The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-04-05
The MILK TRUST.


Considering that our intercourse
with foreign countries is mainly with
the United States, where "trusts"
are booming, it would not be sur
prising if the contagion reached us.
1t is not one OF those ailments which
may be kept out by quarantine
regulations. In fact, it appears to
be already in the Honolulu air, and
to have tainted the brains of some
people here.
We have heard for several days
past considerable talk of 'milk
trust" Probably the authors of
the scheme do not call it by that
name, and may object to the use of
the term, but the public are pleased
to employ the word, believing it to
be apropos, and they cannot be
made to quit talking about the
"milk trust"
1t is publicly known that two of
our principal milk dairles lately
merged into one; that is, one was
bought out by the other, and the
two establishments, previously in
dependent of each other, have be-
come the property and are urder
the control of one company. More
recently the same company, it is
said, and we believe truly, has
made arrangements to purchase, or
is making arrangements to purchase,
in bulk, the milk of other dairies, so
as to control the milk supply of the
town, and raise the price.
Of course, the consumers strongly
object to this arrangement, or its
consequence to them in the shape of
dear milk, and utter their dissatis-
faction pretty freely. The combin-
alton or "trust' in itself is nothing
to them, but rise in the price of
milk is, and as the rise is caused
by the trust, the trust is execrated.
If the same company secured the
control of the entire milk supply of
the country, or the world for that
matter, the people of Honolulu
would not care two straws were the
price to them not affected thereby ;
but the price is affected, to the ex-
tent of q two-cent increase at one
jump. Hence the dissatisfaction
and murmuring.
A question or two here present
themselvs,no to the thoughtless but
to the reflective: Is the price now
charged exorbitant, in the sense of
giving the company more than a
reasonable profit? Was the former
price losing or an Improbable
one? Was the increase necessary
in order to fair profit? These are
questions we are unable to answer,
, for we are not in the milk business.
The company above referred to, the
Woodlawn Dairy and Stock Com
pany, answers for itself in a notice
to its customers, as follows: "Aftel
an experience of four years we find
that milk cannot be supplied from
grain-fed COWS at present rates with
any profit, and therefore notify you
of an advance of two cents per
quart from April 1st." How about
those dairies of the trust where COWS
are not grain-fed?
Now, no man can be expected to
continue any enterprise without a
proftH People are not so unselfish as
to engage in any business purely for
the public good. Personal gain is
always the primary object. Whether
a man supplies the public with
clothing, or food, or coffee, or milk
or whisky, or newspaper even, he
expects profit, and it is unreason-
able to expect him to provide the
supply without profit. But if he
wants more than is reasonable, the
public are justified in crying out.
And if the "milk trust" is working
on this line the community owes to
itself the duty of opposing it. We
certainly want no trusts to augment
the cost of living. Most of US think
it a little too high already.