Norwich bulletin., 1918-12-11


 Prentice, reported strongly adverse tp tie project for a milk pastenrizatlon Iiant for. Norwich on Tuesday eve Ming at the annual meeting for the election of directors of the chamber, and the twenty five memhsrs present voted to postpone indefinitely any ac- tion on the matter.
 President F. ", Cary presided at the meeting, and Secretary H. R. Rranehe produced letters from Sena- tor Frank E. Brandegee and Congress- man R. P, Freeman, the former stat ing that he had no knowledge of I rrepossd pasteprization plant for milk prodHcers, and the latter stating that tte food administra tion informed him that any such movement must be ef state or local origin as there are no compulsory regulations on this sub ject issued by the food admins tFation.
 letter from pr. J. T. Black, state health eolpgmissioper, lg esxpressed sur Wich adverse to the pasteufization plant
 Secretary Branehe further advised the meeting that he had on Tuesday teIephoned to Dr. H. c. Cody in New London, the federal officer. in charge of this district to find out how far along the matter was. and Dr. EcSy had said that he was no longer inter- ested in the matter a!s he had been ordered to leave the district by Jan. 1, and anything further ia the mat ter would be taken ua with nr. Black. Another telephone message to Dr. Blacks office showed that Dr. Black was away but his office had not heard of Dr. CodV's leaving
 On the committee for which MT. Prentice reported were. also Dr. A. c. Freeman, c. F. Bushnell. George I.or- ing and James L. Case. The commit tee reported that they had found 3 l feeling of opposition among the pub lie and had not found a farmer Ei,o wants the pasteurization plant. The committee was opposed to the plan because of the added expense ot the consumer and because paSteGrizatlon produced an article rot SD desirable. At 3. meeting with ". F. Burlington, a government milk expert. he had told l them that Hood of Boston or Borden 1 of New York stood ready to furnish 1 Norwich with milk and if the com nlunity did not arrange for the pas 1 tenrization plant, orders would be is sued to dealers to stop selling milk
 here and Norwich would be furnished
 a milk supply through ether Boston or 1 New York.
 1 President Cary remarked that there were orders which We had accepted l willingly in war times but we were l not so ready to acquiesce now and Dr. Black really now seemed to be the authority back of all this. Nelson Parker spoke strongly in favor ut having the meeting pass 2 vote that should register vigorous opposition 2te the pasteurization plant,
 Secretary Branche reported the an swers that had been received from U
 S. Senator Frank B. Brandegee. Con- gressnan Richard P. Freeman. Seere- tary James 6. Hammond of the New London Chamber of Commerce, and
 pr. John T. Black of Hartford, tht state commissioner of health, in repis to letters that had been Sapt them.
 The following was the letter sent t. the secretary of the Now LondoT l Chamber of Commerce:
 ''F'~ E Norwich, Nov. 30. 1918.
 Mr. James G. Hammond, Secretary 1 Chamber of Commerce. New Lon.
 don, Conn.
 My dear MT, Hammond: Norwich i! passing through the throes of a ctnl
 pulsory installation of nasseuriza-
 tion plant, forced upon an unEillip:
 commulity by Federal Health Office
 pr. H. C, Cody, accomparled by hi milk expert, ". F. Purcington. The.
 came before an open meetins, of olr chamber of commerce, on their owa l initiative, and outlined 8 policy Yhicl ) made it next to impossible for loca
 dairYmen or milk producers to con tinue that industry unless they hay , their product pasteurized Thi } would necessitate the erection of
 plant, subject 10 the inspection of tn { federal health officer. at the expens } of two to three thousand dollars, Q the alternative plan of buying stoc 2 in community corporation for Tn f rasteurization and distribution o& a f milk produced in this comi1ainit' l Both of these gentlemen represente to- the members of the chamber tha
 there was no alternative on the pas Y of the milk producers, it was eiille = go out of business, install their ow S plant, or come into the conmunit i one. They are expected to purchasi e we are informed, stock in the ne h company on the basis of the nun1be e of cows in their herds. Dr. Cod
 claimed he was acting under feders = authority and also that the state { e Connecticut would support him g his contention. This seems to th r majority, if not all, of the thinkin s 1 people of Norwich an undemocrati n way of handling the milk problem. : I notice that there is more or les a sentiment in opposition to the move = ment in New London and 3oa writin
 to ask you if your organization h5
 made an investigation of the matte
 with 8 view of asceFtaining- just Wila
 status the claims of Dr. isoey ana M ! Burlington, their authority, etc, al = based upon. Any information yo e may have at hand covering the sul e ject will be greatly appreciated e this organization. An early reply :. requested.
 vi Very truly yours,
 e H. R. BRANCHE, .- Secretary. |; To this the following answer VIZ !. made:
 New London, Conn. Dec. ?. 1918. l. My dear Branche:-Doctors Coo le and Burlington. federal health officer g at their first meeting with the loc g nlilkmen at an open meeting of Il l. chamber held Oct. 15, elnphatieaI
 stated that on and after Jan. 1. 1s1
 all milk brought into New Londt
 must be either certified, tested grat K A." or pasteurized Further, the Q ,e feers stated, when questioned by son ,s of the milkmen, that they were he !. as representatives of the United Stat .sF government and had been called odi at the request of the state of Col ,o ~ necticut, through its state health q is rs partment and that it was proposed fs the state Gin cooperation with | iis federal goYernment4 to establish q t5 control the proposed new milk, wat, ;,, and sanitary condition throughout t III state, that their first joint move wel s be in New London county, folloWil i- it's establishment here the moyene
 would move on until all connmuniti