Evening star., 1939-04-09

The deceptive case of the COW, who
for all her simple look is the central
figure in one OF Americas most complex
be puzzling two-thirds of the Federal
Government-Congress and the Supreme
Court. During the past week the Dis
trict Committee in the House of Repre-
sentatives received an appropriation of
$4,000 for its inquiry into the beguiling
operations of the Washington milk
market. The court on April "a will begin
hearing arguments in two suits involving
the producers and distributors of milk.
The COW is not amenable to economics.
She is Indifferent to the requirements of
supply and demand. For this reason the
milk business is always surrounded with
difficulties. There is a surplus problem
In dairying of large proportions. Amer
ica's COWS each day pour forth enough
milk to float the Queen Mary and two
battleships; Americas people eat and
drink enough of this milk only to float
three battleships. The difference be-
tween the Queen Mary and the third
battleship is left over as the problem.
But the COW goes right on producing.
In fact, she gives more now than she
used to. The average output of milk
per COW In 1924 was 4,134 pounds; in
1882, 4,309 pounds. 1t is still going up.
Wisconsin Is Leader.
Washington is In large milk-produc-
ing area, but neither Maryland nor Vir-
ginia Is among the Is leading dairy
States. Wisconsin is first and Congress
expects to be asked by persons interested
in Wisconsin why the District regula-
tions should not be modified so that
Wisconsin milk could be sold in Capital
stores. But the New York dairy farmer
gets relatively more for his milk than
his brother in Wisconsin. This anomaly
is explained by the fact that the New
Yorker sells more of his output in the
bottle and less as cheese and butter.
Rivalry among the States over the
milk business is intense. The cash in
come of all farmers in dairying comes
each year to about 81 500 900 900, which
Is more than one-fifth of the farm in
come from all products. But commerce
IN this milk within the United States
follows no system of laissez faire It Is
hedged with local Determinations. The
Agriculture Department recently issued
thick report on Barriers to Internal
Trade In Farm Products" which has this
to say:
The great mass of dairying legislation
that has appeared in the last 10 or Is
years has been designed primarily to ac-
complish one or both of the following
ends: Cd To protect the health of the
consumers of dairy products by insuring
clean and wholesome product, and co
to stabilize the dairy industry and to in
crease the purchasing power of dairy
farmers.
In the attempt to obtain these OBJ
Jectives (objectives which in the laws are
often combined and almost indistinguish-
able) legislation has been adopted which
has given rise to serious interference
with interstate and even intrastate COM
merce.
Some areas have constantly raised
their standards for the production of
fluid milk. In any given case it would
probably be impossible to tell in what
degree this resulted from attempts to ex-
clude outside milk or from a sincere de-
sire to improve the quality of the prod
uct. Sanitary experts are loath to
concede that there can be too much
regulation in the interest of protecting
health.
Yet common sense view may hold
otherwise on occasion. When it is found,
for example, that ref1nements of regula-
tory procedure cause milk to sell regu-
larly at and 2 cents quart more than
In other nearby well-regulated cities Gas
Is the case of the District of Columbia) :,
the ordinary consumer may wonder if
this additional item of protection is fully
justified in terms of public health"
No Wall on State Lines
Nothing so neatly illustrates the con-
fusions in the dairy business as the gen.
eral protest of the Agriculture Depart
ment in the first paragraph of the pre-
ceding quotations. For the most active
agency in the United States for stabil-
izing the dairy industry and increasing
the purchasing power OF dairy farmers
is the Agriculture Department. The de-
partment raises no walls on State lines;
but it does in Is milksheds order how the
distributors Of milk in the cities shall
deal with the producers of milk in the
. country. This is the very issue being
brought to the Supreme Court.
The Agricultural Adjustment Admins
tration has milk marketing agreement
IN Boston, and an order signed by Secre-
tary Wallace holds that agreement in
operation. Several distributors disre-
garded the order. The Agriculture De-
partment fought them in the Federal
District Court in Boston last month and
won. At the same time, milk distributors
In New York successfully opposed milk
marketing agreement affecting them be-
fore the Federal District Court in Utica.
Upon the decision of the Supreme Court
IN these cases depends the whole pro-
gram Of milk marketing agreements all
over the United States. The question of
constitutionality Of the agreements has