The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-04-01

|
 A crucial test of the strength of farm CTS organization is being made in Chicago | in the contest which threatens a sum- mer milk famine, between the MIX Pro- ducers' Productive association and the Borden company, which heretofore has | been able to dectate the prices to be | paid to the farmers. On the stability. of | the association and the members loyalty | to it depends the outcome. The Borden companys offer of 25s cents a quart was l officially scorned for the April 1 contracts for a year The Borden company's man. | ager J. H. Marsh, however, declared l enough dairymen had signed contracts | to supply Chicago. Secretary J. P. Grier | if the Milk Producers association, on | the contrary, has declared the dairmen have held to association agreements. The truth of the matter will prove an April joke for one side or the other, but the public is alarmed. The milk producers declare cents is their price. Secretary Grier said: '"The .dairmen are not con tracting at 25s cents quart. They are going to hold out for a higher price; that's what they organized for. By saying they had already contracted for enough milk for the summer, the Borden people planned to scare the farmers into signing up immediately, but they didn't scare them. Why shouldn't Illinois milk pro- ducers receive as much for their milk as the farmers in other parts of the coun- try? Why, the general price paid by the dealers in this country is half of the re- tail price, and. according to that scale | Illinois farmers ought to get cents a quart. The public is paying the dealers & | cents a quart for milk that the dealers only pay 2ss cents for-less than one-thrd of the retail cost The milk dealers have already declared that they will re- | fuse to pay the producers 27s cents quart, the price paid to the dairymen in New York state.
 | Now 1t is shave daily" a new rule of employers in Chicago which leaves small | comfort for the lazy man or careless one and which ought 10 make glad the hearts of King c. Gillette and other inventors of
 safety shaving. One rule has followed another until what once were considered | personal prerogatives as to habits of life
 outside of the department store or office
 have been wiped out by employers The
 requirements of dress and appearance each year are becoming more rigid on the theory that a concern makes a poor ap- pearance when it's representatives does | and so even the one days beard is under
 the ban. Marshall Field was one of the first sticklers for neatness He followed the rule personally and once said: "The
 me strong clean young man--there Is
 
 the rule requiring employees to shave daily
 q corporation manager said: we are not requiring our men to go to any seri- | ous expense, and business getting is a matter of brains and appearan If I l had my way no salesman would ever get within the outer door of this office un- less he was decently clean and properly shaved" The pressure of business in the city which requires men to form instant | judgments upon people is one explanation of the demand for neatness in personal | appearance. even to the matter of shaw ing As men make Up their minds about | a stranger at first glance the argument l is logical that no house can afford to have it's representatives or salesmen lack ing in attractiveness that goes with cean- liness and well groomed appearance. With business reasons so decided on the daily shaving habit it is predicted that the un- | slightly stubble of the unshaved man will go the way of the full beard and other hirsute decorations which in the cities are becoming rare. Nothing so potent as business rules and demand drove whiskers out of popularity.
 Loss of women's beauty now is charged against chewing gum, the statements of
 lecturer to the Chicago women's clubs having been confirmed by nerve spe-
 calists and health authorities who con demn the habit although many of them chew gum themselves. The constant fa- cial exertion upon the eternal quid is said to overdevelop muscles and change the facial contour in a way that nature never intended. If these authorities can be believed neither Hebe nor Venus