do not 
 conform to the same standards of scoring and instruction. When 
 changes are made in the personnel of the inspectors, variations in 
 judgment are of course likely to occur. Without question, however, 
 occasional changes are not only necessary, but tend to promote ef- 
 ficiency m the inspection system. Many farmers also have learned 
 to appraise lightly the follow up methods of the department's in- 
 specters. This deficiency is probably due to an insuflficient number 
 of mspectors operating under the present system and deserves con- 
 sideration. 
 
 There are several criticisms that may be noted, however, which 
 do not originate with the producers, but have to do more with the 
 efficiency of the system in general. First, the hours used for inspec- 
 tion on the farms are usually those between milkings, which means 
 that seldom if ever, are the inspectors present when the methods of 
 the producers may be actually observed. As clean milk is due 
 largely to the use of proper methods on the farm, the lack of direct 
 observation here is hurtful. The inspectors' work is a special work 
 and should be done at times when the opportunity is given for com- 
 plete observation of everything pertaining to the purposes of the 
 inspection. '^ ^ 
 
 26 
 
 Another criticism is that of a lack of intensive inspections. By 
 this is meant a type of inspection that goes to the bottom of the sit- 
 uation in some locality or particular as where the same milk is fol- 
 lowed from the cow to the consumer, comparing the methods used in 
 the various stages of the milk's progress to the consumer, with the 
 increase in bacteria count at each stage as it is handled. By pro- 
 viding for more thoroughgoing work of this kind, many real con- 
 tributions may be made to sanitary milk control. Third, the lack 
 of proper follow up methods on the farm is a real criticism which 
 should be met by doing as much work along this line as is possible 
 and without any previous notice of any kind, thus at least creating 
 the apprehension in the producer's mind that another immediate m- 
 spection may be on the way. The follow up work at the country 
 creameries has generally been very good and the results have been 
 in proportion, but the creameries are more accessible and the work 
 requires fewer men. Fourth, the lack of uniformity in the charac- 
 ter of the inspections. This criticism should be met by standardizing 
 the methods of inspection and the values on the score cards. This 
 will promote the effectiveness of the inspections and will add to the 
 constructive character of the work done by enabling valuable com- 
 parisons to be made between results obtained in various parts of 
 the country. Regularly held conventions of inspectors will also tend 
 to stimulate more uniform and thorough inspections. 
 
 The above criticisms have been directed at the inspection sys^ 
 tern, but there is another method of control used by the Board of 
 Health, that of the laboratory. The present method of employing 
 the laboratory consists of testing for bacteria and butter fat m the 
 city laboratories on samples taken both in the city and country. The 
 number of bacteria m the milk, as found by the laboratory tests, 
 indicates its cleanliness and the amount of butter fat, its richness. 
 There is no particular difficulty in testing for butter fat m the city 
 laboratories, but trouble has been experienced in getting correct 
 results in testing for bacteria, samples of milk taken in the country, 
 not because the means are not at hand for properly refrigerating 
 the samples of milk taken for analysis, but on account of dirty 
 pipettes and sample bottles and in certain cases improper care being 
 taken of the samples in transit so that the results do not speak the 
 truth. Much irreparable damage may thus be done. 
 
 I 
 
 27 
 
TABLE IX 
 
 Department Count 
 1. 
 
 2,000 
 15,000 
 4,500 
 1,600 
 8,000 
 3,500 
 
 Official Unofficial 
 
 Company Count Company Laboratory Count 
 tarmcTs Cans at Creamery Tested Milk 
 
 1.700 3^00 
 
 27,000 10,300 
 
 1.200 3,800 
 
 1300 2,900 
 
 6^00 3,500 
 
 4,200 3,300 
 
 5,600 Av. 
 
 7,133 Av. 
 
 2. Receiving Vat at Creamery Tested Milk 
 
 7,200 9,800 
 
 8,200 10,200 
 
 7,500 11,700 
 
 10,100 9,300 
 
 10,500 11,000 
 
 8,700 10,600 
 
 9,000 8,100 
 
 9,700 9,200 
 
 5,400 6,200 
 
 7300 5,000 
 
 7,000 6,500 
 
 7300 8,300 
 
 4»500Av. 
 
 8,800 
 8,700 
 9,700 
 12,000 
 3,400 
 6,100 
 5,200 
 4,400 
 4,700 
 4,100 
 3,600 
 4,300 
 
 8,200 At. 
 
 8,742 Av. 
 
 6,500 Av. 
 
 3. Bottles for Shipment at Creamery Gr. A Raw 
 
 g'500 6,700 10,800 
 
 9300 8,000 12900 
 
 9,000 11,900 11800 
 
 8,000 16,700 14.400 
 
 2'5S f'iSS ^'400 
 
 "^.200 1,000 4,500 
 
 9.700 8,900 6,200 
 
 5.600 5,900 3,700 
 
 8.700 7,600 9100 
 
 8,700 8,600 7,500 
 
 9300 9,700 11800 
 
 9.000 9,600 8,i55 
 
 7,925 Av. 
 
 130 
 4,500 
 5,000 
 2,200 
 1,400 
 1,200 
 58,500 
 14,000 
 1,000 
 1,700 
 
 8,309 Av. 
 
 Farmers* Cans at Creamery (Untested) 
 
 1,400 
 
 4,800 
 
 4,100 
 
 1,500 
 
 1,600 
 
 1,000 
 
 53,200 
 
 14,900 
 
 800 
 
 1,700 
 
 8,766 Av. 
 
 3,500 
 
 4,600 
 
 3,800 
 
 1,900 
 
 1300 
 
 900 
 
 56,000 
 
 18,400 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,300 
 
 9.070 Av. 
 
 8,500 Av. 
 28 
 
 9,290 Av. 
 
 Official 
 
 Unofficial 
 
 Department Count Company Count Company Laboratory Count 
 
 5. Receiving Vat at Creamery {Untested) 
 
 40.000 39,100 39,800 
 
 30,000 37,800 32,700 
 
 nr'AAA 9,200 35,000 
 
 57'000 39600 32,000 
 
 25000 28300 14,700 
 
 30;r 4i;i00 12,900 
 
 22000 23,000 18,300 
 
 ^m 29000 38,700 
 
 Um 12600 9,200 
 
 io;665 10,200 10,000 
 
 18,000 8,400 3,700 
 
 12;000 10,000 4,400 
 
 25,783 Av. 
 
 5,200 
 3300 
 2,000 
 1,300 
 5,000 
 9,500 
 
 4,416 Av. 
 
 400 
 2,000 
 UOO 
 
 900 
 1,500 
 4,000 
 
 1,667 Av. 
 
 1,300 
 2,000 
 
 800 
 
 800 
 4,000 
 1,500 
 
 6. 
 
 24,175 Av. 
 
 Outlet Heater at Creamery 
 
 4,400 
 2300 
 1,000 
 800 
 2,800 
 5,600 
 
 7. 
 
 2334 Av. 
 Outlet Holder at Creiunery 
 
 5,000 
 1,400 
 400 
 1,000 
 1,700 
 5,900 
 
 8. Outlet 
 
 2,500 Av. 
 
 Cooler at Creamery 
 
 1,500 
 
 2,000 
 
 400 
 
 400 
 
 11,600 
 
 4,000 
 
 20,950 Av. 
 
 3,500 
 7,200 
 1,900 
 1,500 
 1,500 
 1,100 
 
 2,783 Av. 
 
 600 
 900 
 200 
 400 
 600 
 400 
 
 517 Av. 
 
 1,400 
 1,200 
 
 700 
 
 300 
 2,500 
 3,600 
 
 1,734 Av. 3,316 Av. 
 
 9. Bottle for Shipment at Creamery Gr. 
 
 800 1.200 
 
 3,500 1.200 
 
 6,000 1,200 
 
 1,200 300 
 
 1,400 600 
 
 900 600 
 
 400 600 
 
 600 500 
 
 3,500 1,400 
 
 3,500 800 
 
 2,500 1,800 
 
 2,000 2,000 
 
 A Past. 
 
 1,618 Av. 
 
 2300 
 1,900 
 
 700 
 5300 
 
 900 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 200 
 1,900 
 2,200 
 3,000 
 1,900 
 
 2,191 Av. 
 
 1,018 Av. 
 29 
 
 1,800 Av. 
 
 i""^ 
 
vi J, 
 
 I 
 
 Official 
 
 Unofficial 
 
 
 
 Department Count 
 
 G>mpany Count 
 
 Company Laboratory C 
 
 10. Grade A Raw 
 
 at Hoboken in Bottles, same as 3 
 
 9,100 
 
 6,100 
 
 
 7,000 
 
 17,100 
 
 15,200 
 
 
 11,700 
 
 16,500 
 
 26,800 
 
 
 23,700 
 
 10,000 
 
 20,300 
 
 
 8,500 
 
 4,500 
 
 5,900 
 
 
 9,800 
 
 5,000 
 
 4300 
 
 
 2,400 
 
 7,500 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 10,600 B 
 
 9,000 
 
 7,300 
 
 
 9,100 
 
 10,000 
 
 8,400 
 
 
 10300 
 
 7,100 
 
 6300 
 
 
 9,300 
 
 8,800 
 
 8,200 
 
 
 9,000 
 
 9300 
 
 9,400 
 
 
 9,100 
 
 9,498 Av. 
 
 10,334 Av. 
 
 10,042 Av. 
 
 11. Grade A Past. 
 
 at Hoboken in Bottles, same 
 
 as 9 
 
 1,500 
 
 12,700 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 11,500 
 
 
 
 2,500 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 1,500 
 
 12,700 
 
 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 600 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 2,200 
 
 1300 
 
 
 
 1,700 
 
 1,400 
 
 
 
 2,200 
 
 1,200 
 
 
 
 2,200 
 
 2,400 
 4,092 Av. 
 
 
 
 1367 Av. 
 
 
 12. Various Cases Grade Raw at Hohoken 
 
 
 9,500 
 
 7,500 
 
 
 11,500 
 
 9,700 
 
 8,900 
 
 
 15,200 
 
 9300 
 
 9,600 
 
 
 3,400 
 
 8,700 
 
 10,100 
 
 
 11,900 
 
 13,000 
 
 14,400 
 
 
 16,000 
 
 11300 
 
 16,500 
 
 
 20,900 
 
 11,000 
 
 13,600 
 
 
 17,000 
 
 14,500 
 
 19,200 
 
 
 21,700 
 
 12,400 
 
 10,300 
 
 
 16,000 
 
 12,800 
 
 17,400 
 
 
 spr. 
 
 12,700 
 
 12.800 
 
 
 15,500 
 
 12,500 
 
 18,600 
 
 
 10,100 
 
 11,492 Av. 
 
 13,442 Av. 
 
 14,017 Av. 
 
 13. Various Cases Grade A Past. 
 
 at Hoboken 
 
 1,100 
 
 1,400 
 
 
 2,500 
 
 900 
 
 1,300 
 
 
 5,700 
 
 1,000 
 
 1,400 
 
 
 8,400 
 
 1,000 
 
 800 
 
 
 2,500 
 
 5,500 
 
 200 
 
 
 2,600 
 
 500 
 
 700 
 
 
 1,800 
 
 1,000 
 
 700 
 
 
 1,400 
 
 123,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 3,600 
 
 3,000 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 3,600 
 
 3,300 
 
 2,200 
 
 
 1,800 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,400 
 
 
 3,800 
 
 700 
 
 900 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 11,917 Av. 
 
 1.292 Av. 
 
 3,568 Av. 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 T<y.Tg:MHny w^i«a|ggp«i 
 
 '-'"F^i""'? 
 
 II 
 
 
 Official 
 
 
 Unofficial 
 
 tment Count 
 
 
 Company Count 
 
 Company Laboratory Count 
 
 14. Grade A Raw 
 
 at ^7th Street Station, 
 
 same as 3 and 10 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 9,900 
 
 7,700 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 7,800 
 
 9,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 11,600 
 
 11,500 
 
 9,000 
 
 
 10,500 
 
 7,200 
 
 2300 
 
 
 6,800 
 
 7,300 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 5,900 
 
 5,000 
 
 3,500 
 
 
 4300 
 
 7,700 B. 
 
 2,500 
 
 
 5,500 
 
 6,400 
 
 7,000 
 
 
 8,500 
 
 13,500 
 
 6,700 
 
 
 6,600 
 
 11,300 
 
 9,500 
 
 
 11,900 
 
 8,700 
 
 11,000 
 
 
 10,100 
 
 spr. 
 
 5,792 Av. 
 
 8,384 Av. 
 
 8,664 Av. 
 
 15. Grade A Past. 
 
 at 4i7th Street Station, 
 
 same as 9 and 11 
 
 700 
 
 
 800 
 
 2,900 
 
 600 
 
 
 600 
 
 1,900 
 
 600 
 
 
 800 
 
 3,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 1,200 
 
 2,200 
 
 800 
 
 
 500 
 
 900 
 
 600 
 
 
 900 
 
 1,100 
 
 700 
 
 
 800 
 
 3,000 B. 
 
 500 
 
 
 500 
 
 4,200 
 
 3,500 
 
 
 1,400 
 
 7,000 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 1,500 
 
 2,500 
 
 2,500 
 
 
 2,200 
 
 5,800 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 1,600 
 
 2,500 
 
 1,418 Av. 
 
 1,766 Av. 
 
 3,084 Av. 
 
 16. 
 
 Grade A Past. Various Cases 
 
 at Station 
 
 2,400 
 
 
 1,800 
 
 600 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 2,100 
 
 9,700 
 
 2,200 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 spr. 
 
 2,500 
 
 
 3,200 
 
 spr. 
 
 100 
 
 
 500 
 
 800 
 
 1,300 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 1,700 
 
 900 
 
 
 600 
 
 2,500 
 
 200 
 
 
 400 
 
 1,100 
 
 1300 
 
 
 2,100 
 
 3,600 
 
 1,700 
 
 
 1,400 
 
 3,800 
 
 2,500 
 
 
 2,300 
 
 spr. 
 
 3,500 
 
 
 2,000 
 
 spr. 
 
 1,675 Av. 1,292 Av. 2,975 Av. 
 
 The official counts designated above were made from the same samples in 
 the laboratory of the Board of Health in New York City, one set by the repre- 
 sentative of the Company, the other by a representative of the Health Board. 
 PracticaJly all of the unofficial counts were made in the country laboratory of 
 the milk company by the company bacteriologist. Those of the unofficial 
 counts marked "B" at the side were made in the city laboratory of the milk 
 company. 
 
 These counts, while seeming to vary somewhat to those not familiar with 
 bacteriology, really show a remarkable similarity, which argues strongly for the 
 laboratory test as an index of the cleanliness of milk when the methods are 
 similar and when carelessness in the taking and transportation of the samples 
 is guarded against or eliminated by the use of country laboratories. 
 
 31 
 
f a^agBj,- •'^ :yr-?"r 
 
 preceding 
 
 '^c ^UIbBH ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ result of an investigation caused by 
 a controversy over the correctness of the bacteria test of samples 
 taken at a certain New York country creamery and is most interest- 
 ing as showing the reliability of the laboratory test as a means of 
 ascertaining the number of bacteria in milk and of the probability 
 of reasonably uniform results under proper conditions. 
 
 The Board of Health had made the charge that the counts at a 
 certain Grade A creamery were very high. Inasmuch as the same 
 milk which tested high in bacteria in the Board of Health labora- 
 tories was running reasonably low in the country laboratory main- 
 tained by the Company which owned the creamery, it became plain 
 either that the methods of testing in use at the country creamery 
 were wrong or at least different from the methods used in the labora- 
 tories of the Board of Health, or that the samples were not properly 
 iced and preserved in their shipment to the city laboratory. Since 
 their country laboratory man had received part of his education in 
 the Board of Health laboratory, the natural assumption by the milk 
 Company was that the Board of Health counts did not reflect the 
 true situation. 
 
 The Department of Health very generously acquiesced in a joint 
 investigation in which duplicate samples should be taken at various 
 stages of the progress of the milk through the creamery, in its 
 course to the consumer and in the consumer's hands, under the joint 
 supervision of both the Company and the Board of Health. It was also 
 provided that the official testing should be done in the city by both the 
 city and company bacteriologists working independently, that the 
 results should be checked by them, and that every phase of the taking, 
 icing, transporting and testing of the samples should be most care- 
 fully done and checked by the two interests. While the unofficial 
 counts in the Company's laboratory, as shown on Table 9, were not 
 provided for in the plan, these counts were made with the same 
 care as the official counts in order that the Company might have a 
 further check on the official investigation. Thus the work of three 
 laboratories was available in the investigation. There was a re- 
 markable uniformity in results, no wide variations appearing in the 
 counts of any of the four laboratories except in one case under 13 
 where a sample tested 123,000 by the department's bacteriologist 
 but only 2,000 bacteria by the Company's representative and 3,000 
 in the Company's unofficial laboratory test. This investigation very 
 conclusively pointed to the fact that laboratory results may be re- 
 liably uniform when the methods and standards of testing are the 
 same and where care is used throughout the process, and certainly 
 tended to confirm the Company's contention that the original depart- 
 ment samples were not properly cared for either in icing or in their 
 transportation. 
 
 While the same results might probably be obtained wherever 
 the same degree of care is used as in the above investigation, such 
 care is not to be expected in the ordinary course of the inspector's 
 
 32 
 
 d 
 
 I 
 
 work. Therefore, it would seem that if the Board of Health would 
 encourage country laboratories by making it worth while for the 
 companies to maintain them, many propitious results might be ex- 
 pected. As has been seen, it would eliminate questions that might 
 arise by reason of improper icing of samples. Unspeakable hard- 
 ship to a milk company which is not in a position to protect itself 
 as happily in the case of the one in our illustration, may easily grow 
 out of such carelessness. By approving the use of country laborator- 
 ies this hardship could be prevented. If the Board of Health would 
 provide to a certain limited extent for coaching the country labora- 
 tory men in the Board of Health's methods of testing, a wonderful 
 means of exercising supervisory control could be provided. The 
 work of these laboratories properly supervised would be practically 
 sufficient as an inspection policy for such companies as maintained 
 them and would also be an incentive for other companies to install 
 them in order to escape the annoyances of the more frequent inspec- 
 tions. No step taken by the Board of Health would give it such 
 effective control of the milk supply and be so easy of administration 
 and so economical in the use of inspectors. For it would leave them 
 practically free to center their work in those districts which neither 
 maintained laboratories nor were advanced in the sanitary produc- 
 tion of milk. 
 
 Much valuable help has been contributed to the sanitary control 
 of the New York milk supply by private welfare organizations, 
 among which the New York Milk Committee and the National Com- 
 mission on Milk Standards, stand pre-eminent. Much of the initial 
 activity and efficiency of the Board of Health has been due to the 
 urgings of the Milk Committee. The adoption of standards was 
 originally proposed by the National Commission on Milk Standards, 
 which still retains its organization for the purpose of promoting the 
 adoption of standards by other cities in the country. The work of 
 such organizations, when constructive and comprehensive in its 
 nature, is very valuable. The tendency, however, is for them to pick 
 out one particular interest of the industry for exposure and criticism 
 without taking into consideration that to assail unduly one of its 
 branches may have a detrimental effect upon the whole industry. 
 
 Perhaps the most successful and permanent type of control is 
 that which takes its origin in the private interests of the industry 
 itself. Certain of the progressive companies of New York City have 
 made the beginnings in co-operation with the producers by 
 g;iving premiums for certain desired results on the farm. For in- 
 stance, a premium has been given for barn score, for butter fat, for 
 low bacteria tests as shown by laboratory counts. The basis for 
 these premiums has often been faulty but the tendency has been in 
 the right direction. It is by stimulating this spirit of co-operation and 
 eliminating the theory of coercion by the dealer over the producer 
 that the Health Department may hope to get the best results in con- 
 trol through the milk dealers. 
 
 33 
 
....<>-:..>- f...,j'»-,.. -,■■•■- 'it a li --'■''''■'- 
 
 I 
 
 
 In its unwillingness in times past to co-operate especially with 
 the milk dealers, the Health Department has been less justified 
 perhaps than in any other part of its program. In the first 
 place, certain regulations have been passed without consulting 
 the milk dealers and many times without scientific bases. There 
 is also a vast difference between the tests that are made in the 
 laboratory and tests that have a basis co-extensive with the industry. 
 Regulations founded on laboratory data may not always be suc- 
 cessfully applicable to the industry as a whole. A few years ago a 
 regulation was passed providing that milk should be pasteurized by 
 heating it to 145 degrees and holding it for thirty minutes. This 
 regulation was not based upon experiments conducted in the in- 
 dustry. The dealers were not consulted. Many of the dealers would 
 have been more than willing to co-operate with the Department in 
 making a series of experiments which would have fixed a practicable 
 basis for a pasteurization regulation. Those dealers who complied 
 with the new regulation when passed found that their milk had lost 
 commercial value. The cream line was impaired and in many cases 
 the taste was affected. Against the protest of the dealers this regu- 
 lation was kept in force for several months until finally the Depart- 
 ment, seeing die necessity, made an experiment in the various plants 
 with the pasteurizing machinery of the dealers and found that the 
 dealers were right in their contention, and changed the regulation, 
 thus finally doing what should have been done in the first instance. 
 Some two years ago a rule was passed by the Board of Health which 
 in effect provided that milk that did not conform to the standard of 
 8% solids, not fat, would be treated as adulterated milk. On the 
 earnest protest of the dealers, this regulation, the formulation of 
 which was shown to have no scientific or experimental basis as 
 applied to the dairy situation in New York state, was allowed to lapse. 
 
 There is no better place to start the theory of co-operation than 
 in the relations between this agency of public regulation and the 
 various branches of the industry. The sanitary control of the future 
 will never be successful unless this principle of co-operation is 
 adopted. The producers are learning the power and value of or- 
 ganization and they are backed by interests too powerful to stand 
 any great amount of coercion from the city health authorities. The 
 dealers will never advance in prestige nor in efficiency until they are 
 made to feel by those public agencies which deal with them that 
 they are capable, trustworthy and entitled to be consulted in for- 
 mulating the regulations that are to be imposed upon them. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Promotion of Natural Co-operation. 
 The facts in the New York milk situation are these: — 
 1. The producers principally in the state of New York, have 
 formed a combination for their own protection and to con- 
 trol the sale of milk to the city. 
 
 34 
 
 2. The New York distributors encouraged by the inapplicability 
 of the Sherman Law (Federal anti- trust) and the Donnelly 
 Act (New York State anti-combination) to war conditions, 
 have consolidated their interests until there is but little com- 
 petition among them. 
 
 3. The Federal Food Administration, which has been super- 
 vising the price paid for milk in New York City, has dis- 
 continued its work. 
 
 4. At the present time there is no existent agency to adjust the 
 price to be paid for milk to the producers by the distribu- 
 tors. 
 
 5. The distributors and producers cannot agree between them- 
 selves upon the price to be paid the producer. Conflict over 
 this price may now be a monthly issue. 
 
 6. When the distributor is forced to pay more for milk, he as 
 a consequence charges the consumer the additional price in 
 full. 
 
 7. The New York milk supply may thus be so curtailed or cut 
 off at any time as to imperil the lives of babies and con- 
 valescents dependent upon milk for their proper nourish- 
 ment or be sold at arbitrary prices. 
 
 8. There is almost entire lack of co-operation between the pro- 
 ducers, distributors and the present controlling agents in the 
 milk industry. 
 
 9. There is more or less inefficiency in the production, distribu- 
 tion and sanitary control of the New York milk supply so 
 that it suffers thereby in quantity, quality and price. 
 
 What is to be done? It will be our purpose here to suggest 
 and discuss three methods of handling the matter, any one of which 
 will probably find supporters according to their economic view- 
 point, although everybody must agree that the present situation is 
 intolerable. These methods are: — 
 
 1. The promotion of natural co-operation between producer, 
 distributor and controlling agent. 
 
 2. Public regulation by a state commission. 
 
 3. Public ownership. 
 
 But first let us consider the results that may be obtained by the 
 promotion of co-operation between the producers, distributors and 
 controlling agents in the milk industry and by the use of efficient 
 business methods and organization throughout the industry. Before 
 the abnormal conditions created by America's entrance into the war 
 New York City was receiving a first-class milk supply in quantities 
 sufficient for the public demand and at a very reasonable price. 
 There was a minimum amount of state interference and none of fed- 
 eral. The milk was under fair control without the aid of politics or 
 law except so far as the police power of the state, delegated to the 
 Board of Health, enabled it to pass and enforce the necessary regu- 
 lations upon those elements of the industry under its jurisdiction, 
 
 35 
 
I 
 
 which, however, did not include the producers directly. Why, then, 
 was it possible to control the production of milk? Because New 
 York City was a good milk market, the best one open to producers. 
 Cash was paid for the milk at least once and sometimes twice a 
 month and many conveniences were furnished by the dealers such 
 as cans and convenient shipping stations. The farmers wanted to 
 sell their milk at the New York dealers' shipping stations. This 
 fact is important. Make the New York milk market a good one, 
 especially let the farmer be paid for what is demanded of him by 
 the public. While New York City was getting its milk prior to the 
 war, it was not paying the price for its demands either to the pro- 
 ducer nor to the dealer and the unrest and consequent organization 
 of the producers together with the restraints under which the dealers 
 were operating, were indicative of trouble in the whole business 
 machinery. 
 
 At first, neither the regulations nor the inspections imposed by 
 the Board of Health were onerous and were submitted to without 
 serious question. The city inspectors had no legal right on the 
 farms, but were permitted to do their work because the producers 
 wanted the New York market. However, the regulations began to 
 increase in stringency and the demands of the health authorities to 
 cost money. New barns had to be built, concrete floors to be laid 
 in old barns, ventilation provided, cow barns were prohibited from 
 being used for any other purpose, ice had to be stored, and so on. 
 The price paid to the farmers did not keep pace with the additional 
 cost of production under the new conditions. Premium payments 
 were finally adopted by many of the dealers, but were not effective 
 for two reasons; first, because the premiums were not properly 
 measured and adapted to the situation; second, because the base 
 price was lowered so that the additions to the milk checks did not 
 have the full effect of premium payments. Not until the war market 
 for cheese and condensed milk appeared and the producers had 
 become thoroughly organized, did the price of milk to the producer 
 become better and then the change was made after a show of con*- 
 pulsion that in many respects made the matter worse than ever. 
 A more concrete diagnosis of the case with suggested remedies 
 follows. 
 
 First, a false notion that the price of bottled milk to the con- 
 sumer should be a fixed one, winter and summer, regardless of the 
 economics of production. 
 
 The fact that for a number of years before the war the price of 
 milk in New York City was fixed at 9 cents throughout the year, is 
 only another evidence of the close connections between the milk 
 business and what are generally regarded as public service functions. 
 But, in the case of milk, owing to the great differences in the amounts 
 and cost of production at various seasons of the year, such inelas- 
 ticity of price tended to hide from the consumer that there was such 
 a thing as the cost of production and delivery, while the dealer in 
 
 36 
 
 order to make up for losses which he experiences in the winter 
 months, endeavors to buy his milk as cheaply as possible at all 
 seasons of the year. It is also less expensive to deliver milk when 
 the weather is good than when the streets are blocked with snow and 
 ice, and certain routes in summer are so small that they are operated 
 at a loss. However, delivery costs are subject to more intelligent 
 control than production costs. If the dealer would be permitted to 
 arrange his prices to the consumer so that he could make a reason- 
 able profit in every month of the year, he would be more reconciled 
 to the payment of fair prices to the farmer at all times. 
 
 Second, the failure of the dealers fairly to recognize effort and 
 expense on the part of the producer in meeting their requirements, 
 and the lack of co-operation between these two interests. 
 
 The best way to recognize effort and expense on the part of the 
 producer is to do it directly by the payment of an additional price 
 for the same. But such price should be fairly commensurate with 
 what is required of the farmer, and this naturally implies some 
 standard of measurement. There are at least two bases for premiums, 
 one for the extra physical effort and expenditure made by the farmer 
 to meet the requirements, i. e., sanitary equipment, the use of sani- 
 tary methods, small mouthed pails, ice, etc. The second basis for 
 paying premiums should be for results in the cleanliness and rich- 
 ness of the milk ascertained by means of laboratories located at the 
 country creameries. These laboratories should also be used to 
 relate the results with the methods used on the farms, the laboratory 
 through its experts thus becoming the educational center of that 
 particular dairy section, and every effort on the part of the farmer 
 to produce better milk in larger quantities and with more profit to 
 himself should be encouraged. The idea of a local dairy center can 
 be worked most advantageously to create good will and co-operation 
 in the industry. Co-operative buying of cow feed for the farmers, 
 cow testing, advising better business methods on the farm and the 
 best methods of clean milk production may all become functions of 
 such a center. Herein will lie the best means of control that is open 
 to the Board of Health. It can well afford to extend every aid in 
 its power to the companies who adopt such a policy with the pro- 
 ducer. By all means it should encourage the establishment of coun- 
 try laboratories for the purpose of promoting the better control of 
 the quality of milk produced. It can standardize the methods used 
 in these laboratories by giving a certain amount of education in its 
 city laboratories to the men who do this work and, when the country 
 laboratories and centers are once established, it would be excellent 
 policy for the Board of Health to supervise and check the results 
 obtained here, rather than by insisting upon the same number of 
 direct inspections in such dairy sections, as in one that is not thus 
 controlled. This would mean less expense to the Board of Health in 
 its inspection work, better and more economical general control, for 
 it would thus be free to center its inspection force in those districts 
 
 37 
 
 1 
 
which are more in need of its time and attention. In short, as 
 officially representing the New York public, its work should be 
 co-operative as well as regulatory. 
 
 Third, lack of harmony and co-operation between the Board of 
 Health and the dealers. 
 
 The time has passed when the milk dealer should be looked 
 upon as an evader of the law. The presumption should be in favor 
 of his honesty and good faith. Much better and more efficient con- 
 trol could be gained by the Board in adopting this attitude towards 
 the dealer and working with him in solving his problems of control 
 rather than by prosecuting him for isolated instances of the evasion 
 of misunderstood regulations. No regulation should be made until 
 it was found to be reasonable and based upon experiments, made on 
 an industrial scale rather than altogether upon laboratory results. 
 The Board of Health representing the city and the consumer should 
 rejoice in the prosperity of the dealer and no regulations should be 
 passed that were not reasonable and did not guarantee a more salable 
 as well as a more sanitary product. 
 
 Fourth, a certain amount of interference on the part of the 
 Board of Health in the business plans and individuality of the 
 dealer. 
 
 This is not a prominent cause of trouble in the industry, but it 
 is an important consideration. The milk dealer is a business man 
 and should be encouraged to put individuality into his business but 
 without making it impossible for him to comply with the Board of 
 Health regulations. He should be allowed to honestly advertise his 
 product, to put as much character into his packages as possible and 
 in every way to build up the integrity of his organization and his 
 position as a business man. 
 
 Fifth, lack of business methods and organization. 
 This fault, as has been shown in former chapters, is a leading 
 cause of most of the inefficiencies in production, distribution and 
 control. A better understanding of the industry as a whole on the 
 part of each branch, the application of intelligent analysis to spe- 
 cific problems, the use of simple accounting processes and the 
 stopping of losses will do much to put the industry on a more 
 efficient basis. 
 
 The foregoing criticisms of the situation and the reconimenda- 
 tions made are not purely theoretical. Natural co-operation has 
 already done much that is tangible in certain instances to create 
 vastly improved conditions. 
 
 In a certain valley near the center of New York state are three 
 country creameries about four miles apart and on the same railroad 
 line. Each creamery is the center of an ideal farm and dairying 
 section with a list of patrons about equally intelligent and probably 
 above the average in this respect. Two of these creameries were 
 owned by a New York milk company not overly progressive in its 
 methods or its attitude toward its producers. Fortunately, the third 
 
 creamery fell into different hands. 
 
 38 
 
 ■IM 
 
 In the year 1909 an innovation in country creamery manage- 
 ment was here initiated, which is worthy of a prominent place in 
 the history of dairying. The New York Milk Committee, which had 
 been maintaining a number of infant feeding stations in New York 
 City and had been using certified milk for feeding the babies regis- 
 tered therein, promoted a separate project among its friends and 
 contributors known as the New York Dairy Demonstration Company. 
 This was for the purpose first of obtaining a clean milk for its babies 
 at a cheaper price than it was paying for certified milk, thereby 
 enabling it to reach a larger number of infants with the funds at its 
 disposal, and second of demonstrating that an unlimited amount of 
 milk approaching the certified in wholesomeness and cleanliness 
 could be obtained at the lower cost desired. This was to be accom- 
 plished by centralizing the more essential requisites of sanitary milk 
 production, by installing a country laboratory for the purpose of 
 relating the results obtained therein with the work done on the 
 farms, and by securing the co-operation of the producers by inaugur- 
 ating the policy of paying premiums in addition to the prevailing 
 market price of milk which premiums should be based on approved 
 results obtained by them. They hoped at the same time to create a 
 model system of producing clean milk that would be copied by at 
 least some of the milk companies supplying New York City. While 
 this experiment and the country creamery situation growing out of it 
 had its ups and downs, two indisputable facts became apparent, one 
 being that, properly managed, the new theory was practical from 
 both the sanitary and the commercial standpoint, and the second 
 being that no plan of creamery policy ever produced better efficiency 
 results in the matter of quality, quantity and the placement of the 
 product for profit and with a resulting contentment and spirit of 
 co-operation among the producers. 
 
 This first conclusion was borne out by the accounting records 
 of the companies operating the creamery, the second one by the fol- 
 lowing facts. In the month when the dealer who owned creameries 
 1 and 2 sold his business, creamery number 3 differing only in man- 
 agement from the other two, received 268,342 quarts while creamery 
 number 1 received only 52,704 quarts and creamery number 2, 
 56,424 quarts, thus demonstrating that natural co-operation is both 
 appreciated by the farmers and is profitable from a business stand- 
 point. After two years' experience under what were supposed to be 
 trying times for the milk industry, creamery number 3 for the same 
 month in 1917 received 377,848 quarts, a gain of 41%. In Sep- 
 tember, 1916, when the great demand arose among the farmers for 
 more money for their milk, not a complaint was heard among the 
 patrons at this creamery and they were induced with great difficulty 
 to join in the strike because of general satisfaction with their own 
 position. The fame of the movement spread abroad and many farms 
 tributary to the creamery were sold at greatly enhanced prices by 
 reason of the favorable dairy market. Unfortunately, however, this 
 
 39 
 
 -■ST" 
 
plan of creamery management did not find general favor with the 
 New York dealers, for in the face of a steadily growing and apparent 
 discontentment among the producers, they were not inclined to take 
 the movement seriously. It is a noteworthy fact that very many of 
 dealers today find their business interests absorbed by larger and 
 more strongly financed companies or their buying policy controlled 
 by the producer's organization. 
 
 Much more probably might have been done toward natural 
 co-operation between the dealers and producers in creamery 3, but 
 its almost isolated success upon the co-operative theory is simply 
 indicative of the unprogressive business methods that have to a large 
 extent in the past dominated the milk industry. Of course, as has 
 been indicated before, there was little encouragement from the public 
 for a more constructive policy. To be sure, a system of barn score 
 and butter fat premiums was established by some of the bigger com- 
 panies prior to September, 1916, but this system was neither correct 
 in theory nor in the justice of its applications. Such premiums were 
 never generally regarded by the producer as a step toward co-opera- 
 tion, but rather as a part of the just price withheld which had to be 
 doubly earned in order to be received. 
 
 During the year 1918, a milk exposition was held in Grand 
 Central Palace, New York City, at which the dairymen, the distrib- 
 utors, the Department of Health, the State Department and the con- 
 sumers were represented. This show was so great a success that it 
 was voted to make it an annual affair. At such a meeting as this 
 the foundation might well be laid for co-operation. 
 
 The demand of the times in all industry is not so much for asso- 
 ciations which simply hold annual meetings, read and discuss tech- 
 nical papers and indulge in industrial politics but rather for indus- 
 trial agencies properly and permanently manned by responsible e;c- 
 perts in which all the divergent interests unite to constructively study 
 those problems common to all, to acquaint the public with whatever 
 is of real value in the industry and thus by pooling contributions to 
 economically build and promote and indirectly to throw into the 
 background those little differences which, if not properly guarded 
 against, tend to destroy. 
 
 There is one conunon cause, certainly, upon which both the 
 producers and dealers in the milk industry may profitably join, and 
 that is the popularization of the use of milk as a food, not only for 
 babies and children but for people of all ages. Within the past 
 two or three years much scientific work has been done by thoroughly 
 responsible men which shows the comparatively high food value of 
 milk. If the dealers and producers will join hands in a great cam- 
 paign of publicity many of the petty differences that at present 
 hinder the industry will be forgotten. 
 
 There are also men outside the industry who know its problems 
 and are interested in its normal development in private hands. They 
 might be helpful in laying the plans for co-operation. At least it is 
 
 40 
 
 of great importance that those who are engaged in the business in 
 any of its phases awake to the situation and perform their several 
 functions with a better understanding of the importance and dignity 
 of their calling and with greater regard for the rights of the great 
 public they are serving, or face the consequences of possible action 
 on the part of the public for its own protection. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 PuBuc Regulation by State Commission 
 
 In the last chapter we have outlined a method by which the milk 
 industry as a whole and the separate interests operating in it would 
 be materially helped by the recognition on the part of each of the 
 several interests of the requisites for the healthful existence of the 
 others and by the introduction throughout the industry of co-opera- 
 tion. Instances of successful co-operation in the industry in the past 
 and the lines along which this principle might properly be extended, 
 were pointed out, leading to the conclusion that if the several inter- 
 ests will co-operate naturally and on their own initiative, this will 
 offer the best solution to the ills that beset the milk business. How- 
 ever, the great trouble is that they have not co-operated in the past 
 and may not do so in the future unless some agency outside the 
 industry furnishes the necessary initiative to start the movement. 
 But an agency to perform this function would have to be clothed with 
 sufficient authority and gauged aldng lines broad enough to have the 
 prestige and to command the respect of those engaged in or 
 dependent upon the industry. Such an agency must needs have the 
 power to compel as well as the ability to initiate and must derive its 
 power directly or indirectly from that source which is charged with 
 the duty of protecting the people in their rights, health, and welfare, 
 even to the extent of regulating the business affairs of the private 
 interests which serve them. This source of power is the state itself 
 and the regulating force with which the state is endowed and which 
 it has the power to delegate to a properly constructed agency for 
 the purpose of protecting the people of New York City in their milk 
 supply, is called the police power of the state. 
 
 Let us therefore examine the utility and legality of a commis- 
 sion appointed for the purpose, havmg delegated to it the police 
 power of the state of New York. Such a commission should derive 
 its authority and appointment directly from the state rather than 
 from the municipality, both for the reason that its functions should 
 be exercised not only for New York City, but for the other munici- 
 palities of the state as well, and in order that such a conunission 
 might have the fullest possible authority over production and the 
 producers who come within its jurisdiction. What we say, therefore, 
 in the matter of its powers and duties over the milk supply of New 
 York City may, though differing somewhat in detail, be said of its 
 powers and duties over the milk supply of the other cities of the 
 state. 
 
 41 
 
 wmmmimm 
 
MH 
 
 IP" 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
 Such a commission might be composed of from three to seven 
 members, there being represented upon it the producer, distributor, 
 consumer, the state and the city. These men should be thoroughly 
 practical and progressive and above all things should be representa- 
 tive of their several interests, on a co-operative basis. The term of 
 their office and the character of their compensation should be such 
 as to attract high-class men to make service on the commission their 
 sole business and to justify them in devoting all their time and 
 energy to its work; and their authority should be final on all juris- 
 dictional milk matters referred to them. Their functions should be 
 investigatory, supervisory, educational and compulsory. The com- 
 mission should make a thorough inquiry into the methods used in 
 production, their efficiency and purpose. This would involve not 
 only matters of quality, but also of quantity, of the cost of labor, 
 cows, feed, ice, country distribution and handling of shipping and 
 the character of profit demanded in the country. At the city end, it 
 should view the organization, conditions and efficiency of milk 
 delivery, the equipment used, the cost entailed and the final price 
 demanded of the consumer with the nature and amount of the profit 
 
 involved. , .. , .„ i i u 
 
 The conditions of demand and supply of the milk market should 
 be studied and considered, the permanency and the regularity of its 
 requirements, the certainty of pay and the adequacy of price; also 
 the capital invested throughout the industry, the efficient construction 
 and placement of pasteurizing plants and the reasonableness and 
 purpose of sanitary regulations. All these investigations should be 
 made on an industrial scale and with the whole industry in mind. 
 The commissioners should be thoroughly familiar with the progres- 
 sive development of the industry in all parts of the country and 
 should relate and compare this progress with their own work. 
 
 Then comes the supervisory and educational part of their work. 
 The commissioners should have the power to license both producers 
 and distributors. With their knowledge of the business based upon 
 broad investigation and a thorough understanding of industrial con- 
 ditions generally, the proper situation has developed for them to 
 intelligently supervise the industry throughout and to organize and 
 provide various educational media and methods. 
 
 Their recommendation and findings made after such a study 
 would be entitled to and would win the respect of all the elements to 
 be controlled, and thus the foundation for taking the initiative in 
 co-operation would be accorded to the commissioners without ques- 
 tion. Such a leadership would be a natural one and resort of the 
 commission to its compulsory powers would thus be only occasional, 
 but when necessary to use it, the wilful wastage of good milk by dis- 
 gruntled producers and the stoppage of New York's milk supply 
 could be summarily dealt with. 
 
 The leading aim of this commission should be to reconcile the 
 use of the police power with which it is endowed with the needs and 
 
 42 
 
 development of the industry. If unintelligently applied, the police 
 power may be distinctly repressive and in no way developmental, 
 but if it can be used with the constructive ideal in mind and with a 
 thorough understanding of the needs of the industry based upon 
 practical experience and investigations it may well become the indis- 
 pensable aid of the public in securing its rights without hurtfully 
 interfering with the full play of that private business initiative which 
 is so necessary to the growth of the industry. If such a commission 
 could bring aJbout successful co-operation, efficient methods of con- 
 trol and insure a reasonable profit to the producers and distributors 
 for the performance of their functions, the New York milk market 
 would become so good as to attract milk from all localities. Our 
 commission could have legal jurisdiction only over the producers in 
 New York State, but the industry governed by such intelligent direc- 
 tion would be so far in advance of the situation in outside states and 
 the market conditions created thereby would become so good that, 
 in order to enjoy its benefits, outsiders would seek the New York 
 market and would willingly submit to any reasonable licensing and 
 inspection requirements demanded by the commission. In other 
 words, the co-operative, intelligently directed part of the industry 
 would dominate the rest. There could be enough milk produced in 
 the State of New York alone to prevent undue hardship in case of 
 any farmers' combination in the outside states. The work of such a 
 commission could therefore insure milk in sufficient quantities and 
 controlled along much broader lines than the city Department of 
 Health has been able to perform this function in the past. 
 
 Let us now consider the legal status of such a commission. 
 Can it be appointed under the laws of New York State and can it 
 exercise such powers as would make it the effective instrument of the 
 people for protecting them in their milk supply. There are several 
 positive things it would have to do. 
 
 1. Pass and enforce sanitary regulations. 
 
 2. License dealers and dairymen and revoke licenses. 
 
 3. Enforce inspections. 
 
 4. Supervise and regulate milk markets. 
 
 5. Supervise and regulate the methods of production and distri- 
 bution with a view to promoting efficiency. 
 
 6. Regulate prices. 
 
 But first there are a number of general questions involved which 
 it will be well to answer. 
 
 1. What is the nature of the police power of the state. 
 
 2. Can the police power be delegated to a milk commission. 
 
 3. Is the police power applicable to the regulation of the milk 
 industry. 
 
 4. What are the general grounds for the application of the 
 police power to the milk industry. 
 
 In Com. vs. Alger 7 Cush. 53, C. J. Shaw defined the police 
 power to be, "The power vested in the legislature by the constitution, 
 
 43 
 
to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and rea- 
 sonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or with- 
 out, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for 
 the good and welfare of the commonwealth. It is much easier to 
 perceive and realize the existence and sources of this power than to 
 mark its boundaries or prescribe limits to its exercise." Judge 
 O'Brien in People ex rel Armstrong vs. Warden of City Prison says, 
 "All business and occupations are conducted subject to the exercise 
 of the police power. Individual freedom must yield to regulations 
 for the public good." 
 
 It is said in 8 Cyc. 865, "A legislature cannot, by any contract, 
 divest itself of its power, but it may delegate its power and jurisdic- 
 tion to courts, municipalities, or committies to adopt police meas- 
 ures," citing Woodruff vs. New York etc. R. R. Co. 59 Conn. 63, 
 where a commission is empowered to enforce change of grade cross- 
 ings. New York State's most popularly known conmiissTon, exer- 
 cising broad jurisdiction in the City of New York, is the Public 
 Service Commission, the constitutionality of which was lately raised 
 in Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. vs. Straus 245 Fed. 132. A Milk 
 Commission undoubtedly could be appointed by state authority 
 endowed with the police power. 
 
 Our next inquiry is in regard to the application of the police 
 power to the regulation of the milk industry. As we saw in People 
 vs Warden above, "All business and occupations are conducted sub- 
 ject thereto." In St. Louis vs. Liessing, I L.R.A. N.S. 921, the Court 
 says, "Perhaps on no one subject has this police power been affirmed 
 so often as the right to inspect and regulate the sale of milk and 
 
 cream." 
 
 In a note to the above, in which many of the leading cases are 
 cited, the annotator commenting says, "The group of cases here 
 reported well illustrate the attitude of the courts generally toward 
 police regulation of the milk supply. The importance of securing to 
 the community at large cleanliness, wholesomeness and purity in so 
 important a food as milk, has led to the very general enactment 
 throughout the country of regulations as to the standard of quality 
 of milk sold, the care and feeding of milch cattle, and the sale of 
 the product. And while such regulations have been frequently 
 assailed upon the ground that they deprive the dairyman and milk 
 vendor of their property without due process of law, or unjustly 
 discriminate against them, the regulations have been sustained with 
 practical unanimity, whether made by the state through the operation 
 of a general statute or by the municipal council through local ordi- 
 nances. Among the cases cited here are People vs. Cipperly 101 
 N.Y. 634, People vs. West 106 N. Y. 293, and many others. 
 
 Our fourth question, as to what are the general grounds for the 
 application of the ^police power to the milk industry, is easily 
 answered. In People vs. Warden 183 N.Y. 220, before cited, the 
 Court says, "It may be laid down as a general principle that legisla- 
 
 AA 
 
 tion is valid which has for its object the promotion of the public 
 health, safety, morals, convenience and general welfare or the pre- 
 vention of fraud or immorality." However, the very nature of our 
 subject being a food makes us think instinctively of health, and so 
 it is that the digests are full of cases where milk, its production and 
 distribution have been regulated on the ground of public health. 
 People vs. Kibler 106 N.Y. 321, Bellows vs. Raynor 207 N.Y. 389, 
 People vs. Vandecarr 175 N.Y. 440, State vs. Broadbelt 89 Md. 565, 
 Adams vs. Milwaukee 129 N.W. 518, State vs. Layton 160 Mo. 498, 
 and many others. 
 
 We now approach the solution of our specific problem. With 
 the milk commission established, endowed with the police power of 
 the state, will this power be broad enough to cover those positive 
 functions which it will have to perform in order to make it effective. 
 Could a milk commission pass sanitary regulations protecting the 
 quality of milk, creating standards of cleanliness, providing for 
 ' inspections and licensing of milk vendors to its markets, even those 
 living outside its jurisdiction, and enforce them? Would it have 
 power to regulate its milk market and sales? There are innumerable 
 decisions which support this right of municipalities as against the 
 claim that they deprive the dairyman or the milk vendor of theii; 
 property without due process of law, or unjustly discriminate against 
 them. It is simply conforming to the general proposition; if you 
 sell milk in my market, you must respect my regulations. 
 
 In Bellows vs. Raynor 207 N.Y. 389, the plaintiff engaged in 
 dairy farming and a member of a creamery company claimed that 
 the defendant, Chief of the Division of Sanitary Inspection of New 
 York City, wrongfully entered upon his premises and interfered with 
 his business. The defendant notified plaintiff of certain unsanitary 
 conditions on his dairy farm which if not improved would exclude 
 his milk from the city. Later a letter was addressed to the creamery 
 company in which it was informed that the rules of the Department 
 were still being violated and gave notice not to include plaintiff's 
 milk in future shipments. The Court held that this was a valid 
 exercise of the police power of the Department of Health of New 
 York City, that it is charged by law with the responsibility of pre- 
 venting pestilence and disease in the city of New York. That its 
 duty is to enforce all laws applicable to the preservation of human 
 life and the promotion of health — ^that it has the right to exact from 
 all shippers a compliance with such conditions as would reasonably 
 tend to a pure product for the use of its citizens as a condition of 
 permiuing its sale in the city of New York, The Court through 
 Judge Gray said, "It is unreasonable to say that the Department of 
 Health in exercising such power renders itself amenable to the 
 charge of exercising an extra territorial jurisdiction." Other cases 
 along the same lines are People vs. Vandicarr 175 N.Y. 440, State 
 vs. Broadbelt 89 Md. 565, State vs. Nelson 66 Minn., and many 
 others. 
 
 45 
 
 ^i5«» 
 
! 
 
 Whatever powers the city or its Department of Health might 
 have in this regard could be delegated to a properly authorized Milk 
 Commission, and vendors of milk outside the state would have to 
 comply with its sanitary regulations before entering the state mar- 
 kets with their product. The sanitary code of the City of New York 
 requiring license for the sale of milk is constitutional ; People ex rel 
 Liebeman vs. Vandicarr 175 N.Y. 440, People ex rel Lodes vs. Board 
 of Health 189 N.Y. 187. Inasmuch as the police powers exercised 
 by both a milk commission and a municipality are delegated by the 
 state and their auAority is of equal standing, the commission would 
 have the same power to license dealers and dairymen and to revoke 
 their licenses, these not being vested rights. 
 
 As to markets and market places, it is said in 28 Cyc. 930, "The 
 authority to establish and regulate markets falls within the police 
 power of the states, which may be delegated to municipal corpora- 
 tions, and is a particularly appropriate subject for municipal regu- 
 lation, and they may adopt and enforce any reasonable and proper 
 rules and regulations in regard to the market and the business 
 transacted there." This would enable the commission to study and 
 establish municipal milk markets if the interests of the public and 
 the industry demanded it. 
 
 All the above matters are supported by well settled decisions 
 which are just as applicable to the work of a milk commission as 
 any other agency of the state. We now come to the consideration of 
 a different type of function, that of supervising and regulating the 
 methods of production and distribution with a view to pronaoting 
 efficiency and the regulation of prices. The less the manifestation of 
 police power in the exercise of these functions the better. Herein 
 would appear the ability, breadth and good judgment of the com- 
 missioners. Herein the opportunity and demand for leadership 
 based on a solid understanding of conditions. An unprejudiced 
 study of the problems of the industry would give the understanding 
 and the foundation for leadership. Then above everything else the 
 decisions of the commissioners must be fair. A process of educa- 
 tion in better organization and methods for both production and 
 distribution would be successful in proportion to the faith which 
 those in the business had in the wisdom and fairness of the com- 
 mission. Here co-operation could be initiated. 
 
 But something more might be required than mere supervision 
 and education. The commission must have the power to act, apply 
 pressure and enforce its conclusions. Every legal sanction that sup- 
 ports the use of the police power in its other health and welfare 
 regulations would obtain in promoting efficiency of production and 
 distribution where there were likely to be insufficient quantities of 
 milk for the public welfare or where the commission was respon- 
 sible to the people for maintaining a just price for the milk. The 
 commission would find its main authority for supervising and regu- 
 lating efficiency in its licensing and price fixing powers. This leads 
 to the question, what powers would the commission have over prices. 
 
 t 
 
 The regulation of prices is supported both by historical pre- 
 cedent and legal decisions. 
 
 Parliamentary Regulation of Rates. 
 
 In 1266 A. D. the great staples like wool and food were regu- 
 lated. Henry III. regulated the price of bread and ale, according to 
 the price of wheat and barley, and forbade cornering the market. 
 (51 Hen. 3, Stat. 1.) 
 
 In 1337 it was made a felony to export wool. (11 Ed. 3, 
 Cap. 1.) 
 
 In 1349 butchers, fish mongers, bakers, poulterers and all other 
 sellers of all manner of victuals were bound to sell for reasonable 
 price. (23 Ed. 3, Cap. 1.) 
 In the Colonies. 
 
 In 1635 Massachusetts merchants were forbidden to charge 
 excessive prices. (Mass. Colon. Laws 673, p. 120.) 
 
 Chief Justice Waite in Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, said, "In 
 their exercise it has been customary in England from time inune- 
 morial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate 
 ferries, conunon carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, inkeepers, etc. 
 To this day statutes are to be found in many of the states upon some 
 or all of these subjects, and we think it has never yet been success- 
 fully contended that such legislation came within any of the consti- 
 tutional prohibitions against interference with private property." 
 
 Continuing, the Court said in the same case, "This brings us to 
 inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation 
 rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what 
 without its operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from 
 whence comes the right which the constitution protects, we find that 
 when private property is affected with a public interest it ceases to 
 be juris private only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale 
 more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris 1 
 Harg Law Tracts 78, and has been accepted without objection as an 
 essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does 
 become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to 
 make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. 
 When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the 
 public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest 
 in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the 
 common good. . . . But we need go no further. Enough has 
 already been said to show that, when private property is devoted to a 
 public use, it is subject to public regulation. It remains only to 
 ascertain whether the (grain) warehouse of these plaintiffs in error, 
 and the business which is carried on there, come within the opera- 
 tion of this principle. . . . It is difficult to see why if the 
 common carriers or the miller, or the ferryman, or the baker, or the 
 cartman pursues a public employment and exercises a sort of public 
 office, these plaintiffs in error do not." 
 
 47 
 
I 
 
 It is said in 8 Cyc. 1117, "When a business is of such a nature 
 as to be effected with a public interest, the state may require that 
 charges shall be reasonable, and may adopt measures necessary to 
 secure that result." Dillon vs. Erie R. R. Co., 43 N.Y., suppl. 320, 
 Munn vs. Illinois 94 U.S. 113. In Budd vs. People 143 U.S. 517, it 
 was held that the laws of New York (1888) C. 581, fixing a maxi- 
 mum charge of 5/8 of a cent per bushel for elevating grain is not 
 taking private property without due process of law, but is a valid 
 exercise of the police power, as well in its application to elevators 
 owned by private individuals as to those owned by companies hav- 
 ing chartered privileges from the state, since the business as carried 
 on is affected with a public interest and is a practical monopoly. 
 
 "A power granted to the corporation of the City of Mobile to 
 license bakers and regulate the weight and price of bread, and pro- 
 hibit the baking for sale, except by those licensed, is not contrary to 
 the constitution of the state." Mayor of Mobile vs. Vuille 3, Ala. 137. 
 
 The following cases have held that it is competent for the legis- 
 lature of a state through the agency of a commission when the wel- 
 fare of the public is at stake to limit and regulate charges and prices. 
 Carriers, 
 
 Commonwealth vs. Inter. Consol. Lt. Ry. Co. 187 Mass. 436 
 
 San Antonio Traction Co. vs. Altgelt 815 W. 106-200 U.S. 304. 
 
 See American & English Encyc. Vol. 23 p. 655 and cases cited. 
 
 Stone vs. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S. 307. 
 
 Dillon vs. Erie R. R. Co., 19 Misc. 116. 
 
 Waldorf Astoria Co. vs. City of N.Y. 212 N.Y. 97. 
 Water Companies, 
 
 Tampa Water Works Co. vs. City of Tampa 199 U.S. 241. 
 
 San Diego Water Co. vs. City of San Diego 118 Cal. 556. 
 
 Spring Valley Waterworks vs. Bartlett 16 Fed. 615. 
 Stockyard Companies, 
 
 Cotting & Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839. 
 Gas Companies, 
 
 Richman & Consolidated Gas. Co. of N. Y. 114 A.D. 216, 
 affirmed 186 N.Y. 209. 
 
 Trustees of Village of Saratoga Springs vs. Saratoga Gas, Elec- 
 tric Light & Power Co., 191 N.Y. 123. 
 Reversing 122 A.D. 203. 
 Grain Elevators, 
 
 Budd vs. People 143 U.S. 517. 
 
 People vs. Walsh, 117 N.Y. 1. 
 
 Brass vs. State, 153 U.S. 391. 
 
 In Re Annan, 50 Hun 413. 
 
 Under the sanction of these decisions, then, could not a milk 
 commission regulate the price of milk? In the language of Justice 
 Waite on Munn vs. Illinois above quoted, "It is difficult to see why 
 if the common carrier or the miller or the ferryman or the baker or 
 the cartman pursues a public employment," prices can be fixed for 
 
 48 
 
 these services, the milk business is not equally in the public interest 
 and equally subject to price regulation. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, both in theory and legally, that a 
 properly constituted milk commission would be able to exert a most 
 beneficent influence upon the industry. But if it would properly 
 serve the people in fixing and regulating prices, it must take as its 
 standard an efficiently conducted industry throughout and must be 
 clothed with power both to investigate and compel that efficiency a» 
 a prerequisite to granting licenses for entrance to its markets. The 
 main difficulties with the practical carrying out of the idea would be 
 of a political nature. It is not only the up-state dairyman who is in 
 conflict with the city dealer, but there has been for years a division 
 between New York City and the up-state voter. Those state officers 
 who would probably have the appointing power under our scheme 
 would hesitate to take any stand that might be construed as antago- 
 nistic to the farmer. While this plan of public regulation by a com- 
 mission could be so administered as to be a great blessing to the 
 New York State dairyman, it is very likely he would not see it 
 that way. 
 
 Then, again, the personnel of the commissioners would have to 
 be right. If politics could be kept out of their appointment and the 
 ideal of service could be brought into their work a splendid economic 
 contribution might be made by them. If politics did enter into their 
 appointment and work, the commission would be detrimental to th^ 
 industry and to the public. Herein lies the rub. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Case for Public Ownership of the Milk Industry. 
 
 When a business of real public importance can be carried on 
 advantageously only upon so large a scale as to render the liberty of 
 competition almost illusory, it is an unthrifty dispensation of the 
 public resources that several costly sets of arrangements should be 
 kept up for the purpose of rendering the community this one service. 
 It is much better to treat it at once as a public function, and, if it 
 be not such as the government could beneficially undertake, it should 
 be made over entire to the company or association which will per- 
 form it on the best terms for the public— John Stuart Mill, 
 
 We come now to consider the proposition that the City of New 
 York should acquire the milk industry, not upon the basis of the 
 socialist, whose economic reasoning would justify the public owner- 
 ship of any industry, but upon the grounds that are usually given 
 and legally maintained, under our present theories of private owner- 
 ship and so-called capitalistic economy, for the ownership by munici- 
 palities of public utilities and public service agencies. We have 
 previously alluded to the fact that those who are engaged in the 
 various functions of the milk business, either in producing or dis- 
 tributing , are performing a public service. In the former chapter 
 we have presented legal opinion to the effect that those who devote 
 
 49 
 
I 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 their property to the milk business are devoting it to a use in which 
 the public has an interest, and therefore in effect grants to the 
 public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by 
 the public for the conmion good. We must now consider whether 
 that interest of the public is so great as to justify its assuming the 
 ownership under the law just as it does for instance in the case of 
 municipally owned water works. 
 
 There is something incongruous, perhaps, in comparing and 
 likening the public ownership of the water supply to that of the 
 milk supply. But there is much that is similar in the two cases, and 
 in selecting water for comparison, we have not gone to the shady 
 borderland of propositions for municipal ownership, but have chosen 
 something on which the reasoning and legal decision are well 
 settled. 
 
 "The general power given a municipal corporation in respect 
 to police regulations, the preservation of the public health, and the 
 general welfare includes the power to establish municipal water- 
 works." Ellinwood vs. Reedsburg, 91 Wis. 131, 64 N.W. 885. 
 
 In Grace vs. Hawkinsville, 101 Ga. 553, 28 S.E. 1021, the rule 
 is recognized that a municipal corporation has power, under a gen- 
 eral welfare clause in its charter, to construct and maintain water- 
 works necessary to provide citizens with water for drinking and 
 other domestic purposes. 
 
 "A supply of water for municipal purposes, as well as for the 
 iise of its inhabitants, is a city purpose wi^in a constitutional pro- 
 vision forbidding the incurring of indebtedness except for city pur- 
 poses." Re Comstock, 25 N.Y. S.R. 611, 5 N.Y. Supp. 874. 
 
 "A municipal corporation does not lose its municipal character, 
 and become a private or business corporation, by erecting water- 
 works and supplying its citizens with water." Lehigh Water Co.'s 
 Appeal, 102 Pa. 515. 
 
 In Heqnembourg vs. City of Dunkirk 49 Hun 550, the Court, in 
 holding that the construction and operation by a city of a plant for 
 the purpose of supplying electric lights to the city and its inhabitants 
 is a city purpose, says, "Numerous cases have arisen in which large 
 and extensive waterworks had been established for the purpose of 
 supplying cities and villages with pure, wholesome water. In such 
 cases, the water has been furnished to private consumers at fixed 
 rates and the power to do this has been sanctioned by the courts as 
 one properly exercised by the municipal government, pure and 
 wholesome water being recognized as necessary to preserve the public 
 health, and in various cities gas works have been established in 
 which light has been supplied by the municipality to private resi- 
 dences at a fixed charge as well as used for the lighting of the 
 streets." 
 
 Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations on page 2118, 
 says, "The furnishing of a supply of water, not only as protection 
 against fires and for sanitary purposes, including sewers, but also for 
 
 50 
 
 I 
 
 the individual use of the inhabitants of a municipality, has always 
 been recognized as a proper public and municipal purpose, based 
 upon the inherent and palpable necessity of the case and the customs 
 of thickly settled communities." 
 
 Let us look at milk and water side by side. 
 
 First Parallel. 
 
 Water 
 
 1. Municipality uses it. 
 
 2. Universally used by inhab- 
 
 itants. 
 
 3. Constantly used. 
 
 4. Essential to public health. 
 
 5. No substitutes. 
 
 6. Must be clean and pure. 
 
 7. Will carry infection. 
 
 8. Quality must be controlled. 
 
 9. Main sources outside city. 
 
 10. Private interests may sell un- 
 
 der special authorization. 
 
 11. Business tends toward mon- 
 
 opoly. 
 
 12. Usually requires power of 
 
 eminent domain. 
 
 13. Makes peculiar use of public 
 
 streets, necessitating special 
 grant. 
 
 Milk 
 
 1. Municipality uses it propor- 
 
 tionately less. 
 
 2. Universally used by inhab- 
 
 itants. 
 
 3. Constantly used. 
 
 4. Essential to public health. 
 
 5. No substitutes. 
 
 6. Must be clean and pure. 
 
 7. Will carry infection. 
 
 8. Quality must be controlled. 
 
 9. Main sources outside city. 
 
 10. Private interests may sell 
 
 without special authoriza- 
 tion. 
 
 11. Business tends toward mon- 
 
 opoly. 
 
 12. Does not require power of 
 
 eminent domain. 
 
 13. Does not do so. 
 
 The points that are generally sustained by the courts for the 
 municipal ownership of any business are, first, business tends toward 
 monopoly; second, public nature and purpose of the business, and, 
 third, public welfare. In the above parallel these three points seem 
 to be as well covered in the case of milk as of water, the main differ- 
 ence between the two being that water is cheaper than milk and the 
 fact that we are more accustomed to think of water in connection with 
 municipal ownership than milk. This is partly because the import- 
 ance of milk as a carrier of disease and the necessity for the public 
 supervision of its wholesomeness and quality has only been appre- 
 ciated during the past decade. 
 
 In the case of Sun Printing & Pub. Asso. vs. New York 8 App. 
 Div. 230, 238, 40 N.Y. Supp. 607, 611, affirmed in 152 N.Y. 257, 
 37 L.R.A. 788, 46 N.E. 499, the Court employed the following lan- 
 guage: "The true test is that which requires rfiat the work shall be 
 essentially public and for the general good of all die inhabitants of 
 the city. It must not be undertaken merely for gain or for private 
 objects. Gain or loss may incidentally follow, but the purpose must 
 be primarily to satisfy the need or contribute to the convenience of 
 the people of the city at large. Within that sphere of action, novelty 
 should impose no veto. Should some inventive genius bye and bye 
 
 51 
 
 Mlllpl 
 
t 
 
 I 
 
 I \ 
 
 II 
 
 create a system for supplying us with pure air, will the representa- 
 tives of the people be powerless to utilize it in the great cities of the 
 state, however extreme the want and dangerous the delay? Will it 
 then be said that pure air is not so important as pure water and clear 
 light? We apprehend not." 
 
 In Pond on the Control of Public Utilities, p. 28, it is said: 
 *The courts are of the opinion that it is not only within the power 
 of the cities, but that it is their duty, to keep themselves free to accept 
 for their own use and to provide for their inhabitants new inven- 
 tions and superior agencies as they arise, and that cities are not to 
 be restricted to the providing for the strict necessities of their citi- 
 zens, but that they may also minister to their comfort and pleasure." 
 
 Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations, 2089 says, "The 
 term *public utility' might, in an extended sense, include the laying 
 out, arranging and regulating streets and highways, wharves, parks, 
 etc., (in State vs. Barnes 22 Okla. 191) but, in the more restricted 
 sense in which it is generally used, its meaning is limited to those 
 enterprises which have for their end, the sale of commodities and 
 the rendition of service, which to some extent are for private ad- 
 vantage or convenience of individual inhabitants. 
 
 On page 2100, he says, "But a complete definition of a *city 
 purpose' is not possible in view of the inmiense variety of objects 
 which have been found to be necessary to the health and welfare of 
 modern municipalities. (Sun Pub. Assoc, vs. N. Y. C. 152 N. Y. 257. 
 See New York City, Matter of, 99 N. Y. 569.) Each case must de- 
 pend largely upon its own facts, and the meaning of these words 
 must be evolved as successive cases arise by a process of exclusion 
 and inclusion in judicial construction." (People vs. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 
 475.) 
 
 On page 2102, he says, "But a dividing line between what is a 
 municipal purpose and what is not, is in many cases shadowy and 
 uncertain, great weight should be given by the courts to the legis- 
 lative determination, and its action should not be annulled unless 
 the purpose appears clearly to be one not authorized. (People vs. 
 Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475, 489.) While city purposes will usually find 
 their development within the municipal limits, such purposes are 
 not necessarily limited to a work or expenditure within the city." 
 
 Another Case Sustaining Public Ownership — Ice. 
 
 In Holton vs. Camilla 134 Ga. 560, the Court holds that, "The 
 operation of an ice plant by the municipal authorities of the city of 
 Camilla, in connection with the electric light and waterworks plant, 
 for the purpose of furnishing ice to the inhabitants of the city, is 
 not in violation of the Constitution of this state, or otherwise illegal." 
 The answer of the defendant, which was introduced in evidence and 
 considered upon the trial, states that, "In the hot climate in which 
 the city of Camilla is situated ice is necessary for the comfort, 
 health and convenience of its inhabitants. If this is true, why should 
 
 52 
 
 not the city be permitted to furnish ice to its inhabitants? And if 
 the furnishing of ice to its inhabitants is conducive generally to their 
 health, comfort and convenience, it is certainly being furnished for a 
 municipal or public purpose. It is a well-known fact that one of the 
 main uses to which ice is put is the cooling of water for drinking 
 purposes; and when it is used for this purpse, if impure, it is as apt 
 to be deleterious to the consumer as any other impure water. Why 
 then in the exercise of its police power, may not a city guard against 
 impurities in the ice as well as the water used by its inhabitants?" 
 
 Cases Held Not to Warrant Pubuc Ownership. 
 Coal and Wood as Fuel 
 
 Opinion of Judges, 15 L. R. A. 809, "The purchase by the city 
 or town of coal and wood as fuel, and the resale thereof to its in- 
 habitants, is not a public service which can be authorized by the 
 Legislature. We are not aware of any necessity why cities and towns 
 should undertake this form of business, any more than many others 
 which have always been conducted by private enterprise; and we 
 are not called upon to consider what extraordinary powers the Com- 
 monwealth may exercise, in extraordinary exigencies, for the safety 
 of the state or the welfare of the inhabitants." 
 
 Re Municipal Fuel Plants 60 L. R. A., 592, the Court holds, 
 "Municipalities have authority to provide fuel for paupers; but 
 they cannot be given power by the legislature to buy and sell fuel 
 in competition with private enterprise, although it is scare and high 
 in price and the cost to consumers may be thereby reduced, unless 
 there is such a scarcity as to create a general and wide-spread dis- 
 tress in the community, which cannot be met by private enterprise. 
 We are not called upon to consider whether the legislature would 
 deem it advisable, if it has the power, to authorize cities and towns 
 to build storehouses in which to keep large quantities of fuel in an- 
 ticipation of a possible famine. In regard to the fourth of the pos- 
 sible consequences, — a condition in which the supply of fuel would 
 be so small, and the difficulty of obtaining so great, that persons de- 
 siring to purchase it would be unable to supply themselves through 
 private enterprise, — it is conceivable that agencies of government 
 might be able to obtain fuel when citizens generally could not. Under 
 such circumstances we are of opinion that the government might con- 
 stitute itself an agent for the relief of the community, and that money 
 expended for the purpose would be expended for public use." 
 
 So, in Baker vs. Grand Rapids, 142 Mich. 687, 106 N. W. 208, 
 it was held that, "The use of a fund by a municipal corporation for 
 the purpose of buying and selling coal in the time of scarcity of fuel 
 was not a public use, and was therefore unauthorized." 
 
 On the other hand, in Jones against the city of Portland 245 
 U. S. 217, it is held that a law of Maine authorizing any city or 
 town to establish and maintain a permanent wood, coal and fuel 
 yard for the purpose of selling wood, coal and fuel to its inhabi- 
 tants at cost does not take the property of tax payers for private 
 
 S3 
 
" III! ill l ii lll 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 k 
 
 uses in violation of the fourteenth amendment, especially where the 
 highest court of the state has declared such purpose to be a public 
 
 one. 
 
 The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed 
 an act granting to a corporation, created by it, the exclusive right, 
 for twenty-five years to have and maintain slaughter-houses, landings 
 for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaugh- 
 ter within certain parishes including the city of New Orleans and a 
 population between two and three hundred thousand people and 
 prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having 
 slaughter-houses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended 
 for sale or slaughter, within those limits. It was held that this grant 
 of exclusive right or privilege guarded by proper limitation of the 
 prices to be charged and imposing the duty of providing ample con- 
 ▼eniences with permission to all owners of stock to land and of all 
 butchers to slaughter at those places, was a police regulation for 
 the health and comfort of the people within the power of the State 
 legislatures. Slaughter House cases 16 Wallace 36. 
 
 Second Parallel 
 
 MUk 
 
 1. Municipality uses it for hos- 
 
 pitals, etc. 
 
 2. Universally used by inhabi- 
 
 tants. 
 
 3. Constantly used. 
 
 4. Essential to public health. 
 
 5. No substitutes. 
 
 6. Must be clean and pure. 
 
 7. Will carry infection. 
 
 8. Quality must be controlled. 
 
 9. Main sources outside city. 
 
 10. Private interests sell. 
 
 11. Business tends towards mon- 
 
 opoly. 
 
 Coal or Wood for Fuel 
 
 1. Municipality uses it (incon- 
 siderable unless for gas 
 and electricity). 
 
 2. Less than milk. 
 
 3. Less than milk. 
 
 4. At times. 
 
 5. Yes, natural gas. 
 
 6. No. 
 
 7. No. 
 
 8. No. 
 
 9. Main sources outside city. 
 
 10. Private interests sell. 
 
 11. No, although monopoly was 
 chief reason for the Maine 
 
 U. S. Sup. Ct. decision. 
 
 It is easily seen from the above parallel that coal and wood as 
 fuel lack several of the requisites for municipal control which both 
 milk and water possess, i.e., "essential to public health," "quality must 
 be controlled" and "business tends toward monopoly," so that even 
 if the Courts have held against coal and wood for public control, it 
 only tends to support the doctrine that each case must depend largely 
 on its own facts. ° ' 
 
 Assuming then, that the milk industry conforms to so many 
 ttsential requirements for municipal ownership as announced by 
 American legal decisions, we believe there is a good case on the law 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 of the matter, conferring the power on New York City to own the 
 industry, especially if it is supported by legislative enactment. 
 
 We come now to the various ways in which municipal owner- 
 ship and control may manifest itself. 
 PLAN 1 
 
 (a) Municipal ownership of city delivery equipment, pasteur- 
 izing plants and milk markets. 
 
 (b) Private ownership of production sources. 
 PLAN 2 
 
 (a) Municipal ownership of city delivery equipment, pasteur- 
 izing plants and milk markets. 
 
 (b) Gradual organization and control of enough of production 
 to dominate the rest. 
 
 PLAN 3 
 
 (a) Granting monopoly privilege to a private milk company 
 already organized and equipped to give city service. 
 
 (b) Regulating enough of production by law and through 
 police power to assure supply. 
 
 The first plan above outlined has been often suggested. It 
 would enable many efficiencies to be inaugurated, first, in the city 
 delivery of milk such as carrying capacity loads on the milk de- 
 livery wagons or zoning the city; second, by the proper organization 
 and placement of pasteurizing plants whereby overhead charges 
 could be saved by operating properly located plants to their capacity, 
 and third, by bringing unity of policy into the city milk market situa- 
 tion. For instance, the infant feeding station idea could be extended 
 by opening these stations all over the city so ibat whosoever desired, 
 whether they had children in the family or not, could go to the sta- 
 tions for milk and thus save to themselves tbe extra cost of wagon 
 delivery. Of course, there might be some sanitary objections to this 
 process, requiring the regulation of both the manner of handling the 
 milk in the stations and in the hands of the purchasing consumer. 
 The practical carrying out of this idea, however, would make con- 
 siderable difference in the price to the consumers who would pur- 
 chase it in this way. The main reason that the stations are not fur- 
 ther extended today, is because of the desire of the Board of Health 
 not to interfere with private business enterprise. 
 
 Another way that the extension of milk stations would reduce 
 the price to the consumer, would be in saving of bottles which can 
 there be brought under almost perfect control. One has only to look 
 in ash cans, vacant fields and apartment house cellars to understand 
 the appalling losses in milk bottles now borne by the public. This 
 plan, however, would leave the control of production in the same 
 hands as it is today. The producers could strike at the prices paid 
 by the city just as well as at those paid by the milk dealer and there 
 would be no assurance of a continuous supply of milk. On the other 
 hand, by leaving the market control entirely in the hands of the city, 
 the prices could be made so attractive to the milk producer, that pro- 
 
 55 
 
 -^m":'. 
 
duction would be stimulated and consequently successful production 
 strikes less likelv 
 
 l^e^S'plan provides for the same .ype of municipal own- 
 ership in the city and also for the gradual extension of control over 
 enough of production to insure the city a minimum supply of milk 
 no matter what the organizations of dairymen on the outside might 
 do. In theory, it might be conceived that the city should attempt to 
 produce milk by owning the land and the cows for the purpose. On 
 the theory that such ownership was for a city purpose, the law would 
 probably sustain such action. There are cities in Europe today 
 where the cows and production are publicly owned. But, such a 
 course here would, while presenting the field for a very pretty 
 theoretical experiment in efficient production, cost more money and 
 require more organizing ability than New York City probably pos- 
 sesses. On the other hand, by adopting the idea of the regulating 
 commission such as was discussed in our last chapter, enough of 
 production might be dominated in this way to assure the City of its 
 proper milk supply. 
 
 The third plan contemplates the idea of allowing the tendency 
 of monopoly among the milk dealers in the city, to have full play 
 by permitting the consolidation of companies for the purpose of 
 securing the monopoly privilege of supplying the city with milk. 
 This plan would have no advantages over the present situation in 
 protecting the city against production strikes unless the idea of the 
 regulating commission was also adopted to assure the continuous 
 production and supply of milk to the city. 
 
 The main attempt that has been made in this study has been to 
 set out the problem as it has appeared to the writer after considerable 
 study and thought, with the idea that some suggestion might be con- 
 tributed to those who will finally have the burden of solving the milk 
 problem. The writer himself is committed to the theory of natural 
 co-operation and private control of the industry and believes thor- 
 oughly that with proper leadership and encouragement from the 
 New York public, the milk industry can be made one of the most 
 interesting, useful and efficient of American industrial enterprises. 
 
 The function of government is not business and those engaged 
 in public life will do better in adhering to their proper functions. 
 Politics is never efficient and politics would certainly enter the milk 
 business under general public control. Since both production and 
 distribution are distinct functions of the milk industry, each depen- 
 dent for industrial health on the other with the consumer entitled to 
 efficiency from both, the first great requisite is the co-operation of 
 producer, distributor and consumer. On this will depend the biff* 
 ness and the health of the industry. Upon this bigness and healSi 
 will depend the profits to those engaged in the industry and the 
 wholesomeness of the product received by the consumer. The real 
 interest of the producer is not production alone, but a healthy milk 
 industry throughout. The real interest of the distributor is not dis- 
 
 56 
 
 tribution alone, but a healthy industry throughout. The consumer's 
 position is not to support one side or the other, but to insist upon 
 the co-operation of both these interests to the end that the public 
 may be better and constantly served with a healthful milk supply. 
 If this is done hearty support should be accorded both producers and 
 dealers alike. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 fi 
 
 1 f 
 
 57 
 
 i 
 
I i 
 
 VITA 
 
 The author was bom in Zanesville, Ohio, in 1875. He holds the 
 degree of A.B. and A.M. from Marietta College and L.L.B. from 
 the Ohio State University. He practised law in Zanesville, Ohio, 
 served two terms as probate and juvenile judge of Muskingum 
 County, Ohio, and was United States Commissioner in the Soudiern 
 district of Ohio. He studied in the Political Science Department of 
 Columbia University under Professors Beard, Goodnow, Giddings, 
 Seager and Smith. He was later connected with the New York 
 Bureau of Municipal Research where he was assigned to special milk 
 investigations in the city and state. For a number of years he was 
 Secretary and Director of the New York milk business which furn- 
 ished the city infant feeding stations with milk and is now Assistant 
 Secretary of the Metropolitan Trust Company of New York. He 
 has been an occasional contributor to the Educational Review, 
 Scribner's and the New York Times Magazine. 
 
 JAMES ¥. NEWCOMB i COMPANY. Inc. 
 
 Union Pntnteis 
 
 441 PEARL STREET. N. Y. 
 
 wlP 
 
I 
 
 ^ 
 
 Date Due 
 
 yil^/f o%oc^ 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 0041402669 
 
 D 310 
 
 J44 
 
 Jennings 
 
 A study of the N.Y. milk problem 
 
 1/3/6 
 
 k 
 
 *■ :' 
 
 IT- |-\ Q A 
 

 I 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Il 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 IP*- 
 
 f^: 
 
 CPv^ 
 
 n^si: