Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-02-16
WASHING MILK CANS.
Bill to Make Contractors Do the Work
Opposed.

Boston, Feb. 15.-The committee on
agriculture gave a hearing this morn
ing on four different bills affect
ing the production, care and sale
of milk In the commonwealth. The
proposed legislative changes brought the
leading producers and contractors of the
state together, as well as individuals
representing the health boards OF the
state Milk Contractors Hood, George
o. and D. Within were present Health
Commissioner Pillsbury of Boston, Pres
ident Patch of Concord, of the New
England Milk Producers Union; the sec
retary and general manager Of the same
union, John B. BoWker of Worcester;
J, l.. Harrington Of Lunenburg, secre-
tary Of the State Association of Farmers
and Cattle Owners; DR.. Alexander Barr
of the Boston health board and Secre-
tary Sessions Of the state board of agri-
culture; Chairman Peters and Messrs.
Herrick and Dennen of the state board
of cattle commissioners and Hon.
Charles A. Gleason of New Braintree,
ex-president of the New England Milk
| Producers Union, were also present.
The first bill considered was the meas
ure to provide for the cleaning Of uilk
cans by corporations, companies and
contractors receiving milk by railroad,
| lOE sale purposes. SScTGldTy SGSSlOUS Ol
| the state board of agriculture appeared
in favor of the bill, explaining that the
general subject had been considered at
the general winter meeting of the board
of agriculture, at Taunton, where a vote
| for the introduction of the bill had
| been passed.
George o. Whiting, one Of the leading
milk contractors Of Boston, opposed the
| bill. He didn't see how it was possible
| for the contractors to do the work
| There was no time during the period
when the cans were received empty and
| the time for their shipment to the pro
| ducers. There was not only no time
but the contractors had no facilities.
Although Mr.. Whiting admitted that
the producers were practically forced
| to clean their cans, he could not see
how the retailer, whom he chose to call
the consumer" could be forced to take
any care OF the cans after selling the
milk from them.
George Whiting, another member of
George o. Whiting firm of milk con-
tractors, opposed the bill. He argued
that it would cost too much money and
that the additional expense would come
out Of the producer, the farmer.
The Boston Dairy Company, through
President Granstein, also opposed the
bill. President Granstein agreed with
pense, which would be of considerable
proportions, would be forced on the
farmer.
Representative L. b. Chandler of
Somerville, a milk retailer and whole
saler, was opposed to the bill. He didn't
see how the law was to be enforced un-
less there was a perfect milk trust Mr..
Chandler thought that the proposed law,
if enforced, would drive the milk trade
to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.
President Patch of the New England
Milk Producers Union, was in favor of
the bill except the provision which re-
quired the contractors to wash the milk
cans, as this would result in making the
farmers pay the extra expense. Mr.
Patch thought that the cans could be
washed by the pedlers.
Charles A. Gleason of New Braintree,
a former president of the New England
Milk Producers Union, endorsed the po-
sition taken by President Patch.
john H. Kelley of Westboro, milk
dealer, thought that the proposed legis-
lation was impracticable. The milk
cans should be washed on the farm and
dried in the sun. The hearing was then
closed, with the three other measures
going over until a later date.