Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-11-04
MILK CONTROVERSY
IS GETTING WARM
Riley Brothers State Their Side OF
the Case-Reply to Mr..
Huddlestun.
Editor Freeman-Tribune: The ar

Editor Freeman-Tribune: The ar
ticle in the last issue of your paper
headed, "The Milk Trust" writer
by gentleman who sees the thing:
of the world in a broad sense ant
who boasts of his knowledge anc
long experience of eight years in the
milk business, is certainly amusing
to one who does not see the things
of the world in so broad a sense. II
is strange that one with such long
experience is unable to tell cream
from milk. Is it not strange that he
never learned to run separator?
Had he learned to run one, it mi ght
have saved him great deal OF
trouble, expense and humiliation.
wish to inform this pious, broad
minded gentleman that there is milk
which tests 9 per cent.
This broad minded gentleman also
gives us comparison between the
prices of eight years ago and now,
and says he has never changed the
price on milk one penny. This is but
half a truth. Is it not a fact that
this gentleman had the additional
expense of two or three men and
teams peddling milk upon cur
streets, to obtain the price which he
is now asking? Is it not fact that
at that time the average farmer was
receiving from 40 cents to 60 cents
a hundred for milk?
At the present time, "The Webster
City Milk Depot" is paying about
$1.92 per hundred.
He says that we make from s to
10 cents per gallon on milk. Every
one knows that our profit is cents
per quart at the milk depot and 2 Il
cents when delivered. Is there a
school boy in our public schools who
could figure profit of 10c per gal
Ion with these figures? Out of this
profit must come, breaking of bottles,
rent, light, heat, water and labor.
He says he has his money invest
ed in cows and that he has to feed
and care for them. That whether he
is feeling we'll or not, the weather
hot or cold, the cows must be milk
81 hn al sc.
no sense to this, only on the assump-
tion that there would be no invest
ment, that he would not have to
milk the cows if he were not feeling
well or on holidays or rainy days. if
he were selling to the creamery or
churning his own cream. Why does
not Mr.. Huddlestun condemn Messrs.
Ellingson and Mathre, because they
d -, yGy - enough for the but
ter fat in his per cent cream so
that it would net him 90 cents per
gallon for the milk from which he
separated it? Does Mr.. Huddlestun
condemn his good house wife be-
cause she has not an $50 or S100
churn and because she cannot churn
enough butter from his / per cent
cream to net him 20 cents per gal
Ion for the milk from which he sep
arated it? Now we stated, that
cream sold at the creamery or churn-
ed would not bring over half the
price that we were paying. Why has
Mr.. H. lodged this as it is the main
issue at stake?
Mr.. III. would leave the impression
that we were offended because he
asked US 20 cents per gallon for his
milk, which he knows. is not true
We do not care whether ne asked
20 cents or $1.20 for his milk What
we objected to was, that Mr.. H. tried
to persuade men who were hauling
milk to us and who were satisfied
with our price. that they were no,
receiving enough for their milk, and
we have positive proof that he die
so and that he wrote the article in
your last issue with that intent.
This broad minded man also states
that we consulted an attorney to- SCI
if there was some way to prosecute
the farmer. There Is but one reply
to this--it consists of a vigorous
English word of three letters-ant
is sufficient to say that we did no
consult an attorney. On what prin
ciple of moral rectitude do you JUS
tify this gross misrepresentation
Certainly not on the divine Law
which forbids you to bear false wit
ness against your neighbor." II
making and printing this statemen
you lose all claim to respectful con
sideration. We call upon you to yer
ify it or stand as a convicted falsi