The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-01-02
M. E. Pierpont Replies
 To Milk Board Head
Local Daryman Answers Charles B. Morris Regarding
 6O% QuOtazAsks Solutions to Five Queries

A demand from the State Milk Eontrol board that Morton E., Pier nont prove or retract statements made by him in reference to the SO per cent quota established for December brought the following reply from MT Pierpont: --
 Waterbury, Conn.,,
 Jan. 1, 1884. Eharles B. Morris, Chairman, The Board of Milk Control,
 Hartford, Connecticut.
 Dear Mir Morris:
 Ordinarily would await the placing of this letter in your hands before giving it out to the news- papers, but as your letter of Dec 29 was telephoned me by reporter "A hours before it reached me in the mail, am making my reply in the same public manner.
 You, as chairman of the board of milk control have demanded certain information from me re- garding my statement about the 60 per cent which you made public on Dec 1 as the "estimate of what percentage of the total quotas will be consumed in class one that month";"
 The officers, when arranging for khe Dec 28 meeting in Hartford of the Milk Producer-Dealers' associ- ation dii not feel that they could invite a representative from your board because of the general i'll feeling aroused by your appearance and that of Mir Templeton at the Nev 21 meeting of our association. Therefore, when at our Dec 2S meeting, various questions were asked, I as the president and the presiding ocer tried my best fairly Co answer them.
 One of the questions asked me c was "Why did the control board set 50 per cent for December when at numerous meetings not only in Hartford but throughout the state, the board had repeatedly promised That the percentage would not vary more than one or two points from iH7 per cent?"
 I replied by saying ''It is my un- 6erstanding, that at least one of khe larger Hartford dealers insisted khat they could not or would not ndvance the money to pay their producers the difference between B0ClT pSICChLdS6 uuu pcI cent, but would take a chance on getting their money back from the equalization pool if they advanced np to 50 per cent"
 The name of the dealer and that of the other dealers participating Rn the conference were given to me fin confidence. This forbids my re- ,peating the names to you. Further more, all of this has been the sub- feet of common gossip this last month. Unless the control board produces figures to prove that there is a 40 per cent surplus of milk fin Connecticut, this explana- tion must stand until you make a better one.
 Other questions were asked of me and as I was unable to reply, perhaps you at this time will be so good as to answer them.
 l. From the reports you have received to date, what is the total of the daily milk production quo- tas? What is the states total daily production of all milk? What is the total daily fluid milk sales of the state?
 2. Have exemptions been granted to certain producer dealers al- though they have admitted that they bought milk regularly from other producers?
 3. Is it true that other producer dealers have been granted exemp- tions when they submitted to put ting up hundred dollar cash bonds? If this is true, why were the bonds demanded? What becomes of the money? Has the board legal au- Ahority to demand and accept these bonds?
 4. If the control board really wants to help the farmers, why 6oesn't it order flat price per Nuart based on 10 per cent over the daily fluid milk consumption?