Evening star., 1941-11-28
Discusses Frustration OF Plans for
Distributing Milk to Needy Children.

o tne Edltot OF ne star.
The present spectacle of indecision,
inertia and buck-passing which has
Knocked our local civic leaders in their
attempts to provide our needy under
nourished school children with one-cent
milk is all too characteristic of the
shameful impotence Of the unfranchised
to solve basic problems of social justice.
Theoretically Washington should be
a model for the Nation in such social
welfare, not only because we are under
the sovereign legislative control of Con-
gress but by reason of the fact that the
two Federal agencies involved, the Sur
plus Marketing Administration and the
w. P. A., have their headquarters here.
With no issue Of chiseling to distract
them and an admitted knowledge that
prospective beneficiaries are in dire need
of the relief which arbitrarily is being
withheld from them, these Federal well
fare agencies seemingly are stymied by
an overlapping of administrative func-
ton and an appalling lack of co-ordi-
mated social objective. The calamitous
result is that inexcusable social injustice
supplants the humanitarian rule of
reason.
First, the S. NJ A. insisted that, in
order to prevent financial loss to par
ticipating milk producers and professors,
the local consumption of penny-milk
must be increased to 270 per cent and
even then these subsidized benefits would
only be available in those schools whose
~f
social neglect. Then when it was learned
that the required utilization could be
increased only by including in the
qualifying quota the census of those al
ready receiving penny-milk under the
free lunch program of the w. P. A. and
the various parent-teacher programs,
the S. M. A. withheld further co-opera-
ton on the ground that under the
standard agreement of the department, q
child would not be permitted to get more
than one half-pint of subsidized milk a
day"
From these facts two logical infer
ences follow: First, the S. M. A. admits
that the possibility of financial loss to
participating milk producers influences
their decision and they tacitly concede
that satisfactory nutritional program
could be devised whereby the milk pro-
ducer and professor could contribute to
much needed social philanthropy
without financial loss or unfair sacrifice
to legitimate self-interest. Likewise, one
valid criticism is inescapable and that
is that the S. M. A. is defending an un-
tenable position when it refuses Coop
Grafton on the grounds that 1t cannot
facilitate or implement public spirited
nutritional program which provides more
than one half-pint milk per day per
underprivileged beneficiary. This con-
clusion is obvious when you realize that
the Department of Agriculture of which
the S. M. A. is subordinate part has
consistently advocated a quart of milk
per day as the minimal daily nutritional
requirement of the growing child, and it
would be stupidity inconsistent for the
S. M. A. to balk at plan because it
might provide an occasional malnour-
ished participant half instead of one
quarter Of that minimal requirement.
Should the S. M. A. fail to resolve the
present dilemma in favor Of admitted
human need, such recalcitrance would
be open to cynical Interpretation. Wash
ington demonstrably is protected mo-
nopoly for the privileged milk producers
Of the adjoining uailk-shed and accord
ing to the latest available Agriculture