The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1922-12-07
Action Against Milk Pro-
ducers Company is
Dismissed.
CHARGE HELD UNFAIR
Company May Go Ahead and
Garry Out Contracts Under
New Provisions.

The state department of markets to-
day dismissed the complaint made by
Rock county farmers against the Milk
Producers COOPERATIVE Marketing
company, an Illinois corporation, which
It charged illegally had entered into
contracts with $500 southern Wiscon-
sin dairy farmers for the disposal of
their milks This action by the depart
ment leaves the way open for the COM
pany TO proceed unhampered with it's
organization.
While holding that the so-called
service charge for handling milk, i'm
posed by the Illinois concern, is unfair
If added TO q base price Of milk SO
unreasonably low that a non-member
farmer cannot accept it but instead
is forced to enter the company, the de-
partment decided that this was not
an inherent vice and could be cor
rected. ~ re
Reference to the contracts Of the
Cooperative Milk Marketing company,
which the department at the time Of
the hearing on the complaint against
the company, held to be illegal, is
withheld in the present order. This
matter is not again referred to,
Refs Tells of Order.
"The order dismisses the complaint
against the company" Alvin C, Refs,
attorney for theN marketing department
said in a statement, primarily upon
the ground that the fact that the serv-
ice charge was added to sub-normal
price was not an inherent vice in it's
operation but represented situation
which the company could adjust in it's
future service charge contracts so that
it, via not continue it's coercive prac-
tice Of making the service charge plus
minimum base price equal only the
market price, in consequence whereof
the outsider gets a price intolerably
below the market price"
A further ground for dismissal
is stated to be the company's
contention that it was not denying the
service charge to outsiders who rend-
cred a service but was merely stipu-
lating that it should receive a service
charge for its own members.
The complaint alleged that the de-
PENDANT milk company had entered in
to discriminatory agreements with a
milk dealer at Detroit, whereby the
dealer was compelled to pay to it a
so-called Service charge" in addition
to the highest price which the dealer
was allowed to pay any producers for
milk 1t was claimed that the impo-
sition of this charge was designed to
penalize those producers of milk who
were not under contract to the defend
ant company and to coerce them into
signing contracts with the company
No Objection to Legitimate Charge.
In it's order the department says
that it has no objection to the legiti-
mate service charge, but adds that an
unfair method of competition arises
when the charge is imposed, not for
the purpose of compensation for an
extra seryice, charge given by the com
pany, but with design to deprive the
non-member Of a part Of the normal
price of milk to which he is entitled
ave can reach no other conclusion
the decision declares, than that the
service charge from June through Sep
TENDER was designed to penalize nom
member farmers and not to confer an
added benefit upon member farmers
However, it may be added that the CON
tract is open to the Interpretation
that no one is denied service charge
by operation Of the company contract
thta instrument merely STIMULATING that
the market company shall receive 8
service charge, being silent as to the
rights 5of othersgn