The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-10-23

Y ss
 First, as to some side issues which invariably crop up in times like the recent period ot stress and which becloud the main issues As one ot the largest dealers, we are made the victim ot the popular dislike visited on the middle man" In the future we ask the fair-m1nded newspaper editor and the fair-minded man Tn the street to make some distinction between the middle man who has invested no money, or very little, in his business who makes no contribution to legitimate enterprise with which, more or less as parasite, he isN con- nected and whose only reason for existence IS his ability to- stand between producer and con sumner for his personal benefit. and tue middle man, who, like our Company, has an $ll,OOO,OOO cash investment in the Eastern branch ot its fluid milk business alone, and which in this par ticular branch, employs thousands of men and women with an aggregate yearly payroll of about $45OO0OO, and which employs scores of veteri- naries and inspectors to guard the health ot its customers and which deals with a perishable food product under the strict regulations of the Health Department from the moment it is received from the dairymen at upward of 130 different bottling plants and receiving stations throughout New fYotk and adjoining states until it is delivered fit food for the people of this city and it's envrons We have heard of no substitute for this kind of middleman that offers any hope of bettering the existing method of milk collection, care and distri button short of State or Municipal ownership The State or City would be the only competitor with whom we could not hold our own, for the reason that it's losses would be merely item that would go to swell the tax budget. But if the State or City takes this step it will have to take the next step also and go into the business of producing milk as well. Otherwise it may find itself in the same position unhappily occupied by the dealers during the recent milk strike If the people want this solution they will have it. It will not be the first time private rights and own ership. acquired and encouraged with public ap- prova1, have been annu11ed for the good of the community as whole, but before radical action of this kind is attempted it would be well to know kL-~ and, if evils are found, whether annihilation of an existing industry is necessary to correct them and whether the suggested substitute will really ope- rate to the advantage of the community as a t whole
 Is the present method of milk distribution in- { efficient and uneconomical either absolutely or relatively as compared with any substitute meth cd that can lawfully be devised? If the present method cannot stand this test,when fairly made it will suffer the fate, and rightly so, of hand 1abor for example, when put in competition with ma ( chineryi We believe that no food product is handled 50 directly, efficiently and cheaply as milk, and further, we believe that under existing laws against combinations no substitute method can be devised that will offer any hope of actual improvement to the community as whole. The great incentive to economy and efficiency that is found in the competition between 45O milk dis tributors each fighting the other for the favor of the public as to service. quality and price, would be lost when the State or the City became not an imaginary Trust" but an actual monopoly. ,e Second, as one of the largest distributors we come in for our full share of the opprobrium that is popularly supposed to attach to Trust As matter of fact if there were better foundation for this charge an immediate advantage would ac- crue to both producer and distributor in the econo- mics of lessened costs and increased volume of business conducted by the larger units. Govern ment regulation and continued competition among few big concerns would afford the neces- sary protection to the producer and consumer If any such combination want5 fluid milk bus mess at cost of the cash we have invested in it. we will be glad to retire from this branch of our business. However, in the face of existing laws and perhaps of public sentiment, combination of dealers is not practicable, and we will therefore meet this so-called Trust" charge by saying that we welcome the opportunity of having it thor ougnly investigated so far as our company is con- cerned m the proceedings now pending before Referee Dykman or by the Wickes committee. or m any other inquiry that may be instituted In the proceeding before Referee Dykrnan the At torney-General for reasons which undoubtedly ap- pear to him to be sound has elected to first the Trust charge against the distributor, although the proceeding was originally instigated as result of charge that the Dairvrnen's League was the guilty party, and despite the fact that in the papers prepared by the Attorney Gen eral it does not appear that any one made a
 Trust charge against the dealers. Moreover, from the newspaper accounts, casual observer would undoubtedly gain the impression that the