city of Birmingham and a gentleman who is engaged in the distributive trade. By reason of the great courtesy shown to us everywhere during the progress of our tour, and, so far as I was concerned, thanks to the expert knowledge in their respective spheres of my two colleagues, I brought back to England a fund of useful information, which I have since endeavored to utilize in the work of my committee, as witness the milk scheme above mentioned. The union published 30,000 copies of my report on my tour, and these were distributed widely over England and Wales.

In my report I venture to point out that—

It should be fully realized that if the industry bases its claims for an increased consumption of milk upon the position of milk as a necessary article for the national well-being, then it must also be prepared to accept the right of the public to a full knowledge of the essential facts of the industry and a sense of security that, both from a hygienic and an economic point of view, the industry is being conducted upon sound lines.

These words indicate, very broadly, the lines upon which the milk and dairy produce committee of the National Farmers' Union is working in the interests of the milk industry in Great Britain. The union is in constant touch with the National Clean Milk Society in order to promote production under the most hygienic conditions and also supports the work of the milk recording societies.

A highly important sphere of the committee's work is that in connection with legislative matters. The union is the only organization of agriculturists in England and Wales that is thoroughly representative of all parts of the country, and as a natural consequence, ours is the responsibility of watching parliamentary proceedings and maintaining touch with Government departments. As an illustration, the milk and dairies act which became law last year may be quoted. This act, among other things, postpones for a further three years a consolidating act passed in 1915, the operation of which had already been postponed during the war. We had previously given exhaustive consideration to the directions in which amendment of the law was likely to be sought, and we laid our views before the Ministry of Health when invited to do so. During the progress of the 1922 bill we had more than one consultation with the ministry and secured important modifications of its provisions as a result of these consultations as well as through amendments tabled at our instance in both chambers.

The provision of legal assistance to members is a growing feature of the union's activities and has been of material value to many dairy-farmer members. A milk contract form was prepared under the supervision and, with the approval of our legal adviser, submitted to the traders. The form is now widely used.

The question of transit facilities naturally looms large, having regard to present-day market requirements. The departmental committee whose report has already been quoted, came to the conclusion that "transport facilities in this country have not kept pace with the modern developments and requirements of the (milk) industry," and expressed the view that

Lower railway charges on milk would be of the greatest national advantage in encouraging an increase in consumption, and therefore, in railway revenue. The companies should review the present scale of rates in this sense.

These views simply fortify those previously expressed before the railway companies by representatives of the National Farmers' Union, who pressed for such reforms as the speeding-up of milk trains, the provision of properly ventilated or refrigerator vans for the conveyance of milk, the use of vans exclusively for conveying milk, and the reduction of carriage charges. Certain concessions have been granted in consequence of the union's representations, but more remains to be secured.

The foregoing is no more than a brief survey of the main heads of the union's work on behalf of dairy farmers. It covers a comparatively short space of time, during which farmers have attached themselves to the organization in increasing numbers. Our work has been progressively successful as our numerical strength has grown, and its success has proved the greatest incentive to further expansion. More than any other body, the union has taught milk producers the value of collective action, and I am convinced that before very long the vast majority of producers will have been enrolled in our ranks. When that consummation has been achieved the industry will occupy a very much stronger position than it has previously done.

Chairman WILLITS. Is there any discussion? The time is limited to five minutes.

Mr. CLARK. I would like to inquire how the price that the consumer pays in England compares with the net price that the producer gets.

Mr. LANGFORD. Well, we in England, operating in behalf of the consumers, don't regard it as right to dictate, or attempt to dictate, the price of milk, retail. Our only consideration, and our only interest in retail prices, is that they shall be sufficiently low as to put a maximum quantity of milk into consumption. We, as producers, don't regard ourselves as having the necessary evidence upon which to make up our minds what spread, or margin of profit, the retailer should have for the services that he renders.

Mr. JOHN A. SCOLLARD. Did I understand you to say that there were but two main distributing agencies in the city of London?

Mr. LANGFORD. I was speaking of the history of the industry. There are more than two now. That is, with the wholesaler. The producer sells to the wholesaler, very largely, and the wholesaler sells in flat quantities just the required quantities to the retailers, and the retailer passes it to the consumer.

Mr. J. GILLARD STAPLETON (England). Mr. Langford mentioned in regard to the dispute between distributors and producers, that the surplus milk was withheld by the producers. I don't quite understand what he means by that.

Mr. LANGFORD. I was referring to what happened in the spring in 1922. As I indicated in my paper, the price offered by the trade to the producers was an extraordinarily low one, and in consequence it became my duty, as chairman of the National Farmers' Union milk committee, to summon to London a national conference representing the producers of the whole of England and Wales. Up to that point we had been met by the trade by this, that they could give us a better price for the milk if it were not for the vast amount of

surplus milk that they were compelled to take. At the conference to which I refer, we indicated the position to the producers, and I put it to them that in order to get a fair price, a reasonable price for the milk which could be put into liquid consumption, and in order to enable the trade to pay that price, it was necessary to withhold the surplus milk. In other words, do as Mr. Manod Owen has indicated in his paper, use the surplus milk where it is most profitable to use it, that is, upon the farm.

At that time the milk, the new whole milk, was worth more for pig feeding, for calf raising, and for other purposes upon the farm than the price which the trade was offering; and we, as producers, did not desire to withhold from the public the milk that they wanted to consume. It was up to us to do the best we could in our own interests with our milk. If at any time the farm offers the best market for milk, I don't regard it out of place to keep that milk upon the farm. We, the producers, are not philanthropists, and that is what I put before them, and so successful was the advice that I gave to the farmers that these new prices operated on the 1st of April— perhaps a curious day. [Laughter.]

On the 3d of April, I believe I am right in saying, London was short of 13,170 gallons of milk, because the farmers had withheld the surplus. The trade had offered a low price. They certainly were going to retail it at a low price. The papers came out in the morning 'Where is this cheap milk? It can't be found. The price is low, but the buyers can't get full satisfaction." It was at that point that the Minister of Agriculture intervened and called a conference, representing all interests in the milk industry, and tried to get us together. That conference was abortive. The next morning we were going to call a national strike in order to get a fair price for the milk. But the trade, having slept over the matter, came to a more sane decision, and the next morning offered us 2 pence, and in some instances, 2 pence. They were also generous enough to say that the people from whom they had bought the milk on signed contracts, would be given the increased price as well as those who had not sold their milk. From that point forward we have been able to work hand in hand with the trade, and the feeling that exists to-day between the trade and the producers is upon such a basis that I have no fear, no misgivings, as to the future success of the industry in our country. [Applause.]

Chairman WILLITS. We have certainly appreciated this talk, Mr. Langford. The next paper is by Mr. Holman, on a "Review of progress in fluid-milk marketing in the United States."

REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN FLUID-MILK MARKETING IN THE UNITED STATES.

CHARLES W. HOLMAN, Secretary, National Milk Producers' Federation, Washington, D. C.

THE PUBLIC AND THE MILKMAN.

No group of farmers has to wrestle with so unstable a public as do the milk farmers. Associated with the idea of milk is a keen resentment of any attempt to raise prices. This attitude of the public has been carefully fostered for some years by certain large metro

politan papers, and it is well illustrated by the ultimatum issued in 1917 by certain Chicago dailies, when a milk war was threatened, that no matter what it cost the farmers to produce the milk the retail price should not go above 12 cents a quart. The editors of such papers did not care, apparently, whether the conditions surrounding the production of milk in their respective districts would be favorable to maintaining an adequate and a constant supply. Such blind prejudicial efforts, of course, defeat themselves in the long run, for if a product does not bring to the farmer a return at least approximating wages there will be an inevitable curtailment in the volume of such product made available for the market, due to enforced retrenchment policies on the part of the producers.

Associated also with the public mind is the question of quality, and no other product is so carefully supervised, nor are so many restrictions placed around the original producers; all of which tends to increase the costs of getting milk upon the market. No other product has quite as complex a system of distribution, or one which requires a more highly geared system to carry it from producer to consumer. Enormous masses of capital are necessary, and from producer through distributor the trade is constantly under the necessity of making expensive improvements, largely with the maintenance of quality in view.

Overnight a city council may pass an ordinance, or a city health officer may issue an edict, which will require an expenditure of from $1,500 to $3,000 for each individual producer who supplies a city market. Overnight some prosecuting attorney, anxious to cater to the popular will, may announce in stentorian tones that he proposes "to investigate this producers' association." Sometimes those "investigations" have been inspired by persons financially interested in preventing the organization of the milk producers. Sometimes there have been simply demagogic demonstrations. But the cost to the producer can not be estimated in the enlarged volume of ill-will, prejudice, and misunderstanding. In nearly all of these cases the producers have won, but at fearful cost. In few instances their organizations, after winning their fights, have been so seriously shattered that they have cracked and gone to pieces.

In the face of such obstacles, cooperative milk producers of the United States have gained for themselves an enviable position. They have passed from the pioneer stage. They are becoming well established. And the extent to which they do become established marks the stage of tranquillity and stabilization in the milk trade of the region served.

It has been truly said that local cooperation and national organization have been the salvation of American dairy farmers. Local cooperation has taken long strides in solving the marketing problem. It has put unorganized milk producers on a parity with great milkbuying combinations. It has enabled them to help the consumer by cutting down the "spread of the distributor and sharing it with the consumer." It has tended to stabilize market conditions.

National organization has enabled these local associations to win important battles involving congressional action and decisions of governmental departments.

BEGINNING OF COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING.

Fifty-one years ago the first notable effort for farmers to market their milk collectively was made in New England. It was just a crude, unincorporated association formed to make price agreements with the dealers. It continued actively for about 10 years. In the decade beginning with 1871 there were numerous efforts around the metropolitan centers to form collective bargaining associations, but of all these efforts the Boston organization was perhaps the most effective. The picture of milk marketing for the 40 years following this first organization is the kaleidoscopic view of the formation and dissolution of association attempts. The movement was gaining popularity, but there was neither the technique nor the legal basis developed at that time which would permit permanent institutions to be formed. Only the capital-stock corporation was in existence, and although there were numerous efforts made to utilize this type of corporation owing to the fact that the capital stock corporation is organized around the dollar instead of the man, and it exists for profit rather than for service-most of the farmers' capital-stock corporations formed during this period tended to get into the hands of a limited number of individuals and became simply additional middlemen institutions.

THE LEGAL BASIS OF COOPERATION.

It was not until 1909 that cooperation had its legal birth in the United States. In that year the State of California passed a cooperative act providing for the formation of nonstock, nonprofit membership corporations. Two years later the State of Wisconsin enacted a cooperative law under which associations of the Rochdale type could be formed. This act was drawn by the late Dr. Charles McCarthy, of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library, with the assistance of Sir Horace Plunkett, the father of Irish cooperation and internationally known for his lifelong service in the building of agricultural cooperative institutions. Very rapidly thereafter the various States enacted cooperative laws, some using the Wisconsin act as a model, others the California act. Very valuable service was given the idea of standardization of cooperative laws by the early efforts of the United States Bureau of Markets, the National Agricultural Organization Society, which functioned for the years 1915 to 1917 as a service agency to promote the advancement of cooperation, and by the later efforts of Aaron Sapiro, who drafted a standardized cooperative act which passed the legislatures of 26 States. Most of the States to-day provide for the formation of both the nonstock, nonprofit type of cooperative corporation and the Rochdale capitalstock type. Both of these types of cooperatives are useful, and there are conditions where it would be better to form one than the cther. In the dairy world both types are to be found. The New England dairy movement and most of the local cooperative creameries and cheese factories are of the Rochdale type. In New England, two or three systems are being builded of the Rochdale type. But most of the flourishing fluid-milk organizations belong to the nonprofit, nonstock membership cooperation type.